|
nyet
|
 |
« Reply #165 on: December 26, 2012, 12:46:00 PM »
|
|
|
The input to KFKHFM and KFZW (for example) appears to be the 8 bit load, which maxes at 255*.75 = 191.25
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #166 on: December 26, 2012, 12:50:04 PM »
|
|
|
The input to KFKHFM and KFZW (for example) appears to be the 8 bit load, which maxes at 255*.75 = 191.25
No such problem with KFZW if you use proper software. And I don't see why you would want to adjust KFKHFM over 190+ load anyway. Either way, it's not a really big deal, it can be just changed to 16 bit if needed for some reason. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #167 on: December 26, 2012, 01:25:47 PM »
|
|
|
No such problem with KFZW if you use proper software.
And I don't see why you would want to adjust KFKHFM over 190+ load anyway.
Either way, it's not a really big deal, it can be just changed to 16 bit if needed for some reason.
I have already worked out 16 bit load axis for KFZW. Not a big deal. Others can be done on a case by case basis. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #168 on: December 26, 2012, 01:26:59 PM »
|
|
|
I have already worked out 16 bit load axis for KFZW. Not a big deal.
Others can be done on a case by case basis.
This is not needed on 2.7TT, it's enough to use K-box, where it's already done. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #169 on: December 26, 2012, 01:33:04 PM »
|
|
|
This is not needed on 2.7TT, it's enough to use K-box, where it's already done.
It is the same really. The same code used in the K-box is available in the M-box. There are way less changes required to use 16 bit load axis' in the M box then there is to use an RS4 binary on an S4. It is literally a few bytes and otherwise all OEM code. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 26, 2012, 02:09:26 PM by phila_dot »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #170 on: December 26, 2012, 02:23:57 PM »
|
|
|
It is the same really. The same code used in the K-box is available in the M-box.
There are way less changes required to use 16 bit load axis' in the M box then there is to use an RS4 binary on an S4.
It is literally a few bytes and otherwise all OEM code.
A S4 will never ever hit ps_w cap in stock form. And if you are boosting 1.5+ bar then you already will benefit from starting with the RS4 file... I get your point though. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #171 on: December 27, 2012, 09:43:07 AM »
|
|
|
It is the same really. The same code used in the K-box is available in the M-box.
There are way less changes required to use 16 bit load axis' in the M box then there is to use an RS4 binary on an S4.
It is literally a few bytes and otherwise all OEM code.
Care to share the M-Box changes :-D ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #172 on: December 27, 2012, 10:28:12 AM »
|
|
|
Care to share the M-Box changes :-D ?
When I get the time and a car to test on |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #173 on: December 27, 2012, 10:31:50 AM »
|
|
|
When I get the time and a car to test on
Feel free to take a drive up to State College and we can test all you want on my single turbo setup :-P |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bische
|
|
« Reply #174 on: January 04, 2013, 12:26:03 PM »
|
|
|
Alrighty, back from holidays and stuffing my mouth way beyond application sufficient. Lets get this bitch done.
Did some logging, since before the vacations I did isolate the interminent KH(cat heating) to react on how long between I turned ignition on, and then started the car(or ECU boot and b_stend). I have attached a screen showing one log of turnkey start, ignition and start in one motion > start logging, which takes a few seconds to connect. The other log is ignition on > start logging > start engine at the first log "tick". The latter gets KH, first one is not, and this is consistent.
Went back in the Alfa FR looking at %BBKHZ(thanks prj for the heads up) for any clues, found FHOKH, which is a altitude threshold for KH init flag b_kh. Stock value is 0.74 fho_w, anything below at start kills b_kh.
A page back I posted a graph showing what I believe is a funky fho_w, it does curve up from 0(?) to actual. fho is filtered through a low pass(pu_w is also filtered through the "same" low pass, but does not produce that curve on boot??), but I dont feel like it should behave like that and I have a feeling this has to do with the ATM division you guys helped me with to get the fho_w back to sane?
I did try to double the time on the low pass(ZDSU), from 3sec to 12sec, this made the curve much shorter(duh) but still not short enough to get under 0.74 and enable b_kh. This is pure theory though as I cant log the ECU before I boot it, I can just compare the remaining of curve when the logger starts to read.
Anyway, for now I have a new file with FHOKH killed, putting value to 0. Possibly going in for logging this weekend, latest on monday. If that does "cure" the problem we know where is to look at least.
Thank you for a great forum, really.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 04, 2013, 12:31:14 PM by Bische »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bische
|
|
« Reply #175 on: January 04, 2013, 12:32:35 PM »
|
|
|
Yeah, the RPM funkyness on the first log, is me backing out of the garage  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #176 on: January 04, 2013, 12:32:46 PM »
|
|
|
When I get the time and a car to test on
In all seriousness... If I was to drive down to Philly on a weekend would you be game for working on M-Box conversion and testing of this? :-) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bische
|
|
« Reply #177 on: January 04, 2013, 12:47:34 PM »
|
|
|
In all seriousness... If I was to drive down to Philly on a weekend would you be game for working on M-Box conversion and testing of this? :-)
Why dont you do the work yourself? Im sorry for being an ass now, I really am, but this is a pretty damn time consuming hack to do and I bit my lip the last time you asked for someone else to do the work for you. Even with the list I made and posted, you still need to find an assload of random maps through out the binary to make it happen. All the info is there and my stock binary is in the archive. If this was something easy to do you would see alot more members on here posting about theyre progress. If you want this so bad, you can make it happen. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #178 on: January 04, 2013, 01:03:23 PM »
|
|
|
Why dont you do the work yourself?
Im sorry for being an ass now, I really am, but this is a pretty damn time consuming hack to do and I bit my lip the last time you asked for someone else to do the work for you. Even with the list I made and posted, you still need to find an assload of random maps through out the binary to make it happen.
All the info is there and my stock binary is in the archive. If this was something easy to do you would see alot more members on here posting about theyre progress. If you want this so bad, you can make it happen.
Hey man, I don't think you're being an ass... an it certainly is time consuming, that's the only reason I haven't done it yet is because I haven't had much time to work on it... And I certainly wasn't asking for someone to do it for me... just anything that would cut down on the time it would take. Can you point me in the direction of your stock binary please? For some reason I couldn't find it... maybe I was looking for the wrong thing... Anyway one of the reasons I suggested a get together and tweak was because of some of the other ideas for tweaks and features that I have... very sorry if it came over as me being a lazy asshole because that is far from what I meant to do. I've been too busy working on the car (Build thread on AZ http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/505784-My-first-Audi-2001-5-S4-with-Custom-Single-Turbo-setup) and working at work to mess with the decompile yet... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #179 on: January 04, 2013, 01:06:18 PM »
|
|
|
Speaking from experience, it is a lot more work to rigorously *document* a coherent, unified, generalized, correct list of changes (that anybody can read and implement) than it is to hack together a bunch of stuff by memory and voodoo. That said, you might find that making such a list helps your project along... and forcing yourself to do so also exposes flaws in your approach and reasoning, and often exposes mistakes. People generally pretend they don't want to do this because they think it is giving a handout. They're wrong, imo. If you can't explain something such that anybody can understand and use it, you likely don't understand it 100% yourself  Yes, it is a lot of work. Nobody likes documenting what they do.. its no fun, its time consuming, and it almost always delays project completion. And as far as noob questions go; you know you are DONE when nobody asks you questions anymore. As long as there is somebody asking, you know your documentation is incomplete. Which is another side benefit of an exhaustive, general explanation: it cuts out 99% of the questions. Just my two cents. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
