So I was browsing the site I frequent and noticed a "MS v3.57" which struck my attention because the latest had been a 3.0 board. This is just the PCB version, and I was like uhhh ok so what's different.

http://www.diyautotune.com/images/products/ms2357-c/ms2357-c_open.jpg
v3.57
http://blowneuroz.com/mygallery/E34%20525i%20MegaSquirt/9.jpg
v3.0 (what I use)
http://www.cats-citroen.net/citroen_atypes/megasquirt/ms_010.jpg
v2.2 (older)

3.57 is Surface mount!

I don't really care too much about it being surface mounted but the cool part is that its basically already assembled! The price is a little more than an unassembled MS1 kit, but its really not bad! There is a 15 pin connector next to the serial connector to allow for I/O to and from the MS which is conventionally a matter of making your own connector - this is much cleaner!

There are pads all over for doing the appropriate modifications for stuff that would normally require creativity and more skill. The board looks like it may be smaller in length - I am not sure yet. I've been in touch with the seller and am going to purchase one to trial in a couple weeks.

It is compliant with MS2/E and MS1/E setups (MS2 pictured). Supports all the functions that the other boards handle, just surface mounted which should be more shock resistant as well as smaller packaging.

Awesome!

Stupid MS, there another thing to do this winter now. That thing looks like fun.:eyecrazy

Yeah man - I am pumped about it - I almost want to put my nitrous on hold and get this... but its nothing to offer that I don't already have, it's just cool!

I will get one though - if nothing else it'll be easier and more fun modifying it with the nicer pads.

Thats been out for months. I mentioned it a while ago...

It's only started shipping in quantity just recently Mike, as of the last few days.


You're probably thinking of the Spectre e-MS which is also SM but is a more retail package.

Yeah man - I am pumped about it - I almost want to put my nitrous on hold and get this... but its nothing to offer that I don't already have, it's just cool!

I will get one though - if nothing else it'll be easier and more fun modifying it with the nicer pads.

much easier to modify. Most of the stuff is jumper selectable. For a lot of the "additional" stuff, they have another plug. You probably won't need to actually touch much if anything on the board itself. It'll get the jumpers set once and just stay in its happy little case. The "extra" stuff can be off board on a seperate board in another enclosure attached via the extra plug.

It's only started shipping in quantity just recently Mike, as of the last few days.


You're probably thinking of the Spectre e-MS which is also SM but is a more retail package.

no, saw one at DIYautotune months ago. many months ago. 3.57 has been on their site for probably close to two months as well.

actually, aboout a month ago I posted
You can now get "mostly surfacemount" MS boxes too. PCB 3.57.

I'm just glad they moved the proto area into a plug. get the random crap off the main board and keep it surface mount. Should fix some of the "bad build" issues, some of the vibration issues, etc... now we have to see if the heat issues go away. I suspect that side of things will be better too.

actually, aboout a month ago I posted


I'm just glad they moved the proto area into a plug. get the random crap off the main board and keep it surface mount. Should fix some of the "bad build" issues, some of the vibration issues, etc... now we have to see if the heat issues go away. I suspect that side of things will be better too.

Yah. Like what Mike said, old news... :stickoutt

I think it may have been listed and perhaps pulled I am not sure - I keep a close eye there and they definitely weren't stocked. Either way its a nice upgrade. I've never had a heat issue though. Having been in touch with Matt today @ work he said that they haven't been in stock.

the mspnp was based on the 357, so it was introduced to the world almost three months ago. within the last month or so the standard boxes were introduced, and only as a preassembled unit. the board, functionally, is no different from a 3.0 board. one of the main benifits for diyautotune is that it takes less time to produce. problem is they are selling like hot cakes and there arent enough to go around.

the mspnp was based on the 357, so it was introduced to the world almost three months ago. within the last month or so the standard boxes were introduced, and only as a preassembled unit. the board, functionally, is no different from a 3.0 board. one of the main benifits for diyautotune is that it takes less time to produce. problem is they are selling like hot cakes and there arent enough to go around.

What the hell do you know? :shifty

What the hell do you know? :shifty

more than you think :shifty

:stickoutt

Is this an upgrade in performance at all? 32x32 tables perhaps? :D

Is this an upgrade in performance at all? 32x32 tables perhaps? :D

no/yeah right

Is this an upgrade in performance at all? 32x32 tables perhaps? :D

Its just a slightly better implementation of the same hardware. Thus same limitations, software, etc... so 12x12 tables, or extra code making a 16x16 VE table and 12x12 spark table. No more as there isn't "room" for more.

:nono Who the hell cares? You are too busy to build these for us anyways now that you have a Jay Oh Bee. :D :lol

:nono Who the hell cares? You are too busy to build these for us anyways now that you have a Jay Oh Bee. :D :lol

Hah yeah apparently my thread for M52 Powers ECU was deleted for being an advertisement... interesting because I can't build these any more. The point of this new hardware is that you don't have to build them :) You still have to modify the setup, but in the end you save by not having to build the actual base system.

