EFILive 2.8L Duramax E98 ECM Support

[GMPX]

I'll ask but that was a contracted job which has been completed, so that means any new features we have to pull out the credit card :grin:

[Snipesy]

Oh god. Let me just tell you maintaining states, with android, on orientation changes, is extremely annoying. You are pretty much restarting the entire app.

[Tre-Cool]

I will happily chip in some dollars to get it done if need be.

*removed my request about egt info as i figured it out

[GMPX]

Oh god. Let me just tell you maintaining states, with android, on orientation changes, is extremely annoying. You are pretty much restarting the entire app.
Well then that probably answers the question before I even ask it. :doh:

[Tre-Cool]

The PID issue is fixed and will be rolled out in the next update.
The VGT tables (I also just added a couple more) will only be in the US vehicles at this stage. The Aus and USA cals are vastly different including table sizes, after spending hours and hours on the damn Aus OS's looking for the same tables I had to walk away half way through before my head exploded in frustration, I'll revist at some stage.

Just a small bump, that i'd still like to get the VGT tables for Aus Colorado's for EGR On/Off when you get time.

More importantly I'd like to get the injection timing adder maps based on ECT/IAT added in. When cold there is a table/map adding additional timing to the main injection maps that fades away by around 30'C. It can kinda be worked around by editing the max inj map.

Also if we do get the above tables etc, does the DSP4 tune have it's own tables for each mode or is there just 1 base table & the DSP OS only switches\changes to the available tables we see in the editor for each mode? (make sense?)

[GMPX]

Just a small bump, that i'd still like to get the VGT tables for Aus Colorado's for EGR On/Off when you get time.

More importantly I'd like to get the injection timing maps based on ECT added in. When cold there is a table/map adding additional timing to the main injection maps that fades away by around 60'C.
I did spend a whole day on that not long after you asked but ended up getting very frustrated not getting far and moved on in annoyance, sorry just haven't got back to it.


Also if we do get the above tables etc, does the DSP4 tune have it's own tables for each mode or is there just 1 base table & the DSP OS only switches\changes to the available tables we see in the editor for each mode? (make sense?)
What you see is what you get, they are the only tables that change when you switch tunes.

[Tre-Cool]

I did spend a whole day on that not long after you asked but ended up getting very frustrated not getting far and moved on in annoyance, sorry just haven't got back to it.


I know you got frustrated with it, which is why i hadn't asked for a while. lol It's one of those things that i can still technically play around with using my other cable, just means i need to do a full flash back to the factory os from dsp4. I do recall playing around with those tables long ago and did get the idle "rumble" Jason was talking about, so they do, do something.

What reminded me again was a thread on a colorado forum Jason had mentioned about doing egr deletes for the yank e98 that he recommends copying the egr off tables to EGR on, as it seems that when unplugged the ecu defaults to the ON map.

I think when i was playing with hpt i had already done that, but I'm certain i flashed back in an original un-molested file with efi before i did the dsp upgrade just so i didnt carry over any oddities from them.



What you see is what you get, they are the only tables that change when you switch tunes.
I can live with that, just means that any additional tables are a master to all the switching modes. Or is there room/capability to add them to each individual mode. From what your describing that would be a no, since you'd have to redevelop the COS?

[hacklerjason]

Or is there room/capability to add them to each individual mode. From what your describing that would be a no, since you'd have to redevelop the COS?

+1
I would also like to know if/when we can expect to see the tables you recently added to the USA e98 get added to DSP4.. I would love to have the ability to switch between a rumbling idle and a whistling idle. If you have one on 5% vgt and the other on 95% one could throttle up a hair using the dsp4 app, and switch between the two to exercise the vanes and "clean" the turbo...


Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

[Snipesy]

Well then that probably answers the question before I even ask it. :doh:

In theory you could just shove all the critical code in a fragment. Cause they are sort of immune to this stuff. Kind of. Not really. Sort of.

The Google devs were just a little drunk when they made fragments....

[GMPX]

I would also like to know if/when we can expect to see the tables you recently added to the USA e98 get added to DSP4..
There will be no changes to what is in the DSP4 switched tables, to do so would mean starting from scratch and that isn't going to happen sorry.

[hacklerjason]

There will be no changes to what is in the DSP4 switched tables, to do so would mean starting from scratch and that isn't going to happen sorry.
Boo
So the desired boost table, is in there as a switchable table. But the tables that actually command the boost, are not and won't be... Hmm...

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

[hacklerjason]

So as easy as it was to add the tables that you did previously, isn't just as easy to add to DSP without "starting" from scratch? Did you have to "start from scratch" to add the last tables?

