dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

That is interesting... Which years did not use the crank sensor? How did they work, then, like the older CPI systems with a standard HEI dist.?

CalEditor

My mistake I should have said Big Block. They still used them in 1998 on Big Blocks with EFI

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

Its been a little over a year now, and I think Ive gone about as far as Im going to go with this thing. I've covered all the major tuning food groups: spark, fuel, closed loop fueling, EGR, idle speed/IAC PID, and misc. constants and routines (no e-trans coding, running a stick). Theres still alot of unknowns as Im basically trying to wrap my mind around something that was designed by an entire engineering division at GM/Delphi, but I think theres probably enough there to tune with. Now that Ive gone through it, I can comment on the code overall.

One of the first things noticable about the code is that its for a 32-bit MCU, and is much more complex than the previous 8-bit HC11 based ECMs/PCMs. For one, it has the OBD-II communications in it, which adds a decent ammount of overhead and routines to the code overall. As the PCM also has SFI, the fueling and other routines are driven by the CKP pulses, which arrive 45 degrees ahead of each cylinder firing. This means that the fueling is calculated in REAL time for each cylinder and outputted to each fuel injector. Additionally the fueling is calculated by either the MAF (stable engine operation) or by SD with varying corrections to the calculated VE from the MAF sensor when operation is unstable. The fueling routines are also the biggest change with these PCMs. Everything is done in terms of cylinder airmass, including dynamic fueling for transient engine operation and crank fueling. No more injector pulsewidth or duty cycle when the MAP or TPS changes.

The idle routines are basically an evolution of the routines in the $0D computers. The idle speed is calculated based on various inputs (cool temp, selected gear, A/C, alternator/torque converter drag, etc) and passed off to the PID. The PID itself is linearized in terms of percentage of total IAC airflow, just like the $0D, and primarily uses a proportional/integral control approach.

The spark routines are much the same, with many enhancements. One of the biggest changes is the addition of the CKP sensor. Now the timing can be calculated exactly for each cylinder as the CKP pulses always arrive at the midpoint between each cylinder. This also means that the location of the distributer isn't too critical. The PCM assumes that the distributer is off, and calculates its location in degrees relative to TDC from the time intervals between the crank and cam pulses, and compensates as needed. Pretty neat, eh?

There is one big dissapointment, though. The closed loop fueling routines. These are basically the same as the old routines. The BLMs make a second appearance as the long term fuel trim and the INT is the short term fuel trim. The routine is basically split down the middle for each bank of cylinders. The code looks like it had potential as it had the beginnings of improved logic and traditional PID control, but it was hastily slapped together. Some routines are riddled with errors and logic flaws.

Never the less, overall its not too bad, and it should serve its purpose quite nicely. In the next few days, Ill post the updated code.

scuzz

That's some really in depth, cool stuff, dimented.
Thanks for taking the time to help all of us.

93V8S10

Dimented, just wanted to say Thanks for all of the work you have done with the $0D systems and now with OBD II. Your ability's are truly amazing!

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

Thanks. I cant wait to get it in the car and try it out.

Hopefully it will be usefull in trying to figure out how the later PCMs work. One thing that has been obvious in working with the PCM is that this computer is pretty much the outer limits of what I can accomplish due to its complexity. You'll get a good idea of this when you see the code when I post it. Its amazing how much these computers have evolved over time since the first CC carb/TBI ECMs.

Zalfrin

not related to the PCM hacking, but check out http://www.uvscanning.com for a customizable scanner that works with AVT units. You might also be interested in http://www.powrtuner.com The powrtuner is defunct now and was mainly for W-bodies, but there is a lot of good info on the board. Luckily, I have a w-body and the software isn't locked down like HPT, so I can hack the bin as much as I like and reflash with no problems.

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

Have you had a chance to try the UVScan? That looks cool. I think I might buy an AVT scanner and try it out.

The only possible problem could be doing crank sensor relearns and similar procedures. Not sure if they support that like some of the commercial ones do. On the other hand, I found most of the code that handles the relearn, so it may be possible to do it by hand thru hyperterminal in windows.

Zalfrin

Yep, I use it all the time for scanning. It's a much better scanner than the one that is built in to Powrtuner software. There are a ton of extended PIDs mapped, and you can enter your own if you find something that is not already mapped.

I don't think CKP relearn is in YET, however the bus traffic associated with it has been captured and will be getting added in to UVScan at some point. Right now I think the only real-time controls are turn on/off CEL and clear fuel trims. UVScan 2.0 is in Beta Testing with lots of enhancements. Gauges, support for LC1 and PLX wideband logging (using a seperate serial interface from the AVT841), etc.

The really nice thing is you actually have support from the developer, he's around a lot and take's suggestions. It is a spare time project, but he has been pretty good about getting out updates.

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

Zalfrin,

Is there a particular AVT scanner thats the best to have? It seems like the 841 is the one thats most referred to. Also, it looks like it has an A/D input. I assume that this can easily be incorporated into the datalog? It would at least save me some time by not having to use the linear EGR input to read in the wideband.

HaulnA$$

See post #54 in this thread. The 841 (rs-232) or the 842 (USB) are the only ones worth messing with. JMHO

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

Thanks. Forgot you had mentioned them earlier.

Zalfrin

843 is also a possibility (ethernet on the input side). Not sure how it works with uvscan since it looks for a com port, maybe theres a virtual com port set up? I know one of the guys (a moderator, actually) on uvscan forums is using an 843.

841 is the most common as that is what the powrtuner software (where this project is coming from) was based on. Yes, they all have 3 A/D ports and you can log those via uvscan, as well as set up fake PIDs (so for example you can log mg/cyl directly rather than using a spreadsheet to calculate, or similar).

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

I posted the latest iteration of the 98 vortec code on moates.net. Its posted on the source code and hacks section of the file server. Its not complete, but most of the major elements of the engine calibration are commented. Its also not of much use yet as there are no freeware flash utilities that support these PCMs, and the major tuners encrypt their bins. If tunercats hadn't sold the OBD-II tuner to Junk Performance, which promply made it ****ing useless, I could also have written a freeware TDF. Instead, I'll just be using tunerpro and the old trusty standby, the PP-II. I'll post up an XDF as well when Im done with it.

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

I finally got around to starting up the car with the SFI.

Specs:
350 with trickflow 195 heads
Edelbrock victor EFI with 36 PPH injectors
Isky mega hydrolic, 221/221 .465/.465 with a 108 LSA
98 blackbox

I had lots of fun breaking in the cam when I first started it. The first three or four starts, it did nothing but chug a couple of times and crap out. After switching out the timing tables and some other things, I did get it to start, but forgot to disable the transmission abuse logic, so it would cut the fuel out above 2000 RPMs, which made it interesting to try to break it in. Did get it running OK, though with some major changes to the timing and idle calibration. I initially had the stock settings, which basically blend the MAF in when the operation is steady, but since I have a cam with a decent ammount of overlap, the car was pretty much running in SD. It idled OK despite running pig rich, but due to all the lag introduced by the fueling logic, as soon as I tried to touch the gas, it would want to stall and pop out the intake. Conversely, when I closed the throttle, it would head all the way out to the rich limit, and want to stall again. I can see why the LS1 guys just lock these in SD. The blending matrix is a mess on motors with cams cams. The matrix is so complicated that it looks like it would be nearly impossible to street tune. My solution was to disable all the convoluted fueling logic and just lock it in mass airflow. Not surpisingly, it runs much better. No lag, and the engine idles within a few percent of my desired lambda/AFR. The only change I had to make was to add a little transient TPS airmass to compensate for the brief lean tip-in due to the fact that I have a 1000 CFM tb on the car.

I also cant use closed loop. At idle the LTFTs and STFTs peg out and flood the motor with gas. The stock closed loop code in these sucks. There are errors, and there is very little control over when and how much corrections can be applied. I used to just run closed loop at part throttle before with my old PCM, but it looks like Ill be full open loop for now.

Heres some vids of the car after the break-in. You can see/hear that in order to rev the engine, you have to gradually build it up, or it just craps out. Also, I had to hold the throttle open half-way just to get the motor to fire up. Otherwise, it would just chug and stall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvYUXjcA8uQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMKfoI1Pbus

Now running on just the MAF with no blending or filtering. I can snap the throttle open with ease, and the motor runs much leaner (cant see it in the vid, but its around 13.7-14.1). It also starts more normally as well. The engine idles with around 12 inHg of vacuum, which put it way out on the VE tables before. Runs much better with just the MAF. Sort of makes you wonder why GM even bothered with the mixed mode fuel logic to begin with Might lower emmissions a bit, but it brings a lot of excess baggage with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6cXmHkANEM

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

Heres a snapshot of the blending matrix. This probably isn't defined in such packages as HP Tuners, but it should be. The table only represents a portion of the logic as there are also other routines to handle applying the MAF and so fourth. This probably works well on stock engines, but if you have something thats a long way off, its probably best just to go straight SD or MAF and skip the headaches. I dont even know how you would tune this on the street or a dyno. It not only handles how the current fuel mas is applied, but what percentage of the fueling is the steady state airmass, MAF airmass, transient MAF/MAP/TPS airmass, and dynamic airmass. The numbers on teh side represent which quadrant the MAP and RPMs are in. The letters are the multipliers. In addition, you also have to be careful that the multipliers add up to unity, or the long term fueling will gradually head to full rich or lean.

afgun

What are you using to edit?

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

Tunerpro. I wrote XDFs for the spark, idle, fuel, system, and emmissions. Once they're done, I will release them (still working on some of the emmissions stuff).

afgun

NM; re-reading your other thread...

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

To bring this back from the dead...

Im working on the '411 now. Im currently working on the fuel loops, and it looks like GM recycled a lot of the old modula code from the black boxes. for example, the fuel loops are identical to the 98+ vortec blackbox, with the exception of the VE based crank fueling. They also have actual AE enrichment code as well for alum. manifolds. That was one thing that I had to add to the blackbox.

The only thing I DONT like about these is the cylinder airmass based spark advance. Its not intuative at all, and more difficult to set up IMO. Hopefully there is a way to disable it somehow, but I doubt it...

Anyway, at some point, we should be able to use TP to tune these. It worked real well with the blackbox in my car. Might even have flash support in the future as well

jwscab

thats great to hear dim! The last sticking point for me in dealing with these LS based motors is the stranglehold these tuning guys hold on the software and the high price they charge....sure, it's not THAT bad, but it's still expensive PER vehicle, which bothers me.

Like I always mention, if you need any help with anything, let me know....I'm a hardware guy, so can't really help with the hacking, but anything else I can help.

afgun

Anything we can do to be able to tune the '0411 without paying exhorbitant fees is good with me... I'm just tinkering and can't justify the expense for just playing around on my bench.

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

Sent this link over to LS1Tech and it was removed. The guys there were asking if any open source work was being done on OBDII stuff. HPT is a sponsor I guess they don't like the competition. Seems like a lot of people are fed up with what they have to put up with to use their systems.

jwscab

yeah, no suprise there.....

that's why I would love to see this happen all the way through, and want to help where I can.....

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

Yea the OBDII stuff is per vehicle unless you have a Tunercat setup and there is only one way to get those now.....

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

Thanks for the support! If I can think of anything, Ill post it.

Yeah, the tunercat thing does kind of **** me off. They sold it to jet tuning, which basically killed it. Before, you could even define your own def. files, which was a real nice feature of TC.

jwscab

yeah, that really bugged me since it didn't last very long in TC's hands. I was planning to pick it up, then learned it wasn't available from TC any longer.....

junkcltr

iTrader: (1)

I think I might have lost track of this. So as of right now you socketed the PCM, figured out the code & tables, created a TP V5 definition and are editing the bin this way. Then burning a chip and installing it in the socket. Are the chips regular off the shelf parts?

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

If you have a TP definition please share. Also I was thinking a scanner setup in TP or ScannerPro would be great. Monodax is not going anywhere. Wester's repackages a commercial scanner and there is uvscanning which is free but one guy is doing that....

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

Guys don't forget you can still get TC one way that is by picking up a Roadrunner. TC and Moates will then sell you any VDF file and support you from there.....

junkcltr

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, buy off Moates or buy off HPT. What is the difference. They both are non-free source companies. Moates has figured out some of this stuff a while ago and decided to just sell it instead of talking about it like Dimented24x7 is doing. A lot like what HPT is doing. They claim to want to talk about it, but say nothing in the end. They started out free source and then cashed in.

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

Before you drag Craig thru the mud...

So far, he has been one of the biggest helps in getting this project off the ground. I can say that the '411 effort would not have happened without him. He really does care about the DIY community, and hes a decent guy.

The truth is that it does take money and resources to make this stuff happen, not to mention the cost of producing the hardware. I had a roadrunner, which I unsuccesfully tried to retrofit into a blackbox. It worked for a period of time before I ran into trouble (installation was waaaay too difficult in a BB due to its configuration). But in the time that it did work, I can say that it was a pretty slick piece of hardware. That kind of stuff cant happen for nothing.

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

Im still a few months away from having a def file. The engine will come first. After that, Im going to try to get the transmission done. The '411 is very close to the 98+ blackbox. The fuel algos work the same, which makes the engine part much easier.

The transmission stuff will be considerably harder since I have not done any e-trans hacking since the $0D. But, that will only effect a few people here running 4L60-Es.

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

As for the PCM, Ive had the blackbox in the car for some time now. Its been very reliable, and needs no attention at all. I havent had to do any tuning in literally months. The '411 is still under development.

Im using AMD 29F400 chips, and a PP-II to tune. I use tunerpro to edit the bins. The XDFs are sort of useless as there really isnt a way to edit the PCMs calibration, other than physically flashing the chip. The 29F400's are pretty much the only ones that will work. I think there are similar sized chips, but they are too slow to use in the PCM due to the < 65 usec access time required.

jwscab

so does the roadrunner piggy back onto the ecm and circumvent the normal flash control lines, so that you can flash the part via usb?

EDIT: I checked out his page, haven't been there in awhile. The roadrunner is basically a chip emulator, so USB>>FPGA>>FLASH. pretty cool, though it is a brute force chip replacement. Nothing wrong with that, though I see why the price is what it is. Decent amount of work.

I'll tell you the hardware is probably the easiest part of that, the hard/time consuming part is figuring out how to patch the HW into the main board(reverse engineering all the circuits and traces), and designing all the interface software. Development software to make that code is usually a decent amount of money.

EDIT: I stand by that statement. the installed board is relatively straight forward; from a layout and hardware perspective, it's a nominal layout. Then the FGPA programming is required to make all the magic happen. that is time consuming and tricky part.

EDIT EDIT:so what's the super secret way to program the flash throught the existing microcontroller? I would assume the problem is that there is security involved that these tuner guys have paid to get info on?

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

There is some soft security involved. There are a variety of algos. The one for the '411 is actually pretty straight forward. I cant recall it off my head, but its basically something you can figure out by inspection.

The security is gained by the PCM sending a seed, and then you have to respond with the right key. Even if you dont have a key, you can still force it in about a day or so with an autonomous program that cycles through all the combos, but with the '411, its not really necessary.

Alot of it is simply getting the interface down. The PCM does not actually have the software in it to do a reflash, for security reasons. You have to send the software as a memory resident program that basically takes over execution in the PCM. There is a lead-in routine that basically lets you download to a non-critical area of the RAM. The communications is basically dictated by the J1850. I managed to figure out the bulk of what is involved, but even then it would require programming on the PC end that is outside of what I can do. I know enough C# to be dangerous, but thats about it.

There are others who are close to having the reflash capability, so I will probably tie my stuff in with that, using TunerPro 5. It seems to work real well for editing the calibration sections within the PCM.

jwscab

ah, very cool. If you need any hardware or testing help, lemme know.....

