View Single Post
Old 01-23-2015, 05:20 PM   #16
Shiv@Openflash
Senior Member
 
Shiv@Openflash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Drives: 2013 FRS
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 2,629
Thanks: 1,055
Thanked 5,470 Times in 1,494 Posts
Mentioned: 605 Post(s)
Tagged: 9 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmong337 View Post
Honestly, the biggest drawback for me would be load time of the tune file with the OFT. Dyno time is at a premium and it would be hard facing precious tuning time being lost to file writing- even for the smallest changes. That's sorta the debate I'm having with the OFT. I am okay to drop ~$1000 for the Ecutek stuff but their business model stinks and would rather just avoid them entirely. I can't do a standalone EMS because of emissions laws in my region so I'm left with not much else. I guess I will continue to lurk around OFT and see what happens? But for real, OFT and it's monitoring and logging capabilities are worth the $500 alone.

Is there anyway to speed up file write times?
Speeding up writes times is easy. It just involves writing a small portion of the ROM (where the mapping data is located) instead of the whole ROM. This would reduce write times to 30 sec versus 5 minutes.

The problem with this is that it can be risky if the user doesn't know what he is doing. It's would be possible to write a portion of a ROM into a ROM file that isn't compatible. Which would result in a corrupt file and a possibly nonrecoverable ECU. This is not to say that we will never offer partial writing. But it is something that takes a good amount of time to implement correctly with sufficient safeguards for the end user.
Shiv@Openflash is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Shiv@Openflash For This Useful Post:
hmong337 (01-23-2015), Julio86 (01-25-2015)