gear head

iTrader: (3)

Here's a copy of an updated evo7base & 96530006 xml to help get the ball rolling.

mrfred, do you want to look this over?

fixem2

iTrader: (30)

^^^Nice job gear head! This xml is setup for load based boost correct? Wondering if a PSI xml was created so people could choose. My other thought is to include tephra mods into the "mod" xml.

Thoughts?

gear head

iTrader: (3)

The evo7base is modeled after mrfreds evo9base, these are stock boost tables that are re-labled with a few additions. Right now all of my "patched" tables are in a mods xml that is formatted the same way. The ROM specific xml just has stock tables in it.

I left a lot of tables in the base (some could be 9 specific?)so if anybody has any of those tables they can just add the addresses into the ROM specific. There's alot more tables, but at this time I'm not sure as to which are 100% proven. If you or anyone else can add to this with proven tables, please do so.

fixem2

iTrader: (30)

Mind posting up your mod file?

What gets confusing is knowing the 9 specific tables vs the 8.

gear head

iTrader: (3)

Here you go.

In the 96530006 xml remove the arrows around include 96530006_Mods tag.

<!-- *** <include>96530006_Mods</include> ***
-->

Should look like this:

<include>96530006_Mods</include>

tephra

iTrader: (6)

I have taken a look and I still think the Dual BCS vehicles needs to be setup differently.

This is how I have setup 88570008 (which is a dual BCS):


You will see that we have one "main" turbo section, where everything thats common to both (single and dual bcs) setups lives. Then when we are looking at a dual BCS section we hive off another section purely for the Baseline WGDC tables.

The ONLY reason why I havn't just put them all into 1 catagoy is for readability, ie someone might get confused if they see 3 sets of Baseline WGDC's ( in the XML only, the program will only display relevant items)

Thoughts?

If you are happy with that I will post up the new evo9base.xml for you to grab.

Cheers
D.

tephra

iTrader: (6)

ps - Excuse the fact that I missed the "Boost Control High/Low Gear Range RPM/MPH Crossover" - minor mistake but not relavent to the above comment.

gear head

iTrader: (3)

Sure, lets take a look. That looks like a cleaner way of doing it:)

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

I see what you want to do, and I'd be all for it except, the thing is that for the dual solenoid systems, several of the common tables are only specific to one solenoid and not the other. For instance, TBEC only works on one solenoid in the dual solenoid cars, so if we list it by itself in a "Turbo" category, its going to be unclear which solenoid it affects on dual solenoid cars. Same goes for Max WGDC vs Coolant Temp, Max Total Upward WGDC vs Coolant Temp, and WGDCC Interval. Another complicating issue for the dual solenoid cars is that three are three tables each for BWGDC and BDEL whereas there are only two for the other cars.

tephra

iTrader: (6)

Doesn't TBEC affect both Solenoids?

Not sure what you mean about the three wgdc/bdel tables, all evo's have the three?

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

Nope, it only affects Solenoid 1. Solenoid 2 is completely passive. This is what I found when I went through all the boost control routines in a JDM Evo 9 ROM. That's why I list all the corrections and limiters with a "Solenoid 1".

There are three sets of tables referenced in all the ROMs, but in USDM ROMs, table 2 is a stub table so its a sure thing that it never gets called. However, in JDM ROMs its a full table. No one has spent the time to figure out what logic determines when table 2 is called, so it may be the JDM ROMs can call it.

fostytou

iTrader: (15)

and don't include either in the mods file. Works now, thanks!

tephra

iTrader: (6)

hrmm ok.

well same thing still applies then.

all of the #1 maps go into "Turbo", and just the #2 WGDC maps go into "Turbo #2".

I see the predicament. Is it better to keep a clean XML or a intuative ecuflash layout?

MR Turco

iTrader: (16)

Mrfred, in case you dont see my post in jcbanks's thread about knock control, he mentions that the 3d knock tables are incorrect. Should we consider removing those from the definitions to avoid confusion and tampering of whatever they actually control?

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

ok, so what to do? I'm all for a group effort, but I must admit that the single solenoid / dual solenoid layout seems more intuitive to me because then only one group of turbo control tables is active. Anyone elase have thoughts???? I'd like to get this wrapped up in the next week.

Yeah, tephra suggested that a while ago, and now that we know the tables are far from correct, it would be a good idea to remove them. Hopefully that section can be repopulated with the correct tables in the near future.