Cool, now hopefully there will be a better tuning interface :devillook

Cool, now hopefully there will be a better tuning interface :devillook

ehhh i like MT. If you play with Tec3 and such, you really start to wonder how those things stay in use!

Its just a slightly better implementation of the same hardware. Thus same limitations, software, etc... so 12x12 tables, or extra code making a 16x16 VE table and 12x12 spark table. No more as there isn't "room" for more.

So this is one of the downfalls of MS I'm assuming...is there any way it can be changed?

So this is one of the downfalls of MS I'm assuming...is there any way it can be changed?

megasquirt 3?

megasquirt 3?

There is room for more if you consolidate other features and options to support more than one type of car/ignition/etc. You can write your own firmware or modify existing if you wish - but honestly 16x16 is more than enough fuel and spark. Shortly, we'll see for sure :)

i've heard talk on MS2E forum there will be 20x20 VE tables.

frankly, after seeing the autocross datalog (with all kinds of very steep fluctuations of RPM and TPS) of a MS2E-powered car tuned by Ken (one of the MS2Extra creators), and comparing it to the log i've obtained from datalogging the stock obd1 ecu with a JimC chip in it, i am convinced that MS2Extra currently has equal or even better tunability than the 413, as far as driveability is concerned.

one should admire what properly tuned EAE (a more stable derivative of X-tau wall-wetting algorithm) does to keep the AFR curve from fluctuating as the throttle/rpm keeps changing at a very fast rate.

And it doesn't end there. Ken promised that in the next release he will add a kind of prediction, which will completely eliminate any tiny lag remaining in the throttle tip-in. This algorithm will switch to Alpha-N for brief period of hard throttle stomp to predict the MAP value. (has to do with determining the filling of the intake manifold or some-such)

Alex

i've heard talk on MS2E forum there will be 20x20 VE tables.

frankly, after seeing the autocross datalog (with all kinds of very steep fluctuations of RPM and TPS) of a MS2E-powered car tuned by Ken (one of the MS2Extra creators), and comparing it to the log i've obtained from datalogging the stock obd1 ecu with a JimC chip in it, i am convinced that MS2Extra currently has equal or even better tunability than the 413, as far as driveability is concerned.

one should admire what properly tuned EAE (a more stable derivative of X-tau wall-wetting algorithm) does to keep the AFR curve from fluctuating as the throttle/rpm keeps changing at a very fast rate.

And it doesn't end there. Ken promised that in the next release he will add a kind of prediction, which will completely eliminate any tiny lag remaining in the throttle tip-in. This algorithm will switch to Alpha-N for brief period of hard throttle stomp to predict the MAP value. (has to do with determining the filling of the intake manifold or some-such)

Alex

There won't be 20x20.

It's only started shipping in quantity just recently Mike, as of the last few days.


You're probably thinking of the Spectre e-MS which is also SM but is a more retail package.


My roommate has had the 3.57 board on our table for idk how many months now.

i've heard talk on MS2E forum there will be 20x20 VE tables.
Not going to happen.

frankly, after seeing the autocross datalog (with all kinds of very steep fluctuations of RPM and TPS) of a MS2E-powered car tuned by Ken (one of the MS2Extra creators), and comparing it to the log i've obtained from datalogging the stock obd1 ecu with a JimC chip in it, i am convinced that MS2Extra currently has equal or even better tunability than the 413, as far as driveability is concerned.
:lol You're kidding, right? Showing that the AFR can be made stable is not the same as a stable/constant AFR being ideal or even a good thing.
one should admire what properly tuned EAE (a more stable derivative of X-tau wall-wetting algorithm) does to keep the AFR curve from fluctuating as the throttle/rpm keeps changing at a very fast rate.
This is easier when your AFR target doesn't move/change. When would your AFR target be constant though?
And it doesn't end there. Ken promised that in the next release he will add a kind of prediction, which will completely eliminate any tiny lag remaining in the throttle tip-in. This algorithm will switch to Alpha-N for brief period of hard throttle stomp to predict the MAP value. (has to do with determining the filling of the intake manifold or some-such)

Alex

that'll probably be pretty cool when it has enough processor to do that. Then again, when they upgrade the processor, they'll probably add enough room for proper tables too.

My roommate has had the 3.57 board on our table for idk how many months now.

Theres a difference between getting one versus them being available in quantity.

Not going to happen.


:lol You're kidding, right? Showing that the AFR can be made stable is not the same as a stable/constant AFR being ideal or even a good thing.

This is easier when your AFR target doesn't move/change. When would your AFR target be constant though?


that'll probably be pretty cool when it has enough processor to do that. Then again, when they upgrade the processor, they'll probably add enough room for proper tables too.

Mike stop it now before you start another senseless debate. "Proper tables". Uh huh - you should build a proper race car. Your definition, and my definition, are both up to interpretation - pretty ridiculous statement to make.

Let's cut it out before it gets out of hand.

:lol You're kidding, right? Showing that the AFR can be made stable is not the same as a stable/constant AFR being ideal or even a good thing.


I don't think you'd ever want an AFR that swings wildly in either direction though.

