Need suggestions about budget dive computer

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Furthermore, as, you say, does a rec diver enjoying reef diving really needs a computer to know his/her ndl at 18 meters? And even going deeper, don't you know there are a lot of techniques to do multilevel dives without a computer?
But yes of course, a computer would give you a few extra minutes of ndl because it will consider the exact depth at every second but then what is the point when after becoming a "tech" diver you learn that you can "play" with deco software and get completely different run times for the same dive just by playing with settings.
Computer diving is just a commercial approach to diving. I don't say it is bad (it maybe puts more people in the water and most divers don't care and don't want to care about deco principles) but lets call a cat a cat.
Jale

I'm not sure I understand your issue with computer diving.

Most rec divers (1) do not dive square profiles, and (2) once they have a reasonably good SAC rate are limited by NDLs. So the computer gives them more usable dive time by giving them credit for time spent above the maximum depth. No matter how thoroughly you understand deco principles, no one is going to be able to calculate a continually changing NDL in their heads when they are following a variable path through a dive site - and that is what the computer does.

Don't know what that has to do with the fact that a tiny percentage of them might become tech divers, or why that fact would change the benefits of a computer for 99% of rec divers.
 
The mechanics of on gassing and off gassing is something that is important to understand to prevent getting bent. Learning how to use a computer doesn't teach you that.

In the padi curriculum where only tables were used the knowledge on dcs is already minimalistic, my fear is that it will not get better.
Learning the idea of ongassing is important, and it is true that learning to use a computer in itself does not do that. Neither does learning tables in itself.

The mechanics of ongassing and offgassing is a topic in itself. Planning for it is another topic. Mark Powell wrote an entire book (Deco for Divers) on decompression theory without teaching either how to use a table or how to use a computer to plan for it. When I teach the OW course, I teach DCS theory, including ongassing and offgassing. Then I teach how to plan for it. In some courses, it is with the tables. In other courses, it is with a computer. The PADI computer simulator does an excellent job of showing how tissues ongas and offgas during descent and ascent, BTW.

Some instructors teach DCS theory at the same time as they teach tables, and too often they do not realize they are actually teaching two different topics. Too many do not realize it is possible to teach one without the other.

As Cascas said, it is not about learning how to use a tool but about understanding deco principles.
And if you don't understand the difference between the two, then you cannot imagine how to teach without it. If you do understand the difference between DCS theory and the mechanics of planning a dive for it, it is not problem.
Unfortunately, being an instructor is not a guaranty of that fact and if you think that there is a "tiny percentage" of instructors out there who are really following the "intent curriculum" of the agencies, good for you but I don't buy it :)
I have no idea what you are talking about here. What intent of the currriculum" are the majority of instructors missing?
As the usage of a gauge, it always amazes me to see that you have to "become" a "tech" diver, in order to plan your dives :)
Why do you have to be able to put a computer into gauge mode in order to plan a dive?
If you just do planing at rec level, what is the point of having a computer?
Furthermore, as, you say, does a rec diver enjoying reef diving really needs a computer to know his/her ndl at 18 meters? And even going deeper, don't you know there are a lot of techniques to do multilevel dives without a computer?
But yes of course, a computer would give you a few extra minutes of ndl because it will consider the exact depth at every second but then what is the point when after becoming a "tech" diver you learn that you can "play" with deco software and get completely different run times for the same dive just by playing with settings.
Computer diving is just a commercial approach to diving. I don't say it is bad (it maybe puts more people in the water and most divers don't care and don't want to care about deco principles) but lets call a cat a cat.
Jale
I'm sorry, but I am at a loss to respond to this section as well. By the way, as a tech instructor, I do have a pretty fair idea as to how computers in gauge mode are used in technical diving. I also know how to use tables to plan a multi-level recreational dive, but it seems like a really silly thing to do, frankly, and it is quite limiting as to your dive profile. I would certainly not want to do it.
 
Hi
I don't understand your issue with no computer diving :)
I have no issue with computer diving:)
I just don't understand why some (most?) people seem to think that computer is a must have tool.
Reading posts and looking at-talking with people on dive sites, it seems that most people use a computer because they have no clue about their position in the diving curve.
I just regret that but as I said, maybe most of the divers, in fact, don't care about that and following a computer is good enough for them. Fair with that but stop making people believe that without computer diving is an extreme or almost impossible task :)
And I don't see why you say "no-one is going to be able to calculate a continually changing NDL". How were we doing before computers became cheap? Don't you know that, for the US Navy tables for example, there are easy techniques for multilevel diving?
Any way just my 2 cents... :)
Jale

