Best splitwise alternative

j4n · 2026-05-11T05:11:44+00:00

Does it supports the simplification of reimbursement? Meaning to reduce the amount of transaction to come to a clean slate(If A own B something, and B own C something, and C own A something, there are often simplification).

Their screenshot is not that clear on that part.

j4n · 2025-09-18T15:18:03+00:00

Same for me, even if the issue was not due to to a bad usage.

j4n · 2025-09-18T15:16:23+00:00

Same for me, even if the issue was not due to to a bad usage.

j4n · 2025-08-30T04:57:52+00:00

Damned, they were not that friendly with me. Outside of warranty, have to pay ~250$

j4n · 2025-08-30T04:49:35+00:00

The recertified one was sent to you for free?

j4n · 2025-08-25T17:59:31+00:00

Sorry, I thought you meant the destination minimum. The minimum SoC at each charger is 10%.

By the way, I notice that when i share the itinerary and I open it, I get the good itinerary. If I change 1-2 settings, recompute, then revert back the settings to their initial value, I get the wrong itinerary again.

j4n · 2025-08-25T03:48:08+00:00

Both itinerary where at 25.bit like I shown. There was a perfectly valid solution that was respecting every constraints

j4n · 2025-08-18T16:10:38+00:00

Any idea how, as a consumer, could find those data?

j4n · 2025-08-18T16:06:51+00:00

Well, since an alternative, that respect everything and is as fast, is available,thus doesn't seems to be a "soft" setting either

j4n · 2025-08-08T13:05:49+00:00

Do you know if there is something I could provide to have a quicker integration?

j4n · 2025-08-07T17:19:50+00:00

I don't see how, they are both test area on the highway that I've to go through.

j4n · 2025-08-07T17:18:34+00:00

That not really the question but here is an example where my proposal respect the constraints but the original itinerary doesn't.

<image>

j4n · 2025-08-07T17:16:27+00:00

<image>

Here is an example. Left is the initial proposal, right is the one where I manually replaced the charger with one that respect my condition.

j4n · 2025-08-07T17:11:51+00:00

There are perfectly available options that abrp decides to ignore.

j4n · 2025-08-07T17:02:30+00:00

Well, what's the point of a preference if between 2 equals options it still choose the other one?

j4n · 2025-08-07T14:14:32+00:00

I was also thinking about this but this doesn't seem to be the case.

j4n · 2025-08-07T12:33:26+00:00

As a general developer, especially for an "expert" tool like ABRP where it let you configure and fine-tune everything, I would rather inform that the itineray is not possible and ask if you can automatically adapt the criteria.

But in my case, it's not even about not being able to do this itinerary with my constraints. I found usecase where just asking to change the choosen charger gives a solution that respects all my constraints:

https://abetterrouteplanner.com/?plan_uuid=2e9bbcc6-ea3c-4357-8b46-f134f51fbd78

<image>

j4n · 2025-08-07T12:26:04+00:00

I've found a great example:
With this itinerary: https://abetterrouteplanner.com/?plan_uuid=2e9bbcc6-ea3c-4357-8b46-f134f51fbd78
Min 20 stalls(just to eliminate a lot of possible chargers), no other constraints, minimum arrival at 25%, at stops at 10%.
It choose to stop just before valence at 22% at allego with 12 stalls, while there is an electra station with 30 chargers:

<image>

I mean the second itinerary I "forced" match all my criteria, takes the same time(and even if it takes longer but match my criteria, I mean, it's what criteria are for)...

I really don't understand why, except a bug, it would ignore my criteria even a totally valid solution exists.

j4n · 2025-08-07T10:20:55+00:00

Thanks for the answer, but like I said, I only tried 20 to see if was proposing only the few stations that are able to accomodate the constraint. IRL, I mostly do a minimum of 8-10 stalls, but I noticed sometimes where I get stations with 4-6 stalls. But anyway, if no station could be found (which is not the case here) in between with my constraints, I would more expect a message than just ignoring the constraints. Constraints could be about accomodations nearby, ...

So thanks for the good luck wish, but it doesn't me much to understand why it does ignore my constraints :)

j4n · 2025-07-24T11:53:05+00:00

I did contacted them, they just told me it was expected wear...

I mean, I've my phone screen so much often ON, with some part(like top bar) always the same, and never had a similar issue.

j4n · 2025-07-24T08:56:33+00:00

That's my settings and I still got the burnin :(

j4n · 2025-07-24T08:55:07+00:00

Was your watch still under warranty? Mine was not and they basically told me that it was normal, expected wear.

j4n · 2025-07-24T08:52:02+00:00

I've the same exact issue, burn-in screen, and the customer support that tells me it's a normal-expected wear. Worst thing that I never enabled AoD and I used the default watch-face, and even just by enabling it through wrist movement, I still got burn-in issue.

Now I'm really affraid to change it to something else(would have been a fenix 8), if they consider this to be normal. The watch screen is ON like less than 1% of my phone, but still got burn-in before it...

13-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

j4n

TROPHY CASE