It was nothing...only took an hour before I told my O.C.D. to STFU and stop tweaking it,lol. If anything, fuel maps will need fine tuning for real world results. There are so many fuel corrections that it forces the base map to look screwy sometimes.

 

Damn this OCD!!!! I think I have my timing map where I want it now,lol. Was talking to a car/computer geek friend of mine and he made a great point why this is so important. The ECU looks "ahead" to see what the next value should be. If the value leaves too far of a gap, it needs to do a mathamatical calculation to make the transistion as smooth as it can. At 7000rpm the ECU has a MAXIMUM of around 17ms to figure out the next calculation or it repeats the last known value. This can cause a hiccup if the ECU had too large of a calculation to determine. Add in the fact that the ECU is trying to calculate info from the load AND the RPM cells all at once and its amazimg that the ECU can even do it so well,lol.

By smoothing the maps so no calculations are really needed basically ensures a smoother transition every time. This is why it seems like it takes a while for the ECU to recover from a knock event before it gets back on track. This calculated delay makes MORE knock events occur until it gets back on track. Ever seen a momentary knock count of 4 or so and it took almost 3K RPM until it tapered away? Thats why.

 

It's in black and white.

 

You wanna do mine for me Jack_of_Trades ?

I can't seem to get mine any smoother than it currently is lol

 

If I had the time I would,lol. Maybe after the DSM Shootout I can give it a shot. Still trying to keep up on these Map Switching Harness' too, every time I finish one, someone else buys another,lol.

 

Any tips for me to get this display in color, Jack?

Thanks

 

No worries mate.

I have just been out logging mine again.

Seems it's happy enough with the smoothed timing in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th if I ramp up through the gears.

It is fine in 1st, 2nd and 3rd if I load it low down all the way to the rev limiter.

But it isn't happy in 4th

As it comes on boost, it starts to pickup some knock, but then it stops as it gets to full boost then picks it up again 1000 rpm or so later and will hold it to the rev limit

Only 3's and 4's so nothing really serious but more than I want it to do

So for the time being i've gone back to my original timing map, but I have left the smoothed fuel map there as it seems to work pretty well.

 

I honestly have no idea why yours is in B&W. What version do you have? Maybe send the creator of ECUFlash an email??

 

I really like what you guys are doing here... I'm surprised to see the stock map so jaggy.

Do you limit your smoothing to some % of the total range of all the cells in a row or do you just move the values until it's smooth?

It would be cool if you could "lock" known good cells and smooth using those.

 

Jamie and I were talking last night and this came up so I'll chime in. The percent used in the AFR smoothing is 0.0572 (for the most precise you can get). He also mentioned using two decimal points rather than one for the fuel figures (ie. 10.87 instead of 10.8) It all helps in making the maps as smooth as possible.

 

A good 1/3 of the values are using known "GOOD" values and I basically try to keep them the same and just smooth the transition from one known "good" cell to the next known "good" cell. There are areas where you will feel comfortable adding a degree or two and then there are those spots where you want to keep it where it is, if not lower it a degree or so. Basically the high load cells which you pass through during a WOT pull. It would be great to lock certain cells.

The fuel cells aren't as critical, especially since so many correction factors alter the REAL value anyhow. If you change the AFR scaling format to .2f% and change the EDIT INCREMENT to 0.0572 you get the greatest resolution from 7.38AFR-14.70AFR. You can't adjust above or below that point though. If you need to go leaner than that, just increase the EDIT INCREMENT a bit. I just like as much adjustability as I can...even though I know its not necessary on the fuel map.

The ignition map can't be altered since the car can only make 1* incremental changes anyhow. I wish our cars could do 0.5* increments like the subies

This is one of those "It can only help" things. Went to go test out my final map but my spark plugs have had it and I'm getting knock from 5K and up. The timing isn't any higher up top so I know its the plugs.

 

Jamie give me a bit I'll report back .

 

i will like to thank you bro(jack of trades)!!,i started reading this thread since a day ago and i been smoothing my timing and fuel maps and o man what a difference!!!! the pulls just feels alot smoother and just commons 1 knocks here and there,the car feels stronguer know,i even advance the timing 2 degress on peak boost and no knock!!,before i coulnt even advance it once degree

 

while we're real technical i had another thought...

is the resolution shown in the 3d view the same as what's really in the ECU? If so then the ECU is going to be interpolating the values when it's between points anyway. Either that or it'll just use the value at the closes point. I'm sure smooth maps are happier than rough ones but as far as the ECU is concerned it doesn't matter wether it's interpolating between 2 similar values or 2 very different values. A flop is a flop if all that changes are the values of the numbers. Obviously changing from say 20% of max value to 80% of max value from one cell to the next would be terrible for the engine but the ECU itself doesn't care at all.

It's just as difficult to find the mid point between 2.2 and 2.3 as it is to find it between 2.2 and 88.8.

I can't wait to get a cable and start playing with the software. With the AEM you are so insulated from all this stuff. Just push + or - to adjust a point on the graph.

 

I had this same question as well...

I've always smoothed out my maps (OCD style) just so that the transitions between timing to timing or afr to afr was nice and smooth to eliminate potential knock or bad tuning... but I wasn't aware of the ecu calc cost differences.