Quote:
Originally Posted by nelsmar
This was simply flashing from OFT to the car. Not including the transfer to OFT. I have also had problems with OFT being plugged into both OBD & my laptop at the same time so I end up having to close the software, flash ecu, unplug the OBD connection, plug into my laptop, open OFT, let it run the update routine, Let it check for files, Transfer files, Etc. This comes up to 10-12 minutes on average per flash. When paying $1-2/min for dyno time this is quite expensive if you are doing more than just a hand full of flashes so it has been a struggle for me. Of course you can pre-load a number of rom's to the OFT but then there is still the ~8min flash time between tests.
It looks like his recent post mentions adding a number of logging parameters both you and me needed for tuning, but this is equally important.
|
I think instead of complaining about the length of time it takes, it may be wiser to accept the length of time the OFT takes to tune and adjust pricing to your customers properly.
I don't think the time is going to change. The bottleneck is surely in the hardware. And I don't see any reason for a change in hardware from shiv. There really is no reason. The majority of people use OFT for the OTS tunes, or remote tunes from shiv.
I think it's great you're trying to support OF community, but telling shiv he needs to come up with a faster way to flash and then complaining when he doesn't return your calls is unnecessary. Like I said, I'm almost positive the bottleneck in write time is in the OFT device it self, and we will likely not see a change in that. It's not what it's sold for.
Shiv wants to design OTS maps, and have then open for anyone that buys OFT to use. That is the goal.
If you are not looking for OTS maps, then maybe ecutek is a better choice for your customers. Plus, at the price, it isn't too much different.