Load Glitch

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by g00s3y Lol, speaking of the boost comp tables, the y-axis, I'm guessing that should be APP not RPM? Considering the x-axis is RPM, the y-axis being APP would make a lot more sense.

I change the entire table to a % of the wgdc I want to run for the 1 active table.

I am really not sure what the axis should be, whether APP or TP.

There is quite a bit of mislabeling, but I guess rather than be critical and over complicate things, it would be nice to have some table control of power per gear.

Even load scaling for the DBW tables would be helpful.

Anything that would allow us some differentiation between solenoid activity in individual gears.

[HawkeyeGeoff]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 I change the entire table to a % of the wgdc I want to run for the 1 active table. I am really not sure what the axis should be, whether APP or TP. There is quite a bit of mislabeling, but I guess rather than be critical and over complicate things, it would be nice to have some table control of power per gear. Even load scaling for the DBW tables would be helpful. Anything that would allow us some differentiation between solenoid activity in individual gears.

This would be the ultimate money shot for us BT guys for drivability/traction. VT doesn't have something comparable does it? I'm not even really sure how our vehicles decide we are in what gears since there is no gap sensor in the shifter.

[BLKSTIG]

Speed6....traction problems solved

[chaser27]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeGeoff This would be the ultimate money shot for us BT guys for drivability/traction. VT doesn't have something comparable does it? I'm not even really sure how our vehicles decide we are in what gears since there is no gap sensor in the shifter.

I don't know, but i'd guess it does a translation from speed and rpm to infer which gear if it doesn't have a sensor.

[HawkeyeGeoff]

Originally Posted by chaser27 I don't know, but i'd guess it does a translation from speed and rpm to infer which gear if it doesn't have a sensor.

It does it based on Engine RPM out to Trans output shaft speed; the ECU calculates a "gear ratio" and uses that as 1st-6th gear. It makes sense why there is a map for gear ratio changing as well now.

[g00s3y]

So took the day off of work because it was slow as shit. Logs attached at bottom.

@chaser27; took your mafcal, threw it on. Drove about 30 miles, hitting -20 LTFT to -11 LTFT in low/cruising/idle loads (we already talked about that, so no biggie). Took a couple WOT logs, same problem.

[chaser27]

Originally Posted by g00s3y So took the day off of work because it was slow as shit. Logs attached at bottom. @chaser27; took your mafcal, threw it on. Drove about 30 miles, hitting -20 LTFT to -11 LTFT in low/cruising/idle loads (we already talked about that, so no biggie). Took a couple WOT logs, same problem. So went back to mine that I had posted, drove another 30 or so miles, looking excellent right now. Didn't get a lot of load over 2.5, but for the time it was there, it was spot on. Low/cruising/idle loads are no more than -7.03 LTFT right now. Still has those dips, I'll see what I can do with those.

Yeah, I said it would be off at idle, but I think I accidentally shifted your MAF cal over one when I smoothed it. I started comparing the two from our posts and they don't line up. There should be another 0 before the numbers start on the one I sent you and the last number can be ignored. My fail on copy/pasting.

I don't think that would fix the mild oscillations though. I'm at a loss for how the not smooth MAF curve gave smoother AFR's than the smooth MAF curve. A lot smoother than before too I might add haha

[g00s3y]

Originally Posted by chaser27 Yeah, I said it would be off at idle, but I think I accidentally shifted your MAF cal over one when I smoothed it. I started comparing the two from our posts and they don't line up. There should be another 0 before the numbers start on the one I sent you and the last number can be ignored. My fail on copy/pasting. I don't think that would fix the mild oscillations though. I'm at a loss for how the not smooth MAF curve gave smoother AFR's than the smooth MAF curve. A lot smoother than before too I might add haha

Yeah, I'm confused also. Missing 1 cell could definitely explain why it was off so much more than the original. But the fact that with this one, it came out almost perfect, even with those dips that you've shown, I'm at a loss. Not complaining, but still at a loss, lol.

[SpeedRebirth]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeGeoff This would be the ultimate money shot for us BT guys for drivability/traction. VT doesn't have something comparable does it? I'm not even really sure how our vehicles decide we are in what gears since there is no gap sensor in the shifter.

VT does have load per gear if that's what you're asking

[g00s3y]

So I've seen @Cobb Tuning; lurking this thread quite a few times. Any input from Cobb would be welcome.

