69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

I am posting this new thread hoping that I can get some response to building, testing and troubleshooting a Super $8d ECU. I am looking at this ECU to do the following:
1. Fix All known problems with the $8d ECU's.
2. Build a baseline ECU to work in conjunction with project Super AUJP.
3. Add all the known Switches, Tables, and Constants.
4. Rebuild the titles of all Switches, Tables, and Constants to be more consistant with what you are actually doing. For instance anything that has to do with Idle, Highway Mode, Canister Purge, will start with those names so all Idle parameters can be sorted and viewed instead of hunting and pecking through the order to try to figure out what is going on.


I have already worked extensively on the Constants. The Switches and Tables are next. Anybody interested can email me for a request on the latest file. The hope is to build this and post it as the $8d ECU of choice with TunerPro!

PLANT PROTECTION

iTrader: (6)

Take a look at my 8d ecu on craig moates file upload site. The file is called 8d_v01.zip. It has basicly all the features that are remotely useful and I add items as I deem necessary. All items are labled nicely/correctly and all calcs should be correct along with temps in F for us in the States.

IroczInOz

Sounds like a great idea. The amount of 730ECU files that all work differently makes it difficult.

I just downloaded your ECu plantprotection going to have a look at it now

jonarotz

iTrader: (26)

Plantprotection, Does the rev limiter work on this ecu?

PLANT PROTECTION

iTrader: (6)

I believe my calculations for the Rev limiter function are correct in my current ECU. However, I have not verified it on my car nor that the rev limit even works. It is supposed to be 50F on friday, I may fire up my car then to test it out if nobody can verify before then. Grab my current ECU here

SMasterson

I believe the [BLM Cell MAP Boundaries] is incorrect in every version of the 730 ECU I've looked at. I've made corrections with TunerPro in mine but you may want to look as correcting this one, noting the changes in the TXT file, (which is a great idea, BTW) and re-uploading it.

The offset and the factor should both be '1' and Multiply ([X*Factor] +Offset) should be selected in the ECU and then the correct MAP values are displayed and consistent with T-Cat.

Hope this helps! Great idea!

PLANT PROTECTION

iTrader: (6)

Thanks Masterson. I put the offset to zero though, I think that is correct. That table never looked right to me, but it never came into play for me so I left it. It is good to see some interest in the ecu, I posted mine roughly a year ago when I swapped to 730 but the interest just wasn't there, I though I was the only one not using Tunercat. I'm currently working on adding a few throttle follower items also, 03 should be up pretty soon.

TRAXION

Guys - KEEP THIS ONE ALIVE!

I can't tell you how often I have people asking me about the $8D ECU files. We absolutely NEED to have a standard ECU file for everyone to use that has everything CORRECT. Furthermore - there should be ONE and only ONE location to obtain this ECU file and the file should be updated whenever possible.

This is why I have always used TunerCat ... because it's easy, up-to-date, and correct. You guys need to do the same with the ECU files. DO NOT have multiple locations to download the ECU! Have one location (Craig's site) and have one and only one copy of the ECU. Everyone should obtain their $8D ECU from Craig's site and then when problems are found they should be posted ... .. . at that point the file can be updated and users can download the fixed version.

This has always always always been a problem with the ECU files. It's time a bunch of you put your heads together, create a kickbutt $8D ECU, put it on Craig's site .... AND MARKET IT SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS TO GET THE BEST $8D ECU FILE FROM THAT LOCATION!

Tim

SMasterson

. . . ditto, and the TXT file that documents the changes is a great idea too! The TXT file that should always be included in the zip should be dated too, huh?

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

All,
The work has already been done. I have spent many hours on this and I am already finished with the first iteration. I have mailed the ECU to Moates and to TunerPro along with a few others. What I have not done is gotten any real feedback. What I have so far:

1. Started with the originial $8d ECU.
2. Added everything and that was known and compared it to the TC $8d definition.
3. Renamed the Items to make sense so they can be sorted alphabetically. EX: Switches for all flags, Idle for anything that affects idle, Enrichment for enrichment values, etc.
4. Added the extended VE table into the definition from RBob's patch and left the original one in for users that will not be using an extended definition.
5. Compared Hex locations for duplicates and removed any found.

I am hoping:
1 That Traxion, Rbob, Grumpy, etc that really know the definition files can take a serious look at the files and provide any feedback necessary.
2. To be allowed to include an extended VE SAUJP file in the ZIP for the Moates site.
3. To get this to be the default file for TunerPro.
4. To possibly create a second definition file that is in degrees F which is Plant Protections suggestion.
5. To add any possible info in the Help section like I have already with some of the Switches so people can get a quick idea what it is used for any why. For instance when to use this table and what it affects. I have just started working on adding the info now.