I don't think you'd ever want an AFR that swings wildly in either direction though.

full lean on throttle lift? stomp the throttle and back to 12 sharply?

full lean on throttle lift? stomp the throttle and back to 12 sharply?

That's not how it works and you know it. Stop it.

Mike stop it now before you start another senseless debate. "Proper tables". Uh huh - you should build a proper race car. Your definition, and my definition, are both up to interpretation - pretty ridiculous statement to make.
True.
That's not how it works and you know it. Stop it.
:)

That's not how it works and you know it. Stop it.

:rolleyes

Interesting Michael. Do you have a datalog like that showing how the stock ECU does it? I am serious...I want a comparison cause I want to see what is considered better.

The AFR will go lean depending on how over run is set up and your lowest fuel bins. My accel enrichment behaves just like stock.


Mike, you do realize, you are coming into a thread by a normal member of this forum showing a new product out from an unaffiliated source, and you're criticizing it? What are you doing? Cut it the hell out, you are literally starting an argument each time you post. The ":lol" and the sarcasm is really making you look bad in this thread.




Mike stop it now before you start another senseless debate. "Proper tables". Uh huh - you should build a proper race car. Your definition, and my definition, are both up to interpretation - pretty ridiculous statement to make.

Let's cut it out before it gets out of hand.

That's not how it works and you know it. Stop it.

Two times a simple request to not turn this into another shit fest and you're blatantly ignoring it. One last time please leave your criticism home if you have something to contribute feel free to do so but if you're going to chime in here criticizing a system you don't like, go start your own thread.

Interesting Michael. Do you have a datalog like that showing how the stock ECU does it? I am serious...I want a comparison cause I want to see what is considered better.

That is the stock ECU...

That is the stock ECU...
:lol Oh I thought he was saying that is how it's not supposed to be and the MS does it that way. My bad. :shifty

Okay so UM...can we see an MS datalog like that to compare then?

The problem here is that first off, Mike, quit picking out every word on these people. I can manipulate everything you say as well; I wont, and I don't expect you to do the same in return. You knew what he meant by a fluctuating AFR being the processing power at fault, NOT that it's bad to have fuel cuts and sudden accelerations to change the AFR quickly. Don't twist words, please.

Second, the MS community kinda pisses me off. They want to extend to every possible car, but the programmers/testers/users all want simple 8x8 fuel and spark maps. With that in mind, it sounds like they are just being lazy and are probably on engines that either are simple in design and a carb could handle it, or something without VVT. Sure, the MS has come a very long way in the past couple of years, but it wont go much further if they do not plan on supporting later/latest engines. Things like the 357 upgrade are nice, but I really do not see any true progress in it.

:lol Oh I thought he was saying that is how it's not supposed to be and the MS does it that way. My bad. :shifty

Okay so UM...can we see an MS datalog like that to compare then?

http://blowneuroz.com/mygallery/Screenshots/ae.jpg

Yeah, so, like I said, spend the time, and its JUST like stock.

I have a 1 second delay from when my TPS goes closed to when over run fuel cut is triggered. I can set it to 0 and shift those flat points RIGHT to where my throttle closes like Mike has. That datalog I posted is of me just driving in boost, not a 3 4 5 quick shifting like Mikes (I dunno in my hundreds of logs where I did that so I don't have it on hand at the moment). But the slight "lean going" you see as I close the TPS is because I am not engaging over run until 1 second later. What's actually NICE about this, is that at low speeds, say driving around town, the car doesn't enter and exist over run every time you're engine braking. So creeping around a stop sign in first and engine braking in traffic is very smooth.

The spots right before the RPM climbs is where I target closed loop ~12.8:1 AFR (~90-100 KPA) and then you can see me taper from 12.0 to 11.7 to 11.5 full boost as I go over 100 KPA and enter open loop. Mikes datalog is open loop at all points. If you don't believe me that the oscillating is closed loop targeting, notice throttle position at those points - my car enters closed loop if TPS > 80% AND OR KPA > 95 KPA (I think its 95, could be 90) I could easily just target one AFR at all points over 100 KPA and it'd be "flatter" which isn't really a good thing. Or, if I had gone 3rd 4th 5th pulls and been in boost each time the TPS went in, it'd probably be flat around 11.5 since I'd be in that zone of the AFR target map.

So yeah, I think Mike did a pretty good job of making a big deal out of nothing.

Oh yeah, check out that boost curve :) Not bad for a huge turbo. I have the WG staying closed 100% shut so nothing can leak out right until it hits my target PSI.

Further looking at this log I think this is me datalogging my boost control to see what boost I hit, it look like I do a 3rd or 4th gear pull over and over, but I couldn't tell you, it's from 8/10/07

PLEASE keep the fighting out of here and do not turn this thread into another argument about MS vs. 413.

Second, the MS community kinda pisses me off. They want to extend to every possible car, but the programmers/testers/users all want simple 8x8 fuel and spark maps. With that in mind, it sounds like they are just being lazy and are probably on engines that either are simple in design and a carb could handle it, or something without VVT. Sure, the MS has come a very long way in the past couple of years, but it wont go much further if they do not plan on supporting later/latest engines. Things like the 357 upgrade are nice, but I really do not see any true progress in it.

