PDA

View Full Version : B0720-FRP: actual or desired?



killerbee
October 31st, 2009, 03:08 PM
We learned that in earlier ecms, that pulse varied with "actual" FRP. Is this not the same? Presently it shows desired FRP.

bballer182
November 1st, 2009, 10:49 AM
We learned that in earlier ecms, that pulse varied with "actual" FRP. Is this not the same? Presently it shows desired FRP.

Me and Racehemi have determined that it is based on FRP_C (actual) thats the only way that table makes any sense. Wouldn't make any sense to have a PW based on commanded and have actual FP be way lower. You'd be all jacked up trying to tune for that...

killerbee
November 1st, 2009, 10:59 AM
I agree with you. It is something that seemed to be understood 4 years ago, if memory serves. But the table is still loaded with desired. At least mine is.

bballer182
November 1st, 2009, 01:16 PM
Yeah the cal_link is that way currently. The table description is actually wrong as well and should be fixed too... (Me):pokey:(Ross) I have actually updated cal_link.txt since we had figured that, and a few more tables as well. Here's the latest version.

killerbee
November 1st, 2009, 01:26 PM
Thanks for offering it up. That beats fixing these myself. :)

bballer182
November 2nd, 2009, 01:41 PM
Yeah no prob.

killerbee
November 5th, 2009, 07:36 AM
Interested in how you came to the conclusion that APP_D was appropriate for pedal to desired torque, B1161?

Using that, when at idle, it shows a non-zero value. A little hard to get my head wrapped around, but it seems to make more sense. How would you define or describe APP_D?

bballer182
November 5th, 2009, 01:06 PM
Uh you might be right... Have you tried APP_E for the LMM? I think i remember Nick saying something about using E for the LMM's. APP_D is correct for the LBZ, though...

Try APP_E for the LMM and get back to me and i'll update the cal_link.txt....... AGAIN.....

killerbee
November 7th, 2009, 05:21 AM
LMM: APP_E is worse than APP_D. I just have to reconcile 18.8-19.2% throttle (app_d) with foot off it. It gives me a headache trying to understand why it would be set up this way.

I used TP% for LBZ with good results.

bballer182
November 7th, 2009, 08:02 AM
LMM: APP_E is worse than APP_D. I just have to reconcile 18.8-19.2% throttle (app_d) with foot off it. It gives me a headache trying to understand why it would be set up this way.

I used TP% for LBZ with good results.

TP in BBL mode does nothing. it reads a constant ZERO. and APP_D works in both so thats the one i used.

GMPX
November 9th, 2009, 06:57 PM
Michael, I agree with your headache comment, I also get a headache trying to understand what GM and Bosch have done and 'exactly' how the systems work. This is compounded by the fact that many of the threads you raise are done so months if not years after the actual software was released which then poses the question, why has nobody else ever had the same problem?
It's almost impossible for me to determine what/when/why/how so far down the track without investing the same amount of resources it took to originally generate and understand the code.

This is not a $30,000 development tool from GM, it's a $799 tool developed by two people, not a floor of engineers in Detroit. We don't work for GM, we don't work for Bosch.

Michael, contact ETAS to get a price for a full development suite for the Bosch ECM, then maybe you might start to appreciate what you have, even if it is not 100% correct all the time. Time warp back 5 years ago before anyone gave a crap about Diesel tuning and you might realise that life isn't so hard for you trying to use this product.

My time is limited by the fact that there are only 24 hours in a day, and that as an organization we've moved onto other development projects, if we don't then we are forgotten about in years to come. It's a fine art to balance the needs of our Gas and Diesel customers at all levels of expertise, review existing software as well as extend our product development.

killerbee
November 10th, 2009, 12:36 AM
Michael, I agree with your headache comment, I also get a headache trying to understand what GM and Bosch have done and 'exactly' how the systems work. This is compounded by the fact that many of the threads you raise are done so months if not years after the actual software was released which then poses the question, why has nobody else ever had the same problem?



