help new to megatunix

[juansh2385]

How do I installed ini. etc I mean I am currently runnin mariob 3.1.1 V17 version with tunner studio but I want to start using mega tunix how do I load the correct inin. I am usin Linux ubuntu. also Where can i find a tutorial of the soft ware I want to learn how to use the debbugers correctly as I am having trouble indentifying and unwanted pw cut at random rpm with no apperently reason most of the time at idle. another thin I already have a tune in my ms 2 if I want to start tunning in megatunix should I reinstall the firm ware to erase the actual data on ms and configured my ms with mega tunix from scratch or i can use the fetch data bottom as it is?
Thanks a lot
Juan


BTW i installed megatunix 0.9.23

[djandruczyk]

How do I installed ini. etc I mean I am currently runnin mariob 3.1.1 V17 version with tunner studio but I want to start using mega tunix how do I load the correct inin. I am usin Linux ubuntu. also Where can i find a tutorial of the soft ware I want to learn how to use the debbugers correctly as I am having trouble indentifying and unwanted pw cut at random rpm with no apperently reason most of the time at idle. another thin I already have a tune in my ms 2 if I want to start tunning in megatunix should I reinstall the firm ware to erase the actual data on ms and configured my ms with mega tunix from scratch or i can use the fetch data bottom as it is?
Thanks a lot
Juan


BTW i installed megatunix 0.9.23

Megatunix DOES NOT use any megatune or tunerstudio type .ini files at this time, nor does it support MS3 yet. Your best path since you are using ubuntu is to install the development version of megatunix built from git which has the latest fixes, speedups an such. See this thread: http://www.msextra.com/forums/viewtopic ... 06&t=23548

But jump down to this section: Downloading and compiling MegaTunix from Git

[racingmini_mtl]

Megatunix DOES NOT use any megatune or tunerstudio type .ini files at this time

Does that mean something is planned for this and, if so, do you have any ETA?

Jean

[djandruczyk]

Megatunix DOES NOT use any megatune or tunerstudio type .ini files at this time

Does that mean something is planned for this and, if so, do you have any ETA?

Jean

No, no concrete plans. if anything a tool MIGHT be written to convert the TS .ini into something clean and easily parse-able via a variety of off the shelf languages/libraries. Right now I don't have the time to focus upon that, and have received no requests for it from the community.

[racingmini_mtl]

Dave,

For anyone wanting to use MTx on Windows, the only practical way to use it would be to have something that allows changes to the menus and and variables without having to recompile the code. If I understand correctly, that's not possible now and compiling the code for Windows doesn't seem to be very accessible.

Using the current ini format or something 'cleaner' would solve that. Having no alternative, you're making the use of MTx either impossible or unattractive to a lot of users who are either not computer savvy enough to do what is needed or don't want to be bothered by the process. Being able to simply edit or copy a text file instead of re-installing or recompiling the software makes a huge difference for most users.

And that request has been there since day one. It's just that most users have moved on to something else that was easier to use.

Jean

[juansh2385]

OK Done with the update but still I can not see where can i select an specific firmware and the adecuate ini definition.
I attached the firmware that i want to use in my megasquirt. What firm ware from the megatunix select firmware should I use?

This one "MS2-Extra V3.1.x ALS series"?

[juansh2385]

Thanks in advance I always appreciate all the help i can get.

juan

[juansh2385]

A quick clarification.
I understand that megatunix does not use ini. from megatune or ts but my question is if i install the firmware that i want to my ms when i connect with megatunix will mtx identify my firmware and will it let me configure all the new features from the new firmware?

[djandruczyk]

Dave,

For anyone wanting to use MTx on Windows, the only practical way to use it would be to have something that allows changes to the menus and and variables without having to recompile the code. If I understand correctly, that's not possible now and compiling the code for Windows doesn't seem to be very accessible.

You don't understand at all. Menus are defined by glade files which there is a gui editor for available on all major platforms. The corresponding parallel configuration files (.datamaop.in files) are a true .ini file that maps additional data to controls.

Using the current ini format or something 'cleaner' would solve that. Having no alternative, you're making the use of MTx either impossible or unattractive to a lot of users who are either not computer savvy enough to do what is needed or don't want to be bothered by the process. Being able to simply edit or copy a text file instead of re-installing or recompiling the software makes a huge difference for most users.

And that request has been there since day one. It's just that most users have moved on to something else that was easier to use.

Jean

The problem I have with the current configuration as it is for TS, is:
1. it is proprietary. it has a .ini extension but it is NOT PARSEABLE by any .ini parsing library in its native form
2. It locks the GUI layout and requires manual editing to "improve" the gui in any way
3. Its gui configurability is very limited, you can only have combo boxes or text entries ,and only in a limited layout arrangement. (Recent TS releases have improved this somewhat, but it is still not ideal)
4. It refers to hard-coded (only within the tuning software) elements making it impossible to use cleanly with any other software.

MegaTunix DOES NOT typically require compilation for new device support with the exception of a major device change. (i.e. new ECU type) or internal bugfixes. Megatunix is very much a work-in progress and is not yet feature complete. Tunerstudio is a more complete application at this time.

One of MTX's design goals was to have a more user friendly user interface that was easier to use and navigate.. the MT .ini does NOT make it easy to alter or improve the gui layout beyond what the firmware developer came up with. (code people tend to not be very gui UI people), which has led to menu's within TS to be disjointed, with related controls in different places making it harder than it needs to.

I may at some point have a LIMITED support of the TS configs but it would (IMHO) cripple MTX's ui to being the same as TS's which goes against one of my primary design goals.

[juansh2385]

New ecu type what i am asking for. Did not have the expression clear in my head How do I configure for a new ecu type MarioB V17 is base on 3.1.1 but have a lot of changes especially to the pid algorithm and variables

[racingmini_mtl]

Dave,

For anyone wanting to use MTx on Windows, the only practical way to use it would be to have something that allows changes to the menus and and variables without having to recompile the code. If I understand correctly, that's not possible now and compiling the code for Windows doesn't seem to be very accessible.

You don't understand at all. Menus are defined by glade files which there is a gui editor for available on all major platforms. The corresponding parallel configuration files (.datamaop.in files) are a true .ini file that maps additional data to controls.

OK. Would you care to give me a link for this editor? And does that mean that if I were to edit the gui, I could add, remove, rename some parameters or relocate them in memory (basically change the API) as well as change the firmware signature? And I'd just need to redistribute this .datamaop.in file and everyone could use it to use an updated firmware? If not, then you don't understand at all the problematic. And having to install a gui editor is more work than using a text editor even though it is likely more visual once it's there.

Using the current ini format or something 'cleaner' would solve that. Having no alternative, you're making the use of MTx either impossible or unattractive to a lot of users who are either not computer savvy enough to do what is needed or don't want to be bothered by the process. Being able to simply edit or copy a text file instead of re-installing or recompiling the software makes a huge difference for most users.

And that request has been there since day one. It's just that most users have moved on to something else that was easier to use.

Jean

The problem I have with the current configuration as it is for TS, is:
1. it is proprietary. it has a .ini extension but it is NOT PARSEABLE by any .ini parsing library in its native form
2. It locks the GUI layout and requires manual editing to "improve" the gui in any way
3. Its gui configurability is very limited, you can only have combo boxes or text entries ,and only in a limited layout arrangement. (Recent TS releases have improved this somewhat, but it is still not ideal)
4. It refers to hard-coded (only within the tuning software) elements making it impossible to use cleanly with any other software.

MegaTunix DOES NOT typically require compilation for new device support with the exception of a major device change. (i.e. new ECU type) or internal bugfixes. Megatunix is very much a work-in progress and is not yet feature complete. Tunerstudio is a more complete application at this time.

One of MTX's design goals was to have a more user friendly user interface that was easier to use and navigate.. the MT .ini does NOT make it easy to alter or improve the gui layout beyond what the firmware developer came up with. (code people tend to not be very gui UI people), which has led to menu's within TS to be disjointed, with related controls in different places making it harder than it needs to.

I may at some point have a LIMITED support of the TS configs but it would (IMHO) cripple MTX's ui to being the same as TS's which goes against one of my primary design goals.

Yes, the ini format is proprietary and it may be unfortunate that it has used this extension instead of something else (however, I think you're the only one I've seen complain about this). And I agree that code people are not necessarily the best at GUI design (I know I'm not). But there are underlying reasons why some things are disjointed and this is due, in part, to the memory allocation and how paging is done. If you don't respect the paging, you can screw up data really fast.

So while making the GUI more user friendly is a worthy goal, doing it by cutting off the developers from their quick and easy way of working doesn't seem to be the way to go in a fast evolving environment. I would still be interested in having an alternative and I think everyone would benefit from the healthy competition but I must say I'm not ready to spend a lot of time on installing additional software and generating additional files every time something changes in the API (which is very often the case for a new release).

Jean

[djandruczyk]

Dave,

For anyone wanting to use MTx on Windows, the only practical way to use it would be to have something that allows changes to the menus and and variables without having to recompile the code. If I understand correctly, that's not possible now and compiling the code for Windows doesn't seem to be very accessible.

