Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: Current Public Release (Updated - Feb 2019)

  1. #11
    Forum tyhee Site Admin GMPX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    12,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chavez91 View Post
    This customer has been running tunes for about 2 years now with no issues. He requested the most updated tunes we had today, so he updated to this release, and that's when the issues started. The files we sent him today, nor any of his old files will Full Flash. He can cal flash any of the files with an 80% or so success ratio, but the truck is in a no start condition.
    Bench testing now so see if everything is still good with our setup.
    Need official EFILive help, please go here.
    For tuning support please post your questions on this forum (or other auto forums).
    Sorry if I don't respond to your PM, don't take it personal.


  2. #12
    Forum tyhee Site Admin GMPX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    12,801

    Default

    Using the new public release, Black Box flashing bench test resulted in the cal flash and full flash working fine.
    The cal flash I did twice without a hitch.
    The full flash did fail once with an $0281 error (FlashScan did not receive valid data from the connected vehicle) which is usually caused by the ECM taking too long to erase the flash and Flashscan times out.
    Just retrying the full flash after that initial failure and it worked fine so I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the update as it is.
    Not that it should make any difference but the ECM OS I was using is 12669774.

    As you guys know all too often errors can happen when people update software but not the firmware and/or scripts to match the release, given the customer is remote can you be 100% sure they did the FW/Scripts update too?
    Need official EFILive help, please go here.
    For tuning support please post your questions on this forum (or other auto forums).
    Sorry if I don't respond to your PM, don't take it personal.


  3. #13
    Lifetime Member Chavez91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GMPX View Post
    Using the new public release, Black Box flashing bench test resulted in the cal flash and full flash working fine.
    The cal flash I did twice without a hitch.
    The full flash did fail once with an $0281 error (FlashScan did not receive valid data from the connected vehicle) which is usually caused by the ECM taking too long to erase the flash and Flashscan times out.
    Just retrying the full flash after that initial failure and it worked fine so I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the update as it is.
    Not that it should make any difference but the ECM OS I was using is 12669774.

    As you guys know all too often errors can happen when people update software but not the firmware and/or scripts to match the release, given the customer is remote can you be 100% sure they did the FW/Scripts update too?
    Yes, I am 100% sure that the customer has updated firmware and scripts to match as we did this through a remote support. Unfortunately the customer only has desktop access where the truck is located, so pass through flashing is not an option currently.

    Are there any other files that you would need from me to help? Im going to do a little bit of testing on the bench this morning.
    Josh
    '04 LLY
    *L5P, Standalone, Built Trans*
    Coming Soon

    '05 LLY
    *Built Mota, Built Trans*

  4. #14
    Lifetime Member Chavez91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GMPX View Post
    Using the new public release, Black Box flashing bench test resulted in the cal flash and full flash working fine.
    The cal flash I did twice without a hitch.
    The full flash did fail once with an $0281 error (FlashScan did not receive valid data from the connected vehicle) which is usually caused by the ECM taking too long to erase the flash and Flashscan times out.
    Just retrying the full flash after that initial failure and it worked fine so I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the update as it is.
    Not that it should make any difference but the ECM OS I was using is 12669774.

    As you guys know all too often errors can happen when people update software but not the firmware and/or scripts to match the release, given the customer is remote can you be 100% sure they did the FW/Scripts update too?

    Just and Update. Did remote support with the customer, the customer was able to obtain access to a laptop. Double checked the current firmware and all the config files, they were all up to date. Also formatted the Autocal and updated everything as well. Still getting the $0311. Attached screen shots.

    As far as my bench testing goes, I have slightly differing results. On ALL Pass-Through full flashes, the flash will fail EVERY TIME. I get an $0101 code after the first segment erase and program. (attached screenshot as well) But if I use BBX on the autocal, the flash will complete successfully.

    On my bench flashes, I was able to get you Vehicle Spy logs, I can email you those if they will help as they have complete timestamps and everything you should need to figure out what is going wrong.