---------- Post added September 24th, 2014 at 09:45 AM ----------

Some instructors teach DCS theory at the same time as they teach tables, and too often they do not realize they are actually teaching two different topics. Too many do not realize it is possible to teach one without the other.
That is my point, quite a high number of instructor have no clue about that they are teaching and that why for them computer is a easy way to bypass that :)
Why do you have to be able to put a computer into gauge mode in order to plan a dive?
I don't say that, I said why some divers need to reach the level of "tech"in order to be able to plan a dive...nothing about computer in gauge mode...
I'm sorry, but I am at a loss to respond to this section as well. By the way, as a tech instructor, I do have a pretty fair idea as to how computers in gauge mode are used in technical diving. I also know how to use tables to plan a multi-level recreational dive, but it seems like a really silly thing to do, frankly, and it is quite limiting as to your dive profile. I would certainly not want to do it.
If you don't want to do it fine but I don't think it is silly and it is not that limiting if you practice :)
 
Fair with that but stop making people believe that without computer diving is an extreme or almost impossible task :)

It's not extreme or impossible. But a dive computer is a very cheap and convenient way of getting more dive time out of any dive for people who are not gas-limited. Given the overall cost of scuba diving, buying a low end dive computer is a very small investment that will give you some extra dive time over tables, for most (i.e. non-square) profiles.


And I don't see why you say "no-one is going to be able to calculate a continually changing NDL". How were we doing before computers became cheap? Don't you know that, for the US Navy tables for example, there are easy techniques for multilevel diving?
Any way just my 2 cents... :)
Jale

Yes, with tables you can calculate (ahead of time) two or three levels of a dive (or I guess as many as you care to do). But what you can't do is calculate the current NDL, on the fly, during the dive, given the hundreds of different "levels" in a typical recreational profile, and the fact that you are very likely to follow a profile that you will not be precisely planning ahead of time.

Hey, we used to have arguments about scuba diving in bars before the Internet. But now we have web sites and forums and can do it during work hours with people on the other side of the planet. We used to get AAA trip tickets to plan cross country driving trips, but now we use GPS and smart phones. And we used to plan our recreational dives with tables, and now most of us use computers to get more dive time while staying on the "safe" side of that bright line through a grey area...

:)
 
Thank you again for all helps, I will check Zoop, Viper, Puck and Leonardo this Saturday before final decision. I also like the table but I need to spend more time to get used to it.

best regards,
Bom
 
And I don't see why you say "no-one is going to be able to calculate a continually changing NDL". How were we doing before computers became cheap?
You weren't. You were pre-planning a dive to specific depths and times.
Don't you know that, for the US Navy tables for example, there are easy techniques for multilevel diving?
As I said, I am well aware of those techniques. They limit you to following a preconceived plan that may not match the reality of your dive. Let me describe a recreational dive I did several years ago.

We had planned a specific depth, time, and location for the dive. As we headed for that location, we looked down and saw a manta ray in a cleaning station. We immediately abandoned our plan and went down for a look. We watched until the manta left and were about to leave ourselves when an eagle ray arrived at the station for a cleaning. We looked at our computers and pressure gauges and decided we were good to stay a little longer longer. Then we ascended and stopped at a shallower depth when we saw a helmet conch successfully stalking a decorator urchin. After that drama, we went up and finished our dive at the top of the reef. It was one of the best recreational dives I have ever had, it was not at all what we planned, and I am glad it went off as it did.

Pre-planning a multi-level dive like that also leaves little room for error in case the plan has to be changed due to circumstances. In technical training, we teach divers using tables (like V-Planner) to make a primary plan and a couple of contingency plans. If they run into issues that take them beyond those contingency plans, they have to make their best guess as to what to do to ascend safely.

That is my point, quite a high number of instructor have no clue about that they are teaching and that why for them computer is a easy way to bypass that :)
I am not sure you realize it, but this does not in any way respond to the point I was making about the difference between teaching decompression theory and teaching tables or computers.

I don't say that, I said why some divers need to reach the level of "tech"in order to be able to plan a dive...nothing about computer in gauge mode...
Remember the context was the contention that it was important that recreational computers be able to go into gauge mode.

Here is what you might not understand about teaching computers in the OW course. When the tables are taught, students are taught to plan dives using tables. What then happens is they leave class, never touch the tables again, and then dive using computers without understanding squat about how they really work and how they should be used. I could be wrong, but you appear to be an example. You do not appear to know how to use a computer to plan a dive. If students are not taught that, they will not even know a computer can do that. You can say "read the manual," but the manuals are overly complex, and the key functions are not easily spelled out. A student who has been through the computer version of a course will know that a computer is capable of doing a series of vital processes, including dive planning, emergency decompression, etc. They will have been taught how those functions affect dives, and they will know to look in the manual to see how their specific model performs those tasks. In a tables-only course, students learn to perform a skill which surveys show they will almost never use, and they are not taught the skills they actually need.

I may also be wrong about this, but in your repeated references to dive planning, it appears to me that you really only know one way to plan dives. There are many ways to do it, and you should use the method appropriate to the intended dive. I wrote and teach a PADI-approved course in advanced dive planning. If you would like to take it to learn more, I would be happy to work out those arrangements.
 
