http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=3765.msg38179#msg38179

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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!

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.

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?