Feature request: Boost table with generic analog input...p

[JoseMiguel]

I was trying to code this feature by myself but never got it to work, and im wondering if somebody would be up to the challenge (or maybe, include it on a future release of the code). Does not seem to be hard for an experienced ms coder.

Right now, the boost duty or boost target tables are rpm vs tps. My idea is to use a potentiometer via an analog input in which I can manually go through the rows in the boost table (instead of tps). In that way, I can select different boost levels electronically and without connecting the computer, much like an electronic boost control.

Thanks for reading.

[nathaninwa]

This is an ms3 feature and maynot be back ported to ms2

[JoseMiguel]

This is an ms3 feature and maynot be back ported to ms2

Why not? codewise seems fairly easy (although I was not able to do it). Does not seems like it will take much memory (or no memory at all) as the only thing that one has to do is replace one analog input (TPS) by another analog input (generic input) and thats about it.

[nathaninwa]

I understand that it maybe easy. The developers don't back port all features for the upgrade reason

I'm not saying they won't, just giving a reason as to why they might not

[JoseMiguel]

I understand that it maybe easy. The developers don't back port all features for the upgrade reason

I'm not saying they won't, just giving a reason as to why they might not

I get your point and it is completely valid (and logical, from the commercial point of view). But considering the "openness" of our developers and the project itself, maybe we can get this feature in MS2. Considering that MS3 has a more "plug and play" focus and MS2 a more "diy" focus, one must take into account that to make it work you still have to make the analog input circuit (in MS2). I think that only that issue itself is enough to think that a feature like this in MS2 wont threaten MS3.

[muythaibxr]

At this point MS2 is only getting bug fixes.

[JoseMiguel]

At this point MS2 is only getting bug fixes.

I get it, so at this point my only hope is to get an experienced coder to help me or to point me in the right direction

it is as easy as changing the Y axis of the boost table from TPS to generic analog input and thats it.

[JoseMiguel]

Somebody willing to help? I just need somebody to point me in the right direction!

[ol boy]

Had an idea.. if your MAP only on your setup and can afford to loose the TPS read out, just use it as the boost control set up your talking about. You'd loose idle, ego, and all sorts of nice to haves.

[JoseMiguel]

Had an idea.. if your MAP only on your setup and can afford to loose the TPS read out, just use it as the boost control set up your talking about. You'd loose idle, ego, and all sorts of nice to haves.

yeap, I thought about the same. Wire the TPS to a potentiometer that you can move with your hands and you are good to go...

but yeah, TPS has many other uses! so its not an option.

I really cant believe that nobody is willing to help

[jsmcortina]

The developers moved on from MS2 seven years ago.

James

[dontz125]

And yet the MS2, along with the uS, uSM and all the uSM-based PNPs that DIY and others sell are still front-shelf products. B&G don't seem to have moved on; why have the developers?

[muythaibxr]

There are a multitude of reasons but mainly because of time, or lack thereof.

[dontz125]

Understood. Only so many hours in a day for a semi-paid semi hobby ...

I want to say this next point has been broached, but my memory is not what it was. If some clever lad were to volunteer to take ownership of the MS2 code, adding such features as could be gently tamped into a shrinking space, would this be acceptable to yourself and James?

(No, I'm not stepping forward myself; my coding skills are notional at best, and I don't have the focus right now to learn.)

[muythaibxr]

Not really as where the features are the same or similar between ms2 and ms3, we want to maintain common look/feel/function.

[dontz125]

... and when someone wants to ADD a feature to MS2 ... ? That IS the entire point to the discussion!

[jsmcortina]

For your own private use, fine. For public usage no, I am unlikely to permit my code to be used like that.

James

[robs]

Firstly, JoseMiguel, I'd be happy to give you a hand with this. As you say, it shouldn't be too hard for a one-off (harder for a supported release). I'm not familiar with exotic things like boost control but I have a reasonable understanding of the code and A2D and interpolation are pretty straightforward. Perhaps we should take it to e-mail. PM me your address if you want.

Secondly, James, "moved on" doesn't seem the right phrase; it suggests anyone still using MS2 is mildly deluded. In truth, you've done plenty of active development on MS2 in the last seven years. What you really should say is that MS2 is now considerered a mature, supported and complete product. People who want to break new ground need to move to MS3.

Thirdly, Ken and James, the MS2/Extra Development forum will tend to wither. How would you feel about it if I took to posting here occasionally about a completely separate firmware for this platform? Quite early on I posted here proposing a "driver layer" in the name of "modularity" (to no great enthusiasm). A few years ago I got a burst of energy and made some more serious efforts towards implementing those ideas. There were a couple of interesting and fun notions, but my energy dwindled when I thought how much work it would be, and rather a waste of time since I'd be the only user, and my applications aren't exactly challenging.

I don't think there'll be much active interest here either, but from time to time there have been people from various schools posting about controlling lawnmowers and other off-the-beaten-track applications who might find it easier incorporating their specific tweaks into a reduced system. This is not to say that my way will be "better" than the MS2/Extra way. By some measures it would be better, by some it'd be worse. Like comparing a Landcruiser to a Ferrari.

Even if you say "go ahead" it'll probably come to nothing -- would hardly be the first time one of my grand schemes fizzed.

Have fun,

Rob.

[Matt Cramer]

One thing you COULD do with existing code is set up a frequency generator and feed it into the flex fuel input; the code has an option to use flex fuel instead of TPS for the boost tables.

I can't speak for Ken and James, but one danger I've seen happen with code forks is that putting all the infrastructure in place to support a code fork is often a bigger task than creating the code fork itself.

[robs]

I can't speak for Ken and James, but one danger I've seen happen with code forks is that putting all the infrastructure in place to support a code fork is often a bigger task than creating the code fork itself.

Just to be clear, not a fork, it'd be new code; not capable of as much as MS2/Extra, but not as complicated either. I'd hope it could be as easy to understand as the original B&G, but easier to customise (no need for a commercial CodeWarrior licence for starters). It might open the door for more people to experiment with coding and hardware tweaks -- if that's a good thing.

Have fun,

Rob.