Thank you again for all helps, I will check Zoop, Viper, Puck and Leonardo this Saturday before final decision.

If you go for the Puck make sure it is Firmware 66, not 11 or 12. You can find this in the system menu. The Puck with older firmware captures less information (temperature and assent) and cannot have firmware updated by user, Mares will not advise if they can update it, so I take that as a no.
 
Franklly, if you think on the fly planning without a computer is not possible, fine but not true.
And still I don't get why pre-planning is fine for tech but not for rec :)
And you are absolutely right about guessing I don't know how to use a computer to plan a multi-level dive. Please show me:)

You weren't. You were pre-planning a dive to specific depths and times.
As I said, I am well aware of those techniques. They limit you to following a preconceived plan that may not match the reality of your dive. Let me describe a recreational dive I did several years ago.

We had planned a specific depth, time, and location for the dive. As we headed for that location, we looked down and saw a manta ray in a cleaning station. We immediately abandoned our plan and went down for a look. We watched until the manta left and were about to leave ourselves when an eagle ray arrived at the station for a cleaning. We looked at our computers and pressure gauges and decided we were good to stay a little longer longer. Then we ascended and stopped at a shallower depth when we saw a helmet conch successfully stalking a decorator urchin. After that drama, we went up and finished our dive at the top of the reef. It was one of the best recreational dives I have ever had, it was not at all what we planned, and I am glad it went off as it did.

Pre-planning a multi-level dive like that also leaves little room for error in case the plan has to be changed due to circumstances. In technical training, we teach divers using tables (like V-Planner) to make a primary plan and a couple of contingency plans. If they run into issues that take them beyond those contingency plans, they have to make their best guess as to what to do to ascend safely.

I am not sure you realize it, but this does not in any way respond to the point I was making about the difference between teaching decompression theory and teaching tables or computers.


Remember the context was the contention that it was important that recreational computers be able to go into gauge mode.

Here is what you might not understand about teaching computers in the OW course. When the tables are taught, students are taught to plan dives using tables. What then happens is they leave class, never touch the tables again, and then dive using computers without understanding squat about how they really work and how they should be used. I could be wrong, but you appear to be an example. You do not appear to know how to use a computer to plan a dive. If students are not taught that, they will not even know a computer can do that. You can say "read the manual," but the manuals are overly complex, and the key functions are not easily spelled out. A student who has been through the computer version of a course will know that a computer is capable of doing a series of vital processes, including dive planning, emergency decompression, etc. They will have been taught how those functions affect dives, and they will know to look in the manual to see how their specific model performs those tasks. In a tables-only course, students learn to perform a skill which surveys show they will almost never use, and they are not taught the skills they actually need.

I may also be wrong about this, but in your repeated references to dive planning, it appears to me that you really only know one way to plan dives. There are many ways to do it, and you should use the method appropriate to the intended dive. I wrote and teach a PADI-approved course in advanced dive planning. If you would like to take it to learn more, I would be happy to work out those arrangements.


---------- Post added September 24th, 2014 at 06:28 PM ----------

Yes, I agree that computer is now really convenient but having a computer should not be exclusive of planification.
And yes, you can calculate ndl on the fly. Right it is not as precise but precision doesn't always relate to correctness.
The fact of having internet, gps and so on, doesn't stop us for having social skills, orientation skills and so on.

It's not extreme or impossible. But a dive computer is a very cheap and convenient way of getting more dive time out of any dive for people who are not gas-limited. Given the overall cost of scuba diving, buying a low end dive computer is a very small investment that will give you some extra dive time over tables, for most (i.e. non-square) profiles.
Yes, with tables you can calculate (ahead of time) two or three levels of a dive (or I guess as many as you care to do). But what you can't do is calculate the current NDL, on the fly, during the dive, given the hundreds of different "levels" in a typical recreational profile, and the fact that you are very likely to follow a profile that you will not be precisely planning ahead of time.

Hey, we used to have arguments about scuba diving in bars before the Internet. But now we have web sites and forums and can do it during work hours with people on the other side of the planet. We used to get AAA trip tickets to plan cross country driving trips, but now we use GPS and smart phones. And we used to plan our recreational dives with tables, and now most of us use computers to get more dive time while staying on the "safe" side of that bright line through a grey area...

:)
 
I wonder what do GUE Recreational Diver 1, 2 and 3 use? Computer, table or something else?
How about T1, T2 and T3 etc etc?
 
And still I don't get why pre-planning is fine for tech but not for rec :)

Who said anything about not planning dives for recreational diving? I know it is much easier for you to attack opposing arguments that you make up, but please stick with the ones people are actually making.

To be honest, I am having trouble understanding the things you are saying, so I will sign off here.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom