Under idle enhancements.... Note that it only smooths the rpm input used by pid, which in turn smooths pid and in turn the idle.tpsretard2 wrote:where do i find the option for rpm smoothing?
G
Moderators: jsmcortina, muythaibxr
Under idle enhancements.... Note that it only smooths the rpm input used by pid, which in turn smooths pid and in turn the idle.tpsretard2 wrote:where do i find the option for rpm smoothing?
I can't believe the dynamics that the MS2 (and off course 3) development has got over the last months. Great work - all of you!muythaibxr wrote:As far as this smoothing goes... if it doesn't hurt response and does a good job filtering compared to the lag factors, then we might make it smooth RPM (and MAP, and TPS, and...) for all operations and get rid of the lag factors (as they won't be necessary anymore).
Ken
Alternator control?muythaibxr wrote:Many of the changes actually came from Grant (with my permission) backporting MS3 code, so those are already in the 1.1 alphas. Really the only one not there is his adaptive idle advance (which I requested he change from the original method) and I guess the RPM smoothing for PID. I will be reimplementing both for ms3 unless they are easily portable from his ms2 implementations as well as backporting more of the ms3 fixes to ms2.
We are also working on boost control improvements, MAP sampling and smoothing changes, a new, more responsive and easier to tune "accel-pump ae," alternator control, and a number of other enhancements.
Ken
Already started preparing for the removal of lag factors. Here's a comparison of RPM lag 40 vs RPM lag 100. RPM smoothing factor 10 for both. The RPM shows a lot of small jaggies, and the spark naturally follows. But these are not felt...if anything, the engine feels smoother. The RPM seems to be held to target more strongly. Note the super tight RPM scalemuythaibxr wrote:As far as this smoothing goes... if it doesn't hurt response and does a good job filtering compared to the lag factors, then we might make it smooth RPM (and MAP, and TPS, and...) for all operations and get rid of the lag factors (as they won't be necessary anymore).
Ken
The 'new stuff' in the gslender modified firmware is largely backported stuff from MS3. The devs have been incredibly helpful in this process, especially Ken, who has steered us in the right direction several times. So props to the dev team for helping keep MS2/Extra relevant. Having said that, the future does lie with MS3...soon enough there will be stuff that can't be done with the MS2 hardware93white3400z wrote:Some of these changes and the feedback people give almost makes me want to downgrade to ms2 just to try them Hope some (all?) of them will make their way to ms3
Spot on Greg - as you know, I struggled for ages trying to get a new memory page sorted in MS2, but couldn't get it to work (and I almost gave up). Luckily Ken stepped up and volunteered his time to help me figure out the bugs (and this would have been at the cost of MS3 development work).Greg G wrote:The 'new stuff' in the gslender modified firmware is largely backported stuff from MS3. The devs have been incredibly helpful in this process, especially Ken, who has steered us in the right direction several times. So props to the dev team for helping keep MS2/Extra relevant. Having said that, the future does lie with MS3...soon enough there will be stuff that can't be done with the MS2 hardware93white3400z wrote:Some of these changes and the feedback people give almost makes me want to downgrade to ms2 just to try them Hope some (all?) of them will make their way to ms3
A few things come to mind... 1) there seems to be more experimental tuning required on the ms3 in terms of pnp to the car I own (MX5), 2) the ability to develop for the ms3 has only recently happend (the source was 1st available Oct 26th), and 3) the total cost for MS3 vs MS2 was something that I initially weren't comfortable paying extra for when I didn't really see how all those extra bits would be needed (not a great big deal).93white3400z wrote:Yeah good job gslender and everyone else that worked on this.
I have a question for you that have an ms2 and are developing for it. I'm wondering what is the motivation to develop on ms2 instead of upgrading and develop on ms3 (and use already existing feature w/o having to backport). Is it a $$ issue or there is something else I'm missing ? Please don't take this the wrong way, I can understand if it's a $$ money, but I'm just wondering if I'm missing something
I'm not devleoping for ms2, but I'll answer anyway. In addition to the money I already have wrapped up in the ms v3.0 and ms2 processor card, as well as wiring, wideband sensors, mistakes, re-wireing, and of course time- I'm not looking forward to shelling out hundreds more for ms3. The entire project would quickly approach the cost of an off the shelf standalone when looked at "big picture" wise. That being said, It is likely within the next two years I will upgrade. No nice dashboard options has me hesistant to spend that money though. I'm hoping to see a mod where the ms3 can make data availible on the CAN line instead of needed to be asked for it.93white3400z wrote:Yeah good job gslender and everyone else that worked on this.
I have a question for you that have an ms2 and are developing for it. I'm wondering what is the motivation to develop on ms2 instead of upgrading and develop on ms3 (and use already existing feature w/o having to backport). Is it a $$ issue or there is something else I'm missing ? Please don't take this the wrong way, I can understand if it's a $$ money, but I'm just wondering if I'm missing something
Sounds like you are doing this offline? That would be the problem most likely.Zaphod wrote:Hi I can't use my old MSQ with the new firmware - as the bins in the new functions are all filled with unsensible values like -2.234325243545465466 and when I try to change the value I get an error for the next bin and the error pops up endless when closing. I suppose I will have to make a new MSQ from scratch...?