Just don't say it will be fixed in 2 weeks... lol

[rfinkle2]

With all due respect guys, there is an issue that I feel needs addressing, and even though it is widely ignored or tuned around, it costs me a lot of time, and in many cases, even if noone else wants to contribute to a fix, makes all of our tunes less stable.

Posting vd's of your car that is no longer hitting 2.5 load and basically turning this into a thread of how to tune around a documented issue is potentially making Cobb feel no effort need be put in.

I spend more time than I'd like tuning around this issue and if Cobb can devote some time to it, it would help us all in general.

[Realgib3]

Not the best log because MS6 logging, but this is a 2867 car that I made sure would get well above the 2.5 line and you can still see what's going on pretty clearly. This particular car went rich and you can see IDC's jump up dramatically the same cell that load breaks 2.5 and AFR plummets. I'll check to see if I have any logs that go to the lean side today and post them if I do too.

[chaser27]

Originally Posted by Realgib3 Not the best log because MS6 logging, but this is a 2867 car that I made sure would get well above the 2.5 line and you can still see what's going on pretty clearly. This particular car went rich and you can see IDC's jump up dramatically the same cell that load breaks 2.5 and AFR plummets. I'll check to see if I have any logs that go to the lean side today and post them if I do too.

I know I'll probably get groaned for this because it doesn't fix the "glitch", but your VE would have to be ~130% to reach your MAF values in that log... That's why it's going rich... The MAF cal is wrong

[Realgib3]

Originally Posted by chaser27 I know I'll probably get groaned for this because it doesn't fix the "glitch", but your VE would have to be ~130% to reach your MAF values in that log... That's why it's going rich... The MAF cal is wrong

You're right you will get groaned, because you're obviously missing the point of this thread still AND missing the point where I said I made sure this car would go well over 2.5L so I could ensure the issue would be present.

The entire MAF curve for OL is shifted considerably high for this run to make sure I got enough time above that load value. Jesus fucking christ everyone's a professional these days.

[phate]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 I feel as if there is a table in the ecu that is fucking our couch. LOL.

We've thought for a long time that there are MAF tables, MAF modifiers, or even additional fueling tables or modifiers we don't have access to.

If you remember back to the olden days when we were scaling MAF curves to account for E85 we didn't have these problems. That was with 4.0+ loads...Maybe Cobb inadvertently broke something with a release.

[chaser27]

Originally Posted by Realgib3 You're right you will get groaned, because you're obviously missing the point of this thread still AND missing the point where I said I made sure this car would go well over 2.5L so I could ensure the issue would be present. The entire MAF curve for OL is shifted considerably high for this run to make sure I got enough time above that load value. Jesus fucking christ everyone's a professional these days.

So what is the point? We want Cobb to give us access to the table that lets us change where it goes to true OL?

[Realgib3]

Here you go Rob, I knew I had a couple cars do it to the Lean side as well. First log is hitting ~2.4x load and AFR is on the money, next log is from the day after, hitting 2.5x load and goes lean in that region. This was a speed 6 on an S3 with no aux fuel, on a small amount of E. My charts aren't near as cool, but they depict the difference pretty well still. Also, once again you see the IDC swings the wrong way right after you break through 2.5. In the "rich" case, IDC shoots up and over fuels by a ton and on the "lean" case you can see IDC actually drops and under fuels.

[nindoja]

Just a thought, but with this being in Hypnotic Tuning's sub-forum, I don't think @Cobb Tuning; is even allowed to respond here. Not that I think they would comment elsewhere, just an observation.

[Dano]

yes, I believe you are correct. AFAIK, vendors can't post in other vendors sub-forums/threads...period. @Raider;

p.s. I need to read this thread from the beginning. from my quick glance, looks like solid information in here. I believe I have seen this on my car as well....just tossed it up to meth fluctuation, just a cell or two of 12:3ish on an 11:8 commanded.

Tappin

[Raider]

That is the rule, but there have been exceptions. Like when 2 vendors work on something together. I and all of MSF mod staff (and probably the man behind the curtain) totally agree that @Cobb Tuning; and it's staff can TOTALLY POST HERE. It affects many of us.

