Main and Boost VE...one table?

[hquick]

I haven't seen this discussed anywhere before.
Why in the COS's do we have the Main and Boost VE tables as separate tables?
Why can't they be combined as one table?
I've been having trouble understanding as to why the 105 column in the Boost VE table always gets populated whilst I'm logging?
What do the rest of you do with the 105 column in the Boost VE table? Do you always keep the 105 columns of the two tables matching?

[Delco]

I haven't seen this discussed anywhere before.
Why in the COS's do we have the Main and Boost VE tables as separate tables?
Why can't they be combined as one table?
I've been having trouble understanding as to why the 105 column in the Boost VE table always gets populated whilst I'm logging?
What do the rest of you do with the 105 column in the Boost VE table? Do you always keep the 105 columns of the two tables matching?

The main table is the original coded table , the boost VE table is the new table that has been added into the code and can be used if required , the COS can be used for both N/A and boost .

Having them together would create a few issues as they are in different sections of the PCM . one new table could have been constructed but there are limitations on table size and resolution would be lost.

I am sure Ross had other reasons as well but havaing them all grouped in the custom OS area works well.

[hquick]

Thanks Delco,
any thoughts on my other question re the crossover of column 105kpa?

[Delco]

Thanks Delco,
any thoughts on my other question re the crossover of column 105kpa?

Try and make the 105kpa table the same values in both tables , if the kpa reading is 104 then it interpolates between 100 and 105 kpa in the normal; VE table, if the kpa reading is 106 then it interpolates between 105 and 110 kpa in the boost table.

It is not unusual to find split VE table from the factory , on the VS commodore the VE table was split by the factory into low rpm below 2400rpm and high rpm ablve 2400 rpm tables so they could have different resolution in each table.

[hquick]

Thanks for the explanation....that makes more sense to me now.

[hquick]

OK....today I decided to AutoVE the Boost VE table with the RR.
First problem was as soon as I start logging the RR triess to 'correct' the 105Kpa column of the Boost VE table?
How does everybody else gpo about this process?
I ended up setting a filter in the RR to ignore everything below 102kpa.
Is that correct or is there a more 'correct' / better method?

Thanks

[dc_justin]

OK....today I decided to AutoVE the Boost VE table with the RR.
First problem was as soon as I start logging the RR triess to 'correct' the 105Kpa column of the Boost VE table?
How does everybody else gpo about this process?
I ended up setting a filter in the RR to ignore everything below 102kpa.
Is that correct or is there a more 'correct' / better method?

Thanks

Hey Howard,

You did it correct. When using RTACS in the boost VE table, just have it filter out non-boosted values. Then, when you're finished with both your VE and boost VE tables, copy the 105 column from either table to the other.

Justin

[hquick]

Thanks Justin.

Howard

[Delco]

OK....today I decided to AutoVE the Boost VE table with the RR.
First problem was as soon as I start logging the RR triess to 'correct' the 105Kpa column of the Boost VE table?
How does everybody else gpo about this process?
I ended up setting a filter in the RR to ignore everything below 102kpa.
Is that correct or is there a more 'correct' / better method?

Thanks
You are correct , I set the filters to look at any value below 104 kpa for non boost and above 106kpa for boost , you will find the 105kpa region will be populated due to interpolation.

[427]

nice work fella's