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

[hacklerjason]

So basically what you're saying is you will be further developing the base non DSP calibration definitions, but dsp4, your own child, will be ignored moving forward? After weeks upon weeks of asking for the last tables they were so easy for you to materialize in the form of a cal def file that's being emailed around. But now you guys have to start from scratch to add those tables to DSP4? Hmm

Shoot I even downloaded the beta, pulled the cal def out of it and retro installed it into my last stable release to get the min and max tables that release doesn't have.

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

[GMPX]

isn't just as easy to add to DSP without "starting" from scratch? Did you have to "start from scratch" to add the last tables?
No it is not 'easy' to just add another table, far from it. It would be like adding a garage in the middle of a two story house. If it was there to begin with when it was being built then it is 'easy', to do so after is very difficult.


So basically what you're saying is you will be further developing the base non DSP calibration definitions, but dsp4, your own child, will be ignored moving forward?
Yes our FREE custom OS's will no longer be getting enhanced, sorry they did not meet your expectation.


But now you guys have to start from scratch to add those tables to DSP4? Hmm
Your own programming experience would be??? To be able to judge me and if I have made a poor decision?

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

As a BETA tester since the beginning on the diesels the ecm has limited room for these COS, given that these are BETA tested, the final combination of the COS-TABLES is a compromise based on what is perceived as needed and what will actually work within the allowable space in the controller.

Ross does his best to accommodate the reasons why the testers want what they want, beyond that it usually gets no revisions or changes once tested/released.

Its the way its always worked, since the beginning.

There are things that I could say could be improved in anything, but for the most part its better than any single OS.

Working in hex sucks, and working across all these controllers sucks, I know how hard it is to find stuff, let alone write a custom OS.

Hope that helps you guys understand, since 2005 I have been a part of the testing until recent changes making BETA public and not a controlled group

[hacklerjason]

No it is not 'easy' to just add another table, far from it. It would be like adding a garage in the middle of a two story house. If it was there to begin with when it was being built then it is 'easy', to do so after is very difficult.


Yes our FREE custom OS's will no longer be getting enhanced, sorry they did not meet your expectation.


Your own programming experience would be??? To be able to judge me and if I have made a poor decision?
Oh no you guys know the ins an outs... But don't sit there and tell me it was free, I paid the entire price of EFILive not because I own a shop, because I don't; not because I tune trucks for a living, because I dont. I bought EFILive with one very specific purpose. And with that, my dsp4 custom OS costed $899 USD... So I've paid my dues just like everyone else who has purchased the full v2...

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

[hacklerjason]

As a BETA tester since the beginning on the diesels the ecm has limited room for these COS, given that these are BETA tested, the final combination of the COS-TABLES is a compromise based on what is perceived as needed and what will actually work within the allowable space in the controller.

Ross does his best to accommodate the reasons why the testers want what they want, beyond that it usually gets no revisions or changes once tested/released.

Its the way its always worked, since the beginning.

There are things that I could say could be improved in anything, but for the most part its better than any single OS.

Working in hex sucks, and working across all these controllers sucks, I know how hard it is to find stuff, let alone write a custom OS.

Hope that helps you guys understand, since 2005 I have been a part of the testing until recent changes making BETA public and not a controlled group
The only part I wanted to be clear, was that they already found the tables as evidenced by them adding it to current releases

Your insight explains why new tables take so long to add, which I understand. But those requests went weeks between follow-ups at times. This one was a request to add a table that was already discovered and coded into current software. Again I'm not a developer by any means. I just don't understand where that falls apart... I wouldn't exactly consider that the same as adding a 2 car garage to a two story house after it's built, but that's what you call it I guess that's what it is... I would think about it more like youre using an empty stall in the autostadt, but I'm being told that's not the case

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

[HOWQUICK]

Oh no you guys know the ins an outs... But don't sit there and tell me it was free, I paid the entire price of EFILive not because I own a shop, because I don't; not because I tune trucks for a living, because I dont. I bought EFILive with one very specific purpose. And with that, my dsp4 custom OS costed $899 USD... So I've paid my dues just like everyone else who has purchased the full v2...

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

So do you go to GM after you bought the truck in its entirety and then complain it doesn't come with something that was never on the spec when you purchased??

No didn't think so! You bought EFILive with DSP4 as described. It does what it describes. What is the issue??? Oh they won't add in something YOU want? WOW~!

As a beta tester that worked with EFILive to give you the DSP4...move on bud. You have no idea what it takes. I find it rather insulting that you would attack the guys at EFILive the way you are. You have a first class product with industry leading features. There is on other product that offers you what EFILive does and still you want more and feel you deserve more. WOW!!