For those of you that have Super_8dm1.ecu this is the latest. I will mail this to anybody requesting it until I post it. As a newbie this is not only my contribution but I was one of the guys that has asked for a decent ECU after trying to wade through the ECU noting cylinder volumnes, RPM values, etc were wrong and getting confused just looking at the naming conventions. My benchmark was TC's definition. At this point I have everything TC has plus a few extra items that were defined in the original ECU already. Anybody that reads this please email and give specific change requests on this site so it can be a group decision. I will continue this as long as needed noting that my iterations will continue with Super_8dmXX.ECU where XX is my iteration of the ECU file.

IroczInOz

Plant protection had a look at your latest ECU and when chaging the INJ Constant I had to press + to go lower and - to go higher.

Mangus

Including the whole quote simply because its impossible for me to agree MORE.

I'd LOVE to host the resulting ECU file on my site to put it up next to the 6E ecu file that I (and many others) have worked to get accurate over the years.

Please, if you have the ability to work together on this 8D ECU, do so! There needs to be a SOLID, one-stop, correct ECU file for this application.

I pretty regularly see requests for the "best" 8D ECU file, and I'd like to have an answer, finally. IronczInOz is the latest to ask.

The hack is available. Lets make it happen!

Mangus

69 Ghosts Super_8dm.ecu file is on my site for download.

http://tunerpro.markmansur.com/downloadBinDefs.htm

Lets go ahead and use it as a starting point (it looks pretty good from my 7 minutes of looking through it).

Lets get more feedback to Ghost so we can get it totally correct and completely defined.

I'll keep posting iterations to my site and add a post here.

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

This behavior is really not wrong based on what we are asking it to do. It is using a divide factor operation. I used the same operation as the original ECU and TC's so when you increase X in the divide factor 10158.8/X you actually get a smaller number. This will occur with any Item that uses a divide factor. We can change this to a multiplication factor to correct this behavior with this number 9.84368e-5 or we can ask TunerPro to try to change the behavior when using the divide function which I am not sure he will be able to do. Any comments from anybody else?

IroczInOz

Ghost thanks for clearing that up! At last there is a very good 730 ECU file!

anesthes

iTrader: (12)

Ermm.. How about as many mirrors as possible, and keep track of version by the filename. ??


-- Joe

TRAXION

I don't like this approach at all UNLESS all the mirrors were accessible through a central location and ALL updated by the same individual at the same time.

Tim

nape

iTrader: (1)

I agree with TRAXION and I can't wait to try this ECU file out tonight. I've been revamping mine bit by bit but it seems like you've got a head start on me.

I'll give you feedback in a couple days.

anesthes

iTrader: (12)

Erm. I guess. Software developers have been doing it that way for decades.

-- Joe

Mangus

Erm. the difference here, I think, is that software that is mirrored cannot be downloaded, modified, then uploaded by the mirror owner.

In this case, it would open up the possibility of proliferating modified ECUs that aren't a representation of the original.

anesthes

iTrader: (12)

I guess. I'm just too used to doing it the GNU way.

Carry on.

-- Joe

nape

iTrader: (1)

PLANT PROTECTION: Can you add the Throttle Follower Gain and Stepping as referenced by this thread created by 3.8TransAm: https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=220604

I added it when I was doing my .ecu file, but I don't want to step on any toes or create my own rogue version.

edit: Good job, BTW! Sorry, it's a little late and I'm still trying to hammer out my fuel map. I guess that's what I get for doing work with the cats on, then going to straight pipes

PLANT PROTECTION

iTrader: (6)

8d_v03
Added throttle follower constants, deadbands, and a few other changes/fixes.

Grumpy

How about in the Header just type who's version it is, and the date it was done?. Then just opening it with Wordpad allows anyone to see what version it is.

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

Hello Everybody. I just got done looking at Plant Protections latest ECU and most of the stuff he added is already in the Super_8dm.ECU with of course some slightly different naming conventions. It appears that there may be some divergence here so I am going to try to map every Item with the hex location for comparison so that we can get a consensus. I have not heard from anybody on naming conventions on the ECU which was something that I actually spent a long time on. Again what I am trying to accomplish is to have everything that is known in the Super 8d, that it be right, and naming makes sense in some alphabetical fashion. Plant Protection has added what he has needed as he needs it so there is a slight difference of philosophy here as well as the naming convention. My thoughts are to start there and if you want to customize then you can REMOVE any Items not wanted. It seems much easier that way. Remember my baseline was TC's definition not any single ECU. Plant Protection any comments on this? Plant Protection on your text file can you please note the hex location when adding something so I can map it a bit easier and compare it?

nape

iTrader: (1)

What's everyone's opinion on Ghost 69's idea to alphabetize the listings in the ECU? I'm game for doing it, but it's not a priority to me.

