Megasquirt Support Forum (MSEXTRA)

Having the load @ RPM curve be 50% across the board makes even less sense to me. I'm not seeing how that's much different from setting table switching at 90 kPa. This would remove the need for the TPS @ 90 kPa curve. Am I missing something here? Yeah, I guess it would be similar to setting table sw...

The values used for the load axis of the table can be changed. They SHOULD be changed to give more resolution to areas of the table which have more VE change. A good example of this is minimum MAP value for speed density tables. During operation MAP value is never below a minimum. The bottom row of...

The round-and-round which can occur from changing the curve, then table, then load bins, then table, then curve, etc. is what I find ambiguous. There's not always a clear solution to problems on the VE table with ITB load mode.The load bins mean different things depending on where they are on the t...

Getting the ITB Load TPS Switchpoint curve is straight forward. It's the other curve, the ITB Load at TPS Switchpoint curve, the curve which divides the table, which I find ambiguous. I disagree with your comments about the ITB Load at TPS Switchpoint curve. It is essentially the same concept as th...

I find this blended method easy because it takes almost all of the guess work out of setting up the curve. With ITB Mode there is no (zero) guess work. I just log the TPS switch point curve, then enter that and then tune like normal with either VEAL or manually just like I would with any single tab...

Some locales only require that the vehicle actually pass the emissions test, but need to see some way to verify the ECU programming is locked, or perhaps an easy method verify the tune is the same would suffice. Sadly I don't think "compare tunes" in TS would impress them, the "bless...

ITB mode is just easier all round to use.

The firmware already does CRC32 of the tuning data pages and TunerStudio already uses it to reduce load time. The firmware also allows CRC32 of program memory regions. James I wouldn't have thought so from observed use - which firmware version and how specifically is it checking the CRC32 before lo...

Oh, and it would improve the tune/project connection time - instead of reading the entire tune to confirm that it has/hasn't changed, it could just ask the ECU for the hash, and compare to the local hash of the tune and if the same, just connect. If not, it would only then pull down the 8 pages of m...

A simple MD5 hash of the tune and loaded firmware for validation purposes would achieve all the confirmation a tuner needs for protection from "warranty" claims and likely many other legal validation purposes. If it was built into TS it would be a great feature. I agree for many reasons t...

So on those ECUs, does the password "protection" somehow "protect" the person who owns the ECU and paid for the tune, or force the ECUs owner to come back to the tuner for any changes? IMHO if someone pays for a tune, they own it, not the tuner. Works the same way with Musicians...

I'm curious What "competitive ECUs" actually support it? AEM, Haltech and Motec all offer this. In Australia, these ECUs are way, way more popular than Megasquirt. So whilst the MS3Pro is now a viable a competitive option, it will need to offer similar features to sell. I'm not sure if an...

It must be locked - but locked isn't defined. So I guess physically locking the ECU in a case would qualify.

Whatever your view, competitive ECUs have this feature and I'm surprised that alone isn't good enough reasons to ensure customers don't shop elsewhere

Reviving and old thread.... Another reason for simple password lock out for tune updates is some countries have a regulatory requirement that any ECU used for street use, that passes the emission controls (assuming it did) would also need to have a non-modifiable ECU/tune... so adding a password mee...

Is there any performance to be recouped from changing to falling as it shud? I guess it will depend which way around you wire the CAS sensor. One way is falling edge, the other way needs rising edge - I'm not sure why or how DIY wired it one way and didn't detail the specific reason, but the MS3 do...

You wired up the pull up resistors as shown on here right? http://www.msextra.com/doc/ms3/nissancas.html Also, the settings on the DIY page are incorrect - it needs to be falling edge, not rising edge for the ignition input. Ask me how I found that out... http://www.msextra.com/forums/viewtopic.php?...

That fixed it! I think a combo of rotating the CAS the wrong way and having the setting advice from DIY Autotune wrong (should be falling not rising edge) was the problem.

Thanks again James.

jsmcortina wrote:It isn't saying "losses" it is saying not synced at all. TS is displaying it as a series of spikes, the raw data from the firmware says "sync=0"

Ok, thanks. I'll retry and log with falling edge and report back.

G

Are you testing on an engine or on the bench? The CAS is rotating backwards compared to the expected direction. Testing on the bench as we couldn't get it working on the car and also had power-on loom issues. So car loom is out and on a peg board with all sensors etc connected. CAS is the only thin...