|
SB_GLI
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: August 07, 2014, 10:35:13 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!
Good work and thanks for keeping us all informed in here. I am going to be messing around with this weekend as well. I wish I knew the memory location for all of those variables that you are logging on my 032PL. Can anyone help with that? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SB_GLI
|
|
« Reply #61 on: August 07, 2014, 10:53:53 AM »
|
|
|
jmont, you know what would be super duper awesome? When you finish this part of your tuning, maybe you could post screen shots of the stock irl/iop vs your new irl/iop and any other maps that you have changed due to the scaling of the iop load axis. This would be a great help to me and many others for sure. I will surely do the same when I figure something out with my tune. Now that iop has been described as the reverse lookup to save cpu time, the actual purpose of this table makes clear sense to me. This makes the concept click with me, vs just reading it as... iop being the inverse of irl. WTF does that mean anyway?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #62 on: August 07, 2014, 11:10:12 AM »
|
|
|
Basically the torque->load mapping from IRL should (more less) result in a lower torque if you feed that load into IOP for load->torque.
so
1) the driver requests a torque via pedal
2) requested torque is converted in to a requested load via IRL
3) ME does its thing, opens the throttle plate, picks a timing, attains a boost level. The motor responds accordingly and the ECU calculates the resulting actual load using MAF readings, etc.
4) now the actual load goes into IOP and gets converted to actual torque
torque monitoring now needs to make sure the resulting actual torque does not exceed the requested torque.
So you don't really need to log, you can guess at the required IOP values by looking at the areas of IRL that you increased. Make sure that the increased resulting load (when fed into IOP) does not result in torque higher than the torque that generate that load in IRL.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 11:13:44 AM by nyet »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jmont23
Jr. Member
Karma: +4/-0
 Offline
Posts: 45
|
|
« Reply #63 on: August 08, 2014, 06:05:44 AM »
|
|
|
So is the ECU looking at a few surrounding load/rpm and torque/rpm cells and interpolating values or is it drawing a fit through entire columns/rows in IRL and IOP? I have created new IRL and IOP maps that are only modified in the highest load/torque columns (stock IOP axis as well) to try an fix this idle timing issue that I am having, but I am still getting timing intervention due to mibas>miszul in areas of the maps that are completely stock? Also as a side note, notice my issues with dmar !=0 in this log. I have added all the torque variables and condition bits from the "ARMD inerventions (anti-bucking) final solution for WOT" (may want to correct the spelling in that title ) thread to help diagnose this for future logs, however these variable and conditions are not in this log  and I didn't have any dmar !=0 in my logs this morning. Anyways, I don't want to derail this thread with ARMD interventions. I'll try to stay focused on the IOP/IRL tuning issues at hand. thread URL referenced above: http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=3039.0title= |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 06:19:32 AM by jmont23 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SB_GLI
|
|
« Reply #64 on: August 08, 2014, 07:57:14 AM »
|
|
|
Looks like your iop is way off for your given irl.
Example:
In IOP's 191 column @ 6000 rpm, you have 99%. This value should be more like 82-83% (eyeball value, no math involved).
I come up with around 82 because in IRL 191 would be part way between 182 and 230, referencing your 80 and 90 columns @ 6k.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jmont23
Jr. Member
Karma: +4/-0
Offline
Posts: 45
|
|
« Reply #65 on: August 08, 2014, 08:17:53 AM »
|
|
|
- any part of KFMIOP (load/speed range) that cannot be reached below 60% wped_w is basically unrestricted and can be raised to keep mimax_w high
Said another way: any part of KFMIOP (load/speed range) that "can" be reached "above" 60% wped_w is basically unrestricted and can be raised to keep mimax_w high. This is why my IOP 191 column is not an issue, but see how most of my IRL/IOP maps are stock and I am still getting tq intervention in loads/tqs towards the mid to lower end of the IOP/IRL maps. Not sure how this is possible if stock s4s don't get intervention unless the higher load/tq areas of the maps affect the mid and low areas of the map... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 08:21:09 AM by jmont23 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #66 on: August 08, 2014, 09:16:42 AM »
|
|
|
Said another way: any part of KFMIOP (load/speed range) that "can" be reached "above" 60% wped_w is basically unrestricted and can be raised to keep mimax_w high.