[hacklerjason]

So do you go to GM after you bought the truck in its entirety and then complain it doesn't come with something that was never on the spec when you purchased??

No didn't think so! You bought EFILive with DSP4 as described. It does what it describes. What is the issue??? Oh they won't add in something YOU want? WOW~!

As a beta tester that worked with EFILive to give you the DSP4...move on bud. You have no idea what it takes. I find it rather insulting that you would attack the guys at EFILive the way you are. You have a first class product with industry leading features. There is on other product that offers you what EFILive does and still you want more and feel you deserve more. WOW!!

Yes wow indeed sir! I didn't see any name calling, did you? Where would you say I attacked anybody? I'll wait...

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

[hacklerjason]

Anybody else wanna jump on the tails of the guy in front of you? The facts that you were beta testers really don't carry a lot of weight anyway... You tried software before anybody else could, yay! You risked your ECMs flashing with betas, pats on the back for everyone! Anything else you'd like to add to this no longer productive bash session?

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

[ScarabEpic22]

I understand the frustration, but in I believe every case except if there is a defect, once the COS/DSPx are publicly released, they aren't enhanced any further. They may be added to additional OS', but with the same features.

When Ross/et all go dig to find a new, unmapped table, they're looking through and tracing GM's code. They could even move code that isnt understood aka mapped around to create room for a COS/DSPx.

This is drastically different than building a COS/DSPx, to do this they're moving parts of (I'm assuming) GM's code and duplicating/creating new tables wherever there is room left in the flash. There's only so much flash space available to store everything inside the controller.

I'm not super familiar with digging through hex or building COS', so this is purely conceptual as to how I think COS' work:

To be super basic, let's start with all the flash space available. 1=used, 0=unused: 1110110110
Out of 10 pieces, 3 are free. Notice that there are used pieces (1s) in groups of 2 and 3, but all the unused is separate from any other unused section. In order to pull 2 unused sections together and put some meaningful tables into those sections, code must be optimized/moved/refactored. Let's say that the first step is to get them to align with the 1st unused space located in section 4. Due to code structure, it's actually better to move the code in section 5 to section 10 and not to section 7. We now have this: 1110010111
Great, now let's say we can put 5 new tables into sections 4 and 5. 2=new code: 1112210111
We now have 1 free section at section 7. I want to add a new table that requires 2 open sections. Unfortunately, I can't because I only have 1 free section. Therefore, I put a table that requires 1 section into the code instead: 3=new new code: 1112213111
I now have all 10 sections populated with a fixed set of tables. If I want to change or add another in, something must be moved around. Maybe this table requires 2 sections, but the only piece I'm willing to give up is the last piece we added (ending with 1112213111). This simply isnt possible without making a sacrifice elsewhere.


Again, this is my conceptual understanding, and for all I know, it may not be possible to even move ANY of the existing code around. That'd make it even more complicated if you have insert each table individually into wherever free space exists.

[hacklerjason]

When Ross/et all go dig to find a new, unmapped table, they're looking through and tracing GM's code. They could even move code that isnt understood aka mapped around to create room for a COS/DSPx.

This is drastically different than building a COS/DSPx, to do this they're moving parts of (I'm assuming) GM's code and duplicating/creating new tables wherever there is room left in the flash. There's only so much flash space available to store everything inside the controller.

I'm not super familiar with digging through hex or building COS', so this is purely conceptual as to how I think COS' work:

To be super basic, let's start with all the flash space available. 1=used, 0=unused: 1110110110
Out of 10 pieces, 3 are free. Notice that there are used pieces (1s) in groups of 2 and 3, but all the unused is separate from any other unused section. In order to pull 2 unused sections together and put some meaningful tables into those sections, code must be optimized/moved/refactored. Let's say that the first step is to get them to align with the 1st unused space located in section 4. Due to code structure, it's actually better to move the code in section 5 to section 10 and not to section 7. We now have this: 1110010111
Great, now let's say we can put 5 new tables into sections 4 and 5. 2=new code: 1112210111
We now have 1 free section at section 7. I want to add a new table that requires 2 open sections. Unfortunately, I can't because I only have 1 free section. Therefore, I put a table that requires 1 section into the code instead: 3=new new code: 1112213111
I now have all 10 sections populated with a fixed set of tables. If I want to change or add another in, something must be moved around. Maybe this table requires 2 sections, but the only piece I'm willing to give up is the last piece we added (ending with 1112213111). This simply isnt possible without making a sacrifice elsewhere.


