Or maybe just ensuring that parameter is not exceeded. ;)

Also interesting that even though the thresholds are in place and PI is off in the same regions of the map, the car does feel smoother at part throttle and part throttle acceleration with the ratios set between 20-24% as @shr133 noted. Possibly due to the way the values are interpolated first before the thresholds being applied making for a smoother transition between combined operation and full DI.

This is interesting that now two people feel the same way. Are you sure that PFI is not being commanded in both cases?

I'm sure from my logs that PI is not active and I've re-read the ROM to make sure those table changes were committed (because it didn't make sense when I looked at the logs). Not sure what ROM calibration @shr133 is running and whether he has logged the PI pulse or duty and whether the same logic is in his ROM calibration as mine.

A01G is the same as A02G.

B01C (and all C series OFT Defs):
B01D (and all D series OFT Defs):
A01I (and all I series OFT Defs):
NOTE: I have copied these direct from my definition, the names have been edited slightly so you will need to correct them or make them the same as ztan's above for them to appear. I shall update my own definitions for download later today.

Does that show the limits that are already there, or does it impose new limits?

Say what??

I went for a drive with PI showing on my OFT. PI was off almost all the time. That means that those are the limits that were already there. Then I came back and added this code to my def file. I changed the lower limit to 19%, and filled my PI tables with 20 and 24 percent cells. Went for a drive again and this time watched PI and DI on my OFT. Now they are both working all the time, except when I idle, or decelerate. This is a really good addition to RR. Thanks @ztan
P.S. My hyper-sensitive butt-dyno feels like there is more low-end torque now with the PI running all the time. @shr133 You've got to get this code added to your def, so you can use these controls to run PI all the time. Your theory seems right. It definitely feels like it runs better with PI on all the time.

Lowered the PI percentage and threshold
 

Here's a pic of what I'm trying now. I lowered the PI percentage and threshold even more. I think even 20% might be a bit much. Here's a pic of what I changed so you can see for yourselves what I'm talking about. I lowered it to .047 in the middle of my cruising rpm's to see if I can get a bit better mileage.

Interesting. Do you think the drive feel could better with higher percentages of PFI?
In part load conditions PFI wins hands down especially as the speeds increase. At lower speeds OEMs use DI to have better fuel control. PFI tends to have a puddle effect and OEMs sometimes even have a puddle model (accumulation and evaporation model)
The change you are feeling could be down to the fact that as we switch from DI to PFI without changing spark we are changing the location of peak cylinder pressure (LPP) to a more advanced position. This is because the charge cooling effect of DI makes the combustion speed slower and hence to get same LPP we need a bit more spark advance. Now when we keep the same spark advance and just change the ratio we can be speeding up combustion. So how does this help in the drive feel.
Okay so in combustion there is something called Combustion variance. This is the variability in LPP cycle to cycle. Typically there is a LPP that gives best torque/efficiency at a certain speed. Say for example at 1200rpm it is 14deg ATDC (just an example). OEMs generally tune spark to get the LPP at this precise angle. But it has been observed that as you advance the LPP a bit closer towards TDC say by a degree or so the variance in LPP drops but efficiency suffers. Meaning combustion gets more consistent but less efficient. Now for drive feel this variation in LPP is critical but for fuel economy it is not.
If I were to tune a race car I would tune it differently than tuning a street car for FE.
Back to the topic. By adding more PFI at same spark timing we are advancing LPP slightly and as a result getting better feel.

As a science experiment we should feel a better idle, accel, etc when we add a degree or so spark across the part throttle region (non knock limited). This should feel much like the way it felt with more PFI.

Okay so a lot of I said is theory, yes but being a dyno/vehicle calibrator myself I have experienced most of this.

I used less theory, and more practice
 

I just made several tunes with slightly different tables. See pic below. I'll let you know which one seems best.

@KoolBRZ if you want full ratio control above idle, don't worry about the max/min ratio just set the load and RPM thresholds to around 1000/0.2. In your setup, the 5% DI will run no PI at all,so in your cruising you'll be full DI and I'd avoid that for the cleaning effects of PI.

Id be surprised if there was any difference at all because the amount being changed so small between the different cals.

Small changes are big at low rpms
 

I think you both have good points. I changed the injection ration thresholds to be off above .2 Load, and above 500 RPM, and also raised the lower limit to 74. I then added more percentage to each of the three tunes, so the changes would be more definitive.

Full time PI isn't looking good so far. I'm getting only 26 highway mpg on tunes 20 and 21. Loaded tune 22 just now. We'll see how it goes.

The results are in. PI sucks gas
 

Strangely enough, more PI, in tune 22, sucked less than tunes 20 or 21. I have a Phantom ESC, and found 22 works better under light boost, (~3 PSI), than 20 or 21. It's obvious the PI thresholds are to enable mileage as high as 30 mpg.
So, if PI automatically cuts off when the throttle is zero, and I only want PI at off-idle tip-in, and above 5200 under higher loads, the thresholds still do me no good. I've rescaled it and changed the tables, but I'm still not turning them on, off, and on again. Now they are on, then off, or just on. depending on the load.

Better, but not best
 

I tried the table shown, 23, and a new one, 24, which turned out to be better. From the stock thresholds and my experiences, I conclude that anything less then 35% is worse than nothing, and anything more than 75% might as well be everything. I'll keep on trying out different tables and posting them here, all by myself. (sound of crickets chirping)

OK back to where I started
 

This is almost the same as the ESC OTS tune's table and threshold. I lowered the RPM's to 2200, raised a few cells, rescaled the rpm range, but it's very close to the way it started.