I'd like to see us keep this post towards the top though so we don't forget about it.

Any chance we could get this stickied, TRAXION?

JP84Z430HP

Mangus, Can this be something that tunerpro can be made to read? Maybe something for the new ecu file format you're working on? Just throwing out an idea!

Mangus

already does. ECU ID is just a string. type in whatever you want.

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

I have finished Super_8d and have named it Super_8d1 with the rev date of 3/3/04 in the ECU information. There is too much here to note and I would consider a major release. There is as much or more work into this as the original release. I will try to summarize what was done:

1. Renamed some Items to be more in line with PP's and TC's Items when it made sense.
2. Added a number of constants from requests and from a compare to PP's ECU.
3. Reordered all Constants, Flags, and Tables to be alphabetical so the Item Summary list does not need to be used to see the Items alphabetically.
4. Compared additional items with the ANHT hac file for accuracy.
5. Added some help information.
6. Removed or renamed ambiguous Items in the original release.

I would like to thank Plant Protection (PP) for allowing me to use some of his Items in the ECU. The Items were mainly the Throttle Follower and Idle Cell constants. If anybody does not like what was on with the naming convention then I would highly recommend using PP's. He has all the tables and most of the constants in Super 8d.

devilfish

does it matter if I have a auto or stick car with this ecu file?

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

No. There is a flag for Manual/Auto tranny select in Switch 18 look at the help section.

devilfish

thanks

TRAXION

I don't see it. Where is it?

Tim

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

I sent it out last night directly to Mansur and to Moates. It should be on TunerPro's web page in the next day or so. Per some of the comments I think this will be where the only post will be unless Moates decides to add it to his fileman directory. The check will be if you look at the Header info it will have the Rev 3/3/04 on it.

Mangus

I'll get this posted tomorrow (Fri). Sorry guys. Its been a crazy week.

JP86SS

iTrader: (1)

I got the file and looked at it and have a question,
The knock retard/attack rates have been shown elswhere and in this one as in deg vs. rpm and deg /mS.
I also did some browsing and found that "somewhere" it was degrees per 0.100 sec (100 mS).
Has this been confirmed in this release?
Just wondering if that is still somewhat of a mystery.
I will rely on this when using the "cheap" gas as well as the low octane settings.

JP86SS

iTrader: (1)

I must have opened the old file !
Great job on the new file ! The comments are excellent!
The weather is begining to break, I'm gonna load this stuff up and do some running next week. I'll post results.

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

Well since this is the first reply that I have had in a while I assume everybody is happy with it so far. I just got my car ready with new tank to put the pump in it so I will be ready this weekend to start using my own file!

nhromyak

This looks very good, good comments to help us newbies out.

Thank you for your work.


I am sure I have a newbie question, but please hear me out.

When I look at the 1227730_8Dm.ecu
It shows both CCs and in^3
When I place my 837 CCs in the 1227730_8Dm.ecu
I only get back 609 CCs in the Super_8Dm1.ecu

I have a 409 in^3 which is a ~6.7 liter BBC.

Using the formula:
liters / 8 x 100

gives me 6.7 / 8 x 100 = 83.7

The Super_8Dm1.ecu gives an example of:
350 in^3 = 5.7 liters/8 = .71251 /cyl x 100 = 712.5
This only equals 71.25 - right?

I am sure I am missing something because the AXCN8D.BIN shows 712.50

Hence, I am sure mine should be 837. And it is in the 1227730_8Dm.ecu.

But when I look at the Super_8Dm1.ecu it shows up as 609.86

What is this newbie doing wrong?

Thanks for all your hard work and dedication.

PLANT PROTECTION

iTrader: (6)

My copy of Super_8Dm1.ecu has the displacement correct, but it doesn't have any comments. TRAXIOX has already warned of bastardized ecus, it is already happening.

nhromyak

The displacement appears to be correct for both versions of ECUs.

1227730-8D and Super_8Dv1 both show 712.5 for a 5.7 using the AXCN.BIN

BUT if you were to change the volumes. The two 8Ds show a difference, one is lower, and one is higher using the SAME BIN. I am trying to determine which ECU file is correct.

ONE of ECU files appears to do the calculations differently (e.g. dividing instead of multipliying.)