Again, this is my conceptual understanding, and for all I know, it may not be possible to even move ANY of the existing code around. That'd make it even more complicated if you have insert each table individually into wherever free space exists.

Finally somebody with real reasoning, aside from "no it's not gonna happen because I said so"

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

[cindy@efilive]

As a BETA tester since the beginning on the diesels the ecm has limited room for these COS, given that these are BETA tested, the final combination of the COS-TABLES is a compromise based on what is perceived as needed and what will actually work within the allowable space in the controller.

Ross does his best to accommodate the reasons why the testers want what they want, beyond that it usually gets no revisions or changes once tested/released.
Tony is right, the programming and testing regime behind a custom OS means that custom OS's are FIXED once released publicly. The beta test group is ASKED to define their key tuning criteria, and then we have very robust discussions about the merits of each table based on available OS space, and tuning strategies employed by a variety of tuners. Early concept testing may see some table changes made, but once the table set are defined, that's it, no further changes will be made.


Oh no you guys know the ins an outs... But don't sit there and tell me it was free, I paid the entire price of EFILive not because I own a shop, because I don't; not because I tune trucks for a living, because I dont. I bought EFILive with one very specific purpose. And with that, my dsp4 custom OS costed $899 USD... So I've paid my dues just like everyone else who has purchased the full v2...

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
Many other tuning companies charge extra to 'upgrade to a custom operating system'. EFILive does not, hence it's deemed a FREE custom OS.
If you purchased EFILive for the sole purpose of DSP4, then the product your purchased has not changed - it still performs the same function as it did the day you purchased it. The function has not 'devalued' as you seem to be trying to make out. We are advising you however that it will not be enhanced.


The only part I wanted to be clear, was that they already found the tables as evidenced by them adding it to current releases

Your insight explains why new tables take so long to add, which I understand. But those requests went weeks before follow-ups at times. This one was a request to add a table that was already discovered and coded. Again I'm not a developer by any means. I just don't understand where that falls apart... I wouldn't exactly consider that the same as adding a 2 car garage to a two story house after it's built, but that's what you call it I guess that's what it is... I would think about it more like youre using an empty stall in the autostadt, but I'm being told that's not the case

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
Custom OS's cannot be recycled/edited/changed post release. Custom OS's flash to non-standard parts of the ECM and there is limited space available within the ECM. You can't add a table where there is no space - it means you have to remove a table to create space, then add a table.

Given the number of customers that utilize our Custom OS's, we cannot remove tables - the support requirements would be enormous, the ramifications for the customer who failed to read instructions would be enormous. For those reasons you will not find changes to Custom OS's. This leaves 2 options - 1, start a custom OS over from scratch and support 2 different forms of the custom OS's, or don't touch it. We've chosen option 2.

One message you posted here went unanswered, however when you brought that to our attention you received prompt attention. All other requests you've made have been answered promptly. After reviewing this thread and your posts; perhaps it's best for us to part ways. I don't think we'll ever be able to meet your expectation. Given your purchase was made solely for E98/DSP4, I'm confident that your device will be in good condition please PM me your purchase details and we can make arrangements for you to return it for a refund.

Cheers
Cindy

[hacklerjason]

To further that, I don't even use dsp4 haha... I got everything I needed the software to do, done already... Everything else is cool browny point stuff... Again I did say it would be "nice" to do said stuff... But you guys want to puff your internet chests up, I get to ruffle your feathers with my keyboard... So while you guys are all salty, I'm laughing

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

[hacklerjason]

Oh no I'm good... I'll definitely keep my v2, as I am satisfied... I just think it's hilarious that because I request features, that you find me to be "unsatisfied" with my purchase, that is not the case. I am "unsatisfied" with the prick answer I get when asking legit questions

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

[cindy@efilive]

To further that, I don't even use dsp4 haha... I got everything I needed the software to do, done already... Everything else is cool browny point stuff... Again I did say it would be "nice" to do said stuff... But you guys want to puff your internet chests up, I get to ruffle your feathers with my keyboard... So while you guys are all salty, I'm laughing

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk


Oh no I'm good... I'll definitely keep my v2, as I am satisfied... I just think it's hilarious that because I request features, that you find me to be "unsatisfied" with my purchase, that is not the case. I am "unsatisfied" with the prick answer I get when asking legit questions

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

You would love the feature, but would never use it...wow you must have a sad life if for kicks you like to make requests and scream and shout like a 3 year old when you don't get you way. Congratulations, gold star for you! Thank you for being so honest.

*edit* At Ross's request I have lifted your ban.