Any idea why you didnt go 100% DI at low speed WOT? This is where the DI really comes into play for knock relief

If you are running boost and if you have not adjusted the Cam timings to account for boost yet then it might be better to run full DI in those areas. If you still have the huge valve overlap of the NA tune in the scavenging region then with PFI you will be shortcircuiting a lot of fuel into exhaust and engine might actually run lean. If you have already changed the timings to cut down overlap then ignore this

The wrx's only have DI and they can't run as much timing as we can because they don't have PI for knock prevention.

WRX is a boosted engine running at higher torque outputs so cannot be compared to our engine. Boosted engines also use a lot more turbulence and hence do not need as much spark advance to get the same combustion. In short we cannot compare the two.

DI gives better knock relief, not PI.

I'll try it and compare these two
 

I'll try it and compare these two versions of the PI tables. As you can see, from 1.0 Load on up and 2200 rpms and up till 5200 it is 100% DI. I'll try the two tunes with this as the only change and let you know how it works. Having an AT is great for engine tuning because every change has a much more dramatic effect, but when it isn't running right it sucks the joy right out of driving.

The zero PI at WOT tune, (28) runs better at WOT. Definitely. So I need to use full DI sometimes for performance reasons. Now to find out when and where.

More DI less PI
 

Hey @thambu19 and @Kodename47. Tell me what you think about the next table I'm trying. Old vs new. A lot more DI and less PI. I've changed the thresholds back to the stock settings.

I am a noob when it comes to xmls. So to enable this definition what am I supposed to do? Take the regular RR def file and copy this code and paste it into the RR code? Anywhere in the code will do? Do I have to be mindful of what ECU id I have?

Yes, copy and paste. Most of us keep addresses pointers all together and the table defs lower down in the text file.

ECU Calibration ID is critical - if you don't have the right one in, you could be altering calibration data or code happily at random before bricking your ECU. There is also an issue with OFT calibrations all being based on the latest they are using despite naming them with a stock ID calibration. Before you alter anything with your def file, click on a lot of tables and make sure they are all sane.

Kodename47 has pulled addresses for some different ECU calibration IDs. If they don't match yours, let us know which ECU ID you need.

Thanks mate!

I'm lgetting good results with the thresholds right where they are
 

I just got back from the beach. Tried 2 tunes on the way out, weak power, 28 mpg. made a new tune while I was there, good power, good AT shifting in "D" mode, mpg went from 28 to 31 as we went down the coast from 20 mph to 60 mph. Power was just about a perfect match with the transmission. Refilled in Salem and drove 75 mph north, which usually gets about 30 mpg, this time got 33. PI was off at 75 mph, (2600 rpms) with loads from .5 to .7, but back on with loads up to .8 or .9. See pic below, 36 is the tune I ran today, 37 is the one I'm trying out tomorrow. Will it get better mpg with PI on at 75 mph? Or does it get better mpg with PI off at cruising speed?

Sorry not sure what to say. You could be getting more mileage because pi burns faster than di ' same effect advancing spark until knock

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

When you get a chance can you try something like this? At WOT I have gone 100% DI. This means you need to a degree or so more spark there to use the full potential. If you do not then it will feel sluggish compared to stock calibration.

Have you got your xml edited now?
 

Can you use the PI thresholds now? If not, cells below .35% and 5000 rpm will be the same as zero %. I also wonder if there are any PI multipliers in effect, because that would cause the cells with .703 to exceed .75 and then those cells are the same as 100%. However, I don't see how running your PI table will hurt.
Because of the way my AT trans shifts in response to throttle input, this is one table that should be different between MT and AT tunes. I'll try it with the thresholds bypassed over .5 load instead of 1.5, so that the cells below 5000 and .35% will have some effect. Then I will compare it to my other tunes and let you know.

Sorry I didnt pay too much attention to thresholds but if you can change the thresholds to get these ratios that will be cool. As I said before going 100% DI at wot requires you to add more spark in those regions where I took away from PFI and added DI

@thambu19, it's time to practice what you preach
 

Here's a zip file with the B01C definition file. In RomRaider open definition manager and delete your current file first, then unzip this def and add it to the def manager. Open your tune and look between ALPHA OverRun Fueling, and Fueling - Transient. You'll see a new category there called Fueling - Injector Ratio. Inside that are the thresholds.
P.S.
This is a def file with definitions for the cold start tables as well. You can easily modify your cold start to be lower in rpm and quieter.

Wow that's impressive. Thanks budd

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

I'm going in soon for my first service. Will ask them to flash b01c then I will make all these changes

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Hmmm if your car is in for 1st service (ie 6 months old) it will be a calid later than B01C
likely D00C and its not backwards compatable with B01C :-)


C Series
ZA1JA700C ,900C, A00C ,A01C , B00C all compatible with ZA1JB01C
ZA1JD00C for late 2014/2015 cars only
ZA1JF00C for late 2015 cars

@Steve mine is 2013 my but just has 7k miles...

I did oil changes myself and this will be the first time I am actually taking it in to the dealer just for the record books.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Are you using OFT or Tactrix? Pull your stock ROM first and let us know what your calibration ID is then we can get you up and running with the right defs.