|
phila_dot
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: April 30, 2013, 09:15:35 AM »
|
|
|
i never completely understood the KFMIOP map and its relations, but im sure you are correct phila_dot  mind explaining the nature of the KFMIOP map in simple words? some brainstorming below..  KFMIOP seem to represents maximum torque% of the engine at a given load, and the characteristics of the engines torque output itself is set in KFMIRL by specifying the cylindercharges relation to torque..? following this would mean 204 in my MIRL at 100%, will be capped to 88.7% = ~181 cyl charge once requesting 195 or more. raising the last column will make the interpolation change and allow higher load.. to a certain point.. raising the MIRL values and correcting the IOP for them should prove more efficient..? this is my experience too.. the requested load/boost wont raise above the last axis value.
This post ^^^ sounds like you are saying that rlsol won't exceed the highest value in IOP load axis, but your last post sounds fairly on track. Raising the IOP map values (z, output, w/e you want to call it) may be required in the high rlmax columns. Just make sure that you don't exceed miszul. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 30, 2013, 09:18:52 AM by phila_dot »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sn00k
|
|
« Reply #31 on: May 01, 2013, 09:17:35 AM »
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification! i think it was just a coincidence that it stopped at 191 load.. since my last value was ~195.. so ill give it another go, im sure ill manage to add some more boost to this thing now to ensure not going above miszul, and to avoid interventions, can i raise the values in KFMIZUFIL? i think we went off-topic by far with this thred, but this has been really helpfull, and perhaps it helps others thinking they need to underscale things. im still curious about how to do it, since i will eventually hit that 2550mbar limit, and i know people have been running higher boost, just without the PID-control, but perhaps the 5120 method is the way to go from now on.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #32 on: May 01, 2013, 10:04:51 AM »
|
|
|
to ensure not going above miszul, and to avoid interventions, can i raise the values in KFMIZUFIL?
You will get Level 2 intervention unless you mirror the changes in the UM maps. With a little bit of effort, you can balance the maps without having to touch KFMIZUFIL, the UM maps, and subjecting yourself to a runaway car. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Snow Trooper
|
|
« Reply #33 on: May 01, 2013, 11:09:50 AM »
|
|
|
I dont get what you mean by runaway car? I have ran mine every way possible, with every limiter, monitor, nanny map turned off it feels fine, part throttle is actually not distinguishable from normal TQ monitoring files. Civil when you want, violent if you want. How many here have actually tried it with everything off? Curious to their experiences as I have only done it on my single car and I have a huge turbo. My peak boost is just before 4000 and i can easily modulate everything under and above that.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
cartoons?
6A 61 72 65 64 40 76 6C 6D 73 70 65 63
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #34 on: May 01, 2013, 11:36:16 AM »
|
|
|
I'm not saying that it's bound to happen, but the purpose of the watchdog is to have a second level of protection in case of corruption of some sort to ensure that nothing catastrophic happens.
I don't have everything disabled, but it is tuned without compromise with ZERO conflict in the torque model.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Snow Trooper
|
|
« Reply #35 on: May 01, 2013, 11:40:20 AM »
|
|
|
Maybe when its on it just isnt holding me back anyway because i edited everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
cartoons?
6A 61 72 65 64 40 76 6C 6D 73 70 65 63
|
|
|
|
sn00k
|
|
« Reply #36 on: May 10, 2013, 03:34:29 AM »
|
|
|
So.. i ended up raising the KFMIRL last column to specify more cylinder filling and raising the KFMIOP last axis value to ~200, plus raising the values in the two last columns by a few % to allow higher torque. this now requested 1.5bar boost, from previous 1.3. KFLDIMX had to be tweaked in the last column(1200mbar)for it to reach target pressure, but once this was done 1.5bar boost was realized, tapering off to 1.15 at revlimit.. talk about pushing a k04..  engine runs soo smooth yet aggresive and there is no hesitations whatsoever, no interventions on the timing, throttle or WGdc from what i can tell, and it pulls like an OX..!  this on E85 using Genesis II 500cc injectors at 4bar rail pressure(these really have insane linearity and atomization and i cannot even begin to explain the improvement they did for the e85 tune and fuel economy, in short, amazing) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
vagenwerk
Full Member
Karma: +2/-0
 Offline
Posts: 182
|
|
« Reply #37 on: May 10, 2013, 10:00:13 AM »
|
|
|
You are run on E85 on stock fuel pump ? By simply filling E85 to Tank ? what are the other mods ? Did you dynoed actual setup ? my friend is runing k04 1.5bar boost making ca 270-280ps, and thinking to run on e85 or metanol to make more power |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #38 on: May 10, 2013, 10:09:22 AM »
|
|
|
So.. i ended up raising the KFMIRL last column to specify more cylinder filling and raising the KFMIOP last axis value to ~200, plus raising the values in the two last columns by a few % to allow higher torque.