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

Well I am running a LS1 swap car and I am currently using a 411 but I may go to a 04 GTO PCM which is a cable driven 243 tune. The last to use a cable in a car and it also is the last version TC supports since the newer setups are CAN. If TunerPro supports the cable I may put together a scan definition for the 411 when the def comes out. That should make it a free scanner for TC. I also would be interested in seeing if we could get it to be able to do a crank relearn which is a command procedure that TC doesn't currently do. Looks like Mangus has been hard at work with TP V5. I have just been out of it since the swap and I am not finished. Also seems like the first geners (motors) doing the sequential swaps to a 411 would be interested. The guys with the new cars are way off in left field and just pay to play.

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

A stand-alone scanner is something we do not yet have. Ive been tuning my PCM caveman style since I dont have one. I have all the OBD diag. definitions available, but there isnt a scanning package available other than a few DIY ones that require a seperate spendy interface to make it work.

If anyone is good at programming, that is something we really need. I think Craig has a cable that he was working on. If we could tie it in with that, then we'd have a complete package.

As far as tunerpro, it will pretty much be used just for editing the bin. The J1850 is much different than the OBD-1/1.5 stuff, and I dont think mark will be making any changes to tunerpro to accomodate the newer format. At least not as far as I know.

junkcltr

iTrader: (1)

My apologies. I didn't realize he helped with the work you did.

foff667

FYI HPTuners currently has 3 engineers, a hardware designer, 2 software developers, a shipping manager, sales manager & a support person. Thats 9 people that have jobs that otherwise might not in this economy because of what started out as a need for a cheaper tuning solution.

I would be lying if I said I would love to see open source solutions on the market as this is what keeps me from collecting any unemployment check.

I will say to those looking into it that we are actively looking to add another software developer as well as another engineer to our staff over the next few months so if you have an interest in the field you might consider putting in an application.

For me having a job in an industry I love is a dream come true and I thank my lucky stars every day.

:cheers:
Bill

Fast355

iTrader: (2)

Open source is the ONLY way to get into the true PCM code and get ALL the parameters needed for tuning.

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

Bill,
It is not the selling of the software that open source tuners have a problem with. It is the licensing scheme. Tunercat is the only OBDII guy that has a fair system with the purchase of a definition file to tune any car for that year or whatever it is seems to be the right way to do it. You are already paying $500+ just to get the tuner and software. To have to then pay another $100 every time you want to tune another car like yours is crazy. Most of us only use the software for 1 or 2 cars and occasionally another car like a buddy that happens to have the same thing but it is not like everybody is going to go out and buying a package and go into the tuning business. For most of us this is a hobby and it already is expensive and on the verge of unaffordable for most. Fortunately we can say what we want on this forum. I have not been censored by the sponsorship ****'s like on LS1tech where you are a sponsor and have done so yourself like the link to this thread. It seems that the Microsoft Vs. Apple Vs Open Source licensing scheme is at work here. First off it tells us the user community that you do not trust us by not using an honor system that could easily be checked. Strong armed tactics are not the way to do business and only serve alienate the community which is why open source is the savior of all software and only the ones that think they are going to lose more than anybody else are the ones against it. You or the other guy would stand to make a lot more $$$ if you changed your licensing scheme to be more user friendly. I have long since moved on from the OBDI stuff and now I am in the LS world but I stay on this site because after years it is still the most open and one of the most informative sites on the planet. I would even completely abandon LS1tech but do not because it is the most popular out there for some of my needs. I have posted very informative information and had everything removed because I mentioned a very small vendor that was not a sponsor but they offered something the other vendors didn't. I have seen that same vendor mentioned on other occasions and it was left. Guess I was not liked by somebody. I have also seen the vendor bashing removed so that nothing negative is said and all the lemmings follow those vendors blindly because they think it is the only place to do business. I have even had the president of one of those sponsors reply to a email because I wanted to try a set of expensive headers on a retrofit car and was told I would not be able to return them if I tried them. I went somewhere else. If you guys had half a brain you would do a TC style licensing scheme and make it so it is not worthwhile to go anywhere else. The competition would have to do the same or risk failure. You would sell more units. The user community and the companies they serve would stand to win. You mention you have a job in this economy but I have not seen any price concessions. Sorry for the rant but make sure you understand that open source is coming eventually. I will be on board even if it costs me twice the startup price.

