SW Cloud & Subsurface - problem!

[rhwestfall]

@Shearwater
@atdotde

As I am still having a connection issue to direct download (Win10pro) of my PedrixAI into Subsurface (latest build), I have downloaded the dive to SW Cloud, then exported as a universal dive (UDDF) file and then import it to Subsurface. Either the export or the import is messed up. My dives are showing a normal profile, but the max depth recorded is way off....

Thoughts? Where is the bug?

 

[atdotde]

I don’t know without seeing the file. But uddf is a simple xml file that you can open with any text editor. That should immediately tell you if the export is ok.

 

[elmo]

37' becoming 121' screams a conversion error. I.e. the 37' max depth in the uddf file has been interpreted as 37m by Subsurface, then converted to feet.
I'm not sure whether the uddf file ought to be in metric units (and hence Shearwater Cloud ought to have converted the max depth to metres), or if Subsurface should have realized that the depth was in feet.

 

[atdotde]

Yes, @rhwestfall has provided me with the uddf-file exported from the Shearwater cloud. According to the format specification all data in uddf should be metric and indeed all the depths of the individual samples are metric in the file. In the end, however, it says

<informationafterdive>
<greatestdepth>37</greatestdepth>
<notes />
<diveduration>3778</diveduration>
<averagedepth>19.7523823</averagedepth>
</informationafterdive>

Where the "greatest depth" is listed as 37 which is the value in feet, not in meters. I would say, this is a bug in the exporter, not in Subsurface. BTW, there is no gas info in the file at all.

 

[rhwestfall]

@Shearwater :

It appears there is a incorrect coding in the export function, not following "established protocol" for the file.

Also, why isn't pressure exported?

 

[rhwestfall]

Yes, @rhwestfall has provided me with the uddf-file exported from the Shearwater cloud. According to the format specification all data in uddf should be metric and indeed all the depths of the individual samples are metric in the file. In the end, however, it says

<informationafterdive>
<greatestdepth>37</greatestdepth>
<notes />
<diveduration>3778</diveduration>
<averagedepth>19.7523823</averagedepth>
</informationafterdive>

Where the "greatest depth" is listed as 37 which is the value in feet, not in meters. I would say, this is a bug in the exporter, not in Subsurface. BTW, there is no gas info in the file at all.

Yes, cross platforms is a great jumble, but how then is 19.7523823 for average acceptable data (this is feet) in SubSurface?

 

[atdotde]

Sorry, what are you trying to say? Should Subsurface do a sanity check on the data you provide to it? If the imported file does not have max depth or average depth or dive duration, Subsurface will of course calculate it for you. But if the exporting program states those in the file, Subsurface will use those values. Try it, delete those values from the file, I suggest the whole informationafterdive section that I quoted and Subsurface will compute sensible values.

 

[rhwestfall]

Sorry, what are you trying to say?

Just asking that if the information in the export worked for depth (average), apparently reported correctly (was it Imperial or SI?), why was maximum read differently? I'm not trying to pick any fight, but asking the question? As can be seen, I also tagged SW as somewhere there is a hick-up...

I am not a software writer, just an end user, with limited computer savvy... apologize if I have offended you with my question.

 

[wulfderay]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the bug report.

The consensus on this thread is correct, there was a conversion error in the UDDF exporter in Shearwater Cloud. I have now rectified the issue, so it should be fixed in the next version of Shearwater Cloud.

We don't yet have support for exporting tank pressure, but we plan on adding it.

Regards,
Mark Lee
Software Engineer

SHEARWATER RESEARCH INC

 

[atdotde]

Just asking that if the information in the export worked for depth (average), apparently reported correctly (was it Imperial or SI?), why was maximum read differently?

No offense taken. The sample depths were correctly converted to meters in the file, the bug was only in max depth and average depth.