Cheers
Cindy

[HOWQUICK]

Anybody else wanna jump on the tails of the guy in front of you? The facts that you were beta testers really don't carry a lot of weight anyway... You tried software before anybody else could, yay! You risked your ECMs flashing with betas, pats on the back for everyone! Anything else you'd like to add to this no longer productive bash session?

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

yeah no stress bud...if it was only flashing an ECU! WOW! How many hours of testing do you think it takes to identify the tables, test they are switching and cure the issues with the can? How many hours you reckon it takes to make sure each of the tables is switching to where you are calibrating??

You bud need to sit down. You are demanding things from people that have told you they aren't doing it. You are claiming you aren't getting what you paid for....the description of the product is clear. You got what you paid for. But you want more....well that is never what you bought. And no one ever told you it was available.

move on hey? you aren't going to bully anyone into giving you what you are asking. It was never offered. you started the bashing when you started demanding things that were never offered. iam being polite here but i know what I want to post....

[HOWQUICK]

To further that, I don't even use dsp4 haha... I got everything I needed the software to do, done already... Everything else is cool browny point stuff... Again I did say it would be "nice" to do said stuff... But you guys want to puff your internet chests up, I get to ruffle your feathers with my keyboard... So while you guys are all salty, I'm laughing

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

World is full of flogs and you get todays award....WOW! Can't believe you think you gain anything posting that!

[hacklerjason]

Anything else? You guys got it all out of your system now?

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

[hacklerjason]

And you guys can reinstate my ban of you like... The product isn't being developed anymore so I really don't need the forum anymore, now do I😁

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

[hacklerjason]

Removed by me

[hacklerjason]

To add, I would actually use it... I am using it now... I have two separate tunes that I would love to have switchable, but it "can't be done"... I'm pretty sure that was made crystal clear in previous posts requesting the feature

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

[GMPX]

hacklerjason, I am not the least bit surprised things ended up as they have, I won't quote using multiple responses and fill the pages up unnecessarily....

Post #258 - You said: "I would also like to know if/when we can expect to see the tables you recently added to the USA e98 get added to DSP4"

What gave you the impression we planned on expanding the table sets used in the switching to 'expect' this might happen?

Post #260 - I said: "There will be no changes to what is in the DSP4 switched tables, to do so would mean starting from scratch and that isn't going to happen sorry"

At that point I didn't feel it was necessary to give a detailed technical explanation as to why, but I did say it would mean we had to start from scratch which I would say most people would say to themselves, oh ok, a fair bit of work...but oh no...

Post #262 - You said: "So as easy as it was to add the tables that you did previously, isn't just as easy to add to DSP without "starting" from scratch? Did you have to "start from scratch" to add the last tables?"
Post #263 - You said: "After weeks upon weeks of asking for the last tables they were so easy for you to materialize in the form of a cal def file that's being emailed around. But now you guys have to start from scratch to add those tables to DSP4?"

So at this point you are maybe suggesting my answer was false because it doesn't make sense to you how it would take so much more effort? You know, it was easy to add a few EXISTING factory tables in but you can't add brand new ones in to the code as well, how dumb is EFILive right? Can't be that hard can it you are thinking.

Post #264 - I said: "No it is not 'easy' to just add another table, far from it. It would be like adding a garage in the middle of a two story house. If it was there to begin with when it was being built then it is 'easy', to do so after is very difficult."

Trying to explain it in non technical terms that painted a picture of the enormity of the task to make it happen once everything else is built around it....but I don't think you got it at that point.

Post #272 - You said: "Finally somebody with real reasoning, aside from "no it's not gonna happen because I said so""

I tried to give an example that would have made sense to anyone reading no matter what their technical background, but you've taken that as 'because Ross just said no and I have to accept that'.
Not sure what would have convinced you to begin with? A technical run down of the amount of spare space in the flash to add more code? A break down of how much space is left per tune in the calibrations area? Why should we have to post things like that for people to accept that the thing we designed cannot be expanded more than what it is without....
A - Breaking compatibility with existing DSP configurations causing ongoing support issues for us and tuners.
B - Requiring a lot of work rewriting the code as everything moves around once things are added.
C - Going through an entire testing regime again.

Post #274 - You said: "To further that, I don't even use dsp4 haha"

Excellent, then not having those tables will not be an issue for you and the last three pages were intended to serve what purpose?

[HOWQUICK]

hacklerjason, I am not the least bit surprised things ended up as they have, I won't quote using multiple responses and fill the pages up unnecessarily....

Post #258 - You said: "I would also like to know if/when we can expect to see the tables you recently added to the USA e98 get added to DSP4"

What gave you the impression we planned on expanding the table sets used in the switching to 'expect' this might happen?

