|
nyet
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: November 04, 2013, 01:41:39 PM »
|
|
|
As far as i know, any IRL/IOP weirdness should show up in rlmax/rlsol.
if your rlmax/rlsol looks right, but plsol doesn't, it isn't IRL/IOP related.
I could be wrong, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
 Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #46 on: November 04, 2013, 01:45:23 PM »
|
|
|
THe only thing i could think is you MUST change the last axis value (i believe it is 160 stock, but im not looking at it at teh moment) for KFMIOP, but from all the reading on here, that doesn't appear to be the case.
That is not an issue from my experience. and in my LP file I left the stock IOP axis and scaled IOP numbers for my IRL that goes past 200 and everything was peachy. As far as i know, any IRL/IOP weirdness should show up in rlmax/rlsol.
if your rlmax/rlsol looks right, but plsol doesn't, it isn't IRL/IOP related.
I could be wrong, of course.
Define right  since my rlsol is seemingly capped lower than spec. Although I don't see any irregularities other than it seems to have an invisible cap. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Milka
Full Member
Karma: +3/-0
Offline
Posts: 129
|
|
« Reply #47 on: November 04, 2013, 05:42:26 PM »
|
|
|
Have you tried tracing MDFUE for what is setting rlsol too low?
I would start by logging the following additional variables:
milsol_w
etazwbm
etalab
misopl1_w
Based on the FR these seem to be the only ones that could be causing a cap on rlsol_w as rlmax_w is high enough not to limit it and rlmin_w is only a lower limit.
Also check what your CWRLAPPL is set to, should be 0
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
oldcarguy85
Full Member
Karma: +15/-1
Offline
Posts: 247
|
|
« Reply #48 on: November 04, 2013, 05:53:21 PM »
|
|
|
well i solved my boost problem...
so after trying out KFLDHBN change, i set it back to stock and went on testing other stuff... well... as it turns out, it was a limiting factor. It seems that in order to fix my issue i had to increase last row of KFMIOP to 98% and increase values in KFLDHBN. This seems to validate my thought that whatever % is in the last row of KFMIOP will, in fact, limit requested load. I haven't gotten a clear answer on that yet....
Regardless, my boost is perfect now.... but, the car is WAYYYY lean even though requested AFR is around 12. By way lean i mean over 14.... I'm not sure why. Maybe hardware? Any thoughts? I can post logs in bit... maybe its better for another topic?
Thanks for the help!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #49 on: November 04, 2013, 06:27:26 PM »
|
|
|
start by checking that you didn't cap ps_w...
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #50 on: November 04, 2013, 07:17:05 PM »
|
|
|
This seems to validate my thought that whatever % is in the last row of KFMIOP will, in fact, limit requested load. It absolutely does not limit load this I know 100%. My the last axis in my IOP is the stock 160 and I'm able to request 180+ without issue and it follows. My issue with boost is now also resolved (need to rework IMX though for some reason now it's all screwed up again) but it was just a poor IRL/IOP scaling and combination and I know now to continue to scale them manually. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
oldcarguy85
Full Member
Karma: +15/-1
Offline
Posts: 247
|
|
« Reply #51 on: November 04, 2013, 07:56:17 PM »
|
|
|
It absolutely does not limit load this I know 100%. My the last axis in my IOP is the stock 160 and I'm able to request 180+ without issue and it follows. My issue with boost is now also resolved (need to rework IMX though for some reason now it's all screwed up again) but it was just a poor IRL/IOP scaling and combination and I know now to continue to scale them manually.
glad you solved it. I actually was referring to the values -- in my file they are around 82% at all points in the last row. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
oldcarguy85
Full Member
Karma: +15/-1
Offline
Posts: 247
|
|
« Reply #52 on: November 04, 2013, 08:03:39 PM »
|
|
|
start by checking that you didn't cap ps_w...
nyet, i'm not sure how i could have done this. I added fuel (i guess somewhat barbarically) with LAMFA and KFLBTS (which i now realize is stupid). I didn't touch anything else. I'm assuming my def file is wrong for KRKTE. I checked that value just for shits and giggles and it reads 0.10301. I would have expected this to be something like 25 or 30. Maybe i don't understnad the value there. Also, i did some logging tonight and the desired AFR hovers exaclty where i expect it... very rich -- about 11:1 yet my actual AFR is WAYYY lean like 17:1. Am i possibly logging the wrong variable? If my requested AFR is correct, is it still possible that there is an artificial ps_w cap? Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #53 on: November 05, 2013, 08:52:43 AM »
|
|
|
^^I'm going to say you're not logging the right variable... check that first before you make any changes.
My file is finally doing what it's supposed to... I can definitely see that I don't have enough fuel @ the end past 5200 (stock inj w/ 4 BAR) so 550's are on the way.
I few more small tweaks to the N75 maps and timing and that's all she wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
userpike
|
|
« Reply #54 on: November 05, 2013, 12:55:23 PM »
|
|
|
I can definitely see that I don't have enough fuel @ the end past 5200 (stock inj w/ 4 BAR) so 550's are on the way.
I few more small tweaks to the N75 maps and timing and that's all she wrote.
I'm pretty sure you'll need to change the fuel pump to one that will keep up with the 550s, especially @ 4bar. I'm running them with a Genesis pump @ 2.7 bar(stock idle psi for my GTI) with an adjustable FPR and the set up works very well. I get awesome idle after adaption even though my TVUB and KRKTE aren't dialed in all the way yet.. damned boost leak is killing my trim's accuracy some. My fueling issues at the moment are if I do a WOT run and let off the gas after instead of letting the engine wind down, my wideband shows 9.5ish/1 and the engine stalls. So I think I need to take some of the fueling out at high rpm in the decel map. I forget the acronym. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 06, 2013, 09:00:20 AM by userpike »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #55 on: November 05, 2013, 12:57:18 PM »
|
|
|
I would definitely move back down to the OE 3 BAR FPR, the the stock pump should be able to keep up then. I'm not going to push the turbo over 20 psi between 3-4.5K... and I will keep the taper (stock DP + cat/ehxhaust).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #56 on: November 05, 2013, 01:25:17 PM »
|
|
|
My fueling issues at the moment are if I do a WOT run and let off the gas after instead of letting the engine wind down, my wideband shows 9.5ish/1 and the engine stalls. So I think I need to take some of the fueling out at high rpm in the decel map. I forget the acronym.
KFBAKL/VAKL |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rick
|
|
« Reply #57 on: November 05, 2013, 03:39:45 PM »
|
|
|
The value in the KFMIOP table (NOT axis) is the highest torque that can be requested, yes.
Rick
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #58 on: November 06, 2013, 06:42:25 AM »
|
|
|
The value in the KFMIOP table (NOT axis) is the highest torque that can be requested, yes.
Rick
Which ended up being exactly my issue. On my file with the issue (if you look at my screenshot) IOP maxed out (incorrectly) at 82.9991 for the 190 axis 82.9 was like 163 load which was basically my capped load I was complaining about. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
oldcarguy85
Full Member
Karma: +15/-1
Offline
Posts: 247
|
|
« Reply #59 on: November 06, 2013, 07:50:19 AM »
|
|
|
Which ended up being exactly my issue.
On my file with the issue (if you look at my screenshot) IOP maxed out (incorrectly) at 82.9991 for the 190 axis 82.9 was like 163 load which was basically my capped load I was complaining about.
This would be useful info for the wiki IMHO. I don't think the S4 guys run into this usually because the last row of IOP is around 95% on the s4 files i believe. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