The developers are set on 16x16. That's more than enough - how do I know? I am using it :)

Its hard to make an ECU for 1,000+ cars work happily universally. It's VERY easy to make one ECU work for one car... like Motronic. That doesn't mean you can't get MS to behave properly - as you can see above.

I'd heard from my friend who tunes Subi's that something like 20x20 (or slightly bigger?) is more so ideal. Is that mostly because their cars turn out ~8-9k RPM while ours are in the 7k range?

I'd heard from my friend who tunes Subi's that something like 20x20 (or slightly bigger?) is more so ideal. Is that mostly because their cars turn out ~8-9k RPM while ours are in the 7k range?

Subis? So he's using a piggyback most likely. I dunno how anyone can have input on the subject using a piggyback like Utec.

They don't turn 9k rpm, at all.

Its all preference and skill - I have been a passenger in a car with a 8x8 map and had no idea until I was told so. You can have 8x8 and make it drive perfect. You can have 128x256 and have it drive like shit. It's only as good as you make it. To say one is better than the other is only on a very fundamental technical number-based level - to drive a tuned setup back to back, and determining from that - that too is subjective. Either way with all of the people I know running MS, I have not once had a single person say "It drives great but I need __ x __ ...." even on cars with KPA bins up to 350.

Go populate the 16x16 fuel table and tell me how many more bins you need :) It's a lot! 256 interpolated load sites is a lot.

Noo, not Utec. Like a Hydra or stock ECU remapping software, such as the Cobb AccessPORT and ECUTek software. And IIRC, many of the race motors that their shop builds turn well over 8k. I'll be back with direct details.

I am sure 12x12 or 16x16 is fine, I've seen my friends MS'd (v2.x) Volvo's running 12x12 tables, and they drive perfect and have wonderful, flatish AFR plots.

I didn't bring up anything other than that the "flat AFR" bit is pointless. That was questioned, and I responded. My response was also very clear, but UM again didn't understand. Hence the log that was posted... which is actually from a Porsche 997 at Daytona earlier this year. It clearly shows AFR's jumping high and low. The statement before UM's "thats not how it works" is actually exactly how it works.

More data points doesn't mean you can tune it better, but less data points does mean you can't tune it as well. I've been in plenty of cars with carbs and a locked distributor. They ran perfectly smooth. That should NOT be confused with that same car potentially getting much better fuel mileage and making more power with better control of the fuel and spark.

The VE table will be a complex surface. A wavy curvy surface. Lets use something else as an example of data size though. Imagine we are using 2d coordinates to define shapes. The shape we want to define is a circle. If our table holds 3 points, our circle looks a lot like a triangle... if the table holds 4 points, we can make a square, which is closer to a circle than a triangle, but still not exactly round. we up our table size to 6 and now we have a hexagon... closer still to a circle, but not. As should be obvious now, if we want to precisely define a complex shape, the more points the better. Now if we don't need that precision, or can't make use of it, etc... then just a few points will be enough.

a Porsche 997 at Daytona earlier this year. It clearly shows AFR's jumping high and low.

I dont get it.... seems to only really jump at the shift points, everything else is quite stable (save for the little variation at the bottom of the newly selected gear)


The VE table will be a complex surface. A wavy curvy surface. Lets use something else as an example of data size though. Imagine we are using 2d coordinates to define shapes. The shape we want to define is a circle. If our table holds 3 points, our circle looks a lot like a triangle... if the table holds 4 points, we can make a square, which is closer to a circle than a triangle, but still not exactly round. we up our table size to 6 and now we have a hexagon... closer still to a circle, but not. As should be obvious now, if we want to precisely define a complex shape, the more points the better. Now if we don't need that precision, or can't make use of it, etc... then just a few points will be enough.

EXCELLENT way of describing the benefits of more resolution! :buttrock

I didn't bring up anything other than that the "flat AFR" bit is pointless. That was questioned, and I responded. My response was also very clear, but UM again didn't understand. Hence the log that was posted... which is actually from a Porsche 997 at Daytona earlier this year. It clearly shows AFR's jumping high and low. The statement before UM's "thats not how it works" is actually exactly how it works.

Argh - you're driving me nuts. I wasn't saying "thats not how it works." I was saying your accusation of MS not being able to do it right is "not how it works." You quoted Xtatic, telling him "Oh so this is good?" "Oh that is good?" and I quoted your last reply - get over it - I was actually correcting Xtatic as he did a botched up way of describing the ECU operation..... that is not how it works, and you know it.