I was wondering if anyone knows HOW these are calculated in the ECU itself.
<br>

For REFERENCE, I was using a the 1227730_8D.ecu.
I changed my VEs and got most of them near 128.

Then I went and changed the Volume size. I ran some tests and almost all my VEs were in the 154 range. So I upped my VEs almost 10+ across and I am back down to 128 - 132.

Because of this VE change, I presume the 1227730_8D is incorrect in it's use of Volume changes. When I increase the volume, I would have thought the fuel would increase as well...
But apparently it DECREASED.

Hence, I think the 1227730_8D.ecu is doing calculations on volume incorrectly, while the Super_8Dmv1.ecu does them CORERCTLY.

What are your thoughts?

Or am I backwards?

RBob

iTrader: (1)

Increasing the cylinder volume will increase the amount of fuel. Is there a reason the Super_8Dv1 ECU file can't be used?

RBob.

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

Actually this one of the exact questions that I had when I decided to start this project in the first place as a newbie myself using the ECU mentioned. I questioned exact same problem because I am running a 327 .030 in my car. This comes out to a 5.3l or 331in^3. When I started this I had a demo copy of TunerCat so that was my baseline. When I was almost done I got a hold of Plant Protections ECU after not being able to open it at work -hence a late start which actually turned out to be a good thing because I then checked my work against his ECU and added some extras he had in his along with another double check for accuracy. Anything questionable was then checked with the ANHT_hac. If you compare all three -TC, PP, & Super_8D there will be some differences. The differences will mainly be in the naming for me so I could do my alphabetical listing. Other differences are in the units. For instance PP likes to use Deg F and I agree but left in Deg C because it was how all the other ECU's were originally programmed, etc where people migrating from TC or other ECU's will have the same units. That is why I added all the conversions in the comments for degrees. My other comments came from the forum, etc. PP also had ba!!$ enough to give me some constructive feedback to remove the units from the naming convention. The Super 8D ecu was developed and compared to all of these for accuracy!

Sorry for being long winded here but for any questions on accuracy please check my ecu against TC's, PP's or the ANHT_hac first. The original 1227730_8dm has a number of errors. Maybe we need to get TunerPro to remove that one and add PP's instead?

Now for the final answer here. If you look at the ecu in question remove one of the constants (delete it from the ECU definition file) -the in^3 or the liters. Check it and the value should be right. It appears that if a ECU has the 2 constants pointing to the same location the calculation gets screwed up! Hence I removed the least used constant and added the calculation in the comments field.

For all you newbies like myself that is why I created this file in the first place! Again I have only posted this ONE place -the TunerPro download page so everybody knows where to get it. It is what I am using with my AutoProm.

nhromyak

There is no reason it can't be used. As a newbie, I was wondering if there was a problem with the ECUs, or with the screw loose behind the keyboard.

Now I know, the 1227730_8DM.ecu is incorrect for volume. (I started to use 86 in my lower VE at 1600)

So now I will use the Super_8Dm1.ecu

Thank you! :hail:

JP86SS

iTrader: (1)

In light of the new TunerPro release and the XDF file format, I've created a new XDF using much of the info from the older ecu files.

Since I did not stay with the same naming conventions (just went off and did them from the hac) In discussing this it has been brought to my attention that the naming will cause problems with descriptions and usage comparing to what the function was being called previously. Matching them up to what other programs (P, TC) use is a very good idea and will take a little time to implement.
I'm working with 69Ghost, and Z69' possibly to get them back in line for a general release soon, so stay tuned.
Thanks to 69Ghost for the offer to help on this.

Current "patch" additions are:
Multi sensor WB selection with Cal points (still in progress,)
Second Extended VE table to 6400

(might want to add the 3 table patch for high res VE from Z69', with the source for VEMaster released this could get interesting)
Any other good canidates ???

The one question that needs to get thrown out there is if ALL the items should be left in there. Or should there be 2 files maintained. (STD and FULL) By that I mean that I've gone line by line and added EVERYTHING from the cal section including the filter variables, error thresholds, lots of the IAC pid stuff,etc that most people will never use but I figured that if everything was there, It would be there if needed and not have to promote different files from being created.
Granted, this opens the door for many misadjustments but goes back to the "don't change this unless you know" type of thing.
But that the way everything with life is. I'm not in favor of two files myself. I'm for leaving it all and let the tuner decide what to change, but that's just me wanting every tweak available.
(I wanted to call it the "$8D FULL MONTE" but then again I'm biased )
Thoughts?

