|
ddillenger
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2013, 02:22:38 AM »
|
|
|
If you'd like I can run it through winols (2.36) and let you know what I see.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
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!
Email/Google chat:
DDillenger84(at)gmail(dot)com
Email>PM
|
|
|
|
sn00k
|
|
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2013, 02:28:57 AM »
|
|
|
If you'd like I can run it through winols (2.36) and let you know what I see.
have at it..!  the only thing modified in both files are one point in LDRXN at 0x1F68E |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 31, 2013, 02:30:48 AM by sn00k »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2013, 02:44:54 AM »
|
|
|
Winols reports both files are good to go with no checksum errors. Have you tried any other versions of me7check?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
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!
Email/Google chat:
DDillenger84(at)gmail(dot)com
Email>PM
|
|
|
|
sn00k
|
|
« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2013, 03:24:02 AM »
|
|
|
tried all available versions, all report the same error.
OBVIOUSLY the checksum is different in the two files, i can tell by comparing the files, question is why.. and IF the ECU will complain when flashing the file.
checksums are checksums and not random numbers, you wouldnt end up with two different sums for the same identical data area unless something is wrong in the algoritm..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #19 on: January 31, 2013, 03:35:54 AM »
|
|
|
If there are differences between the files the checksums would be different-it's not like you have two IDENTICAL files with different checksums is it? Personally, I'd flash the file. Winols says it's good, no warnings, errors, or patches required.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
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!
Email/Google chat:
DDillenger84(at)gmail(dot)com
Email>PM
|
|
|
|
sn00k
|
|
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2013, 03:52:53 AM »
|
|
|
but the files are supposed to be identical.. only change made is the LDRXN point, identical in both files, and then saved..
one checks out OK and the other dont using me7check.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2013, 04:23:18 AM »
|
|
|
19 bytes different when I compared them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
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!
Email/Google chat:
DDillenger84(at)gmail(dot)com
Email>PM
|
|
|
|
sn00k
|
|
« Reply #22 on: January 31, 2013, 04:36:14 AM »
|
|
|
yes, i can see that.. but that is the plugins doing.. found differences at: 1FE46 1FE47 1FE4A 1FE4B 939FC FFFE0 FFFE4 so, mostly checksums.. but that 939FC seem to be the thing me7check dont like.. is that a checksum too, or why did it get altered.. any ideas?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2013, 04:38:37 AM »
|
|
|
If you post the modded file BEFORE you correct the sums, and the original, that would be good. I'll correct it with winols and compare it to the one mtx corrected (I assume that's the "mod" correct?)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
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!
Email/Google chat:
DDillenger84(at)gmail(dot)com
Email>PM
|
|
|
|
sn00k
|
|
« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2013, 04:49:05 AM »
|
|
|
ah, thats one approach.. ive prepared the file, took the oem file and only did the ldrxn point change while the mtx plugin was disabled, lets see which sum you end up with using OLS.. "mod" is indeed the MTX corrected file. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #25 on: January 31, 2013, 04:59:02 AM »
|
|
|
I just corrected it with winols... ============================================================================== ME7Check v1.12 (c) mki, 06/2004-05/2012 Checking file C:\Documents and Settings\User1\My Documents\Downloads\Try.bin (si ze=1048576) Reading Version Strings... -> Bootrom Version = 05.12 -> EPK = 40/1/ME7.5/5/4016.32//24e/Dst04o/190101// -> Contents of ECUID data table: - '0261206868' (SSECUHN) - '1037360990' (SSECUSN) - '8E0906018B ' (VAG part number) - '0004' (VAG sw number) - '1.8L R4/5VT ' (engine id) -> Contents of ECUID data table: - 'HW_MAN004' -> No errors found. File is OK. ********************* And these are the differences between my corrected file, and yours. Doesn't make much sense assuming the change between them was the same.  When you have a file changed to your liking, send it to me BEFORE checksumming it. Let me correct it for you. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 31, 2013, 05:01:17 AM by ddillenger »
|
Logged
|
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!
Email/Google chat:
DDillenger84(at)gmail(dot)com
Email>PM
|
|
|
|
sn00k
|
|
« Reply #26 on: January 31, 2013, 05:11:48 AM »
|
|
|
well.. im glad we got the same result, 100%.. not so glad the MTX corrected file seem to have errors in the checksums  ..and no more replies from MTX after he said he got the same result with winOLS.. which apparently is not the case if you correct the "not corrected" file. i do wonder why winOLS sais the file is correct AFTER the mtx plugin has corrected it, when it infact isnt.. somethings gotto be flawed in the checksum algoritm. just to verify, i opened a new oem file in tunerpro, made the same change and saved, ended up with 100% identical file, with error  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sn00k
|
|
« Reply #27 on: January 31, 2013, 05:15:34 AM »
|
|
|
When you have a file changed to your liking, send it to me BEFORE checksumming it. Let me correct it for you.
thanks for the offer, but as i stated early in the thread, i need to have this sorted so i can tune the car while im in it.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #28 on: January 31, 2013, 05:17:44 AM »
|
|
|
That file you JUST posted, that says MTX corrected is 7 bytes different than my winols corrected file.
Just to get this straight-
The file you made 1 change to and uploaded uncorrected is the same one you JUST uploaded but corrected by MTX?
This makes very little sense to me. I'll have a me7.5 ecu later this week, I'll flash your file to it and cycle the power a few times, see if it throws a checksum error.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 31, 2013, 05:19:43 AM by ddillenger »
|
Logged
|
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!
Email/Google chat:
DDillenger84(at)gmail(dot)com
Email>PM
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2013, 10:42:04 AM »
|
|
|
thanks for the offer, but as i stated early in the thread, i need to have this sorted so i can tune the car while im in it.. You can try ME7Sum... it should work even with the limitations i know of unless you modify stuff outside of maps. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