Post #260 - I said: "There will be no changes to what is in the DSP4 switched tables, to do so would mean starting from scratch and that isn't going to happen sorry"

At that point I didn't feel it was necessary to give a detailed technical explanation as to why, but I did say it would mean we had to start from scratch which I would say most people would say to themselves, oh ok, a fair bit of work...but oh no...

Post #262 - You said: "So as easy as it was to add the tables that you did previously, isn't just as easy to add to DSP without "starting" from scratch? Did you have to "start from scratch" to add the last tables?"
Post #263 - You said: "After weeks upon weeks of asking for the last tables they were so easy for you to materialize in the form of a cal def file that's being emailed around. But now you guys have to start from scratch to add those tables to DSP4?"

So at this point you are maybe suggesting my answer was false because it doesn't make sense to you how it would take so much more effort? You know, it was easy to add a few EXISTING factory tables in but you can't add brand new ones in to the code as well, how dumb is EFILive right? Can't be that hard can it you are thinking.

Post #264 - I said: "No it is not 'easy' to just add another table, far from it. It would be like adding a garage in the middle of a two story house. If it was there to begin with when it was being built then it is 'easy', to do so after is very difficult."

Trying to explain it in non technical terms that painted a picture of the enormity of the task to make it happen once everything else is built around it....but I don't think you got it at that point.

Post #272 - You said: "Finally somebody with real reasoning, aside from "no it's not gonna happen because I said so""

I tried to give an example that would have made sense to anyone reading no matter what their technical background, but you've taken that as 'because Ross just said no and I have to accept that'.
Not sure what would have convinced you to begin with? A technical run down of the amount of spare space in the flash to add more code? A break down of how much space is left per tune in the calibrations area? Why should we have to post things like that for people to accept that the thing we designed cannot be expanded more than what it is without....
A - Breaking compatibility with existing DSP configurations causing ongoing support issues for us and tuners.
B - Requiring a lot of work rewriting the code as everything moves around once things are added.
C - Going through an entire testing regime again.

Post #274 - You said: "To further that, I don't even use dsp4 haha"

Excellent, then not having those tables will not be an issue for you and the last three pages were intended to serve what purpose?


To further that, I don't even use dsp4 haha... I got everything I needed the software to do, done already... Everything else is cool browny point stuff... Again I did say it would be "nice" to do said stuff... But you guys want to puff your internet chests up, I get to ruffle your feathers with my keyboard... So while you guys are all salty, I'm laughing

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

Was at this point we realised what a unit this guy is...I reckon your answer Ross gives him far more than he deserves....

Who posts "I was just carrying on to piss you people off"? WOW!!

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

I have an enormous respect for what Ross and Paul do..........I too thought at first how "EASY" it must be to do these things, but its far from that.

I am not anywhere near the disassembly/reverse engineering and or programming skill set Ross or Paul has ( not even 1% of their skill sets ), in fact it's a miracle that I was able to find what little extra stuff I did, given that the code set is so overtly complicated, writing these custom instructions into the existing code by creating copies of existing tables in essence duplicating them, rewriting an existing used or un-used sensor input that will now direct the ecm to look "HERE" instead of "THERE" means writing actual ecm coding and having it all work with a click of a switch !!.

I used to get frustrated at times when tables were missing and things were not getting found or updated or changed fast enough, until I walked a mile in his shoes and realized how good we have it, and how much we actually have, even at times if we want more it is what it is.

Anyone who did not BETA Test or understand the enormous amount of time spent to roll out Gasser COS and the DSP2, DSP5, CSP2, CSP4, CSP5 is on crack !!!

Ross and I have had some disagreements in the past about what is and what is not in the software mapped currently, and as far as other diesel controllers with respect to that, and I have moved on and accepted that what we have is mostly what we will ever need, and a far better software suite than other options available, and what is still missing needs to be found by hard work not by complaining !!

By $.02 cents for whatever its worth

[hacklerjason]

hacklerjason, I am not the least bit surprised things ended up as they have, I won't quote using multiple responses and fill the pages up unnecessarily....

Post #258 - You said: "I would also like to know if/when we can expect to see the tables you recently added to the USA e98 get added to DSP4"

What gave you the impression we planned on expanding the table sets used in the switching to 'expect' this might happen?

Post #260 - I said: "There will be no changes to what is in the DSP4 switched tables, to do so would mean starting from scratch and that isn't going to happen sorry"

At that point I didn't feel it was necessary to give a detailed technical explanation as to why, but I did say it would mean we had to start from scratch which I would say most people would say to themselves, oh ok, a fair bit of work...but oh no...

Post #262 - You said: "So as easy as it was to add the tables that you did previously, isn't just as easy to add to DSP without "starting" from scratch? Did you have to "start from scratch" to add the last tables?"
Post #263 - You said: "After weeks upon weeks of asking for the last tables they were so easy for you to materialize in the form of a cal def file that's being emailed around. But now you guys have to start from scratch to add those tables to DSP4?"

So at this point you are maybe suggesting my answer was false because it doesn't make sense to you how it would take so much more effort? You know, it was easy to add a few EXISTING factory tables in but you can't add brand new ones in to the code as well, how dumb is EFILive right? Can't be that hard can it you are thinking.

Post #264 - I said: "No it is not 'easy' to just add another table, far from it. It would be like adding a garage in the middle of a two story house. If it was there to begin with when it was being built then it is 'easy', to do so after is very difficult."

Trying to explain it in non technical terms that painted a picture of the enormity of the task to make it happen once everything else is built around it....but I don't think you got it at that point.

Post #272 - You said: "Finally somebody with real reasoning, aside from "no it's not gonna happen because I said so""

I tried to give an example that would have made sense to anyone reading no matter what their technical background, but you've taken that as 'because Ross just said no and I have to accept that'.
Not sure what would have convinced you to begin with? A technical run down of the amount of spare space in the flash to add more code? A break down of how much space is left per tune in the calibrations area? Why should we have to post things like that for people to accept that the thing we designed cannot be expanded more than what it is without....
A - Breaking compatibility with existing DSP configurations causing ongoing support issues for us and tuners.
B - Requiring a lot of work rewriting the code as everything moves around once things are added.
C - Going through an entire testing regime again.

Post #274 - You said: "To further that, I don't even use dsp4 haha"

Excellent, then not having those tables will not be an issue for you and the last three pages were intended to serve what purpose?


Was at this point we realised what a unit this guy is...I reckon your answer Ross gives him far more than he deserves....

Who posts "I was just carrying on to piss you people off"? WOW!!

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170516/c695002dd83e311b323310ddc3b5e8e9.jpg

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

[GMPX]

I used to get frustrated at times when tables were missing and things were not getting found or updated or changed fast enough, until I walked a mile in his shoes and realized how good we have it, and how much we actually have, even at times if we want more it is what it is.
Thanks Tony, sadly things have changed so much since we started this gig 10+ years ago and I think you'll have noticed that too as you were one of the early guys in to this when we did LB7's.
In many aspects of day to day life I've seen things transition from people grateful for what they have to constant moaning about what they don't have and why wasn't it done yesterday and when it is done it's still not good enough (I'm not specifically talking about tuning software here either), such is the world in 2017 and I just find it best to disconnect from it and do what we do rather than try to put that cat back in the bag.

[Cool28]

I have a 2018 Colorado zr2 tune file if anyone wants to look at it.

I looked at it and is it me or isn't there much to change? Or is it not fully done yet?

[GMPX]

Is this OS 55488112 ?
That should have the usual set of tables / parameters as previous Colorado's (300+ tables/parameters from memory).

[HOWQUICK]

I have a 2018 Colorado zr2 tune file if anyone wants to look at it.

I looked at it and is it me or isn't there much to change? Or is it not fully done yet?

so if you need two tables to do the job...does it make you feel better there are 10 to work through...8 of which aren't anything to do with the changes you want to make?

[Cool28]

I have to check it out. I read it before I update to the newest build so maybe that's why I only have a couple then.

[Cool28]

21609

Im just basing this from my 0411 from way back when looking at this tune so if this is what it is then my apologies. I might be doing something wrong to. I havent used v8 i was mainly all 7.5

[GMPX]

So what specific tuning tables/parameters are you looking for though, you haven't said.

[Cool28]

Oh I'm not really looking for anything. Was mostly just curious to see how things changed from my old ecm. Just seemed like it was missing a lot more of the engine codes, fuel system, drive by wire stuff I don't even know how to look into the trans stuff yet. That's another controller now lol.

Sorry not putting down anything or something. Guess it's just the way it is on these newer ecm.

Ya this is my first diesel and just remembered that some of the stuff I tuned on the gas doesn't apply for diesel lol. It's late sorry.

[GMPX]

Yeah, best not compare the Diesel to an LS1 :grin:

[Brake]

21727

Hi guys, are these custom PId's supposed to work? I can't seem to figure it out. Thanks

[Brake]

well, how about a different question.

Are there plans to continue adding DSP4 support to more recent OSs. Specifically looking for MY 2018 55488112?

