viewpoint on ecuflash and evoscan...
Nov 17, 2006, 01:12 AM
#16
Just so you know.. there is only one MUT protocol.. JDM Evos are only programmed with this. US Evos have the OBDII protocol built on top of the ecu rom for US import laws. MUTIII laptop uses the VCI (black box) for flashing and sending packets to the diagnostic ports on the Evos (same as the tactrix cable) the latest version of the MUTIII VCI also supports CAN protocol. I have a copy of the MUTIII software on my laptop and it has no more data list item codes than an MUTII for my Evo4. I also have all the ROMS from the Compact Flash inside the VCI, they contain nothing more than the 512KB roms flashed onto vehicles. Its so you can flash the ROM into a vehicle without the need to carry the laptop around.
Last edited by evo4mad; Nov 17, 2006 at 01:16 AM.
Nov 17, 2006, 02:54 AM
#17
Originally Posted by evo4mad
Just so you know.. there is only one MUT protocol.. JDM Evos are only programmed with this. US Evos have the OBDII protocol built on top of the ecu rom for US import laws. MUTIII laptop uses the VCI (black box) for flashing and sending packets to the diagnostic ports on the Evos (same as the tactrix cable) the latest version of the MUTIII VCI also supports CAN protocol. I have a copy of the MUTIII software on my laptop and it has no more data list item codes than an MUTII for my Evo4. I also have all the ROMS from the Compact Flash inside the VCI, they contain nothing more than the 512KB roms flashed onto vehicles. Its so you can flash the ROM into a vehicle without the need to carry the laptop around.
Nov 17, 2006, 06:02 AM
#18
Its funny how this thread runs in parallel to the other one.. But a few things..
Evo4Mad is 100% right about the MUT-III capabilities I didn't include any real details because it didn't seem all that relevant, plus he has more "seat time" with the tool, where I had the opportunity to play with it for all of 10 minutes at a "Friendly Dealer's Repair Department"
Anyway..
About the reverse engineering, and whatnot.. This is a slippery slope, and its unclear as to what is legal and not legal.. **HOWEVER** Mitsubishi does not include any sort of Enduser licensing, or legal rights limiting terms with regard to the software included with the ECU, They do not limit your ownership of that data, nor do they limit the purposes for which it may be used.
Therefore I don't think Mitsubishi is going to look at the stuff anyone is doing with reverse engineering or reflashing and persue it as theft of intellectual property. Simply because we're not damaging their ability to sell new cars. In fact I'm sure the ability to modify the car and its programming would ultimately improve sales of the cars and replacement parts.
The statements made with regard to the DMCA don't really apply to this situation because Mitsubishi has not chosen to legally bind legal limitations on the software contained with the purchase and use of the vehicle.
Additionally, ECU tuning and reflashing on many cars, all over the world, of all makes and models, will continue, and the developments on how to do it will continue.
Lets *NOT* confuse this with the copyright of the code, and who owns the rights to that, and who's intellectual property it is.. That is still clearly the property of Mitsubishi... The problem is that there are some aftermarket tuners who are claiming Intellectual Property to their tunes as a whole, and by distributing the tune, as part of a stock rom (in part or IN WHOLE) means that their work is a derivation of the original, and therefore their claims to copyright are not valid. For instance COBB is likely addressing this by providing "patching" by modifying only specific portions of the ECU when necessary, this way the patches, and other content distributed for use with their accessport can retain a legal copyright to their work. And thats a fair thing to do.. The grey area is how do you deal with roms later extracted from the ECU...
I think the issue is really about Ego.. If you can operate in a vacuum, without public scrutiny, and there is ignorance to the methods and practices, you can claim anything you like and its unlikely it will be questioned. Now we have the tools to scrutinize these claims, and people are realizing that nobody does anything differently, everyone is using the same tools, and making similar changes, and the R&D involved, although legitimate, isn't this "mystery panacea of knowledge" but common sense and a few people with a logical understanding of how things work.
Evo4Mad is 100% right about the MUT-III capabilities I didn't include any real details because it didn't seem all that relevant, plus he has more "seat time" with the tool, where I had the opportunity to play with it for all of 10 minutes at a "Friendly Dealer's Repair Department"
Anyway..
About the reverse engineering, and whatnot.. This is a slippery slope, and its unclear as to what is legal and not legal.. **HOWEVER** Mitsubishi does not include any sort of Enduser licensing, or legal rights limiting terms with regard to the software included with the ECU, They do not limit your ownership of that data, nor do they limit the purposes for which it may be used.
