Mad_SB

iTrader: (8)

Hey Jack,

Great work. One quick thing i noticed both with 1.3 and 1.0 final. The load calc does not work unless you are logging voltage. I noticed this with 1.3 beta as well. I did not verify the load calc would work on 1.0 final with voltage logged, but I did try 1.0 yesterday with rpm, tps, ipw, afrmap, knocksum, ecuload and only got XXX's in the calculated load column.

Asked you about it on aktive and at the time you said it should only require ipw and afrmap... voltage does not seem to be used in your calculation so I'm not sure whats up, perhapse something internal to the code.

Oh yeah,
My favorite feature is the fact that you do not log unused columns..... my sony vaio has a small screen so that makes life much easier

MalibuJack

iTrader: (5)

I'll take a look at it, but there is no dependency with voltage in the calculations or internally with the code. Fortunately thats a pretty minor glitch all things considered.

I am relieved to know it works for you guys though..

MalibuJack

iTrader: (5)

OOOPS.. Yes I forgot just before I released the code that I added battery to the required parameters for load.. Even though its not used currently, I had intended to use it in the load calculation formula to interpolate the 14v latency to make load more accurate.. So its not a bug..

MalibuJack

iTrader: (5)

I think I overlooked it because of how you asked me the question about it.. I didnt make the connection that you were reporting a problem.

nj1266

iTrader: (6)

I used it as well. I noticed two things in the log.

First, the log does not show empty columns if you did not check the parameter. That is a plus in my book. Evoscan shows empty columns for each parameter even if you do not want to log them.

Second, It is not clear from the log title if the number listed is the time stamp. For example, My log had the date and 161252. Does that mean 16:12.52, ie, 4 oclock and 12 minutes and 52 seconds? I think it does, but I am just asking for clarification. Maybe, in the future release it should be listed as 16:12.52.

Third, I was able to edit the XML file and display the parameters like I want them. It worked like a charm.

Thanks MJ.

MalibuJack

iTrader: (5)

formatting filenames with timestamps is tricky, there are restrictions/limitations on what characters are valid for use in a filename, additionally I refrain from using periods in filenames unless it delimits an extension. This was pretty standard practice..

About the filenames, they are compressed yyyy-mm-dd-hhmmss, this was the best way to get the logs to sort correctly if you sort them by filename instead of date, additionally the : is not a valid dos character, and other characters are not valid in other os's. In the future you'll also be able to preface the filename with any valid text (customer name, favorite **** star, etc..) The 2.0 version will have some organizational features to allow you to maintain multiple configuration/directory/logs/maps for different clients files. Something SORELY lacking in even the professional tuner tools.

Mad_SB

iTrader: (8)

Thanks for the confirmation Jack,

I wasn't sure if the problem was between the chair and the keyboard or a dependency so I did not want to call it a bug....

Again,
Great work man, let me know if you start taking paypal donations, I would be happy to contribute, maybee you could use them to buy the wife something nice

MalibuJack

iTrader: (5)

Well the good news is there have been about 50 or so downloads, and only 2 or 3 people have reported problems, fortunately a majority of them aren't all that serious. But I've had one driver issue reported, and one report of the program failing with an error before it loads completely. I'm suspecting both are issues with the machines themselves, maybe a missing file or something.

FWIW I have 6 different laptops (yeah I know, but this is what I do for a living) and 5 or 6 PC's with different versions of OS's, Drivers, .NET revisions, etc.. And out of all the machines I had only one that didn't work right, and it turned out to be a driver issue (the old drivers and new drivers were coexisting so there were some files with an older version and others with a new version)

Also, the earlier FTDI drivers would disregard flow control if it wasn't used by the hardware your connected to, where the newer driver honors it a little more strictly.. Hence why the Beta 3 code didn't work with the new driver on most machines, but the Beta 4 and release code did.. The ECU doesn't use any flow control and therefore didn't care if it was set or not, however the new driver cared.. Go figure...

If you guys really want to get the best level of help with problems, you need to post about them on www.aktivematrix.com since its a little unfair to do it here.

MalibuJack

iTrader: (5)

I really couldn't ever imagine doing this sort of development for a commercial application, although I consider myself patient and professional. I think if you guys were paying for the program, you'd probably be all over me with this stuff. I take way too much pride in the work I do to release bad code. Bugs, well, lets just say I learned my debugging skills from microsoft (release the code when it works well enough for my stuff, and wait for others to find the really obscure bugs) :ROFL:

I think I might add a donate button to the new 2.0 code, I just can't in good conscience take money for something that I love doing.. Kinda why I don't wrench/tune/fabricate professionally even though I suppose I could if I wanted to. I'd much rather do this stuff without pressure. Although I think I have made all the dates I set for myself in releasing this code, which is more than I can say about most programs out there.

dan l

iTrader: (3)

Yeah, keep it a hobby. When you make it a job that you rely on for income it is no longer fun.