foff667

The amount of work involved with doing so is virtually nuts though, to those that do it I have a great amount of respect but they could make a career out of it in almost every case. It took us over a year to find a suitable engineer for guys that have already done it its just a shame their hard work isn't rewarded in some way.

Lower pricing lowers the quality, it also puts innovation in the dumps.

I just returned dementids email a minute ago so I'm a bit winded but the lower the cost the less you get. Look at TC for example, limited vehicle support, no scanner, no custom operating systems,etc.

As stated we are always looking for new engineers & software developers, its hard to find car guys that are engineers but from my experience they are the best kind and are held in high regard in what is a niche market.

We have recently talked about hiring someone that knows how to write apps for iphone applications so if anyone has an experience email me at bill at hptuners.com and I can at least guy you through the application process...maybe you can make a career out of a hobby you have a passion for.

-Bill

The_Punisher454

Ditto on what 69 just said.
Prices on evrything OBD2 are outrageous! I fully understand the idea that you have to set a price to cover your operating costs in order to do business, but the fact is that you'll have a lot more business with a pricing scheme that is attracts more people.
I worked in the "LS1" industry for a time several years ago, and was constantly in a state of shock regarding the prices charged as well as what some customers were willing to spend. One factor in all of this is that a lot of "late model" performance customers lack any traditional performance automotive experience.
The company I worked for only dealt with fourth gen's and C-5's. They told me they didnt want anything to do with third gen customers because third gen guys didnt like to spend as much money. They had complete contempt for anybody running anything earlier than an LT-1(the 90's LT1 that is, completly ignoring the true original LT1). Needless to say this complany went out of business shortly after 9-11 when people started to be a bit more carefull with their money.
The OBD2 tuing software companies are currently enjoying their market place exclusivity right now. But NOBODY in that field should feel secure that what they have will last. Regardless of what your opinion is on copyright and inteluctual proprety rights, the FACT is that opensource 0411 tuning WILL happen , be it tomorrow, or five years from now. HPT, Jet, Efilive and such will still have some customers when that era arrives, but there will be an explosion of free and low cost tuning solutions for a really big group of new OBD2 consumers(many of them being retrofit guys).
In todays world, people in the high tech industry should not feel any more secure than somebody in construction or factory work. If you cannot adapt, you'll be left behind. This has been the case with most any "industry" over the years and the process will continue long from now.

foff667

Companies cannot work for free, whether tunershop or what have you, they have to pay their lease every month, insurance, employees, etc. My friend did obd1 tuning back in the day and got out of it after a couple of years of customers complaining because of paying $100-150 for a tune.

Compare our software to an open source package and you'll see the difference literally.

And if you think open source stuff is a huge cost saver try this scenerio, if you are only doing a retrofit 411 pcm you could purchase our product new for $500, do your tuning then sell it for probably $350...so ultimately $150, if thats overpriced I'm not sure what to tell ya. Even minimum wage would have that covered in less than 1 workweek.

The_Punisher454

I understand that completly. Its the same with any other type of specialty computer software. I do 3d modeling and am a 3dsMax user. I love it, its the best, but it cost a couple thousand minimum. I'm hard core so I have spent the big money on it because the nice little features help with productivity. I didnt start with 3dsmax however, I started with some 30 dollar software years ago untill I outgrew it. Now days there are several low cost 3d modeling packages that are REALLY good, some of them rival 3dsmax in SOME areas. They have a HUGE user base and its growing all the time, and the low cost software is getting better all the time too. Thats just the natural progression of these things.
Your software is nice, I havent used, but I have seen it. The fact is that sometime in the future there will be several tuning software packages that are just as good as what you have now, and do evrything yours can do now and then some. But the price for such software will range from free to maybe a hundred bucks or so, and will be highly modable by the end user. That IS going to happen, its not nice for somebody in your position but thats just reality. There are a lot of ways you can deal with it. Some good, some not.
Just know that there a LOT of people that see your product and say "thats awesome, too bad it cost so much". A lot of old school guys will chafe at paying ANYTHING just to tune. Traditionally diy tuning didnt cost anything more than some jets and springs, now days its an extra expense on top of your engine parts. There is a potential market for OBD2(0411 in particular) retrofit tuning software that is totally being ignored right now. Whoever connects with this group may end up a big winner, or not, but the users will all be winners when this era arrives, soon.
Enjoy it while it lasts, but the djinni will be out of the bottle before too long.

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

My personal feelings are that the DIY non-profit community really poses no threat to companies like HP Tuners. The main reason has to do with volume, turn-around time, as well as how fast information becomes public domain.

These companies typically get apps out within several months to a year of a cars release. The DIY community typically lags about 10 years behind the current state of the art. AFAIK, Im the only one really working out in the open with the older LS computers. I know a couple of others are starting up on some of the other OBD-II stuff that really isnt supported by the big guys, like some of the older V6 apps.

My main goal for the DIY world is to mainly thoroughly develop a few of the SFI systems for use on the retrofit applications where you really only either have older EFI or carb systems to choose from. Even my vortec PCM with some custom code that I wrote is lightyears ahead of the TPI systems. The capabilities and drivability is simply unmatched by a carb or an old ECM. Ultimatly, I suspect that the LS1 series may be one of the last ones to really get public sourced. Its mainly due to how complex these PCMs are. Each series of PCMs is more complex than the previous series. At some point, you get to a place where its just not possible to really figure out how everything works due to complexity of the system. I did the blackbox vortec simply by using a disassembler, the OBD-II data defined by the SAE, and some board tracing to map out the hardware. That took a lot of thinking to really figure out the details of it.

The whole profit/DIY debate is sort of pointless IMO. Its mainly due to the market served by each. You wont find someone taking a VCM out of a '10 camaro and suddenly making everything public domain and steal all the buisness away from the main companies involved. Its just not going to happen. The two communities are essentially seperate in teh areas that they work in. Most of the hardware worked on in the DIY community has essentially become obsolete, and is a non-existent market for companies like EFI live and HP Tuners.

I might be mistaken, but much of Bills complaints seem to revolve around the competition in the for profit tuning buisness. Pretty much any company in the free market has that issue. The last engineering firm I worked for had extremely tight profit margins and timelines due to all the others in the field. Theres always someone willing to do it quicker and cheaper. It does hamper the development process due to the money investment in R&D needed to move forward. Thats one reason why we dont have full electric cars that can go a 1000 miles on a charge or other out there technology. The car companies just dont have the time and money to dump into blue sky projects due to the cut throat competition in the market. Rather, they incrementally advance each generation of cars.

Thats one advantage to a couple of guys just looking at things for the fun of it. Theres no real competion as theres no motivation for money. Its simply just people contributing to a community because they want to learn more about how things work.

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

There is such a thing as economy of scale. You take a little less profit and sell more. The idea is to not only make up the difference but to make more money. Basic engineering economics. I do not agree that lowering the cost will cause the product to suffer.

BTW: Dimented I think Bill is soliciting you for a job if you want one....

RBob

iTrader: (1)

Which would be the fastest method of shutting down DIY development of OBD2 open source. There is a method to the madness.

The non-disclosure agreement to work for hyper would negate everything that Dimented has done so far. And lock him out of releasing even a single little tid-bit of information to the public. To the point that he wouldn't even be able to post on our DIY_PROM forum.

The non-disclosure can also make all the work previously done by the individual property of hyper. Which means that person no longer has any ownership of it.

I've been there and have personally had this. Not to mention what it will do to one's individuality. It is a pact with the devil. Anyone interested in the call from Bill, trend lightly.

RBob.