jmont23
Jr. Member
Karma: +4/-0
 Offline
Posts: 47
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: August 06, 2014, 11:07:25 AM »
|
|
|
Thanks nyet.
Since my issue is with mibas and not mifa, I assume I need the be concerned with rl_w, not rlmax_w correct? So my actual load areas are the problem columns in KFMIOP, not requested load. Or am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #46 on: August 06, 2014, 11:13:38 AM »
|
|
|
Yes. I *think* you have it right. Again, I don't trust myself on this right now, I'm still trying to study the FR and come up with something easier to read in the wiki.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
jmont23
Jr. Member
Karma: +4/-0
Offline
Posts: 47
|
|
« Reply #47 on: August 06, 2014, 11:29:17 AM »
|
|
|
Ok, if my understanding is correct (I'll wait for philadot to approve or tell me I'm an idiot  ) then my final area of concern is how much of the KFMIOP table needs to be modified surrounding the RPM/LOAD areas that are causing the issue? I'll do some testing and report back. I'm going to start by reducing my load columns by 5% at 62.25, 74.25 and 97.5 from 3000-6520rpm. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #48 on: August 06, 2014, 11:39:50 AM »
|
|
|
Yes, reduce those individual cells in the problem load/RPM areas in KFMIOP.
It doesn't take much most of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #49 on: August 06, 2014, 11:55:39 AM »
|
|
|
Any idea what this is in his log?  |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
jmont23
Jr. Member
Karma: +4/-0
Offline
Posts: 47
|
|
« Reply #50 on: August 06, 2014, 12:05:46 PM »
|
|
|
Excellent, I'll test this out asap.
I also noticed that after modifying my IOP load axis my zwout is 5-10 degrees lower at idle depending on vehicle speed and clutch state. Should I look into modifying KFMRES/K to bring my idle ignition angle back where it should be?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #51 on: August 06, 2014, 12:12:48 PM »
|
|
|
phila disagrees with adjusting the IOP axis, so you might try putting the IOP axis back to stock instead?
YMMV.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
jmont23
Jr. Member
Karma: +4/-0
Offline
Posts: 47
|
|
« Reply #52 on: August 06, 2014, 12:51:48 PM »
|
|
|
phila disagrees with adjusting the IOP axis, so you might try putting the IOP axis back to stock instead?
YMMV.
Well, whether I leave the load axis stock or not, the IOP values can not be left stock with my modified IRL. So with my 271 upper load limit in my IRL, I get very small values in IOP near idle when I use the Mbox IOP interpolater workbook, which iirc will still screw with my idle ignition angle. I guess since at idle torque monitoring is null due to miszul=100, I can get away with stock values in this area. I'll try that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #53 on: August 06, 2014, 01:11:50 PM »
|
|
|
IRL has NOTHING to do with IOP.
KFMIRL takes an input torque and converts it to desired load. That's it.
You are good as long as the torque value at the current load and RPM is below the max allowed for the current pedal position.
There is absolutely no need to touch anything anywhere near the idle areas.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #54 on: August 06, 2014, 01:22:30 PM »
|
|
|
IRL has NOTHING to do with IOP.
Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation here on Nef about that (and sadly most of it from myself). Now that I actually understand IOP i should go back and edit all my posts, but it is a bit late for that. I will try to update the wiki appropriately, and the IOP/IRL workbook thread should probably be edited/deleted etc accordingly :/ phila: I am open to suggestions on that front. There is absolutely no need to touch anything anywhere near the idle areas.
This mirrors my experience 100% |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
jmont23
Jr. Member
Karma: +4/-0
Offline
Posts: 47
|
|
« Reply #55 on: August 06, 2014, 01:34:45 PM »
|
|
|
IRL has NOTHING to do with IOP.
KFMIRL takes an input torque and converts it to desired load. That's it.
You are good as long as the torque value at the current load and RPM is below the max allowed for the current pedal position.
There is absolutely no need to touch anything anywhere near the idle areas.
So I guess I should go back to stock IOP and tune from there rather than using this Mbox interpolated IOP based off IRL... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #56 on: August 06, 2014, 03:45:58 PM »
|
|
|
Any idea what this is in his log? Looks like dmar != 0 Look how mizsolv is straying from mibas |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SB_GLI
|
|
« Reply #57 on: August 06, 2014, 09:30:01 PM »
|
|
|
So I guess I should go back to stock IOP and tune from there rather than using this Mbox interpolated IOP based off IRL...
I feel like I might have to take this route with my tune as well. Since I have a 1.8t AWP, my load axis are much lower in a most maps, at least the ones discussed in here. The IOP/KFZWOP axis caps at 160. KFZW axis max is 150. For this reason, I have adopted those maps from the BAM (191 and 185 max respectively) as a base to go off of that had higher load values. I don't know if that's the right thing to do, or if I should stick with the stock AWP maps and bump the last few columns of irl and decrease the last few of IOP. What would this mean for the KFZWOP maps? Should the KFZW map still be scaled with reference to the changes in IRL? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jmont23
Jr. Member
Karma: +4/-0
Offline
Posts: 47
|
|
« Reply #58 on: August 07, 2014, 08:44:12 AM »
|
|
|
Update,
I am still having the same issue after lowering my IOP cells by 5% and then 10%. I will continue to lower them by 15% and more today.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 08:46:34 AM by jmont23 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jmont23
Jr. Member
Karma: +4/-0
Offline
Posts: 47
|
|
« Reply #59 on: August 07, 2014, 10:03:38 AM »
|
|
|
Finally! Torque intervention gone in the logged rev range! I had to lower my IOP values by about 20%, and I had to lower my 50.25 column as well as the other 3 columns from 3000rpm+. I still need to run the revs up higher to make sure I am in the clear in the higher revs, but I am very happy with how things are progressing!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