MalibuJack

iTrader: (5)

I've actually always done some level of this stuff professionally, but I definitely like working on my own terms.

codgi

iTrader: (22)

Classic developer arrogance...but watch it now i might actually go and d/l and give you some bugs to fix

Anywayz good job again MJ

MalibuJack

iTrader: (5)

Certainly not arrogance, thats only for people who think their work is perfect, not those who know it (a HUGE "Just Kidding").. But end-users and developers certainly think differently.. I can run a program for months and never have a bug, and then someone turns up something because they try to do something I would never have thought of trying because I'm used to how the program "wants" to work.

I'm a clean and methodical coder, and am fairly certain things work as well as they can when I release things, but I never rule out the things I would never expect to try or do having bugs.. Developers are logical, and most humans are not, therefore things will get done that you'd never do yourself as a developer/tester.

cij911

iTrader: (14)

I used the logger this AM and did a long normal (read fairly slow ) drive to work. At the end when the car was warm, I ran it hard from 2nd thr 4th...I saw a weird occurrence with timing that I have never seen with Evoscan, so I am hoping this is just a bug. Basically I saw -14 degrees of timing in several cells (not back to back). Here is a screen cut and paste (if you want the file just let me know). Again, my timing logs with Evoscan have never gone below 5 degrees and in the 5K range are generally 11 or so...

RPM ECULoad InjPulseWidth AFRMAP FuelTrim_High FuelTrim_Low FuelTrim_Middle O2FeedbackTrim O2Sensor TPS AirFlow AirTemp Baro ISCSteps KnockSum TimingAdv Speed Load


4468 159.38 16.9 179 0 3 2 0 0.92 49.8 1075.59 45.16 99 97 1 8 33.55 235.98
5156 159.38 18.43 181 0 3 2 0 0.92 100 1534.76 41.07 96 120 0 10 43.5 255.0545304
5906 159.38 16.38 174 0 3 2 0 0.9 100 1603.95 38.84 95 120 6 11 43.5 235.0955172
6687 159.38 15.1 171 0 3 2 0 0.9 100 1603.95 33.99 94.5 120 3 14 50.95 220.02
7312 159.38 7.94 169 0 3 2 0 0.92 9.02 132.09 33.99 103 83 0 38 60.89 113.9527811
6531 25 3.33 140 0 3 2 0 0.74 100 1107.04 38.84 98 76 0 15 60.89 53.0955
5625 159.38 19.97 189 0 3 2 0 0.94 100 1603.95 36.49 95 85 0 11 62.14 265.1585714
6093 159.38 18.18 190 0 3 2 0 0.92 100 1603.95 33.99 95 120 0 13 69.59 239.598
6468 159.38 16.9 187 0 3 2 0 0.92 100 1603.95 31.36 95 120 0 14 69.59 225.8845989
6875 159.38 16.38 187 0 3 2 0 0.92 100 1603.95 28.57 94.5 120 0 15 74.56 218.7519786
7187 120.62 1.28 153 0 3 2 0 0.86 9.02 176.12 31.36 103 83 0 38 80.78 14.21647059
6531 98.75 9.47 175 0 3 2 0 0.92 100 1484.44 33.99 95.5 84 0 -14 80.78 132.4712571
5812 159.38 20.22 192 0 3 2 0 0.94 100 1603.95 31.36 95 103 0 10 83.26 264.3553125
5906 159.38 18.43 191 0 3 2 0 0.92 100 1597.66 31.36 95.5 120 0 -14 86.99 241.7008901
6125 159.38 18.18 191 0 3 2 0 0.92 100 1603.95 28.57 95.5 120 0 13 86.99 238.3435602
6312 159.38 17.15 189 0 3 2 0 0.92 100 1603.95 28.57 95.5 120 0 14 91.96 226.8871429

MalibuJack

iTrader: (5)

I have to do some more logging on my car to be certain if it shows up.. The sample rate is really fast, but it could be a corrupt byte or something actually happening that was missed in other apps... It may be related to disk writes or somthing "loading up" your laptop while the logger is running..

I need a few days of logging on my own car to see anything anomolous..

What I do know, with both EvoScan and Mitsulogger, is periodically you'd get drops in sample rate under some circumstances..

Its not an error specifically in Mitsulogger, however thats what that response wait function is for.. Try adding 1 millisecond at a time to that response wait field and see if it goes away..

That function adds a little time to the requests to wait for a response..

This could be something that shows up on laptops that have really fast USB performance and doesn't give the ECU time to respond..