Damnit stop it - how the heck do I not understand - I tuned my engine the same way!? I just showed you and confirmed a datalog replicating what you showed us, and if the scales were the same and the resolution it'd look damn similar. Seriously Mike I've backed off with your antics - I asked twice to leave the topic alone, knowing full right you're taking it here. How the heck could I not possibly understand, yet I tuned my car to do exactly what you have - thats one hell of a fluke, isn't it? Doesn't that just make you look ridiculous - you're trying to make me look bad, you misinterpreted what I said, you see me verbally and graphically (I don't know how many more ways I could demonstrate this for you) agree with your datalog, and then you tell me I don't understand. "Urinemachine doesn't understand its exactly how it works." Ohhh ok my datalogs just coincide with the same damn thing you posted by chance. If I didn't understand and thought your log was wrong, why would I post a log showing the same results?

1) Stop trying to make me look stupid, you misinterpreted my response, you don't understand
2) Believe it or not you're not the only one to have an idea of how accel enrichment should work
3) Ever-single-time you see "MS" in a thread title, you come in, and you ruin it. If it was once or twice my statistic would be off... but it's every single time... proven.

I think 16x16 tables would be enough. Although the algorithms aren't nearly the same (MAF vs MAP) between 413 and MS, the stock pt fuel tables in the 413 are 16x12.

http://static.flickr.com/6/69250266_8c1f5c979c.jpg

^^ haha. good one.

I won't hold my breath for Techno to come back in, humble himself by apologizing for not interpreting a response correctly, and the based on my datalog, mirroring the datalog he posted, acknowledge the fact that somehow, some way, with all my inability to understand... i have logs showing proper, near identical AE to a Porsche datalog.

Like I said - I won't hold my breath.

No matter what he does from this point on it does not change the fact that he took a perfectly informative/fine thread and turned it this direction - again!!!

techno, your drawing-a-circle analogy falls flat on face once non-linear scale is introduced. Once again, you space out the scale not linearly but with areas needing extra bit of resolution in mind.

to clarify, in my previous post i meant AFR to stay flat during volatile TPS/RPM transitions, not having AFR flat (the same) at any RPM/MAP, which, as we all know, would be a good way to pop an engine. So there is no reason to be a clown. :lol

Not sure about you techno, but i take JimC as a tuning authority.
here is an exerpt of the RPM/MAP/AFR datalog of his 413 tune:
Notice the 10.6 AFR (purple curve) when the MAP (cyan curve) goes down sharply? I don't believe he did this on purpose, so the only conclusion i can come to is that it is a deficiency of the motronic.
The AFR curve peak right after is at around 16.20 - not very healthy perhaps you agree.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/ababkin/graph.png

maybe for this discussion's sake, and to substantiate your claims, you can demostrate an RPM/TPS/AFR datalog of your tune with RPM/TPS fluctuating sharply. Only then this discussion will hold some weight.

..and the instant alphaN MAP prediction feature i mentioned will be implemented on the current hardware.

Alex

maybe for this discussion's sake, and to substantiate your claims, you can demostrate an RPM/TPS/AFR datalog of your tune with RPM/TPS fluctuating sharply. Only then this discussion will hold some weight.

Alex

And even then it's evident MS is not "incapable" of driving the motor based not only on my many claims of "I have a highly drivable car!!!" and now a datalog showing what I've claimed :help

techno, your drawing-a-circle analogy falls flat on face once non-linear scale is introduced. Once again, you space out the scale not linearly but with areas needing extra bit of resolution in mind.

No, it doesn't. No matter how you space it, more resolution is better. I am not sure why you keep arguing this... you make it sound like MS is the only EMS you've ever worked with and you think it's the greatest thing ever because you can move the RPM and load bins. :dunno

And even then it's evident MS is not "incapable" of driving the motor based not only on my many claims of "I have a highly drivable car!!!" and now a datalog showing what I've claimed :help

MS can work well, nobody is arguing that it's not a workable solution for a lot of cars. It will be better with more resolution and more processing power, right?

I won't hold my breath for Techno to come back in, humble himself by apologizing for not interpreting a response correctly
You've got to be f'ing kidding me. I was hoping for an apology for that reason from YOU.

and the based on my datalog, mirroring the datalog he posted, acknowledge the fact that somehow, some way, with all my inability to understand... i have logs showing proper, near identical AE to a Porsche datalog.
Again, you're kidding, right? have you looked at your log?

Like I said - I won't hold my breath.
:rolleyes
No matter what he does from this point on it does not change the fact that he took a perfectly informative/fine thread and turned it this direction - again!!!
Informative? You made a thread mentioning a "new" MS thing that I mentioned a while ago. Apparently I'm more up to date and know more about MS than you...

MS can work well, nobody is arguing that it's not a workable solution for a lot of cars.

You don't have to tell me this. I know it works well. I have said this from the beginning. Don't make me track the post down from Mike that says (pseudo verbatim) "MS works but that doesn't mean it works well". I love how team GA uses subjective terms when its convenient for their stance. "Proper" vs "Well" vs.. it's a constant bicker-fest instigated by Mike's inability to accept that there may be someone out there with a proper running MS car. I dunno, since I posted my datalog showing a nice application of accel enrichment Techno hasn't posted. I dunno if its because he's out conquering the world or if its because he looks silly now, I'll simply assume the latter because it's most likely.

But what the hell do I know, I don't understand how it works.... .... ........ :lol

I stand corrected, he posted.

No, it doesn't. No matter how you space it, more resolution is better. I am not sure why you keep arguing this... you make it sound like MS is the only EMS you've ever worked with and you think it's the greatest thing ever because you can move the RPM and load bins. :dunno

indeed i've only tuned the MS, which has nothing to do with the case in point.
And I never argued that more res is better. Keep in mind that you do get to the point of deminishing returns eventually. All i said is that trying to draw a circle in a fixed resolution grid is not a good analogy. And spacing out the scale smartly, will make the returns deminish even faster.
example: having 256 cells, one can space them out uniformly and get a crappy circle, or space them out such way to increase the resolution at the edges of the circle and get to draw a better circle. Capish? :cool

Alex

Informative? You made a thread mentioning a "new" MS thing that I mentioned a while ago. Apparently I'm more up to date and know more about MS than you...

Mike quit. Give up. You are ruining your image - more up to date? Hey guess what, a CAN display for MS2 is out.




Well no, its been announced, if you came in here a month or two later saying its now stocking, I wouldn't be jumping up and down "oh oh look at me I said this a while ago."

Way to go Mike you read the same release I read when the units were SPARSE low production. I am announcing as per the very words of Matt Cramer that the units are now available due to having issue with stocking.

Me apologize to you? You harassed me - I showed you that I do know how to tune an AE map. You're wrong. Me apologize to you? Seriously, humble yourself Mr. Oz. You interpreted a response incorrectly - you took effort to post based on that incorrect interpretation, you were offensive in the manner. You were then proved oh so wrong in what you incorrectly determined to be the case, and you want an apology from me?

Are you female? You sound like a girlfriend.

And even then it's evident MS is not "incapable" of driving the motor based not only on my many claims of "I have a highly drivable car!!!" and now a datalog showing what I've claimed :help

I've covered this a million times. Cars run on locked timing and carbs all the time. They "drive fine" too. That is not the question. the purpose of better engine management is to better manage the engine. This is why fuel injection is generally better than a carb, and why computer controlled ignition is better than a distributor.

btw, here is Ken's post with his datalog i was talking about

http://msextra.com/viewtopic.php?t=24277&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=eae&start=20

techno, your drawing-a-circle analogy falls flat on face once non-linear scale is introduced. Once again, you space out the scale not linearly but with areas needing extra bit of resolution in mind.
no, it still holds true. if we have 3 points to define a circle, we *can* put 3 of them right next to each other and define a very small segment of it well, but we can't define ALL of it well, can we?

to clarify, in my previous post i meant AFR to stay flat during volatile TPS/RPM transitions, not having AFR flat (the same) at any RPM/MAP, which, as we all know, would be a good way to pop an engine. So there is no reason to be a clown. :lol
There are transitional conditions where we may want an AFR spike in a given direction. especially on a turbocharged car.

Not sure about you techno, but i take JimC as a tuning authority.
here is an exerpt of the RPM/MAP/AFR datalog of his 413 tune:
Notice the 10.6 AFR (purple curve) when the MAP (cyan curve) goes down sharply? I don't believe he did this on purpose, so the only conclusion i can come to is that it is a deficiency of the motronic.
The AFR curve peak right after is at around 16.20 - not very healthy perhaps you agree.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/ababkin/graph.png

maybe for this discussion's sake, and to substantiate your claims, you can demostrate an RPM/TPS/AFR datalog of your tune with RPM/TPS fluctuating sharply. Only then this discussion will hold some weight.

..and the instant alphaN MAP prediction feature i mentioned will be implemented on the current hardware.

Alex

your conclusions are similar to seeing a "base file / remote tuned" MS and it having issues and blaming the hardware immediately.

I've covered this a million times. Cars run on locked timing and carbs all the time. They "drive fine" too. That is not the question. the purpose of better engine management is to better manage the engine. This is why fuel injection is generally better than a carb, and why computer controlled ignition is better than a distributor.

And I've posted a million times - my car and cars I have tuned drive completely stock on the road. Believe it or not. I posted a datalog of accel enrichment you can't even see overly rich spikes or lean spikes. You see closed loop cruise and then right into accel which matches just right at target AFR for the bins. Face it, your log and my log are no different.

Stop with the carb BS, we're tired of it. "better" "proper" "well" get over it - the car drives as well as stock - whether you think so or not.

But I regress, this isn't even the point of this thread as I intended.

btw, here is Ken's post with his datalog i was talking about

http://msextra.com/viewtopic.php?t=24277&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=eae&start=20

yeah, I saw that last month. I had the same conclusion then. Interesting exercise in showing what the ECU can do, but far from an ideal situation.

This is much better.

your conclusions are similar to seeing a "base file / remote tuned" MS and it having issues and blaming the hardware immediately.

Sounds like a cop-out Mike - reaching for straws? That's a Jim C tune. Base/remote or not, that is software that millions of cars are running on. So, to all those people who have Jim C / GIAC software etc., well... they have problems... the just don't know it :rolleyes

this looks pretty good Mike

can you zoom it in a bit? to see finer detail?

this looks pretty good Mike

can you zoom it in a bit? to see finer detail?

