NefMoto

Hi,

In this topic I will humbly share my work on the software I am trying to build for my 2.0 TFSI Seat Leon (240Hp).
And hopefully get some help/advices from you guys.  ;D
Please consider I am a noob with this ECU and be gentle with me lol, the followings posts might be full of mistakes, I've only done one tuning so far on these ECUs, with a lot of help and didn't fully understand the modifications we made at that time I'll admit. ;)
So this time I am keen to learn and understand to improve myself.

My first target is to make a correct "stage 1" tuning to reach around 300hp. Later I will probably install a downpipe, and direct CAI (such as Neuspeed/CTS ones) and reach for a “stage 2” software. But first things firsts : the basic stock hardware software.
I already built my map pack and began to tune the maps I thought were needed. I didn’t flash anything yet.

Please note that the car is fully stock from a hardware pov so far.

I will mark my questions like this "1)" "2)" etc. But I am also really not sure if I modified correctly the maps, so any comment really appreciated too of course  ;)

1) In my mod, I target 192 load, don’t really know if this is a good target to reach the 300 hp though?


So here are the modifications I made. :


KFMIOP :
(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15359.0;attach=27218;image)
2) I modified only the second KFMIOP since the first one is, I think, for stratified mode and therefore not used.. is that correct?

KFMIRL :
(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15359.0;attach=27220;image)

LDRXN1 :
(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15359.0;attach=27222;image)
3-a) I modified only the first of the 3 LDRXN maps I have, if I understood correctly, only one is used, and if not the first one I will try the second then third, do I proceed the right way? :)

KFDHLBN :
(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15359.0;attach=27226;image)

LDPBN :
(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15359.0;attach=27224;image)

LAMFA 1:
(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15359.0;attach=27228;image)
3-b) Same as LDRXN, only first version modified.

KFLBTS1, a little richer :
(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15359.0;attach=27230;image)
3-c) Same, I modified only 1st version of the map

KFFLDBTS, I kept stock:
(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15359.0;attach=27232;image)
4) Should I also modify the KFFLDBTS for lambts ? Or only KFLBTS is needed ? When I see lambts = KFLBTS + [KF]DLBTS*KFFDLBTS, I am not sure if KLBTS is enough…

KFLDIMX
(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15359.0;attach=27234;image)
5)  I reduced the values around the rpm where I expect an overshoot from turbo pressure, but maybe did it the wrong way..? :

KLMIMAX_UM, and KLMZUMN_UM
(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15359.0;attach=27236;image)
6) I have seen in various mods, people modifying KLMIMAX_UM, and KLMZUMN_UM, but I don't understand why we need to tune those
Can someone explain to me how they cap something and need to be altered?
If I understood correctly, they cap the torque, at list for KLMIMAX_UM, this one maybe I should set to 99% like above? but for KLMZUMN_UM I admit I am a bit lost…


7) Last question, at least for now  ;D, if I modify my NMAX singles to let’s say 7000 rpm, should I rescale rpm axis in the different maps ??

Thank you all for your help :)

hello ,
thank you to share your work ,i have the same car as you ,i will start to tune it like you .
by the way can you share your original file please ?
thank you.

Hi,

Good to know :)
Please find my original file here : http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=15360.0 (http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=15360.0)
Also, do you have a topic for your project too? I am very interested in seeing your work, maybe we could both improve ourselves throughout our respective work.

And btw, when you say "tune it like you",I don't really know what you mean, however don't forget I am a beginner  ;D and my tune has never been tested, and is probably not the good example...
This thread is mainly to get feedback from the experts around here,  improve my self and the software before I test it out. There are probably much more reliable topics and software in this forum. However it is also of course to share my "little" work as a beginner and if it can help others, I am glad ! ;)

You'd have been as well leaving LAMFA stock. With those values, knock and calculated EGT will be so high that it'll go into component protection anyway.

