NefMoto

Hello,

Do we have someone here that might point me a direction in finding 100% load caps on a ME7.1.1 file? I've turbocharged 2.5 R5 engine and trying to sort things out. Right now I'm running underscaled MAF, but that's not perfect sollution as Im running DSG which doesn't like it.

If no one is willing to share this info for free then Im willing to pay for help.

Thanks,

Ori file attatched.

Comparing with #1A00 iirc after irl map calculation

I guess I would need IDA to do it? I don't have access to any :/ Is there any chance you can help with that?

Thanks

Post your file

I can do it if you post the file

Here it is! Appreciate any help

it has 4 load caps, pm me for more info.

Great, PM'ed

why not just continue the topic here and share the knowledge…

I've shared more than you could even dream of on this forum. Also, I'd be willing to bet my left nut that all the V8 "map packs" you have posted are made from the DAMs and A2Ls that I have posted. I share a lot; however, there are some things I'm not willing to share for free, and a smartass comment from some noob is not going to change that. I even publicly posted a 3L map pack with the goddamn load caps. How hard would it be to compare one to the other, hmm? If you feel so inclined to "keep the topic going," feel free to share the solution. I'll wait...

u mad bro?

Dude you haven't contributed jack shit to this forum apart from pipe dreams.
Certainly not your place to call anyone out.

The info has been posted here many times over. If OP is too lazy or incompetent to do a simple hex compare, then he's gonna have to pay for the solution. Simple.

hi :)

He's right. PMing this stuff around is dumb.

PMs defeat the entire purpose of this forum.

Can you please point me a name of thread that addressed this topic? I just didn't know anyone posted a solution for different file which I can compare.

Edit. Found that topic, if I take the same factor for load caps as kfmirl (as in 3.0) then I can't find a single load cap in my bin
Edit2. Found 4 of them.

It's funny. Author removed original file from the first post. Ahaha. @nyet about what collaboration are you talking? There are a few people who shared their knowledge.

File is posted later than in first post.

Can anyone confirm it's 0xC6F41  0xC6F45  0xC7099  0xC709D ?

y'all are losers fr.
why not give a new starting point for newcomers instead of them starting from scratch.

so lame lmao.
so each generation that hops on can elevate the ladder each time and so on.
don't act so entitled over being able to figure out 20+ year old ECUs lol.

we're all just hobbyist trying to have fun.

if you protect intellectual property solely designed to gatekeep future abandonware then you're the problem.

there's a reason I took my community off this garbage can.

this. THANK YOU.

With what's posted in this thread it should be easy to find them (best way is to try it).

 I've not disassembled your file i just did a quick hex search but they seem to be your rlsol_w limiters.

Here's the loads limits on an ST10 me7.1.1 for reference

Screen shot quality is poor so here's the code

ROM:0005A8E0                 jmpr    cc_UC, loc_5A8E6 ; 100% rlsol_w hard coded limit
ROM:0005A8E2 ; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROM:0005A8E2
ROM:0005A8E2 loc_5A8E2:                              ; CODE XREF: ROM:0005A8B0↑j
ROM:0005A8E2                 mov     r8, rlsolv_w
ROM:0005A8E6
ROM:0005A8E6 loc_5A8E6:                              ; CODE XREF: ROM:0005A8AA↑j
ROM:0005A8E6                                         ; ROM:0005A8E0↑j
ROM:0005A8E6                 cmp     r8, #10AAh      ; 100% rlsol_w hard coded limit
ROM:0005A8EA                 jmpr    cc_C, loc_5A8F2
ROM:0005A8EC                 mov     r8, #10AAh      ; 100% rlsol_w hard coded limit
ROM:0005A8F0                 jmpr    cc_UC, loc_5A8FC
ROM:0005A8F2 ; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROM:0005A8F2
ROM:0005A8F2 loc_5A8F2:                              ; CODE XREF: ROM:0005A8EA↑j
ROM:0005A8F2                 cmp     r8, rlmin_w
ROM:0005A8F6                 jmpr    cc_UGT, loc_5A8FC
ROM:0005A8F8                 mov     r8, rlmin_w
ROM:0005A8FC
ROM:0005A8FC loc_5A8FC:                              ; CODE XREF: ROM:0005A8F0↑j
ROM:0005A8FC                                         ; ROM:0005A8F6↑j
ROM:0005A8FC                 mov     rlsol_w, r8
ROM:0005A900                 cmp     r8, rlmin_w
ROM:0005A904                 jmpr    cc_NZ, loc_5A90A
ROM:0005A906                 bset    USR0
ROM:0005A908                 jmpr    cc_UC, loc_5A90C
ROM:0005A90A ; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because people don't work for free you moron.
You've not done jack shit on here besides moaning. Zero useful data contributed besides spam.

I told OP that it's been posted before, he did a search and found the same offsets in 5 mins.
I'm not gonna search for him or do his file for him. I did this already a long ass time ago and posted result, it's all on google.

The load caps are the exact same value in every file.
1. Google the thread
2. Take the file, see what they are
3. Compare to your file
4. Done.

Reason this thread exists is because OP didn't bother searching the fully available info. Not because someone is gatekeeping anything.
It's all in the open.

I actually did some research, but didn't come across answers, only more questions. Only this topic allowed me to use the right keywords to find answers. At first I thought IDA was required for this, but no.

I confirm that the listed addresses are correct and work. The car now works completely differently - better

Thank you for your help!

bullshit.

Very good, issue solved.
IDA was only needed the first time. Because the loadcaps are always the same value and similar instruction, then after they were found everybody can find them in their binary with a simple hex compare.
Nobody can do every existing file, so if you don't manage to do it yourself, then somebody going to take money to do it.

In the end all is well.

And that it is?
What about storyes on this forum few years ago that N/A ECU have to many load caps hardcored and it is too much work to turbocharde it?

With a supercharger that's it, because the boost is purely a function of RPM, so it can be encoded into calibration maps.
With turbo, it is not possible to have good throttle control at part throttle without doing some code mods, because ECU does not know when to go WOT and when not...
Also no boost control, but that is needed for a torque based ECU to work correctly...

So after doing the load caps, doing some code mods to force überweg when pssol_w > base boost and force it off when pssol_w < base boost, and adding boost control, yeah "that's it".

forgive my stupidness, but isnt it all air mass flowing in the end? and the map is basically air flow = throttle vs rpm? could set air mass for virtually any combination of throttle x rpm

I have also been thinking about this.

If MAF is before the turbo there should be no difference  ???

This is not about measuring air going into the cylinder, it is about torque management.
Re-read what I wrote. Or even better, become at least a little less ignorant on how the ECU works.

My guess; the turbo boost is based on exhaust gas volume and therefore varies? Engine load dependant, ie different gears etc

Even with an external boostcontroller the ECU wouldn't get the requested airmass(cylinder fill) because the same throttle angle would give different airmass, dependent on external, uncontrolled, factors.

Yes keeps forgetting this isn't standalone logic :-[

You can get it running wot pretty easily but everything else will be a joke as explained.

The next step is to implement prj's boost control or something similar :) For that you will need c167/st10 experience.

Or pay someone do it.

i dont get it. why wouldnt it be good enough if you have a range of rpm and throttle to work with?

Because you need to open throttle complete from specific load, not from pedal. It makes no sense to make boost with half closed throttle. Maybe open throttle from pedal much earlier and feed some external boost controller by pedal signal too, not from throttle position. But i guess it will drive like a very old turbo car with bad to handle boost, so hard to regulate torque.

You can feed external controller with pssol_w. This is what my boost pid code does.
Additionally there needs to be a patch to throttle controller so it knows what is minimum boost (gate boost) and force it to go WOT any time request is over that, otherwise it won't go WOT properly.
On top of all that, to calculate msdk properly it needs to know pressure pre-throttle and pressure in manifold.. If it knows base boost and base boost is not ridiculously high, then it is possible to do this fairly OK from a fixed map filled with the base boost pressure ratio, however the pressure in manifold requirement means that the model must be adjusted fully to show correct values OR it needs to be a speed density setup.

Let me put it this way - those of you who need to ask why this is necessary do not understand how the ECU works, and you're best case years away from getting it right, that is if you have embedded/comp-sci backtround and worst case light years if you don't even know asm.
Until you do, trying to do a turbo project on N/A ECU will end up in a car that drives like shit every time. There will be massive cuts on part throttle. It won't go WOT when needed etc. Or the throttle torque control will be utterly destroyed so it drives more or less like a cable throttle car. But of course forget automatic gearbox and ESP working properly.

Most of the cars you see done by various "tuners" drive like shit or have torque control completely destroyed.

Anyone asking "why do I have to do this" really means "I don't want to do it, I don't know how to do it, and I won't do it, I just want to be told it will be fine".

or im simply stupid and dont know how it works, but am looking to understand.