berTTos
Full Member
Karma: +24/-0
 Offline
Posts: 91
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: September 06, 2011, 06:25:48 PM »
|
|
|
Great discussion gentlemen!
Nye - I have also considered simply shifting the x axis in KFMIOP.
Does anyone know the difference between KFMIOP and KFMI_UM or KFMIZUOF and KFMIZUOF_UM? What does 'under monitoring' mean?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #16 on: September 06, 2011, 07:20:56 PM »
|
|
|
It is my understanding that "under monitoring" is for testing processor flow and should not be tampered with. I believe that none of it is actually used in engine control.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
berTTos
Full Member
Karma: +24/-0
Offline
Posts: 91
|
|
« Reply #17 on: September 06, 2011, 08:30:18 PM »
|
|
|
I need to make a correction. To fully disable Torque Monitoring - KFMDZOF_UM is not used but rather these settings -
Table KFMIZUOF = 99.6% for all base points (I'm currently trying to id this in mbox)
Scalar TMNSMN = -48 C (I haven't started looking for this one)
Scalar TANSMN = -48 C (I haven't started looking for this one)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #18 on: September 06, 2011, 09:02:41 PM »
|
|
|
Try these out:
KFMIZUOF
Z - 11619 * 0.390625
X - 1008E * 40
Y - 1166D * 0.390625
TMNSMN
11676 * 0.75 - 48
TANSMN
11675 * 0.75 - 48
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
berTTos
Full Member
Karma: +24/-0
Offline
Posts: 91
|
|
« Reply #19 on: September 06, 2011, 09:30:40 PM »
|
|
|
Try these out:
KFMIZUOF
Z - 11619 * 0.390625
X - 1008E * 40
Y - 1166D * 0.390625
TMNSMN
11676 * 0.75 - 48
TANSMN
11675 * 0.75 - 48
Thank you sir. have you tried deactivating TM in this fashion? If so what was your experience with it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
berTTos
Full Member
Karma: +24/-0
Offline
Posts: 91
|
|
« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2011, 10:03:05 PM »
|
|
|
Nye - I have also considered simply shifting the x axis in KFMIOP.
In examining the more complete Gbox here are the tables which share the x-axis with KFMIOP - KFMDS (this table features RPM and Load. not sure what the output is. seems to have something to do with defining engine drag incl accessories for an engine. i assume this is factored into the torque calc) KFZWOP KFZWOP2 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TTQS
Guest
|
|
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2011, 02:49:56 AM »
|
|
|
I also wondered about upscaling the load axis in KFMIOP, but we need to understand why the values are lower than in KFMIRL before tinkering further.
Is this to take account of the pressure drop across the throttle, intake manifold, etc.?
TTQS
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 03:20:43 AM by TTQS »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
judeisnotobscure
|
|
« Reply #22 on: September 07, 2011, 06:20:14 AM »
|
|
|
iop values are lower cause they are % of output... after raising the requested in irl, the relative % output goes down under the same load columns... at least that is how I understand it. If you changed the load axis in iop as some are saying, you could leave the table pretty much as is, but shift the loads in iop to their correct points? (said with high pitched voice at end.) ie, 190 becomes 210 so the % of output would remain relatively the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I have a b5 s4
but i just want to dance.
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #23 on: September 07, 2011, 06:25:39 AM »
|
|
|
has anyone compared the tables in an RS4 file?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
berTTos
Full Member
Karma: +24/-0
Offline
Posts: 91
|
|
« Reply #24 on: September 07, 2011, 06:26:14 AM »
|
|
|
iop values are lower cause they are % of output... after raising the requested in irl, the relative % output goes down under the same load columns... at least that is how I understand it. If you changed the load axis in iop as some are saying, you could leave the table pretty much as is, but shift the loads in iop to their correct points? (said with high pitched voice at end.) ie, 190 becomes 210 so the % of output would remain relatively the same.
this is how i am currently understanding it. changing the load axis seems to make more sense than to monkey with the output values in KFMIOP as it more closely resembles reality. and it does also seem correct that it be shifted upwards in the other tables which share it. note that this load axis for the RS4 is shifted upwards and peaks at 199. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Giannis
Full Member
Karma: +11/-1
Offline
Posts: 176
|
|
« Reply #25 on: September 07, 2011, 11:33:51 AM »
|
|
|
Really great topic guys but why to mess with the torque model? Is there any reason to tune it in a stage 3 file?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #26 on: September 07, 2011, 11:36:15 AM »
|
|
|
Read the first post  So - our options are -
1. Leave all but the last 2 or 3 columns of KFMIRL stock and KFMIOP and KFMIZUOF stock. Enjoy the silken rocket driving experience.
2. Raise Load values in KFMIRL across the board and properly tune KFMIOP to match and leave KFMIZUOF stock. In this scenario greater loads are produced earlier but the Torque Model is still perfectly functional and able to give stock-like refinement.
3. Raise KFMIRL load values and leave KFMIOP stock but FF KFMIZUOF across the entire table effectively disabling Torque Monitoring (also I believe there are 2 scalar values related to temp thresholds which need to be altered). I have not tried this so I don't know how wild the throttle is in this scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Giannis
Full Member
Karma: +11/-1
Offline
Posts: 176
|
|
« Reply #27 on: September 07, 2011, 11:58:15 AM »
|
|
|
I just read it again but i still can't understand the need to alter torque model at the first place. Sorry to mess your post i will read again the documents and try to understand. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #28 on: September 07, 2011, 12:02:48 PM »
|
|
|
Summary: if you raise KFMIRL to get more boost, your actual tq may go over req, unless you make a corresponding change to IOP.
If you have an underscaled MAF, and you keep actual load low enough, you probably wont have a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Giannis
Full Member
Karma: +11/-1
Offline
Posts: 176
|
|
« Reply #29 on: September 07, 2011, 12:06:14 PM »
|
|
|
Ok now i got it. You tweek KFMIRL to get more boost. I compered a stock 1.8t 225ps file and a 1.8t 180 ps file and this map seems to be a little higher in the 225 in high load areas. I makes sense now. Thanks and sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