That isn't what you are doing by raising the last two columns of IOP... if you RAISE the values, you are increasing the actual calculated torque at those operating points, making the ecu think you are making more % torque at that load. Apples to apples (if you didn't alter the axis), for a given load operating point, you actually want to tell the ecu you have LESS % torque. i.e. if 150 was 100% torque, and now 210 is 100% torque, and 150 is... something a lot lower than 100% torque. IOP IS NOT A TORQUE LIMIT! if you scale the load axis ONLY, and do not alter the torque values look at what you are doing: you are LOWERING the %torque output of the map for a given load operating point. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 10:11:31 AM by nyet »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #39 on: May 10, 2013, 10:15:22 AM »
|
|
|
So if the 150 load cell was 100 percent in IOP before, and your load now is 200, you'd want the the 150 cell of the axis to be 75?
|
|
|
|
|
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 #40 on: May 10, 2013, 10:25:52 AM »
|
|
|
So if the 150 load cell was 100 percent in IOP before, and your load now is 200, you'd want the the 150 cell of the axis to be 75?
Great question. There are more things here to consider. The easiest thing to do (assuming your KFMIRL stays stock), is to just re-interpolate IOP based on the new axis scaling. Not sure where that puts the 150 cell.. it may be near 75. If you adjusted your KFMIRL, you can just scale the IOP load axis by a %, and not re-interpolate. But that isn't quite right, unless you added the same % to every req torque point in KFMIRL... If you adjusted just the TOP load of your KFMIRL, you can just scale the top part of the IOP load axis.. The FR says IOP is the inverse of IRL.... so you could start with that. Take whatever you have in IRL and run it through masterj's excel template... but if you do that, you quickly notice the stock IOP isn't the strict inverse of the stock IRL *especially in low load regions*. And when I tried this, it did bad things to idle and very low load regions. So. What to do? I'm not sure My approach was to leave IRL stock pretty much everywhere except where it flattens out at high torque request.. i basically extrapolated it up so it hits where I want. Then, i upscaled the last 3 axis values of IOP.. and did some mild interpolation, but not much, since all you REALLY need is to scale the IOP load axis! IMO if you don't change IRL much, you can probably leave IOP alone *including not scaling the load axis*. As others have said, you'll hit the end of the table and calc torque will stay low... which is what you want! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 10:33:44 AM by nyet »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2013, 10:35:31 AM »
|
|
|
Oh, on more thing i tried:
using masterj's excel template, i calculated the inverse of my new IRL using the new IOP axis (last three load cells scaled).
Then, I just cut and paste ONLY those last 3 rows into IOP.
That seemed to work pretty well as well.
In any case, what I found was the less stuff i did in IOP, and the closer it was to stock, the better.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2013, 10:56:17 AM »
|
|
|
I calculated the inverse of my new IRL using the new IOP axis (last three load cells scaled).
Then, I just cut and paste ONLY those last 3 rows into IOP.
That seemed to work pretty well as well.
This is what I do. Leave the rest of the axis alone, just scale the last 3 columns so as not to have too large a spread between them. It's just with all the talk about IOP, I've heard (and experienced) quite a few things that don't jive with my general understanding. |
|
|
|
|
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 #43 on: May 10, 2013, 11:50:41 AM »
|
|
|
Nyet, thanks for pointing that out, i didnt raise em more then ~1-2% this time tho, but i raised the last columns of the axis ~5-10 points at the same time.. so that was really contra-productive.. if i LOWER the kfmiop or extrapolate only the axis further, im sure better results could be realised. the tune is really nice now tho, it hits requested boost SPOT ON and follows all the way untill revlimit in all gears, so i dont think i will tinker any more with it. again, thanks for all advices here.. this kfmiop map and its relations to mirl etc keeps eluding me.. i know what the fr sais etc.. but i too also find that the closer to stock the more stable results.. so lets stick with it |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2013, 03:20:24 PM »
|
|
|
You guys are going to make me go gray or bald or something.
There is no mystical black magic behind this stuff.
Please read what I have written on this subject. I have poured over the code and logged it all. Don't take this as arrogance, I'm humbly trying to convey that there are a few simple facts that need to be considered.
KFMIOP DOES act as a limit for the torque request via mimax.
Why is this the one area that everyone accepts blind calculations/guesses?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