[Chriss]

Originally Posted by chaser27 The only thing I'm using is the lazy man's maf builder thing I built a while ago

Chaser, I couldn't use your maf cal as I said by email, but I smoother my Maf curve, thank you anyway

[rfinkle2]

Call it what you wish, a glitch, open loop trimming, blah blah blah, ... the sudden change in the shape of the maf curve and it's unpredictability are being worked on and a fix / or the tables needed will be exposed in the next release of ATR.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to the thread and specifically the guys who posted logs to provide useable data.

As shown below, on a gen2, because of the ability to log open vs. closed loop, there is no change that we were aware of @ any specific load, but the table does exist.

Thanks again, and Thanks @Cobb Tuning; for the support.






and one last thing, specifically to Alex@Stratified. Alex had brought this up in the past, and I had dismissed it in his thread... I was wrong to have done that because if I hadn't let personal grudges dictate my actions, this could've been solved long ago, so my apologies.

[HawkeyeGeoff]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 Call it what you wish, a glitch, open loop trimming, blah blah blah, ... the sudden change in the shape of the maf curve and it's unpredictability are being worked on and a fix / or the tables needed will be exposed in the next release of ATR. Thank you to everyone who contributed to the thread and specifically the guys who posted logs to provide useable data. As shown below, on a gen2, because of the ability to log open vs. closed loop, there is no change that we were aware of @ any specific load, but the table does exist. Thanks again, and Thanks @Cobb Tuning; for the support. and one last thing, specifically to Alex@Stratified. Alex had brought this up in the past, and I had dismissed it in his thread... I was wrong to have done that because if I hadn't let personal grudges dictate my actions, this could've been solved long ago, so my apologies.

Dig it man. Good work! And thanks to @Cobb Tuning; for lending some support after a few steady pushes!

[Chriss]

Happy to see Cobb is still active on MS3 platform
Can't wait to get this update

[TiGraySpeed6]

Wow, gotta say I'm impressed with Cobb- I would've bet money that they would not devote any time to this.

Rob gettin' shit done.
Kudos to you sir!

[Chriss]

It would be very useful to have the possibility to keep this compensation turned on beyond 2.5 load

[Lex]

Awesome to see this taken care of. I'm glad you followed up Rob, I brought this up a while ago with COBB but they were busy with other projects at that time and it either got lost with the staff changes or shelved. While they are in there it would be so very nice to log/view the OL fuel trims that we've suspected were there all along while LTFTs went to 0. This will make OL MAF calibrations that much better. Since you have Chris' ear, see if you can drop this in as a request as well please.

[Raider]

In reading some of the ATR requests going stale, I feel as if since the MS3/6 is out of production, we are more like the Rust Eze customers. The old cars Lightning McQueen is forced to coexist with. I am glad they took care of this for us!


Jesis Christ I need to get out more with grown ups. I know. Let it go. let it go.

[neganox]

[g00s3y]

Any idea from Cobb of when we could expect to get this beta release? Not expecting for them to get to it this week, but hoping for something before the end of the year.

[Chriss]

I thought it woud be released before the end of this month

[g00s3y]

"2 weeks"

[HawkeyeGeoff]

SOOOOON

[ge3kspd]

Haha. I talked with Marshal a few days ago. They're testing the software to make sure it's all good before they release it into the wild.. So yeah, 2 weeks.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

[HawkeyeGeoff]

AHhhhhhh *stretches out* still waitin'.

[MS3Shadow]

[MD1032]

What would really be nice is if we had the option to control the WOT compensation. Turning it off would allow us to verify MAF calibration accuracy.

[g00s3y]

I've actually emailed and asked Cobb twice about this, in the past couple weeks, never got any response. I'm now hoping maybe we can get an update by Halloween, can be a nice "treat" for us Mazda people.

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 Please note the date. I'm well aware that there are active trims in open loop.

Just wondering also, over 3+ years ago, this was a known issue, talked about, and Cobb here even offered to expose the tables for this platform....

What exactly was the reason that these tables didn't get exposed then? Not enough people hitting 2.5 load at that time to realize the problem fully?

[Dano]

that and didn't the ST come out ~ 3 year ago, and shortly thereafter David left? I'd bet they just ran out of resources for the Mazda platform and that's why it was never opened up.

[g00s3y]

Been about a month since Cobb sent that email, any word on this update?