You don't understand at all. Menus are defined by glade files which there is a gui editor for available on all major platforms. The corresponding parallel configuration files (.datamaop.in files) are a true .ini file that maps additional data to controls.

OK. Would you care to give me a link for this editor? And does that mean that if I were to edit the gui, I could add, remove, rename some parameters or relocate them in memory (basically change the API) as well as change the firmware signature? And I'd just need to redistribute this .datamaop.in file and everyone could use it to use an updated firmware? If not, then you don't understand at all the problematic. And having to install a gui editor is more work than using a text editor even though it is likely more visual once it's there.

Using the current ini format or something 'cleaner' would solve that. Having no alternative, you're making the use of MTx either impossible or unattractive to a lot of users who are either not computer savvy enough to do what is needed or don't want to be bothered by the process. Being able to simply edit or copy a text file instead of re-installing or recompiling the software makes a huge difference for most users.

And that request has been there since day one. It's just that most users have moved on to something else that was easier to use.

Jean

The problem I have with the current configuration as it is for TS, is:
1. it is proprietary. it has a .ini extension but it is NOT PARSEABLE by any .ini parsing library in its native form
2. It locks the GUI layout and requires manual editing to "improve" the gui in any way
3. Its gui configurability is very limited, you can only have combo boxes or text entries ,and only in a limited layout arrangement. (Recent TS releases have improved this somewhat, but it is still not ideal)
4. It refers to hard-coded (only within the tuning software) elements making it impossible to use cleanly with any other software.

MegaTunix DOES NOT typically require compilation for new device support with the exception of a major device change. (i.e. new ECU type) or internal bugfixes. Megatunix is very much a work-in progress and is not yet feature complete. Tunerstudio is a more complete application at this time.

One of MTX's design goals was to have a more user friendly user interface that was easier to use and navigate.. the MT .ini does NOT make it easy to alter or improve the gui layout beyond what the firmware developer came up with. (code people tend to not be very gui UI people), which has led to menu's within TS to be disjointed, with related controls in different places making it harder than it needs to.

I may at some point have a LIMITED support of the TS configs but it would (IMHO) cripple MTX's ui to being the same as TS's which goes against one of my primary design goals.

Yes, the ini format is proprietary and it may be unfortunate that it has used this extension instead of something else (however, I think you're the only one I've seen complain about this). And I agree that code people are not necessarily the best at GUI design (I know I'm not). But there are underlying reasons why some things are disjointed and this is due, in part, to the memory allocation and how paging is done. If you don't respect the paging, you can screw up data really fast.

So while making the GUI more user friendly is a worthy goal, doing it by cutting off the developers from their quick and easy way of working doesn't seem to be the way to go in a fast evolving environment. I would still be interested in having an alternative and I think everyone would benefit from the healthy competition but I must say I'm not ready to spend a lot of time on installing additional software and generating additional files every time something changes in the API (which is very often the case for a new release).

Jean

Glade: (Not I haven't testing this version as I use glade under Linux, as I only boot a windows VM to test mtx builds)
http://bonifazi.blogspot.com/2009/11/gt ... ndows.html Though using a linux version instead of windows is recommended as Linux is the primary platform for Gtk+/Glade, and thus support is better there.

Most of the developers of firmware have NEVER WANTED megatunix to exist, as evidenced to many comments I've received from them either directly or indirectly online (though most of them have since been removed/edited away) and in person at previous MegaMeets (which is why I no longer attend, as I'm no longer considered of much value to the project/MS-community, even most of the documentation that previously mentioned mtx has since edited me out). The developers are happy with Megatune/Tunerstudio as it provided a RAD environment which suits their fast develop style which is just fine. However IMHO back then, and even now to an extent, the user interface that is in the .ini structure left a LOT to be desired to the "non-developer". MegaTunix was NEVER DESIGNED with RAD in mind, it was designed with the END USER in mind. I spent many tens of hours trying to find a way to take the .ini's and construct an INTUITIVE easy to use UI from it, and found that there was no feasable way besides manual design that would result in a significant and consistent improvement. TS has improved this slightly by changing the API format to allow nesting of control groups (slightly more flexibility), but even so you still tend to have a UI where controls are not necessarily logically arranged to be intuitive to the end user.

[juansh2385]

all of this is really interesting i am trying to learn and understand how megatunix is coded. That said is it safe to asume that the only way that i could use megatunix in my setup is for me to downgrade to a version that megatunix support. Do you have plans to add experimental codes like the one i am currently using?