I understand the implication, and it has occured to me as well. Beginning to wonder what I have bit off.

Yes, I have raised several threads, the LMM is a new experience, and the questions that came as the natural result of trying to understand the mechanics have been posted, and in most cases there doesn't seem to be anyone who has a clue to explain them. Because nobody else seems to have a handle on this, I then go from the prevailing notion that I must just be just slow or missing something (usually the case), to the realization that this has never been fully understood.

Whatever the case, it is the usual struggle. The frustration is something we both share. I have my own costs. But our goals are the same I think.

Most tuners just do top end modifications, I do ECM rewrites, inclusive. The threads I start, without exception, are mechanics threads. I don't look for the immediate gratification of tossing more fuel at the last third of pedal travel, a commonly accepted technique for beta and tuner folks alike.

For example, there is a condition where pulse and main1Q goes down, while FRP goes up... dizziness. Before I post on it, I want to explore everything I can to try and explain it, so I can be a part of understanding it.

Hopefully, when you recover from the pond crossing, and get the circadian rhythm back (melatonin works for my wife), you can help me get through a few of these. The pressure table axis scaling would be a good place to start. I am guessing it might be an easy one.

JoshH
November 10th, 2009, 06:41 PM
Michael, I agree with your headache comment, I also get a headache trying to understand what GM and Bosch have done and 'exactly' how the systems work. This is compounded by the fact that many of the threads you raise are done so months if not years after the actual software was released which then poses the question, why has nobody else ever had the same problem?
It's almost impossible for me to determine what/when/why/how so far down the track without investing the same amount of resources it took to originally generate and understand the code.

This is not a $30,000 development tool from GM, it's a $799 tool developed by two people, not a floor of engineers in Detroit. We don't work for GM, we don't work for Bosch.

Michael, contact ETAS to get a price for a full development suite for the Bosch ECM, then maybe you might start to appreciate what you have, even if it is not 100% correct all the time. Time warp back 5 years ago before anyone gave a crap about Diesel tuning and you might realise that life isn't so hard for you trying to use this product.

My time is limited by the fact that there are only 24 hours in a day, and that as an organization we've moved onto other development projects, if we don't then we are forgotten about in years to come. It's a fine art to balance the needs of our Gas and Diesel customers at all levels of expertise, review existing software as well as extend our product development.

I think the reasons many of the questions being raised have not been raised before is specifically because of everything you posted. The software is good enough to do what is needed without really fixing any of the "quirks", for now.

killerbee
November 11th, 2009, 02:38 AM
I know the EFILive team well enough to know that some of Ross's comments are frustration from a very difficult platform. Money is not the issue. Long hours with slow movement would frustrate the heck out of anyone.

I still have faith, in time, stuff will work itself out.

Ross, I do appreciate what I have. I have never appreciated the LLY so much as when I started trying to work out the LMM. :)

But even the LLY would not be what it is today, without a certain amount of this, agreed? I take no credit for anything in that regard, except being a little noisy. Just be thankful I have no interest in beta testing, LOL.

Seriously, I don't mean to make anyone feel unappreciated. Never my intention.

GMC-2002-Dmax
November 11th, 2009, 04:55 AM
I have an interesting idea,

Instead of trying to re-invent the wheel maybe a simple exercise in leaving the wheel alone and letting it roll would be a better use of resources at efi-live.

Inundating the forum with threads on a daily basis that are not specific to widely encountered problems and not causing real concern to the vast majority of users are not where the limited resources should best be expended IMHO.

Perhaps a few days of reflection and inner soul searching would be a better use of your time Michael and let Ross and Paul do some post SEMA catch-up.

Although I am sure they appreciate your in depth discovery of anomalies their plate is quite full after SEMA and I would imagine they need a bit of time to catch up.

Cheers Mate !!!

:cheers: