Why I, a rec-only diver, chose the Petrel over the Liquivision, which admittedly has the same sort of large, bright screen I was looking for? Here are a few reasons:
(1) I don't know anything about Liquivision as a company. Shearwater participates on this board and seems very upfront when addressing us here. I felt I could understand the founder's vision.
(2) Along the lines of (1), SB posters spoke so highly of Shearwater's customer service. What I absolutely did NOT want, and was willing to pay a premium to avoid, was having to deal with an obstinate manufacturer or distributor in case a repair was needed.
(3) I read similar praise for the intuitive user interface. I HATED my old computer's four tiny mechanical buttons and convoluted button presses and menu structure. It is possible that Liquivision's user interface is just as good, but Liquivision, perhaps unfairly, just didn't get the same volume of reviews on SB, and I didn't want to take the time to research it personally. That SB divers said Shearwater's user interface is awesome was good enough for me.
(4) Anyone with an engineering background who takes one look at the Petrel can immediately appreciate the physical engineering. It reminded me not of "tech diving" so much as it reminded me of an industrial instrument. (If the Hewlett Packard of 40 years ago had built a dive computer, I would have jumped on that for the same reason.) At least on the Petrel, you can see how thick the cover is, that there is a gasket in there, and that it's held on with screws--this may not be the most elegant construction, but it's a proven, age-old system, and I could immediately see why Shearwater might have gone that route instead of developing something fancier. I can't determine how the cover of my Suunto is attached--I'm sure it's quite secure, but I just can't SEE what they did. Same with the Petrel's case--you can see the marks left by the machine tool! The piezo buttons made perfect sense to me--I understand how that works and why it is a good choice for the application.
I don't use the compass, though it looks nifty. I am accustomed to using a mechanical compass, and it has always worked fine for me. If for some reason it were to fail, I would know that immediately, before the dive even begins. I like when I can see something and understand how it works. Though I won't go so far as to say I mistrust digital electronics and am stuck in the analog age, opaque solutions bother me a little. It's a psychological thing.
I don't use the Petrel's Bluetooth feature. I keep a log on paper, and have always enjoyed doing so. I don't log gas consumption.
I don't need to know my gas consumption with great accuracy. My intention is to bring enough gas for the dive at hand. If I were to do a dive where I needed to check my gas every five minutes to ensure my safety, I would draw an inference from that that I need to bring more gas next time, so that I wouldn't need to check my gas every five minutes. I have never used AI, but my wife had AI on her Suunto Cobra, and the more experience she gained, the less frequently she felt she needed to check her gas, to the point where we have both switched to simple SPGs and are satisfied checking them only two or three times during a dive. Again, the analog SPG appeals to the engineer in me. It's age-old technology and eliminated one more thing to be concerned with, however misguided such concern might be. I will never have to give a thought to transmitters and such things, and that gives me peace of mind.
I won't criticize others' desire for AI. I just hope a computer for divers like me remains available.
(1) I don't know anything about Liquivision as a company. Shearwater participates on this board and seems very upfront when addressing us here. I felt I could understand the founder's vision.
(2) Along the lines of (1), SB posters spoke so highly of Shearwater's customer service. What I absolutely did NOT want, and was willing to pay a premium to avoid, was having to deal with an obstinate manufacturer or distributor in case a repair was needed.
(3) I read similar praise for the intuitive user interface. I HATED my old computer's four tiny mechanical buttons and convoluted button presses and menu structure. It is possible that Liquivision's user interface is just as good, but Liquivision, perhaps unfairly, just didn't get the same volume of reviews on SB, and I didn't want to take the time to research it personally. That SB divers said Shearwater's user interface is awesome was good enough for me.
(4) Anyone with an engineering background who takes one look at the Petrel can immediately appreciate the physical engineering. It reminded me not of "tech diving" so much as it reminded me of an industrial instrument. (If the Hewlett Packard of 40 years ago had built a dive computer, I would have jumped on that for the same reason.) At least on the Petrel, you can see how thick the cover is, that there is a gasket in there, and that it's held on with screws--this may not be the most elegant construction, but it's a proven, age-old system, and I could immediately see why Shearwater might have gone that route instead of developing something fancier. I can't determine how the cover of my Suunto is attached--I'm sure it's quite secure, but I just can't SEE what they did. Same with the Petrel's case--you can see the marks left by the machine tool! The piezo buttons made perfect sense to me--I understand how that works and why it is a good choice for the application.
I don't use the compass, though it looks nifty. I am accustomed to using a mechanical compass, and it has always worked fine for me. If for some reason it were to fail, I would know that immediately, before the dive even begins. I like when I can see something and understand how it works. Though I won't go so far as to say I mistrust digital electronics and am stuck in the analog age, opaque solutions bother me a little. It's a psychological thing.
I don't use the Petrel's Bluetooth feature. I keep a log on paper, and have always enjoyed doing so. I don't log gas consumption.
I don't need to know my gas consumption with great accuracy. My intention is to bring enough gas for the dive at hand. If I were to do a dive where I needed to check my gas every five minutes to ensure my safety, I would draw an inference from that that I need to bring more gas next time, so that I wouldn't need to check my gas every five minutes. I have never used AI, but my wife had AI on her Suunto Cobra, and the more experience she gained, the less frequently she felt she needed to check her gas, to the point where we have both switched to simple SPGs and are satisfied checking them only two or three times during a dive. Again, the analog SPG appeals to the engineer in me. It's age-old technology and eliminated one more thing to be concerned with, however misguided such concern might be. I will never have to give a thought to transmitters and such things, and that gives me peace of mind.
I won't criticize others' desire for AI. I just hope a computer for divers like me remains available.