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

Now is the time to resurect this if we want to get a good definition file out there. I sent a XDF to TunerPro but Mark has not posted it as of yet. I am sure he is busy and just forgot especially since he has put out some nice fixes/enhancements to TP. The Super 8dm posted will give the users some extra blank flag defintions for empty bits and there are 2 table definitions that need to be redefined to take advantage of the scaling factor funtionality. The 2 tables were never right in the old defintions. So far the new extended VE tables in S_AUJP V3 are the ones that will be added. My preference for the new VE tables were a bit different than Z69 but again since he is the owner whatever he does is what the new defintion will have. Z69 and JP86SS are working on some WBO2 stuff that will be included as it nears completion. Anything else anybody can think of?

Mangus

I thought the super_8D ECU was to supercede all others.

In any case, there are a ton of places to store these files.

Z69

I was wondering what happened with 69G's xdf.....

Mark, what criteria do you use to include an xdf with a release?
I can see where numerous changes to an xdf might cause problems. But there isn't an 8D def in your current TP release.
Is this because of accuracy complaints?

STD or Full- I understand the work involved going to two versions.
But the newb's have a hard time as it is with 8dm_2.
I think a Full version might overwhelm them. Unless the comments are really detailed. If you put both versions in 1 zip, might be a little more manageable.
In the long run though, I think a Full ver. would be of more use.
I think the newb should just import the current 8dm_2 ecu for a short version.

Naming conventions-The alphabetical 8dm_2 took a little getting use too but is easier than using the hac names. Until you try to have a discussion involving tuning and the hac. I like the numbering format that the 58/60 uses, but hate the Kxxx crap that appears to come from the P4 doc. Multi word abbreviations only make complete sense to the person that came up with it.
I have a few ideas, maybe an offline discussion between the three of us.

Someone needs to come up with a good 8D ads file too......
Mines a patchwork mess and I have several to prevent confusion while bench testing.

Ve Table scaling- I got very little input on what scaling people would find useful. Do you want a little more resolution, or max resolution? Again, a 2 version release seems a better fix.
For everyone but the people doing the work that is.
What useful for a mostly stock LR setup might not be as useful to someone with an LT1 intake and a cam to match it. Especially in a retrofit app. The problem 69Ghost and I had was on the definition file. We thought that 4 different ve tables in the def would cause too much confusion. Then there was the whole VE master not working argument, 3 tables vs 2 and graphing yada yada yada.
I suppose I could include a defintion with the patch and use a different table naming convention.

I'm not going into my other patches in this post to avoid confusion. The ve scaling got brought up in the S_aujp v3 post and caused some confusion.

JP86SS

iTrader: (1)

That's next on the list

I agree, we should not include any other tables except the "Upper extended to 6400".
It will cause confusion.

We can work this out offline, 69G' is going to send over some original comparison docs for me to reference and get the names/factors confirmed. Since he's been through this before, I'll do the legwork this time.

3.8TransAM

I'm not a huge Tuner Pro user I will admit.(creature of habit, it didnt exist when i started)

I do like some things I can do with it and the log/tune one program thing is nice.

I'm also in love with the huge display available for logging :-)(blind men want to see too)

That being said, the biggest flaw in it to my eyes is the complete lack of known pure xdf and ads files.

I was never a fan of the Super $8D, its peronal preference and I start almost everything anymore with a known pure factory bin set appropriately and start from there. Its more a preference than anything but I was never a fan of huge amounts of timing anywhere in my chips.

There should be commonality among the versions and the "pure" virgin should be an $8D like AUJP or ANJF. Both known and valid bins for the 90-92 cars. (I use ANJF peronsally it came from my desoldered memcal, has anyone found any real differences between the 2 worth mentioning?)

I have some ADS file stuff for the $8D that my "helper" said was okay to forward out if it will help the project.(currently unable to move files from pc to pc)

There has to be a ground zero. I think a fully defined "factory" $8D should be the base in both an expanded and slimmed down version. i.e., the "pro" version and "noob" version.

That way it could simply be $8Dpro, $8Dbasic, $8DextVE, etc and so forth.

Everyone would have the same layout and be able to patch/add the next level or just download it.

It would also help that the commonality would allow problems to be identified and fixed quicker and current updates to be as correct as possible even as expanded features are being added.

This would hold true with the ADS files as well. Makes no sense to have a "perfect" version of anything $8D without the appropriate ADS file to accompany it for.

Comments were asked for, this wasnt meant to bash anyone just my feelings and two cents worth on the subject. Its more or less the reasons I'm still using tunercat and the romulator. It has always worked for me without having to stab myself in the eyes with a fork :-) (Im a very very slow hex editor and deciphering code)