|
Snow Trooper
|
 |
« on: September 08, 2011, 12:57:51 AM »
|
|
|
Has anyone changed the rpm axis data so that there is more resolution in the spool area of larger turbos?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
cartoons?
6A 61 72 65 64 40 76 6C 6D 73 70 65 63
|
|
|
|
judeisnotobscure
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2011, 04:44:18 AM »
|
|
|
No, i havent, but im interested to see if it helps you any.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I have a b5 s4
but i just want to dance.
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2011, 09:58:11 AM »
|
|
|
Has anyone changed the rpm axis data so that there is more resolution in the spool area of larger turbos?
I moved it, it works... I moved quiet a few rpm axis tables since I rev to much higher than stock... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Snow Trooper
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2011, 10:50:35 AM »
|
|
|
I played with it but I think I have the axis map wrong. I'm on my phone right now but I want to revisit it today. What address did you use for that specific axis? It should be shared with ldroxn and others right?
I have adjusted basically all axis maps up to my higher rev limit with good results but this one is failing me. I was thinking that maybe my changes in the middle of the map are throwing off other maps.
edit: grabed my tuning laptop, I meant LDRXNZK above. Its listed axis map is different than LDRXN_1_A (0x1DD16 vs 0x1DCD4) so i was wrong about them being shared. I still cant seem to have it all mesh and work right though. maybe i just have the parameter info setup wrong or the wrong equation as I stated in the kfmiop thread.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 08, 2011, 11:11:19 AM by Snow Trooper »
|
Logged
|
cartoons?
6A 61 72 65 64 40 76 6C 6D 73 70 65 63
|
|
|
|
Snow Trooper
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2011, 11:24:26 AM »
|
|
|
also, to spot check myself. axis maps that I adjust and see obvious changes to the associated maps, when i view the parameter info, that axis maps addy is different then what is listed in the working map.
now I am confusing myself.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
cartoons?
6A 61 72 65 64 40 76 6C 6D 73 70 65 63
|
|
|
|
Snow Trooper
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2011, 11:56:45 AM »
|
|
|
fixed... i had two bone headed mistakes. biggest being that I had 0.400000 * X and not 0.250000 * X
the correct parameter setup for a RPM axis map for LDRXN is as follows:
0x1DCD4
2 bytes
LSB first box = checked
units = U/Min
rows = 1 / string / external
columns = 16 / integer / external
conversion = 0.250000 * X
now I can go and see if it works to give me a smoother curve. I am trying really hard to have my requested be perfectly inline with actual, just always slightly above obviously.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 08, 2011, 11:58:23 AM by Snow Trooper »
|
Logged
|
cartoons?
6A 61 72 65 64 40 76 6C 6D 73 70 65 63
|
|
|
|
Snow Trooper
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2011, 01:08:38 PM »
|
|
|
Here is an updated xdf with this added, if you are running turbos that are much different than stock, put the finer concentration of axis points before and after where your turbo(s) can spool. If you look at a stock file it only skips 250-300 rpms from one point to the next down low where ko3s are spooling, this allows great resolution for the ramp up, spike and taper to be smooth and its easy to get requested inline with actual. Yet look at my line for a large frame setup, crap resolution where i need it, this results in a huge delta and negative deviation limp...  By simply moving your area of tighter rpm points into where you actually spool you can gain greater control of requested and not be forced to have a vertical load line if you dont want to. In order to not have it requesting a bunch of boost I formerly had to have a very chunky curve that practically had right angles in it.  To sum up, I highly recommend adding this axis into your XDFs and with any turbo other than stock finding your pre/post spool areas and giving yourself proper resolution to tune your boost profile, it will result in a smoother ride. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
cartoons?
6A 61 72 65 64 40 76 6C 6D 73 70 65 63
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2011, 01:28:54 PM »
|
|
|
ABSOLUTELY agree 100% One minor nit: ME7 calls that *positive* devation - lde (req MINUS actual) is positive. See this http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php/topic,871.0title,.htmlAnd s4 wiki, which says: Alternately, if your requested boost is far too high for a given load/rpm point, you may experience positive deviation (underboost) limp mode.
If your MAF scaling is too aggressive, your load may be reading high, which might enable positive deviation diagnosis too early during a pull. Fix this by scaling back MLHFM
If your requested boost ramp is too aggressive for your turbos, you may be requesting far more boost than your turbo can possibly make at low rpms. In particular, the stock K03 LDRXN is VERY aggressive. K04s (let alone bigger turbos) will never spool that fast. Consider making sure LDRXN does not allow too much spec load too soon!
If none of the above helps, consider tweaking NDLDRAPU and SDLDRA.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
Snow Trooper
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2011, 02:20:04 PM »
|
|
|
until self tuning me7.1 (ie. all commercial tunes I bought) I have never gotten a negative (positive?confused) code/behavior, ever. Well not unless I blew a charge hose or something.
I was always baffled by the fact that requested would be even flat lined at some super high level for the whole map, WTF was controlling boost? KFMIRL?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
cartoons?
6A 61 72 65 64 40 76 6C 6D 73 70 65 63
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 09, 2011, 02:25:04 PM »
|
|
|
until self tuning me7.1 (ie. all commercial tunes I bought) I have never gotten a negative (positive?confused) code/behavior, ever
Most commercial tunes have an underscaled MAF, which means the load threshold for enabling positive devation is reached (usually) too late to induce limp. Thats the only thing I can think of, unless they modified other things I don't know about. YOUR way is (IMO) correct. Fix LDRXN. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Tony@NefMoto
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +132/-4
 Offline
Posts: 1389
2001.5 Audi S4 Stage 3
|
|
« Reply #10 on: September 09, 2011, 03:17:06 PM »
|
|
|
There are about five or so maps that "correct" LDRXN. This is the difference between uncorrected and corrected specified load. This can account for some of the behaviour you are seeing that isn't represented in this map.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2011, 11:26:09 AM »
|
|
|
I was always baffled by the fact that requested would be even flat lined at some super high level for the whole map, WTF was controlling boost? KFMIRL?
My money's on KFLDHBN. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