Therefore I don't think Mitsubishi is going to look at the stuff anyone is doing with reverse engineering or reflashing and persue it as theft of intellectual property. Simply because we're not damaging their ability to sell new cars. In fact I'm sure the ability to modify the car and its programming would ultimately improve sales of the cars and replacement parts.
The statements made with regard to the DMCA don't really apply to this situation because Mitsubishi has not chosen to legally bind legal limitations on the software contained with the purchase and use of the vehicle.
Additionally, ECU tuning and reflashing on many cars, all over the world, of all makes and models, will continue, and the developments on how to do it will continue.
Lets *NOT* confuse this with the copyright of the code, and who owns the rights to that, and who's intellectual property it is.. That is still clearly the property of Mitsubishi... The problem is that there are some aftermarket tuners who are claiming Intellectual Property to their tunes as a whole, and by distributing the tune, as part of a stock rom (in part or IN WHOLE) means that their work is a derivation of the original, and therefore their claims to copyright are not valid. For instance COBB is likely addressing this by providing "patching" by modifying only specific portions of the ECU when necessary, this way the patches, and other content distributed for use with their accessport can retain a legal copyright to their work. And thats a fair thing to do.. The grey area is how do you deal with roms later extracted from the ECU...
I think the issue is really about Ego.. If you can operate in a vacuum, without public scrutiny, and there is ignorance to the methods and practices, you can claim anything you like and its unlikely it will be questioned. Now we have the tools to scrutinize these claims, and people are realizing that nobody does anything differently, everyone is using the same tools, and making similar changes, and the R&D involved, although legitimate, isn't this "mystery panacea of knowledge" but common sense and a few people with a logical understanding of how things work.
Nov 17, 2006, 06:18 AM
#19
Additionally, the tools to extract an ECU, locked or unlocked, by the end-user, are well within his rights, he is also within his rights to be able to view this content and manipulate it himself. Again, Distribution may be another grey area, but likely unenforcable unless the original owner of the intellectual property insists the activity cease.
This type of stuff falls under the same rights as making backups of your DVD's and whatnot for your own personal use.. DVD's obviously have clear copyright and other rights reserved, where distribution is clearly a violation of many laws, but the ability to copy and store it for archival purposes and PERSONAL use to the owner of the DVD is retained. What is interesting is this is also a grey area because in order to do that, you have to use a tool that was developed to defeat the CSS protection, and originally that was reverse engineered, and originally, the author was sued and forced to cease and decist, which was later overturned because it was determined that the tool had a legal and legitimate use..
Oh well, i'm rambling...
The long and short of it..
Tuners have to accept that people will now scrutinize everything they do, tuners have to not treat their end-users as ignorant mushrooms that can be fed a bunch of crap and be left in the dark.. And End Users also have to understand that its not fair to be "Monday Morning Tuners" and that not everyone can tune as well as a professional tuner, and to respect their efforts and appreciate what it is their offering.. Everyone has to clearly seperate the technology from the skill.. What you are paying for is the skill of the tuner to make your car run well. The difference is we now have the ability to verify what is being done is not dangerous to our cars.
This type of stuff falls under the same rights as making backups of your DVD's and whatnot for your own personal use.. DVD's obviously have clear copyright and other rights reserved, where distribution is clearly a violation of many laws, but the ability to copy and store it for archival purposes and PERSONAL use to the owner of the DVD is retained. What is interesting is this is also a grey area because in order to do that, you have to use a tool that was developed to defeat the CSS protection, and originally that was reverse engineered, and originally, the author was sued and forced to cease and decist, which was later overturned because it was determined that the tool had a legal and legitimate use..
Oh well, i'm rambling...
The long and short of it..
Tuners have to accept that people will now scrutinize everything they do, tuners have to not treat their end-users as ignorant mushrooms that can be fed a bunch of crap and be left in the dark.. And End Users also have to understand that its not fair to be "Monday Morning Tuners" and that not everyone can tune as well as a professional tuner, and to respect their efforts and appreciate what it is their offering.. Everyone has to clearly seperate the technology from the skill.. What you are paying for is the skill of the tuner to make your car run well. The difference is we now have the ability to verify what is being done is not dangerous to our cars.
Nov 17, 2006, 06:49 AM
#22
Originally Posted by Ultimate CC
that is really disappointing to see that coming from works...
For someone to come out and make comments, especially very ignorant or misinformed ones, really shows alot about what "Really is going on" behind the scenes.. They should have left well enough alone, we now know the wizard is merely a man..
Nov 18, 2006, 09:10 AM
#25
Account Disabled
iTrader: (91)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 2003 Evo VIII - Silver
Posts: 16,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dohcvtec
Its pretty bad when you lose your buisness to Al, I think that is an all time low. LOL
Nov 18, 2006, 09:14 AM
#26
Originally Posted by DynoFlash
I guess the fact that my customers have always been faster, more reliable and on a product costing less than 1/2 the price was not enough to win over some customers in the past ?
Nov 18, 2006, 09:17 AM
#27
Account Disabled
iTrader: (91)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 2003 Evo VIII - Silver
Posts: 16,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS - WORKS was NOT the "first" to reflash Evo ecus in the USA
Tadashi San at Techno Square who imports the Tech Tom equipment was the first and was the one who sold the equipment to Works and myself
The new free tools are 1,000 % better than what we originally employed and trying to figure out how to tune a car with teh primative hex editors of the day was really a nightmare (I like to think I did OK at it)
Al
Tadashi San at Techno Square who imports the Tech Tom equipment was the first and was the one who sold the equipment to Works and myself
The new free tools are 1,000 % better than what we originally employed and trying to figure out how to tune a car with teh primative hex editors of the day was really a nightmare (I like to think I did OK at it)
Al
Nov 18, 2006, 09:17 AM
#28
Originally Posted by DynoFlash
I guess the fact that my customers have always been faster, more reliable and on a product costing less than 1/2 the price was not enough to win over some customers in the past ?
There's nothing wrong with saying something is an unusual part combination that they haven't seen, tried, or tuned for.. They do sell products and flashes as a package so they are designed to work together, its just that instead of explaining it that way, it seems like they decided to go on the defensive and blame the logging tools, parts, etc..
I do know everyone blames the parts once in awhile.. but when they are claiming that a diagnostic tool that shares the same protocol with a third party logging tool is inferior when it uses the same protocol, is just humorous.
I think they can't really deal with scrutiny since it was something they never really had to deal with in the past. One thing I will never do is scrutinize a tuners tune and their methods, since everyone has a style and reasoning for doing things. But for them to blame the logger and incorrect load settings on a dyno, for the problems is just wrong.. What is somewhat true is that the tunes on the dyno, behave differently than on the street, and its the street logging that is more important..
Nov 18, 2006, 09:18 AM
#29
Account Disabled
iTrader: (91)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 2003 Evo VIII - Silver
Posts: 16,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by voidhawk
careful, playing with fire there ...
And prob no need to dwell on them
I did not like the comments on the earlier page comparing me to Micheal Jackson or what ever
Nov 18, 2006, 09:21 AM
#30
Account Disabled
iTrader: (91)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 2003 Evo VIII - Silver
Posts: 16,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MalibuJack
The difference is obviously that you always attempted to work with the parts that these guys have. What seems to have been bothering some of the posters is the cavalier attituded they had which would basically blame everything but themselves.
There's nothing wrong with saying something is an unusual part combination that they haven't seen, tried, or tuned for.. They do sell products and flashes as a package so they are designed to work together, its just that instead of explaining it that way, it seems like they decided to go on the defensive and blame the logging tools, parts, etc..
I do know everyone blames the parts once in awhile.. but when they are claiming that a diagnostic tool that shares the same protocol with a third party logging tool is inferior when it uses the same protocol, is just humorous.
I think they can't really deal with scrutiny since it was something they never really had to deal with in the past. One thing I will never do is scrutinize a tuners tune and their methods, since everyone has a style and reasoning for doing things. But for them to blame the logger and incorrect load settings on a dyno, for the problems is just wrong.. What is somewhat true is that the tunes on the dyno, behave differently than on the street, and its the street logging that is more important..
There's nothing wrong with saying something is an unusual part combination that they haven't seen, tried, or tuned for.. They do sell products and flashes as a package so they are designed to work together, its just that instead of explaining it that way, it seems like they decided to go on the defensive and blame the logging tools, parts, etc..
I do know everyone blames the parts once in awhile.. but when they are claiming that a diagnostic tool that shares the same protocol with a third party logging tool is inferior when it uses the same protocol, is just humorous.
I think they can't really deal with scrutiny since it was something they never really had to deal with in the past. One thing I will never do is scrutinize a tuners tune and their methods, since everyone has a style and reasoning for doing things. But for them to blame the logger and incorrect load settings on a dyno, for the problems is just wrong.. What is somewhat true is that the tunes on the dyno, behave differently than on the street, and its the street logging that is more important..
I have found the new versions of Evo Scan to be totally indepsnsable and vital tools
As for variations between street and dyno
WIth my new Dyno Dynamics dyno set properely there is virtuallhy no variation what so ever - it is nearly 100%
Of course anything over 120 mph requires testing on a road or track - but I do not test those areas of the map in any event