    If there is anything else you need, let me know. I will be grabbing the new trace files off the customers laptop and I can get you the trace files for my bench flashes as well if you would like.

    But if the $0311 is for it not being in the correct mode for programming, Its still does make it quite a ways through the flash before throwing the error


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20190125_105243.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	1.00 MB 
ID:	22616Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20190125_105225.jpg 
Views:	45 
Size:	1,015.0 KB 
ID:	22617Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20190125_105205.jpg 
Views:	46 
Size:	1.01 MB 
ID:	22618Click image for larger version. 

Name:	E86B error.PNG 
Views:	46 
Size:	110.0 KB 
ID:	22619
    Last edited by Chavez91; January 25th, 2019 at 06:59 AM.
    Josh
    '04 LLY
    *L5P, Standalone, Built Trans*
    Coming Soon

    '05 LLY
    *Built Mota, Built Trans*

  5. #15
    Forum tyhee Site Admin GMPX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    12,801

    Default

    Unfortunately it is now a long weekend public holiday here in Aus and NZ and I am away from my PC all weekend so we won't get a chance to look at this until the 29th (our time).
    If you could please send over what you have logged to our support Email address one of us will look at it when we get back from holiday.
    It all sounds like timing issues to me, I don't know why my E86B flashes fine here in pass-through and BBx but yours and your customers is failing.
    One of the downsides of the Bosch ECM's is the flash tool has very little control over the process, you just send the commands and data to flash and hope the ECM handles it correctly. Makes it easy for flash tools to implement but when things go wrong it is a pain to figure out what is going wrong when things go wrong.
    I'm sure the traces will show it but did it seem to just stop for a while then error out? If so that would indicate to me the erase portion is taking too long (it does multiple erases during the flash).

    "But if I use BBX on the autocal, the flash will complete successfully." - Does this mean the customer is now up and running or was this just your bench testing results?
    Need official EFILive help, please go here.
    For tuning support please post your questions on this forum (or other auto forums).
    Sorry if I don't respond to your PM, don't take it personal.


  6. #16
    Joe (Moderator) joecar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    27,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blacky View Post
    My bad, the DMA address is handled as a signed value. 0xD0001480 is negative when treated as a signed 32 bit value. That is triggering the "BAD Address" error.
    I'll look into a solution...

    Regards
    Paul
    Good find... signed vs unsigned is the programmer's curse (almost as bad as off-one)


  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    69

    Default

    I have a software question / possibly small request. Not sure if this is the right place for it, but it seems to be the active conversation for the latest software.

    I'm probably in the minority, but I use BBX most often for street logging and I'm trying to optimize the process of configuring the BBX and ensuring V8 / V7.5 software is talking the best it can.

    I have a lot of custom defined "calculated" PIDs. I have all these defined for the V7.5 scan software which is where most of the real work is done of course. I know in the V8 BBX menu you can define up to 8 "v7" calc params to automatically log, but sometimes I exceed that and I also like to actually see the calculated PID in the log list vs the "v7" menu.

    Which led me try and define all the same custom PIDs in V8 software. The problem I've had with the V8 software is the custom created PIDs you have to pick some other prefix... I.E. it might have to be USER.FUELPRES vs CALC.FUELPRES (how it's defined in v7). My fix has been to manually edit the EFILive calculated PIDs .ini file (don't have PC with me, forget exact name). This works fine, but the equation editor function within V8 software won't let you edit the EFILive / CALC. params and sometimes that ini file gets overwritten when a new version is installed. (I make backups before an update)

    Is it possible to allow user created PIDs to start with a CALC. prefix or allow the user to edit the efilive defined calculated PIDs within the software? I am doing the latter now, via notepad++, but would prefer the GUI.

    Anyways, just throwing an idea out.

  8. #18
    EFILive Developer Site Admin Blacky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    9,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronc7 View Post
    I have a software question / possibly small request. Not sure if this is the right place for it, but it seems to be the active conversation for the latest software.