How is his log any better than what I've posted though? Its zoomed out far - if I zoomed my crap out and had a 3 pixel line it'd look amazing!

this looks pretty good Mike

can you zoom it in a bit? to see finer detail?

shows the on/off throttle transitions, PT to WOT transitions, etc.

Let's see if I can break this all down. First, the remark that set this in motion:


:lol You're kidding, right? Showing that the AFR can be made stable is not the same as a stable/constant AFR being ideal or even a good thing.


This was addressed to xstatic. Here's the response it garnered:


Mike stop it now before you start another senseless debate. "Proper tables". Uh huh - you should build a proper race car. Your definition, and my definition, are both up to interpretation - pretty ridiculous statement to make.

Let's cut it out before it gets out of hand.

Followed up with this, directed toward antonch:

full lean on throttle lift? stomp the throttle and back to 12 sharply?

UM's response:

That's not how it works and you know it. Stop it.

Techno retorts:

:rolleyes

UM kicks it up a notch:


Mike, you do realize, you are coming into a thread by a normal member of this forum showing a new product out from an unaffiliated source, and you're criticizing it? What are you doing? Cut it the hell out, you are literally starting an argument each time you post. The ":lol" and the sarcasm is really making you look bad in this thread.

Two times a simple request to not turn this into another shit fest and you're blatantly ignoring it. One last time please leave your criticism home if you have something to contribute feel free to do so but if you're going to chime in here criticizing a system you don't like, go start your own thread.

UM responds to himself:


Yeah, so, like I said, spend the time, and its JUST like stock.
[...]
So yeah, I think Mike did a pretty good job of making a big deal out of nothing.


Techno digs in:

My response was also very clear, but UM again didn't understand.
[...]
The statement before UM's "thats not how it works" is actually exactly how it works.

UM goes nuclear:

Argh - you're driving me nuts. I wasn't saying "thats not how it works." I was saying your accusation of MS not being able to do it right is "not how it works." You quoted Xtatic, telling him "Oh so this is good?" "Oh that is good?" and I quoted your last reply - get over it - I was actually correcting Xtatic as he did a botched up way of describing the ECU operation..... that is not how it works, and you know it.

Damnit stop it - how the heck do I not understand - I tuned my engine the same way!? I just showed you and confirmed a datalog replicating what you showed us, and if the scales were the same and the resolution it'd look damn similar. Seriously Mike I've backed off with your antics - I asked twice to leave the topic alone, knowing full right you're taking it here. How the heck could I not possibly understand, yet I tuned my car to do exactly what you have - thats one hell of a fluke, isn't it? Doesn't that just make you look ridiculous - you're trying to make me look bad, you misinterpreted what I said, you see me verbally and graphically (I don't know how many more ways I could demonstrate this for you) agree with your datalog, and then you tell me I don't understand. "Urinemachine doesn't understand its exactly how it works." Ohhh ok my datalogs just coincide with the same damn thing you posted by chance. If I didn't understand and thought your log was wrong, why would I post a log showing the same results?

1) Stop trying to make me look stupid, you misinterpreted my response, you don't understand
2) Believe it or not you're not the only one to have an idea of how accel enrichment should work
3) Ever-single-time you see "MS" in a thread title, you come in, and you ruin it. If it was once or twice my statistic would be off... but it's every single time... proven.

The call out:

I won't hold my breath for Techno to come back in, humble himself by apologizing for not interpreting a response correctly, and the based on my datalog, mirroring the datalog he posted, acknowledge the fact that somehow, some way, with all my inability to understand... i have logs showing proper, near identical AE to a Porsche datalog.

Like I said - I won't hold my breath.

No matter what he does from this point on it does not change the fact that he took a perfectly informative/fine thread and turned it this direction - again!!!

UM continues his argument:

And even then it's evident MS is not "incapable" of driving the motor based not only on my many claims of "I have a highly drivable car!!!" and now a datalog showing what I've claimed :help

Techno finally gets in the mud:

You've got to be f'ing kidding me. I was hoping for an apology for that reason from YOU.

Again, you're kidding, right? have you looked at your log?

:rolleyes

Informative? You made a thread mentioning a "new" MS thing that I mentioned a while ago. Apparently I'm more up to date and know more about MS than you...

UM starts arguing with no one in particular:

You don't have to tell me this. I know it works well. I have said this from the beginning. Don't make me track the post down from Mike that says (pseudo verbatim) "MS works but that doesn't mean it works well". I love how team GA uses subjective terms when its convenient for their stance. "Proper" vs "Well" vs.. it's a constant bicker-fest instigated by Mike's inability to accept that there may be someone out there with a proper running MS car. I dunno, since I posted my datalog showing a nice application of accel enrichment Techno hasn't posted. I dunno if its because he's out conquering the world or if its because he looks silly now, I'll simply assume the latter because it's most likely.

But what the hell do I know, I don't understand how it works.... .... ........ :lol

I stand corrected, he posted.