HA HA! I just reworded it the EXACT same way in the wiki. It took me about 30 minutes to decide they meant the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #67 on: August 08, 2014, 11:10:53 AM »
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jmont23
Jr. Member
Karma: +4/-0
Offline
Posts: 45
|
|
« Reply #68 on: August 08, 2014, 11:39:38 AM »
|
|
|
This is very helpful! Thank you sir! Can you please help me understand why I am getting intervention with stock values in most of my IRL/IOP map if this is indeed how these maps are interpolated? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #69 on: August 08, 2014, 03:04:18 PM »
|
|
|
Said another way: any part of KFMIOP (load/speed range) that "can" be reached "above" 60% wped_w is basically unrestricted and can be raised to keep mimax_w high.
This is why my IOP 191 column is not an issue, but see how most of my IRL/IOP maps are stock and I am still getting tq intervention in loads/tqs towards the mid to lower end of the IOP/IRL maps. Not sure how this is possible if stock s4s don't get intervention unless the higher load/tq areas of the maps affect the mid and low areas of the map...
Not can be reached above 60% pedal, but can ONLY. Torque management needs to be balanced in one way or another. With a stock KFPED, the initial torque request does not change from stock. What we are working around for the most part is an elevated rlmax_w from raising LDRXN lifts mimax_w. This is unavoidable. Actual load still equals the same actual torque if you don't touch KFMIOP at all, but mifa_w is no longer restricted as it originally was because mimax_w is now raised. You should be able to eliminate all torque intervention without disturbing the torque request output milsol while maintaining all of the original safegaurds. Torque intervention is supposed to occur sometimes and you should make sure that you are not trying to tune these out. You will never have to touch any idle areas or anytime that wped_w is zero. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SB_GLI
|
|
« Reply #70 on: August 08, 2014, 03:33:27 PM »
|
|
|
Here's a stock BAM irl/iop next to the changes that I made.
I raised the irl and iop axis to match near my max ldrxn values. I then interpolate the new values for iop based on the values in irl.
kfzwop(2) values didn't vary much towards the end of the map so little work was needed there.
Is this right?
AWP original for reference.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
b4A4nowA6
Full Member
Karma: +1/-4
Offline
Posts: 117
|
|
« Reply #71 on: August 30, 2014, 04:18:16 AM »
|
|
|
Down low, you might want to have the IOP a little bit lower to allow some tolerance for overshoot. The internal combustion engine is a messy and imprecise thing, so mathematical models that go to the last decimal point don't always quite line up due to overshoot and undershoot I usually don't touch the lower areas of KFMIOP, I just rescale the axis from 90-100 load up and provide a smooth gradient, so the interpolation can do it's job. There's really no point in replacing the entire IOP table, and for many Stage 1 tunes you don't even have to touch IRL and IOP. Ok I have been reading for so many days even my dogs eyes hurt. SO.... i am trying to tune my 2.7t ME7.1.1 to a stage 1 or 2 level. amd I was starting to think I had the hang of things... seemed like I was suppose to start with the KFMIRL and IOP... but now after reading this post I do not know where to start at. My thoughs were that fueling should be good, maybe a light increase. I know I need to increase boost and im am sure the load as well. What about timing>? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
b4A4nowA6
Full Member
Karma: +1/-4
Offline
Posts: 117
|
|
« Reply #72 on: August 30, 2014, 06:11:49 AM »
|
|
|
and my biggest issue so far is not being able to find some tables.. Mainly so far I can not find the LDRXN.... I only have LDORXN, LDRXN_0_A, and, LDRXN_1_A.
The XDF I am using is the 551R
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #73 on: August 30, 2014, 10:53:26 AM »
|
|
|
and my biggest issue so far is not being able to find some tables.. Mainly so far I can not find the LDRXN.... I only have LDORXN, LDRXN_0_A, and, LDRXN_1_A.
The XDF I am using is the 551R
LDRXN_0_A is LDRXN. LDRXN_1_A is LDRXN for variant coding (allroad) |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
erroob0977
Full Member
Karma: +12/-0
Offline
Posts: 66
|
|
« Reply #74 on: August 30, 2014, 01:32:51 PM »
|
|
|
LDRXN_0_A is LDRXN.
LDRXN_1_A is LDRXN for variant coding (allroad)
Actually one is for automatic and one is for manual, for 4Z7907551R at least. _0_A is for manual _1_A is for automatic |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
2004 A6 2.7T 6MT: Built motor with SRM RS6/K24s on E85
|
|
|
|
