busso916
Newbie
Karma: +0/-0
 Offline
Posts: 8
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: November 12, 2014, 05:54:44 AM »
|
|
|
Offset of map is 13808
old maf id: 70 mm
new maf id: 78 mm
surface increment: 24.16% (correct)
Here the command line
C:\mafadjust>mafadjust ss.mod 70 78 0x13808
increasing MLHFM with 24.16% from 1479.1kg/h -> 1836.4988571429kg/h
increasing done, generating output
starting to write results to Binary File ss_mod.bin
starting to write result to ClipBoard File ss_mod.txt
done!
C:\mafadjust>
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
busso916
Newbie
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 8
|
|
« Reply #61 on: November 14, 2014, 07:35:05 AM »
|
|
|
Up!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
maZer.GTi
Full Member
Karma: +68/-6
Offline
Posts: 246
|
|
« Reply #62 on: November 14, 2014, 05:27:15 PM »
|
|
|
Offset of map is 13808
old maf id: 70 mm
new maf id: 78 mm
surface increment: 24.16% (correct)
Here the command line
C:\mafadjust>mafadjust ss.mod 70 78 0x13808
increasing MLHFM with 24.16% from 1479.1kg/h -> 1836.4988571429kg/h
increasing done, generating output
starting to write results to Binary File ss_mod.bin
starting to write result to ClipBoard File ss_mod.txt
done!
C:\mafadjust>
For me the map looks very good and should work, did you tested? If you want to know how the values are calculated just study the code  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TijnCU
Hero Member
Karma: +60/-4
Offline
Posts: 690
flying brick
|
|
« Reply #63 on: December 05, 2014, 04:08:32 PM »
|
|
|
I used this corrector on my file, but if I use the specified offset my file gets 1kb too big for some reason (513KB). If I manually copy the new values into the map, everything works. I do have another question about scaling, I have tried using a 225hp maf scaling for my 150hp ecu, and dont get any maf reading. If I compare the 2, they are not really alike. I find the last 5 values of the 150hp version (top) to be strange, what is the function? This is a 018P ecu, but my 018AA and 018AR show the same style. The BAM (below) keeps a more lineair increase all the way to the end, but starts with smaller values and ends with larger. Anyone cares to explain me the difference in style, or is it just wrong adresses   To be more precise, I would like to know what the meaning is of those different style values, and if I need to adjust them when scaling. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 05, 2014, 04:11:16 PM by TijnCU »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
maZer.GTi
Full Member
Karma: +68/-6
Offline
Posts: 246
|
|
« Reply #64 on: December 06, 2014, 06:00:00 PM »
|
|
|
I used this corrector on my file, but if I use the specified offset my file gets 1kb too big for some reason (513KB). If I manually copy the new values into the map, everything works. I do have another question about scaling, I have tried using a 225hp maf scaling for my 150hp ecu, and dont get any maf reading. If I compare the 2, they are not really alike. I find the last 5 values of the 150hp version (top) to be strange, what is the function? This is a 018P ecu, but my 018AA and 018AR show the same style. The BAM (below) keeps a more lineair increase all the way to the end, but starts with smaller values and ends with larger. Anyone cares to explain me the difference in style, or is it just wrong adresses To be more precise, I would like to know what the meaning is of those different style values, and if I need to adjust them when scaling. Upload the file you are trying and post the command that you are using to scale it. And i try to help. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TijnCU
Hero Member
Karma: +60/-4
Offline
Posts: 690
flying brick
|
|
« Reply #65 on: December 07, 2014, 02:04:17 PM »
|
|
|
For example, this attached AA bin. I use the command " mafadjust 018AA_ori.bin 59 69 0x10C46 " This leads to the attached mod bin of 513kb  I then copied the content of the 1x512 map and pasted this into my ori bin, then I get a 512kb bin that works. It is strange that it becomes 513kb in the first place though! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #66 on: December 08, 2014, 04:01:09 PM »
|
|
|
For example, this attached AA bin. I use the command " mafadjust 018AA_ori.bin 59 69 0x10C46 "
This leads to the attached mod bin of 513kb
Actually, you are looking at 524288 vs 524289 (windows sucks ass). Looks like a bad bug in the script. Somebody should fix it |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TijnCU