    I'm probably in the minority, but I use BBX most often for street logging and I'm trying to optimize the process of configuring the BBX and ensuring V8 / V7.5 software is talking the best it can.

    I have a lot of custom defined "calculated" PIDs. I have all these defined for the V7.5 scan software which is where most of the real work is done of course. I know in the V8 BBX menu you can define up to 8 "v7" calc params to automatically log, but sometimes I exceed that and I also like to actually see the calculated PID in the log list vs the "v7" menu.

    Which led me try and define all the same custom PIDs in V8 software. The problem I've had with the V8 software is the custom created PIDs you have to pick some other prefix... I.E. it might have to be USER.FUELPRES vs CALC.FUELPRES (how it's defined in v7). My fix has been to manually edit the EFILive calculated PIDs .ini file (don't have PC with me, forget exact name). This works fine, but the equation editor function within V8 software won't let you edit the EFILive / CALC. params and sometimes that ini file gets overwritten when a new version is installed. (I make backups before an update)

    Is it possible to allow user created PIDs to start with a CALC. prefix or allow the user to edit the efilive defined calculated PIDs within the software? I am doing the latter now, via notepad++, but would prefer the GUI.

    Anyways, just throwing an idea out.
    The CALC. prefix is reserved for EFILive defined calculated PIDs so that user changes are not overwritten by the next update - which always replaces/overwrites the files containing the EFILive calculated PIDs.
    Any reason why you must use the CALC. prefix? What's wrong with using some other prefix?

    Regards
    Paul
    Before asking for help, please read this.

  9. #19
    EFILive Developer Site Admin Blacky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    9,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chavez91 View Post
    So made it a little further. The PIDS compile. When I try to validate them, it seems to be pulling the Speedo System Segment # as the OS #?

    Not trying to be a pain in the ass.... Just pushing extra buttons today i guess.

    Attachment 22615
    Well that is strange. I'll look into it.
    Paul
    Before asking for help, please read this.

  10. #20
    Lifetime Member Chavez91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GMPX View Post
    Unfortunately it is now a long weekend public holiday here in Aus and NZ and I am away from my PC all weekend so we won't get a chance to look at this until the 29th (our time).
    If you could please send over what you have logged to our support Email address one of us will look at it when we get back from holiday.
    It all sounds like timing issues to me, I don't know why my E86B flashes fine here in pass-through and BBx but yours and your customers is failing.
    One of the downsides of the Bosch ECM's is the flash tool has very little control over the process, you just send the commands and data to flash and hope the ECM handles it correctly. Makes it easy for flash tools to implement but when things go wrong it is a pain to figure out what is going wrong when things go wrong.
    I'm sure the traces will show it but did it seem to just stop for a while then error out? If so that would indicate to me the erase portion is taking too long (it does multiple erases during the flash).

    "But if I use BBX on the autocal, the flash will complete successfully." - Does this mean the customer is now up and running or was this just your bench testing results?
    Got a little occupied, Files will be on their way to support here in the next hour or so.

    But no, the customer is not up and running. Truck is still down. He is still receiving the $0311 error. The successful autocal flash was on my end on my bench setup. But the similar method was a no go for the customer.
    Josh
    '04 LLY
    *L5P, Standalone, Built Trans*
    Coming Soon

    '05 LLY
    *Built Mota, Built Trans*

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Current Public Release (May 2018)
    By Blacky in forum Software Updates and Installation Help
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: July 5th, 2018, 10:36 AM
  2. Current Public Release (Oct 2017)
    By Blacky in forum Software Updates and Installation Help
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 25th, 2017, 03:55 PM
  3. Known Issues With Current Public Release
    By Blacky in forum Software Updates and Installation Help
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: March 22nd, 2017, 10:42 AM
  4. Known Issues With Current Public Release
    By Blacky in forum Software Updates and Installation Help
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 17th, 2017, 06:06 AM
  5. Known Issues With Current Public Release
    By Blacky in forum Software Updates and Installation Help
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: January 31st, 2017, 11:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •