|
nyet
|
 |
« Reply #135 on: February 08, 2012, 09:48:51 AM »
|
|
|
In Mbox, it appears to be the same as Gbox - 18ecb but... its 01 not 00  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease 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 ex
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #136 on: February 08, 2012, 09:51:00 AM »
|
|
|
Also, its 8 bit, not 16...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease 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 ex
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #137 on: February 08, 2012, 09:56:00 AM »
|
|
|
Allright, you looked at assembly to confirm? I compared the maps and "found" that region to be identical to G-box in hex editor but that doesn't mean all that much. I don't know if G-box is correct to begin with as it doesn't add up in my mind. If it is indeed "1" from factory, then there is a problem here as the function never outputs anything but 0 regardless of conditions, it would appear, which renders the mechanism useless, or pretty close to it (you can still control lambda if you change knock axis and have 0.0 as a row and it will follow that path). Another question is why the function would use MIN (0, "positive value of retardation") if the output will always be ZERO. Unless, of course, retardation is indeed kept as negative value in which case it would make sense. I am still getting zero in logs and LAMBDA follows "0.0" knock path. Edit: Also, I cannot log dzwwl as it is not listed in ECU definitions I generated. Anybody has that? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 08, 2012, 10:01:16 AM by julex »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #138 on: February 08, 2012, 09:58:55 AM »
|
|
|
Allright, you looked at assembly to confirm?
No I did what you did. Looked at hex. If it is indeed "1" from factory, then there is a problem here as the function never outputs anything but 0 regardless of conditions, it would appear, which renders the mechanism useless, or pretty close to it (you can still control lambda if you change knock axis and have 0.0 as a row and it will follow that path).
stupid question: have you tried a negative knock axis? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease 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 ex
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #139 on: February 08, 2012, 10:05:43 AM »
|
|
|
Can't. Knock is unsigned byte with formula of "0.75 * x" which starts at 0 for "0.00" knock. It is not possible to use negative values.
Sign.
Any idea what the address for dzwwl? It might shed some light but it is not listed in auto generated list.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #140 on: February 08, 2012, 10:08:47 AM »
|
|
|
CWLAMFAW Bit0:
0: dzwlamfaw = min ( 0, dzwwl)
1: dzwlamfaw = min ( 0, (dzwwl + wkrma) )
I'm not seeing that at all in the diagram... i'm seeing 0: dzwlamfaw = min (0, min (0, dzwwl) + wkrma) 1: dzwlamfaw = min (0, dzwwl + wkrma) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease 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 ex
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #141 on: February 08, 2012, 10:18:12 AM »
|
|
|
That's when you look at the diagram, I agree. Notes on page 1026 say though: CWLAMFAW Bit0: 0: dzwlamfaw = min ( 0, dzwwl) 1: dzwlamfaw = min ( 0, (dzwwl + wkrma) ) Defaultwert = 0. So we have a discrepancy between diagram and notes... Help me understand: For positive values of both dzwwl and wkrma (which is how they are stored in ECU?), both paths will always return zero...right? It just doesn't make sense from logical point of view  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #142 on: February 08, 2012, 10:22:39 AM »
|
|
|
For positive values of both dzwwl and wkrma (which is how they are stored in ECU?), both paths will always return zero...right?
yea  we need setzi or tony to look at this; i don't know jack about disassembly |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease 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 ex
|
|
|
Tony@NefMoto
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +132/-4
 Offline
Posts: 1389
2001.5 Audi S4 Stage 3
|
|
« Reply #143 on: February 08, 2012, 11:55:38 AM »
|
|
|
I will try to double check the assembly for this tonight. But this is the system I am using in my car, so I'm not sure why it would work differently for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #144 on: February 08, 2012, 12:00:43 PM »
|
|
|
I have a conclusion to the whole dzwlamfaw problem. Stick it in your WIKI nyet.
Facts:
1. Location CWLAMFAW is right for mbox, it is 0x18ECB. I logged with "1" and "0" and got the results I expected. More on this below.
2. It is set to "1" (bit0 = 1) on M-box from factory.
3. No other boxes (RS4, A6, allroad, other S4) have this set to "1". It is "0" on other boxes.
4. Documentation states this should/is set to "0" by default.
This leads to a conclusion that Bosch/Audi released the m-box with CWLAMFAW set to "1" by accident (call it a bug), essentially DISABLING fuel enrichment on knock. The only residual lambda corrections I noticed came from dzwwl, which mean there is enrichment only from knock correction due to temps etc.
I set CWLAMFAW = 0 and magic happened - dzwlamfaw started following wkrma to a tee albeit it might actually exceed it if dzwwl would become positive.
Logs with CWLAMFAW = 0 (set to what other audis have):
dwkrz_0 dwkrz_1 dwkrz_2 dwkrz_3 dwkrz_4 dwkrz_5 wkrma dzwlamfaw lamsbg_w
-6 -4.5 -6.75 -6.75 -6.75 -6 -6 -5.25 0.801759
-6 -4.5 -6.75 -6.75 -6.75 -6 -6 -6 0.791505
Logs with CWLAMFAW = 1 (Stock):
dwkrz_0 dwkrz_1 dwkrz_2 dwkrz_3 dwkrz_4 dwkrz_5 wkrma dzwlamfaw lamsbg_w
-5.25 -3.75 -6 -6 -6 -5.25 -5.25 -0.75 0.818361
-5.25 -3.75 -6 -6 -6 -7.5 -5.25 -1.5 0.813966
My conclusion is that leaving CWLAMFAW = 1 is not suitable to knock based lambda tuning since you will never get real knock values passed to function. Setting it to CWLAMFAW = 0 will pass proper ignition retard values due to knock and with properly matched KFLAMKR table, you can essentially have self-balancing system where you run at some equilibrium between knock and lambda, as per that amp.
I find this method very intriguing since it might actually allow to have universal tune for different octane fuels and meth-no meth systems. As knock develops the ECU enriches more and more until a satisfactory state is reached where no further retardation of ignition angle occurs and you're at your maximum power point with given fuel/meth set up.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 08, 2012, 12:05:48 PM by julex »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #145 on: February 08, 2012, 12:10:22 PM »
|
|
|
I'm confused now .. dzwlamfaw = f(CWLAMFAW, dzwwl, wkrma) ... now please express f() for me based on your logging. I am having a tough time figuring out what the actual path is because im dense is it NEITHER of the ones in the FR (text and diagram)? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease 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 ex
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #146 on: February 08, 2012, 12:17:08 PM »
|
|
|
You're not dense. Document is obviously wrong either on the diagram or description below it. This fact alone suggests that formula might be anything in between... Couple that with butchered set up of the CWLAMFAW bit0 in PRODUCTION car and you really shouldn't wonder it could be anything...
If I had a crack at it, I would say that the formula in notes is accurate, not the diagram. We can tell for sure once we learn dzwwl's location and log it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #147 on: February 08, 2012, 12:21:32 PM »
|
|
|
If I had a crack at it, I would say that the formula in notes is accurate, not the diagram.
See, thats what I don't get, because that would mean that CWLAMFAW bit 0 = 0 would result in a dzwlamfaw that doesn't follow wkrma |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease 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 ex
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #148 on: February 08, 2012, 12:51:53 PM »
|
|
|
Right. In that case the diagram might be right. Assuming the retardation is considered negative, min function would return wkrma adjusted by dzwwl.
I hope tony or setzi can find address for dzwwl.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 08, 2012, 12:54:31 PM by julex »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
s5fourdoor
|
|
« Reply #149 on: February 08, 2012, 01:28:30 PM »
|
|
|
damn julex, if you are right - which from what you've written i think you are, this is a major major find bro...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