Mike quit. Give up. You are ruining your image - more up to date? Hey guess what, a CAN display for MS2 is out.

Well no, its been announced, if you came in here a month or two later saying its now stocking, I wouldn't be jumping up and down "oh oh look at me I said this a while ago."

Way to go Mike you read the same release I read when the units were SPARSE low production. I am announcing as per the very words of Matt Cramer that the units are now available due to having issue with stocking.

Me apologize to you? You harassed me - I showed you that I do know how to tune an AE map. You're wrong. Me apologize to you? Seriously, humble yourself Mr. Oz. You interpreted a response incorrectly - you took effort to post based on that incorrect interpretation, you were offensive in the manner. You were then proved oh so wrong in what you incorrectly determined to be the case, and you want an apology from me?

Are you female? You sound like a girlfriend.

Techno restates his position on the hierarchy of engine management systems:

I've covered this a million times. Cars run on locked timing and carbs all the time. They "drive fine" too. That is not the question. the purpose of better engine management is to better manage the engine. This is why fuel injection is generally better than a carb, and why computer controlled ignition is better than a distributor.

UM continues without response to his barrages:

And I've posted a million times - my car and cars I have tuned drive completely stock on the road. Believe it or not. I posted a datalog of accel enrichment you can't even see overly rich spikes or lean spikes. You see closed loop cruise and then right into accel which matches just right at target AFR for the bins. Face it, your log and my log are no different.

Stop with the carb BS, we're tired of it. "better" "proper" "well" get over it - the car drives as well as stock - whether you think so or not.

But I regress, this isn't even the point of this thread as I intended.

Sounds like a cop-out Mike - reaching for straws? That's a Jim C tune. Base/remote or not, that is software that millions of cars are running on. So, to all those people who have Jim C / GIAC software etc., well... they have problems... the just don't know it :rolleyes

How is his log any better than what I've posted though? Its zoomed out far - if I zoomed my crap out and had a 3 pixel line it'd look amazing!


I think that covers it. I'll let the jury decide who's to blame, or how to assign contributory negligence percentages.

How about a more simple outline:


I start thread announcing those not on the "in" of new products that are available

Techno takes his normal "I know everything" stance insulting me here and there.

I say stop it not once, not twice, but three times. Mod comes in and says cut it out.

Techno says I dont know wtf I am talking about - which really annoys me, especially after showing a datalog indicating I do.

I say stop, stop, stop, etc.

Cliff notes of the cliff nots:

I start a MS new item thread
Techno takes it somewhere else completely and insults people
Mod comes in says stop
Techno presses on
I respond, and lose concern with the thread that I originally started.

best drama thread on BF yet...

I like when you say "Stop it."

I really don't know why, but I lol'ed.

I like when you say "Stop it."

I really don't know why, but I lol'ed.

Thats about as blunt as I could express myself I thought everyone would get it but I guess not.

This thread, as usual, is stupid at this point.

How about a more simple outline:
I start thread announcing those not on the "in" of new products that are available
Techno takes his normal "I know everything" stance insulting me here and there.
I say stop it not once, not twice, but three times. Mod comes in and says cut it out.
Techno says I dont know wtf I am talking about - which really annoys me, especially after showing a datalog indicating I do.
I say stop, stop, stop, etc.

Cliff notes of the cliff nots:

I start a MS new item thread
Techno takes it somewhere else completely and insults people
Mod comes in says stop
Techno presses on
I respond, and lose concern with the thread that I originally started.

Thats about as blunt as I could express myself I thought everyone would get it but I guess not.

This thread, as usual, is stupid at this point.

Take a look back at what was actually said, carefully considering to whom it was directed and when along the course of events it was said.

I'm not going to get into the great MS v. 413 debate here, but it looks to me that you were the one who took this thread away from being about the posts to being about the posters. Did techno get snarky with his response about MS producing a flat AFR? Indeed. Was it directed at you? No. Was techno the only one who stated that 3.57 had been available for some time? No, Robstah, kendogg, and n24tg all mentioned it as well. Yet he is the only one who is called out in your posts and summaries.

Granted, this analysis is based on what I've seen in this thread alone. I'm only tangentially aware of the history between the two of you. But it seems to me that you are the one who directed this thread into a series of personal attacks.

The point of the forum is to allow a free exchange of ideas. If some idea is presented in a thread that another member questions or doesn't agree with, he should be able to make his position known, and not be told to "start his own thread". We all tend to take it personally when someone questions our beliefs, but we can't launch into a personal attack because of it. We've all done it before, but it accomplishes nothing.

In the end, techno needs to be more diplomatic in questioning the statements of others. And you need to get a thicker skin and not turn threads into something personal if someone disagrees with you or says "there is a better way".


CLIFF NOTES: Intrnt. Srs bsns.

You have to know the history, I haven't seen a MS thread yet where techno hasn't figured out a way to crap on it.

Back over to Hondatech for me where the FI folks actually can get along.

delgadoduvidoso........ post 70 was the funniest post on bfc I have ever read. Seriously.

What was this thread originally about again?? :rolleyes

Ridiculous.