Hero Member
Karma: +60/-4
Offline
Posts: 690
flying brick
|
|
« Reply #67 on: December 09, 2014, 12:26:29 PM »
|
|
|
Yeah that's what I thought. The scaling itself works fine Could be linked to the fact I split the (fake) 1024kb bin into 512kb with TunerPro. **oops I found my MLHFM adress to be wrong after all, that answers my first question :-) Correct adress is @ 0x10C3C in the 018AA bin |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 10, 2014, 06:43:10 AM by TijnCU »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
maZer.GTi
Full Member
Karma: +68/-6
Offline
Posts: 246
|
|
« Reply #68 on: December 11, 2014, 08:01:54 PM »
|
|
|
For example, this attached AA bin. I use the command " mafadjust 018AA_ori.bin 59 69 0x10C46 " This leads to the attached mod bin of 513kb I then copied the content of the 1x512 map and pasted this into my ori bin, then I get a 512kb bin that works. It is strange that it becomes 513kb in the first place though! Fixed, mafadjust have a small autodetect map function, on me7 you can try to run without entering mlhfm offset, in most cases the tool will find the correct offset. mafadjust.exe 018AA_ori.bin 59 69 increasing MLHFM with 36.77% from 944.3kg/h -> 1291.5289571962kg/h increasing done, generating output starting to write results to Binary File 018AA_ori_mod.bin starting to write result to ClipBoard File 018AA_ori_mod.txt done! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
maZer.GTi
Full Member
Karma: +68/-6
Offline
Posts: 246
|
|
« Reply #69 on: December 11, 2014, 08:06:18 PM »
|
|
|
Guys, pay attention to the output! If you get an error, or a message such as:
selected map looks not like MLHFM, please check after process
post the output file here so we can fix it!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 19, 2015, 06:43:38 PM by ddillenger »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ericpaulyoung
Full Member
Karma: +5/-0
Offline
Posts: 149
|
|
« Reply #70 on: February 20, 2015, 12:17:22 AM »
|
|
|
I used the same method on MED9 to scale up MSHFMTPH by 76.37mm^2/65.92mm^2 = 1.34218 (34.218%) for a new larger MAF housing. The car runs fine, but when I log mass air flow the maximum value is still the same? With the OEM MAF it would max out at 363.76 g/s, and now with the bigger MAF and the rescaled MSHFMTPH, it still maxes out at 363.76 g/s?? Shouldn't the larger MAF be reading more flow after the scaling?
epy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
maZer.GTi
Full Member
Karma: +68/-6
Offline
Posts: 246
|
|
« Reply #71 on: February 20, 2015, 03:00:28 AM »
|
|
|
I used the same method on MED9 to scale up MSHFMTPH by 76.37mm^2/65.92mm^2 = 1.34218 (34.218%) for a new larger MAF housing. The car runs fine, but when I log mass air flow the maximum value is still the same? With the OEM MAF it would max out at 363.76 g/s, and now with the bigger MAF and the rescaled MSHFMTPH, it still maxes out at 363.76 g/s?? Shouldn't the larger MAF be reading more flow after the scaling?
epy
You are logging with VCDS right? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ericpaulyoung
Full Member
Karma: +5/-0
Offline
Posts: 149
|
|
« Reply #72 on: February 20, 2015, 03:11:18 AM »
|
|
|
I am logging with the Meastro cable, which I think is the same thing. I also have VCDS. Should I log a different set of channels? I think it is accurate when it says it is maxed out because my fueling also gets off with O2 corrections maxing out at +25
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vwaudiguy
|
|
« Reply #73 on: February 20, 2015, 08:06:24 AM »
|
|
|
I used the same method on MED9 to scale up MSHFMTPH by 76.37mm^2/65.92mm^2 = 1.34218 (34.218%) for a new larger MAF housing. The car runs fine, but when I log mass air flow the maximum value is still the same? With the OEM MAF it would max out at 363.76 g/s, and now with the bigger MAF and the rescaled MSHFMTPH, it still maxes out at 363.76 g/s?? Shouldn't the larger MAF be reading more flow after the scaling?
epy
Why would you expect the reading to change? You have the same engine/setup correct? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If you have a chinese turbo, that you are worried is going to blow up when you floor it, then LOL."
|
|
|
ericpaulyoung
Full Member
Karma: +5/-0
Offline
Posts: 149
|
|
« Reply #74 on: February 20, 2015, 08:46:26 AM »
|
|
|
The reading should be the same up to the max value. The larger MAF should have a larger range and be able to read a larger max.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