[djandruczyk]

all of this is really interesting i am trying to learn and understand how megatunix is coded. That said is it safe to asume that the only way that i could use megatunix in my setup is for me to downgrade to a version that megatunix support. Do you have plans to add experimental codes like the one i am currently using?

It depends how experimental. I NEED THE CODE to do any testing/development yet. so if I don't get a URL to it, I'm not going to be able to do anything. If the firmware is MS2 based mtx can already talk to it, it just does NOT yet have a profile that matches it.

[juansh2385]

all of this is really interesting i am trying to learn and understand how megatunix is coded. That said is it safe to asume that the only way that i could use megatunix in my setup is for me to downgrade to a version that megatunix support. Do you have plans to add experimental codes like the one i am currently using?

It depends how experimental. I NEED THE CODE to do any testing/development yet. so if I don't get a URL to it, I'm not going to be able to do anything. If the firmware is MS2 based mtx can already talk to it, it just does NOT yet have a profile that matches it.

I have attached again the files i have them with me right now but in my defense I did upload them before.

the url: if you want to look more into the different versio V14 is good to but i am interested in V17 only and the files that i posted are form V17

Any ways I really thanks full for all the help and effort you are putting into this.

Juan

[juansh2385]

not so related topic I read people complaining in v17 of a bad map sensor calibration there might be something wrong with 4 bar map. The V14 does not have this problems I am not sure if this is relevant to you but i want to bring it up any way just in case other people try the EXPERIMENTAL code

[djandruczyk]

I need to know WHERE these files came from as there is additional data that isn't in the above two files... not just the plain .s19/.ini.

i.e. I need to know WHAT IS SPECIAL about this set of files. you have yet to provide any useful background information that I need to accomplish what you want....

[juansh2385]

I need to know WHERE these files came from as there is additional data that isn't in the above two files... not just the plain .s19/.ini.

i.e. I need to know WHAT IS SPECIAL about this set of files. you have yet to provide any useful background information that I need to accomplish what you want....

Got it this is the url http://www.msextra.com/forums/viewtopic ... 91&t=40299

it is a 20 page post.... i hope it does not bother you because it has been and evolving code during the last couple month the most impact changes are improve in the resolution of pid for every pid algorithm in the code IT is base on 3.1.1 and the part that is more useful to me that he add some options in the idle tunning he added some setting that helps a lot in idle tuning

[racingmini_mtl]

Glade: (Not I haven't testing this version as I use glade under Linux, as I only boot a windows VM to test mtx builds)
http://bonifazi.blogspot.com/2009/11/gt ... ndows.html Though using a linux version instead of windows is recommended as Linux is the primary platform for Gtk+/Glade, and thus support is better there.

Thank you. I'll have a look.

Most of the developers of firmware have NEVER WANTED megatunix to exist, as evidenced to many comments I've received from them either directly or indirectly online (though most of them have since been removed/edited away) and in person at previous MegaMeets (which is why I no longer attend, as I'm no longer considered of much value to the project/MS-community, even most of the documentation that previously mentioned mtx has since edited me out). The developers are happy with Megatune/Tunerstudio as it provided a RAD environment which suits their fast develop style which is just fine. However IMHO back then, and even now to an extent, the user interface that is in the .ini structure left a LOT to be desired to the "non-developer". MegaTunix was NEVER DESIGNED with RAD in mind, it was designed with the END USER in mind. I spent many tens of hours trying to find a way to take the .ini's and construct an INTUITIVE easy to use UI from it, and found that there was no feasable way besides manual design that would result in a significant and consistent improvement. TS has improved this slightly by changing the API format to allow nesting of control groups (slightly more flexibility), but even so you still tend to have a UI where controls are not necessarily logically arranged to be intuitive to the end user.

Putting aside the personal issues, I understand the desire to give the end user a better experience but the RAD environment has mostly been driven by end user requests. So that has meant that MTx was always one step behind (or more) in terms of support so that made it very difficult for it to get any traction. And the fact that MTx was not designed for RAD meant that the developers didn't want to spend the significant additional effort to work around that.

You can see how quickly TS was accepted because it meant no change to what was already established (with all its warts). And things evolved from there. It's just too bad that this wasn't your chosen path and that there isn't an alternative.

Jean

[jsmcortina]

as evidenced to many comments... (though most of them have since been removed/edited away)

Evidence?
We apply a very strict NON-DELETION and NON-CENSORSHIP policy here. Stuff is only removed in extreme circumstances.

even most of the documentation that previously mentioned mtx has since edited me out)

Evidence?
I haven't to my knowledge done this and I've done most of the doc work in the last few years.

James