Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: LAMFA and ZKLAMFAW  (Read 15361 times)
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +424/-52
Offline Offline

Posts: 9549


WWW
« on: September 26, 2012, 09:16:26 AM »

So the low pass filter time constant ZKLAMFAW is delaying the onset of LAMFA from what I want it to do:





Anybody see any harm in significantly reducing (or zeroing) ZKLAMFAW?
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 09:19:43 AM 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.
phila_dot
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +157/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 1705


« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2012, 09:51:31 AM »

I halfed it and there is still a slight delay, but I haven't had a chance to really play with it further.

I don't see a problem with reducing/zeroing it.
Logged
sn00k
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +58/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 277


« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2012, 02:10:49 PM »

hmm.. my ZKLAMFAW sais 13107 seconds.. id assume this means deactivated?
Logged
phila_dot
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +157/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 1705


« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2012, 02:37:51 PM »

hmm.. my ZKLAMFAW sais 13107 seconds.. id assume this means deactivated?

I'm pretty sure zero would be deactivated and that it is CPU time not seconds.
Logged
sn00k
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +58/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 277


« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2012, 04:12:54 AM »

hmm.. funktionsrahmen tells me it is a time-constant and that the default value should be "2 s", which is where i got seconds..

ZKLAMFAW located at 1CF8C, 16bit(LoHi), but i have no conversion for this value.. should there be one, or is my definition wrong here?

this is a wideband me 7.5 ecu, but i think this constant should still apply?
Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +424/-52
Offline Offline

Posts: 9549


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2012, 08:17:23 AM »

I see the same as you in my R box (0x3333), scale=1, offset=1

the others are 0xffff

$ grep ZKLAMFAW *.csv
4Z7907551R.csv:"ZKLAMFAW","0x1edac","Zeitkonstante Filterung Anfettung durch Fahrerwunsch","1x1","16 Bit (LoHi)","-","s","-","-","1.0","1.0","1.0","13107.0","13107.0","0x3333","0x3333"
8D0907551F.csv:"ZKLAMFAW","0x1ca4c","Zeitkonstante Filterung Anfettung durch Fahrerwunsch","1x1","16 Bit (LoHi)","-","s","-","-","1.0","1.0","1.0","65535.0","65535.0","0xffff","0xffff"
8D0907551G.csv:"ZKLAMFAW","0x1c3f0","Zeitkonstante Filterung Anfettung durch Fahrerwunsch","1x1","16 Bit (LoHi)","-","s","-","-","1.0","1.0","1.0","65535.0","65535.0","0xffff","0xffff"

Something is screwy here.
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.
nehalem
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +33/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2013, 11:49:36 AM »

This value is supposedly 2.000 seconds but we all obviously see 13107 and nobody has found a correct conversion.
Not to worry, math dude here to save the day.

Don't fret.  13107 / (2^16 - 1) = .20   So, we are off by a factor of 10.

Thus:  10 / (2^16 - 1) is our conversion constant.  Here is our formula:

Expression = .00015259*X          8 decimals on the formula

Try it:   .00015259 * 13107 = 1.99999713 ~ 2.000       5 decimals or 6 decimals accuracy depending on how scientifically trained you  beeee

There ya go homeys.


Logged
nehalem
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +33/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2013, 04:08:14 PM »

What boxes use CWLAMFAW=1 by default?  We should look for our ZKLAMFAW from such a default box as seen from the factory.
Logged
phila_dot
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +157/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 1705


« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2013, 05:11:08 PM »

The filter is basically:

current value + ((|new value - current value|)*constant)

I was way off before.
Logged
Snow Trooper
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +64/-24
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2013, 02:14:42 PM »

Doc Brown does maf real gud.
Logged
nehalem
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +33/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2013, 03:34:38 PM »

Doc Brown does maf real gud.

hey you tubes! lol, i do MAF table revisions real gerd.
ok, so on subject.  what do you think of this LAMFA table?  please note the revised RPM and load points.
obv would like input from el trooperino from near cupertino on this table:

Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +289/-29
Offline Offline

Posts: 3513


« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2013, 05:10:04 PM »

I think it's pretty bad for fuel economy.
Only place where you want enrichment through LAMFA is WOT really, run rest at lambda=1 and set BTS correctly so it takes care of EGT's at 3/4 throttle for example.

Otherwise you will just have horrid fuel economy, even when driving normally.
Logged
silentbob
Full Member
***

Karma: +29/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2013, 12:46:40 AM »

..........
Anybody see any harm in significantly reducing (or zeroing) ZKLAMFAW?

Mainly this is used to prevent enrichment in the emission test with drivers that have a nervous foot.
Only downside is that you may have a bit higher fuel consumtion if you have a digital driving style.
Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +424/-52
Offline Offline

Posts: 9549


WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2013, 09:04:51 AM »

I think it's pretty bad for fuel economy.
Only place where you want enrichment through LAMFA is WOT really, run rest at lambda=1 and set BTS correctly so it takes care of EGT's at 3/4 throttle for example.

Otherwise you will just have horrid fuel economy, even when driving normally.

I agreed. I only modify the WOT line
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.
The_Gimp
Newbie
*

Karma: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2013, 05:55:57 AM »

I agreed. I only modify the WOT line

I modify the 80 and 100% columns to ~13:1 and ~12:1 respectively.  Wideband and fuel gauge confirm it only works when needed.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.022 seconds with 17 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0s, 0q)