Why no accurate computers?

[ThatDogDontHunt]

No, because the overhead of having a computer at all swamps the few thousand ops saved by using half the compartments. If you have less power available then the obvious thing is to reduce how often the ascent is recalculated.

They do use ZHL8. It was designed for less powerful processors.

I claim the processor used likely does not have built in floating point support. Instead floating point software was used. This means each calculation can take hundreds of operations. Halving the number of compartments would make a tremendous difference in the computational load.

 

[NAM001]

You need to read the posts more carefully, perhaps. He said 80 mins TO 100 ft; you are trying to change that to 80 mins AT 100 ft.
Rather different.

both readings mean the same unless you are looking for fine detailed differences.

that sentence says to me,,,,,, he went to 100 ft for 80 minutes ,,,

 

[tursiops]

both readings mean the same unless you are looking for fine detailed differences.

Well, duh; Yes. It is the difference that matters.

 

[boulderjohn]

both readings mean the same unless you are looking for fine detailed differences.

that sentence says to me,,,,,, he went to 100 ft for 80 minutes ,,,

If you look at the context...

Context: the surrounding conversation was about the OP's belief that there was no point to computers because the time limit on the dive given by the table was all you needed to know. He specifically said that on a multi-level dive, the dive was more conservative than a square profile because the diver spent some of the time shallower than the maximum depth. This indicated that he did not realize that a multi-level dive with a computer allowed for more total dive time. The examples that showed greater dive time than allowed by the tables were designed to show that you got more time than the tables allowed if you are using a computer on a multi-level dive. That was the entire point, so it would be silly to say that and give an example where you were at maximum depth the whole time.

 

[mariah]

Now that I'm gaining experience with my dive computer I noticed it is not accurate and I lose a considerable amount of dive time do to these inaccuracies. Forget deco diving. The computers can not accurately get close to my SSI dive tables even on the low setting for a non deco dive. If the computer can not even start on the correct NDL for a simple square dive, how are any of the following dives going to be accurate do to the computer basing the next dives off the faulty first dive? I read comments that divers don't dive square profiles. I get that but if they stay down for the same amount of time and spend less of their time at the max depth they planned, then they should be, according to a computer, in a better state for the next dive. And if that is true, there is no need to make a computer algorithm more conservative. I see articles speak about so many other factors, No, if the first NDL is for a simple no deco dive can not be matched between a computer and the tables, the computer is inaccurate. I also read that the algorithm that the computers use are more conservative then the tables. Why? If a diver can't handle the NDL of the charts their agency uses then they need to modify there dive style or change the conservatism of their computer to match their ability. Just as if they can't handle going passed 100ft without Narco, then they don't dive passed 100 ft. If a dive computer manufacturer can put different languages in a dive computer why can't they put all the agency dive tables in the computers? Once the computer is set/planned to match the tables for the first dive, then the computer can inform you of the limitations for the next dive based on how much you changed your dive from the square profile of the tables.
The reason for my questions is like I said, I lose 7-8 minutes in some cases off my very first dive even on the low conservative setting. Even Shearwater stated their computers will only do 95/95 but I have found they might be the closest to diving your tables. Who came up with these inaccurate algorithms and why are they being used? The manufactures I spoke with know they can't match the tables even on low settings, so your definitely losing dive time if your diving with a computer on the default medium setting. Why would you do that?
I'm seeing it would be better to just use a dive watch, depth gauge and the tables. That way I don't lose dive time. Divers will say but you'll lose time because your not actually at your max depth all that time. Yeah but as much of a limitation the computers place on your NDL I'm betting a computer diver still gets less dive time over all.
Hopefully, I explained my look on computers and someone with more experience can let me know why a computer with it's dive time limitations is worth using when it comes to dive time/NDL time. I totally understand if your going to be doing deco diving and swapping gases. However, I even wonder how accurate they are if they can't even get NDL diving accurate. How much dive time is a Tech diver losing using a computer vs doing the math with tables. If you plan your dive and dive your plan you should be ok. I would assume a Tech diver could alter their plan on the fly if need be, or at least I would hope they would be that good before doing more technical dives.
Yep, I'm a new bubbler! : )

I guess you have not set the timing zone with the computer accurately. The computer tells you the time you have actualy dived so look at the setting if you have done anything wrong or not.