Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: 5120 hack clarifications  (Read 9380 times)
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +604/-166
Offline Offline

Posts: 12235


WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2021, 01:18:21 PM »

Code:
0054, 00, ps_w                , 0, {mbar    }, 0, 0, 0.0390625,      0, {Saugrohr-Absolutdruck (Word)}

From s4wiki page
Quote
Absolute maximum measured boost is 0xffff/25.6 = 2559.96 mBar (DSLOFS = 0), and 2543.55 mBar (DSLOFS=-16.40646)

1*10/256 = ?
« Last Edit: February 12, 2021, 01:21:47 PM by nyet » Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own.

Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your experience.
IWay
Full Member
***

Karma: +2/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2021, 05:20:13 AM »

Thanks for your patience on this, but you might have to spell it out.

I can see the relationship between the numbers, but I'm failing to see where the limit is encountered other than in the code.

If the limit is in the code can't we just change the code to;

0054, 00, ps_w                , 0, {mbar    }, 0, 0, 0.078125,      0, {Saugrohr-Absolutdruck (Word)}

IE

0xffff/12.8 = 5119.92 mBar

Or Am I completely missing something?
Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +604/-166
Offline Offline

Posts: 12235


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2021, 03:00:13 PM »

Thanks for your patience on this, but you might have to spell it out.

I can see the relationship between the numbers, but I'm failing to see where the limit is encountered other than in the code.

If the limit is in the code can't we just change the code to;

0054, 00, ps_w                , 0, {mbar    }, 0, 0, 0.078125,      0, {Saugrohr-Absolutdruck (Word)}

IE

0xffff/12.8 = 5119.92 mBar

Or Am I completely missing something?


That's not the code. That is just the logger translating what it is logging into a human readable format.
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own.

Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your experience.
IWay
Full Member
***

Karma: +2/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #18 on: February 16, 2021, 02:58:37 AM »

Sorry,

Just not getting it,

16 Bit = unsigned 65K numbers, signed 32k positive & 32K negative.

Did notice that 2559.96 x 0.039063 = 99.999, so the presure range is represented by 0 to 100 decimal?updated post, This is wrong, pressure range not represented by 0 to 100 decimal

Sure once it's spelt out I'll go AHH, that's obvious or that's strange who thought of doing it that way!
« Last Edit: February 18, 2021, 02:04:02 AM by IWay » Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +604/-166
Offline Offline

Posts: 12235


WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 16, 2021, 06:17:15 PM »

If the limit is in the code can't we just change the code to;

0054, 00, ps_w                , 0, {mbar    }, 0, 0, 0.078125,      0, {Saugrohr-Absolutdruck (Word)}

This is literally what the 5120 hack does. It modifies the ECU so that is true. Unless you follow exactly every bit of ASM change recommended, you are not doing what you just asked.
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own.

Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your experience.
IWay
Full Member
***

Karma: +2/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2021, 02:30:19 AM »

Think I'm getting it now;

65535 x 0.039063 = 25.6

So 1mBar = 25.6 units in the code.

So the developers decided that they would use 25.6, not 12.8, 51.2 or some other number to factor the mBar value?

Strange why not just use 1 to 1??

IE, it’s a code limit not a hardware limit.

The term “hard limit”, is what has been throwing me, was beginning to think that there was some smoke & mirrors going on.

So we are changing the code to scale, 1mBar = 12.8 units in the code.

Then we are doubling or halving the maps as required to accommodate the higher possible mBar value.

So it could be called the 12.8 hack!

Please tell me the above is correct or it will be time to sit in the corner & start rocking back and forth.

Thanks

PS
I’ve got it working a treat.
Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +604/-166
Offline Offline

Posts: 12235


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2021, 03:21:10 AM »

Nope now you've got it.
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own.

Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your experience.
IWay
Full Member
***

Karma: +2/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2021, 04:10:26 AM »

Cool,

Stlll strange they didn't use 1 to 1?
Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +604/-166
Offline Offline

Posts: 12235


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2021, 01:22:21 PM »

Cool,

Stlll strange they didn't use 1 to 1?

That would be pretty terrible resolution and would completely confuse the PID due to quantization error
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own.

Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your experience.
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +919/-429
Online Online

Posts: 5860


« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2021, 01:56:42 PM »

Diesel uses 1:1 in mbar and has no issue. 1:1 is just fine.
These sensors are not even specified to that precision.

It's done like this for no particular reason whatsoever.
Logged

PM's will not be answered, so don't even try.
Log your car properly.
IWay
Full Member
***

Karma: +2/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2021, 02:00:42 AM »


It's probably a hangover from something previous, I've seen it before from developers.

The developer thought process goes, "if it works why change it and it's quicker to use something that's already there and working than start again"

Probably got it from some industrial or scientific process that needs the extra accuracy, Bosch do all sorts of things.

Or they just did it to be awkward Wink
Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +604/-166
Offline Offline

Posts: 12235


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2021, 02:11:27 AM »

yah it is sort of arbitrary, but there are only a few commonly used 16 bit scales in ME7, i guess they picked the one that was easiest to use.

Very few 16 bit values are 1:1 (are there any actually? I should go look) , since presumably engineers all think they need float ability, though ya, if it was Bar it would make sense, but mBar?

interesting discussion.
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own.

Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your experience.
d3irb
Full Member
***

Karma: +131/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2021, 07:56:33 AM »

Remember as we start trying to infer "what were the developers thinking" (which is half the fun of RE!) that a lot of model code is codegen, not hand-written (more and more so as we reach newer ECUs).

So the decision to use this arbitrary-seeming precision, even back in the ME7 days, just as well may have been driven by which value types easily or natively plugged into some block or another in whatever modelgen software was in use - I think for ME7 this was probably ASCET, more modern stuff is moving more and more to Simulink.
Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +919/-429
Online Online

Posts: 5860


« Reply #28 on: February 18, 2021, 10:55:18 AM »

Up until MED17 the C code was written mostly by hand.

At end of MED17 and with MG1, everything is autogen.
Logged

PM's will not be answered, so don't even try.
Log your car properly.
IWay
Full Member
***

Karma: +2/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #29 on: February 19, 2021, 02:26:05 AM »

Autogen!

I know how this ends, I've seen Terminator and Dark Star Cheesy
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.021 seconds with 16 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0s, 0q)