Hello gman86,
Thank you for your answer! ;)
Do you mean I did something wrong and so I will have too much knock and EGT ? Or it is the way it is supposed to be when tuning?
I understand it will mainly use lambts yes from the different topics I've read here. Is that something that we can and have to avoid ? If yes, how?
Or is it okay that Lamfa will not be really used and use mainly lambts instead?

Also as mentionned on  my question n° 4, I don't know if I did enough modifications for lambts? I modified only KFLBTS, is that enough?
Or should I also modify the KFFLDBTS for lambts ?

Thanks for your help :)

The modifications you did, especially fueling wise, show a complete lack of understanding of the processes involved in an internal combustion engine.
I'd say start with the basics and understand combustion and it's effects and only then go messing around with the ECU.

Hi prj,

Okay...:-\ I completely admit I am not an expert, far from it..  ;)  

However can you please be a little bit more specific on what I did wrong or what pointed out my lack of understanding ? You are talking about LAMFA/KFLBTS I guess ?
Since I didn't touch much other things for fueling so far... Anyway I am here to learn and improve my understanding so if you could point to the right direction so that I can understand and learn to correct my mistakes, it would be great !  :)

Is it the 0,88/0,86 ratio in lamfa which is not correct? Maybe not rich enough ? And/Or the KFLBTS values (0,87/0,84) not rich enough? Or/and not different enough from the Lamfa values? Or is it that I didn't modify the right areas of the maps? Or none of the above?  ;D

My understanding is the following : I enriched a little bit LAMFA values vs LAMFA stock values for high torque requests to do a "pre enrichment" and avoid EGT triggering KFLBTS too early (avoid EGT to go over TABGBTS threshold too soon and trigger BTS). Then I made KFLBTS a little richer than LAMFA because I thought that the component protection should be a little bit richer in order to lower the EGT when they are too high... but maybe I am wrong?
Also as mentionned and you are right, I haven't yet figured out how to properly scale lambts. And I modified only KFLBTS map, but maybe I would need to modify other maps involved in the lambts calculation like DLBTS or KFFDLBTS which I have kept stock for now?

Anyway thank you for your reply, if you have any good examples of what I should have done instead, or any tips,  I would really appreciate your help.  ;)

Dont' touch LAMFA, IMX, BTS until your req boost is where you want it (confirm by logging).

Then, work on IMX until boost is fine.

Then, go back to LAMFA/BTS as needed

One thing at a time.

Ok thanks Nyet, I will reset to stock those maps then. The rest of my mod is ok? Can I flash it like this without risks (with only IRL/IOP/LDRXN/KFLDHBN/LDPBN modified like I did) ? :)

Also I will keep looking how works the fueling with LAMFA / BTS for eGT / and lambda for knock protection too. Seems to be a harsh topic !  :)

For stage 1 only i don't think any of that is needed.

You can, of course, experiment to learn.

Oh okay, I thought some modifications would be needed on the lambda for a stage 1, but if not, it is really fine haha.

Here are the logs I did with stock ECU, everything looks fine to me except maybe a the little delay on cylinders 3 and 4 (coil or sparks maybe?), but I am no expert, so if you see something please say so ;).

And if everything looks fine + my mod with fueling reset to stock too, I will try to flash it and log this week end  :)

Thanks

In particular, you really want to concentrate only on one thing at a time if you aren't sure which map variants are used for your coding.

Ideally, you should try to track that down first to avoid surprises.

I understand that may not be possible in your case, in which case trial and error might be your only realistic alternative.

If you mean disassemble the dump to see what version of ldrxn is used etc then yes, I have never done it...and it is still very obscur to me.. but if not too complex for a noob I will look into it. ;)

Any feedback on my stock logs and other questions? :)

A good example of what you should do, is put away the computer, take a good paper back book about ICE's and read it until it's crystal clear on topics such as effect of mixture on combustion and torque, effect of spark advance on combustion and torque, temperature control and so on.

If you wanna screw around, you can screw around forever, but you will never get it running as well as someone who grasps the above concepts.
I also hope you have money for a new turbo and engine, in case they go "poof" during your experiments.

Also, I'd start with something that does not have direct injection for learning, because direct injection adds a whole other layer of complication.

As to tune in question:
1. IOP/IRL modifications make 0 sense.
2. Maxing KFLDHBN is a bad idea
3. Fueling modifications make 0 sense.
4. Boost PID not even touched, stock PID will not work right.
5. Never EVER touch any _UM maps. They almost never need any changes, only in extreme situations with cars very far removed from stock - people who do this do not understand the ECU.
6. Stock HPFP can not support that LDRXN.

Basically of all the stuff you posted the only changes I agree with is moving LDPBN out of the way.

 :-\...So according to you, I am a lost cause because I am no expert on every process involved on an ICE? I admit it is better when knowing everything involved, sure, but I thought for a basic stage 1 tune, I would not need to be an expert on front flames speed and so on for instance ;). The more you know the better, no argue there, don't misunderstand my point.

Also, what's the use of this forum then? It is only for combustion doctors and experts? And not for experts like you to guide the beginners motivated to learn?  ::)
I thought we came here to share, learn...

Also, as far as I know, I didn't came here to ask for a premade tune or so; I am respectful, spending a lot of time to understand as much as I can, post as detailed information as I can etc. I am working on my side and willing to learn, but came here because indeed, I need some help.

Eventually, I didn't say I will flash my car with random values, and then test it out. I'm not totally stupid... :)
I share here what I think might be ok, mainly to be sure before flashing that I don't take any risk, and because I know that I may have made mistakes... but that's the point.
It's ok for you to say that I don't understand things, and should try to improve my knowledge on engines and combustion, but just doing it without helping, I don't see the added value.

Cheers and peace anyway, no hard feelings. And thanks for the warning at least ;)

EDIT : thanks for the last part you edited on your post, much more helpful, I wish you were still a little more specific, but that does make a start :)


 Ok, but that does raise questions on my side, I guess you won't be willing to elaborate and that's ok, but still ask though :)


1.  I did extrapolate KFMIOP axis, and put IRL reverse to IOP, I thought it was ok from what I read around, can you please be a little more specific on what is wrong ?
2. You are right, I will try to make it more close to the flow map
3. I know from your last post, but don't really know in what way it is so wrong, I will keep looking...thanks
4. I did touch KFLDIMX, you are talking of another map? KFLDRL should be modified ?
5.  Ok thank you very much for this information :)
6. S You mean 192 load is too much from the HPFP? Or only in certain RPM areas, it won't be able to reach what I ask ?

"Basically of all the stuff you posted the only changes I agree with is moving LDPBN out of the way." ==> Ok that is one thing right :D

Thank you prj, sorry for my initial post :)

Yes of course you need to understand flame front speed and effects of mixture on it for Stage 1. You need to understand this for ANY tuning. Even for stock tuning.
Kinda same way like you need to probably understand eyes quite well to be an eye doctor, even if it's a small incision you are making.

This forum is mostly about VAG ECU's. If you're screwing with an ECU it is assumed that you have some background on how an engine works.
Doing so before you understand processes within an engine is asking for trouble, because you will have no idea why things are done the way they are done + added complexity of super complicated ECU on top.

If I just posted my dyno tune for this engine that I spent days on, you would be none the wiser as to why I chose to do the things I did.

I take your point prj, and agree with you on most of it, but I have a little background on how an engine works, just maybe not enough, and very little compared to you. I will try to take some time on my old combustion class book to refresh and improve my knowledge on ICE. :)
However, if you can help me with the questions I asked on your feedback on my tune, that would be very helpful.

Most tunings by professional tuners look similar to the changes in Garfimp.
And even much worse.
Therefore, I do not understand how someone on the forum pretends to be very smart, but he has nothing to add ...
And pro tuners send shit and they take big money for it !!!!!!!!!

Hi guys ! Happy new year !! :D

So some news on my “project”, I had some time to flash some first tunes and test them on my car during my holidays! It has been working quite properly so far, the car is already much more reactive.

However I am having issues with the requested boost (plsol)… From 5500/6000 rpm and on, my requested boost is dropping and not following the requested load (rlsol) anymore, so I guess something is capping it down but I haven’t figured out what yet.

First, in my logs I checked that my requested load wasn’t capped, and it is not, the rlsol is requesting 180 load, and following my LDRXN values. However the actual load is dropping.. when the requested boost is too.
So I tried to figure this out… if I am not mistaken if the requested boost is too low, then actual one is of course too low too, then maf is too low, then actual load is too low also… as a simplified process I am imagining something like :  Requested boost > Actual boost > Actual maf > Actual load  
Therefore I would like to have plsol following rlsol, but I haven’t found a clear answer so far on what map/parameter I should be looking for in order to make plsol follow rlsol?
I have been looking in the forum, wiki etc but maybe missed an obvious answer !
The IAT should no be involved at this time of the year with the very cold temperatures we have I guess..
Also my LDPBN and KFLDHBN are tuned so that they don't interfere with requested boost too.

Can someone please point me to the right direction ? :)

Thanks !

A log would be nice.

Here the log I did, if needed in .csv I can add them when at home.  ;)

yes. Screen shots are utterly useless.

Nice to see people sharing their stuff.
I just came back to this so to say hobby, bought myself the tools needed for flashing MED9.1. I did ME7 two years ago on my GTI but had to give it up due to work. Coming back to MED9.1 on my 'new' mk5 gti leaves me with a lot of questions (don't worry I am a silent reader) and A LOT of stuff to learn. I will try to contribute as much as I can but I just started all over couple of days ago. Keep up the practice!

Here the logs in .csv format ;)

I still didn't figure out how to make plsol follow rlsol in high rpm... any help or tip would be really appreciated :)

What fuel does the car drive?

98 octane unleaded petrol (France)

Here is a graph I did with the .csv logs (posted in previous posts) to compare specified load to specified boost

(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15359.0;attach=27451;image)

So in red I circled the area on which you can see the requested boost (yellow color) not following anymore the requested load (brown line) and dropping a bit too much... I would like the requested boost to follow requested load but can't find out how... I guess either a map is limiting at high rpm, or the engine ran into high calculated egt or knock and pulled down the requested values... but can't find how to avoid this, any help? :)

Except that you didnt' bother to look at actual boost.

You have knocking burning.

Hi, thanks, but Can you elaborate ? before this area I have delay too, but doesn't seem to make boost/load lower..? :)



Yes I did, but didn't post the graph, here it is with actual load to see the correlation between actual boost and actual load, in orange "actual boost"...but don't know how that helps? I am interested in raising my requested boost (in blue) at high rpm which is dropping at the moment, to follow load as planned in LDRXN, any ideas? :)

At WOT actual load may never track requested. As long as it is under requested you won't get torque intervention (which is what you want anyway)

It is more important that actual boost tracks requested.

Yes thanks :)
I will work on my overboost around 3500 rpm to make it less high.
However that still doesn't help me find out why my requested boost is lowering from 5500/6000 rpm and on..
Making actual load way lower than requested load at high rpm ???

Said differently, why at 4000 rpm when my requested load is 180, my requested boost is around 2200, and at 6000 rpm when requested load is 180, requested boost is around 2100 or even less?

Because load and boost are not even remotely linearly related, as outlined in the S4wiki tuning article.

Yes I know and I've read the wiki maaaaany times ;D, but the  rlsol to plsol calculation part is difficult for me and I still didn't find what is limiting my req boost.

So we have (source = your excellent wiki :) ) :

Where :
rfagr is the amount of airmass displaced by the residual pressure leftover from the last cycle
fupsrl is the 100% load -> 1 bar conversion (dependent on tans)
fpbrkds is the pumping correction based on VE
vpsspls is the pressure drop across the throttle plate

But I admit I don't really know what to make of it..or in what maps I can make those parameters different.. ;D

Also I read about IAT and KFTARX maps that are involved in the plsol generation, I can try to alter these maps, but it is winter here and I don't think they are limiting anything...

Also in Wiki the more simple relation between pssol and plsol:

So maybe I should look into "KFVPDKSD/KFVPDKSDSE"? :)
Or am I totally mistaken? lol


Anyway I will keep looking also in the FR but thought someone might help on that ;)

Short answer: increase LDRXN and/or KFLHBN.

You were expecting a linear relationship between load and boost. There isn't one, and you do not want to change that.

If you want more boost, request more load, unless boost is being limited by HBN (also outlined in the wiki).

Ok thanks Nyet
But that means that at high rpm you can't have actual load matching your requested load?
At 6000 rpm I request 180 load, but the requested boost is not enough to have an actual load of 180... Do you understand my point?

Meaning the proper way to tune is having 200 requested load, for instance, at 6000 rpm in order to have an actual of 180 ? :-[

Yes.

No, the proper way is to reconfigure the VE map so that it requests the correct amount of pressure for a given load.
But as a hack the above will do.

I can't tell if any mods he has done would require changing the VE map.

If the VE map is wrong due to modifications, then yes, he should fix it. If it isn't wrong, and the load disparity is close enough, I don't see a reason to retune the VE maps.

If the disparity is large enough, AND there is no physical mod that would justify changing the VE map, then fixing the VE map is also the wrong solution; it means there is something mechanically wrong.

What is this VE map?
Not everyone understands yours slang.

If you don't know what Volumetric Efficiency is, I would suggest probably not doing any tuning w/o doing a bit more learning first.

Roughly, it is the relationship (pump efficiency) between displacement (how much air a pump can hold) and how much of that air actually makes it out the exhaust.

It is the largest variable (other than IAT) influencing the pressure/load/flow relationship.

Also, there is no single VE map in modern ECUs. I am using it shorthand to describe VE's influence on the load->boost and boost->load relationship.

Very interesting, thanks :)


Thank you Nyet for the explanation, I will dig into that.

The question is : should I bother trying to reconfigure the VE or simply up my LDRXN values in high rpm ? Haha :)

Is there reason to believe any hardware changes you made would affect VE? If not, don't recalibrate the VE.

If you still see large actual/req load divergence when there is no actual/req boost divergence, something is wrong mechanically, IMO.

No hardware changes, car is stock for now so I will simply up LDRXN I guess ;)

I do not know the concept of VE, and yet my cars are driving long and very well.

I see that this is a very important concept because there is one topic on the forum about it.
http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=search2

In my environment, there is the concept of EMP.

smh....

Ridiculous statement at every level.

Hi all,

Long break on the modification of my car soft, I had no free time this past months, and also had to change flywheel and clutch so the car was at the garage.

Now that it has been replaced I will continue the work to finalize a "basic" stage 1 tune. Target is still around 300 HP 450 N.m.
For now I will take the work back where I left it, that is to say my next step will be to raise my LDRXN from 4500 Rpm and on to have actual load where I want it in high rpm. And make actual boost follow requested boost as good as possible.

I will post results here.
Cheers ;)

I constantly see "professional" tunes worse than this ....what I cannot understand with flat KFLDHBN ...is it really so hard to calculate and have a normal limiter...also lambda's are really bad

Lambda 0,85 for max power output  ;) ::) .....and max EGT ....and to raise oil temp higher...and  ;D

Hind to improve next version: set DLBTS off  ;D /just kidding


@ Garfimp: read topics from "Basano" and start here:

http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=5525.msg52152#msg52152

P.S. I think you never will reach 320HP with Stage I .....but it is my opinion.

Hello jurebv and Bitshifter !

Thank you for your inputs !
Of course you are right I wanted to say roughly 300 hp with stage 1 ! My bad, 320 will be when later I intend to remove the cat and go for a stage 2.
Also, you are both absolutely right, I have still to work on lambda.. but I need a little help on that topic  ;D

But first concerning KFLDHBN, I was having same thought : "flat modifying seems not to be a good way to tune" just deactivating limitation, so any advice on how I should adjust the values ?
Should I try to transfer a K04 flow map into KFLDHBN?

Concerning lambda;I have read the basano thread many times, great thread ! And I will continue to do so to see what I miss.
But on lambda I still didn't find any simple explanation or good example of modded maps... can you maybe give me an advice or point towards what I did wrong and didn't understand ?

What I understand so far is that lambts is triggered very easily when EGT is calculated too high (which happens even with the original software) so I am not sure what I should do... it seems at WOT lamfa is never used making it useless to modify without altering the "mechanism" of lamfa/lambts too.

So should I raise the threshold for BTS?
Take the single value threshold of EGT,(I think it is called TAIKRBTS) which is at 800° and make it higher like 850 ? Also I saw the lamfa delay which it seems is making lamfa not used while this time.
=> So a good tune involves making this EGT single upper and zeroing the time delay? Or is it still completely wrong and stupid?

Then are my values OK for lamfa and lambts if I raise the threshold for BTS switching ? Or is it too lean , or too rich or or or ??  ;D
(For now I have values roughly like : Lamfa 0,9-0,85 and lambts 0,91-0,84 on high loads)


Thank you guys for your help :)

Up   :-X

Don`t run to lean! If you don`t know real EGT, stay safe. Edit Maps @ high load and high rpm and give them 0.8! Later you can touch them, if necessary.

It is just an example:

Ok thanks !
I will follow your advice and make 0.8 in KFLBTS at high load/rpm.
Concerning lamfa, should I modify it too and lower to something like 0.82?

Also concerning the egt threshold on which the ECU switches from lamfa to lambts, should I raise it too? Or should I only focus on KFLBTS and just use lambts at WOT?

Thank you :)

That is the wrong way to tune your car, start from scratch!

Read your topic angain...the direction was wrote here ;)

Concentrate your energy to understand basics. ME7 is similär MED9!

Here is your way!


https://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning

All right?  :)

Ok thanks again..
I guess what you mean is that I should go back to stock fueling, right ? At least go back to lamfa stock for now (since anyway it is not used the way I modified it, it goes to component protection at WOT) ?
So I will go back from scratch fueling wise and start again with lamfa stock and kflbts stock.
Or maybe lamfa stock and kflbts a little modified at high load/rpm, just a little bit leaner than it is stock to avoid enriching really too much when calculated EGT is high, and target 0,8 there as you adviced previously?

Also learn how it calculates fuel.  Look at that table - it does not target 1.25.

Hi Adam and thanks

But, what table?  ;)

Edit : you mean how lambts calculates fuel? And does not just follow KFLBTS? If yes, I know there are other parameters involved to make lambts since we have:
lambts = KFLBTS + [KF]DLBTS*KFFDLBTS
And I asked before if I should modify only KFLBTS, or also DLBTS/KFFDLBTS but got no clear answer...

I am still willing to know how to properly tune my fueling, but in the meantime as it seems no fueling modification is necessary for a stage 1 tune, I will simply put lamfa back to stock, and kflbts too (or almost stock, maybe a little leaner at high rpm/load).

Concerning boost, I got help from someone who suggested that my KFMIRL might be making the load drop ! And I will dig into that on my next tune, since it is true that on KFMIRL the load is dropping with rpm. So I will try to up the load output from KFMIRL at high rpm to see if it requests more load/boost.

If not sufficient should I look into KFLDRL and KFPLGUB ?

As a reminder my target is to request more boost at high rpm to follow more closely the load from LDRXN, because for now the requested boost is dropping, and so actual boost is dropping too of course, and eventually actual load dropping since boost is low.

You seem to be name dropping random maps. KFMIRL is a load request map, capped by LDRXN. KFLDRL is the final output from the PID to the N75. If you increase boost using KFLDRL, you'll likely trip load and boost limiters. You need to understand the relationship between load (cylinder filling) and the ECUs requested boost. i.e why does the ECU request x mbar pressure for y% load. There's no point randomly modifying load maps and boost control maps without knowing what happens in between. The FR is your friend.

Hi gman86 and thank you for the help !

I don't know indeed how exactly work KFLDRL and KFPLGUB maps you are right, but it wasn't random naming, just someone from another forum who said that I should have a look at them so I was asking your opinion before digging into those :)
For KFLDRL thanks to you and confirmation on the wiki, I understand now that it is the linearization of the PID so I should not modify it to adjust requested boost.

Concerning KFPLGUB, I had a look at it and it seems it is a linearisation of boost request vs MAP sensor and rpm ? but really not sure.. and maybe it shouldn't be touched ?

Concerning KFMIRL I know it is capped by LDRXN, what I meant is that maybe I didn't scale it properly and the output from my modified KFMIRL doesn't request enough load to hit the LDRXN load cap I have set. So I think I should try to raise KFMIRL values. I am correct ?  :)

I will go again to look for information on the FR yes, but I find the FR really "unfriendly"... ;D

Can you please give me your opinion on my tune of KFMIRL/KFMIOP/LDRXN ?
I just checked it to see what I did wrong but found nothing wrong ? and finally I think it was OK, req load shouldn't be capped before LDRXN.. so if nothing is wrong here, I will increase LDRXN in order to have more requested boost at high rpm as said before by Nyet.

KFMIRL :
(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15359.0;attach=28224;image)

KFMIOP :
(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15359.0;attach=28226;image)

LDRXN :
(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15359.0;attach=28228;image)



Thanks

Remember: KFMIRL is inverse KFMIOP  ;)

Yup, that's the case, unless I'm missing something ?

@MIRL: I don`t like...looks like the cracked OEM shit.
@MIOP: the same

But it is my opinion, maybe other users say it is OK. ;)

And now ask yourself: is it plausible to change map-values (Z) and leave the Y-values untouched for this case?

Ok that's interesting point!
So, to explain, what I did is extrapolate but keeping the way it was done originally and then making IOP/IRL matching. But maybe it is wrong?

Do you have an example of how you do it?


Which map are you talking about?
I modified/extended IOP load axis already so I don't understand?
Thanks

I digged around again, and may have found a lead.

I think that I misunderstood the sentence "IOP has to be the inverse of IRL" and some wrong information is shared around on this point.

If I understood correctly now, IOP is the inverse function of IRL, but it doesn't mean that every values in those maps have to be the exact inverse.

So what I can try to do is to alter IRL in order to have enough load requested to match with the cap from LDRXN (this is already the case I think, but will check), but then in IOP, I think I should leave stock values or even lower the values and maybe also extend axis, so that if I have a little more actual load than requested load, then the IOP table translates actual load into an actual torque value which is under requested torque value, and so I would not have any torque intervention, making drop in requested load etc.

In // I will work to regulate my boost so that actual boost is not too much higher than requested boost, mainly at spike around 3500 rpm.

Can someone confirm if this is the good way to tune IRL/IOP?

Thanks :)

There is nothing to tune. It's mathematical inverse. All you need to modify is last column in both.

I'm with prj on this. Just keep it stock where you didn't modify IRL (usually low load/rpm areas) taking axis changes into account. I.e. just move a few rows in their entirety to make room for the rest.

Where you did modify irl, make it a straight inverse.

If you do change the axis, make sure you fix kfzwop/2 accordingly, since they share axis.

Ok thanks to both of you, so I was wrong again  ;D

Then if it is mathematical inverse my values should be already good in my last tune, can you please confirm ? Except that I did it for the 2 last rows :
(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15359.0;attach=28301;image)

(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15359.0;attach=28299;image)

Concerning KFWZOP 1 and 2, thanks Nyet, I didn't look at that so far, I will try to take axis modification into account and post the modification I intend to do here.

It is not shared on MED9. ;-)

Yes it is.

Is it true?

Based on the Med9.1 damos that i have on hands, it seems that KFMIOP is not sharing any axis with other maps.

I have not seen it in any of the fully defined files floating around. I have not looked at the code itself if that axis is shared or not. It is shared in e.g. ME7, but to my knowledge not MED9