Cheers

[GMPX]

Yes, annoyingly the E98 DSP's moved up to the front of the 'to do' list late last year and we got up to date with them all. Then about a week or two later GM dumped out new OS's for the 2017's and 2018's and we got behind again.
They will be done but I can't give a firm time frame, could be this month, could be next.

[Brake]

Thanks, the hard work you guys do is much appreciated!

[sweetdiesel]

Does anyone know how I can find out what ECM I have in my 2017 Trailblazer 2.5L? the vehicle is manufactured in/for Thailand.

I read somewhere it was a Bosch EDC17 ECM and after contacting a ECU shop, they told me that this was incorrect, and in fact it was a E98.

I'm a little confused now, any help would be appreciated. perhaps physically looking at the ECM??

EFI supported vehicle does not show this vehicle, but would like to confirm.

thanks

[sweetdiesel]

Does anyone know how I can find out what ECM I have in my 2017 Trailblazer 2.5L? the vehicle is manufactured in/for Thailand.

I read somewhere it was a Bosch EDC17 ECM and after contacting a ECU shop, they told me that this was incorrect, and in fact it was a E98.

I'm a little confused now, any help would be appreciated. perhaps physically looking at the ECM??

EFI supported vehicle does not show this vehicle, but would like to confirm.

thanks

FWIW, I hooked up my scan tool to the OBDI port and it shows a operating system of 55491998.

Vin # MMM156LMHH635XXX

I decided to download the EFI software and update the firmware on my V2 controller ( very old ) and read the tune on the 2.5L trail blazer.

I must say to EFI, that the software I havn't used in close to 8 years, is still very easy to use, with all the nice updates.

I guess I only have one last question, Is this operating system ok to flash? if so I will go ahead and purchase a new VIN license.

[ScarabEpic22]

I checked the file and it looks just fine to flash. No errors or checksum errors when opening the file in either V7.5 or V8. The file loads just fine in V7.5 Tune and has all the needed tables to build a good tune in there, looks pretty similar to the US 2.8L files.

[sweetdiesel]

I checked the file and it looks just fine to flash. No errors or checksum errors when opening the file in either V7.5 or V8. The file loads just fine in V7.5 Tune and has all the needed tables to build a good tune in there, looks pretty similar to the US 2.8L files.

Thanks Erik,

I also didn't see any errors, and no issues while reading the stock file. Ill guess I will give it a try.

[Adamp]

I have the fix... Text me for details... Its not software, its in the wiring... I tested it today.. It completed a regen successfully... It no longer says cleaning filter, continue driving ... Pm for the number..

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I have this stupid message on my 18’ 2.8l deleted Colorado that is tuned with a V8 EFILIVE, can you help me get rid of this stupid message please?

[GMPX]

Nothing to do with EFILive, there is no option to do deletes on any E98 tunes in EFILive.

[hacklerjason]

Ross is correct.... FCM's have nothing to do with efilive.... As I stated prior if you want the fix send a pm

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

[jbauto]

hacklerjason can you PM me. I have some questions.

[hacklerjason]

hacklerjason can you PM me. I have some questions.Tried but you don't accept pm's

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

[jbauto]

Can't send or receive apparently. I'm new to this forum... do I have to have a certain amount of post before the PM system will work?

[hacklerjason]

Can't send or receive apparently. I'm new to this forum... do I have to have a certain amount of post before the PM system will work?Don't know... Find me on FB and send a pm there
By name or:
hACKMans Customs

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk

[okieminimax]

hacklerjason I get a cleaning exhaust filter please drive message since I have unplugged everything from the exhaust. have any ideas

[hacklerjason]

hacklerjason I get a cleaning exhaust filter please drive message since I have unplugged everything from the exhaust. have any ideasCan't assist you sorry

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

[hacklerjason]

hacklerjason I get a cleaning exhaust filter please drive message since I have unplugged everything from the exhaust. have any ideasYou can start with putting the exhaust back on

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

[GMPX]

You can start with putting the exhaust back on
LOL, too funny.

[hacklerjason]

LOL, too funny.NO!
What IS funny, is that folks expected a different answer [emoji1787][emoji23]

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

[RDLLC]

I have the fix... Text me for details... Its not software, its in the wiring... I tested it today.. It completed a regen successfully... It no longer says cleaning filter, continue driving ... Pm for the number..

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Would you mind sending me a message how to take care of that message on the dash "keep driving to clean dpf"? I do not have the ability to send messages yet. Thanks

[hacklerjason]

Would you mind sending me a message how to take care of that message on the dash "keep driving to clean dpf"? I do not have the ability to send messages yet. ThanksSorry, I will not
My rec is to do a service Regen to clean filter if driving cannot

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk