Openflash Tablet v1.31 beta maps (including Stage 2!) now available for download - Page 14 - Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum & Owners Community

vgi · 11-05-2013, 10:43 PM

does anyone with A01C v1.33beta tried to rev the engine? for some reason the engine couldn't pass 6k rpm and it was shaking strong.

Grip Ronin · 11-05-2013, 11:01 PM

shiv is there any purpose to the vented cover thing near the snorkel that mounts to the bumper beam???

cnk · 11-05-2013, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vgi

does anyone with A01C v1.33beta tried to rev the engine? for some reason the engine couldn't pass 6k rpm and it was shaking strong.

Sounds like launch control kicking in. It's set at 5600rpm unless you change the LC RPM Delta.

fstlane · 11-05-2013, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vgi

does anyone with A01C v1.33beta tried to rev the engine? for some reason the engine couldn't pass 6k rpm and it was shaking strong.

I'm running A01C v1.33beta and shifted near 7k rpm a number of times today with no issues.
You may have been engaging the launch control feature if you were wot with the clutch depressed.

EDIT: Oops, I was a little late. Thanks cnk!

vgi · 11-05-2013, 11:23 PM

@cnk @fstlane thank you guys, didn't think of it.

Td-d · 11-06-2013, 04:09 PM

You're good jeebus - Shiv is correct. Other than that one table scaling, there was no discernable difference between A00C and A01C. If you've uploaded one of the OTS maps and it's based off A01C, the scaling will be correct (i.e. the -50 offset). I would assume that Vishnu would have standardised the OTS roms off one CAL id.

If you're using OFT to open up stock roms, not provided by Vishnu (e.g. Ecuflash extracted), and the scaling has been changed to -50 for all the A0*C roms, A00C would be incorrectly displayed - unless a separate XDF file has been created specifically for A00C. I haven't checked out the latest OFT maps, so Shiv would have to answer that one.

jeebus · 11-06-2013, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Td-d

You're good jeebus - Shiv is correct. Other than that one table scaling, there was no discernable difference between A00C and A01C. If you've uploaded one of the OTS maps and it's based off A01C, the scaling will be correct (i.e. the -50 offset). I would assume that Vishnu would have standardised the OTS roms off one CAL id.

If you're using OFT to open up stock roms, not provided by Vishnu (e.g. Ecuflash extracted), and the scaling has been changed to -50 for all the A0*C roms, A00C would be incorrectly displayed - unless a separate XDF file has been created specifically for A00C. I haven't checked out the latest OFT maps, so Shiv would have to answer that one.

Like I said before, I'd rather be proven wrong

Boofneenee · 11-06-2013, 06:43 PM

So,.. I flashed the latest beta and drove to and from work. Thus far I can say that I am really not happy and would prefer to flash back to the prior beta. The prior beta pulled like a train, was snappy and the tq dip disappeared sooner as I rev'd the car.

It is a strong possibility that perhaps my car has not had time to read the ecu but I drove about 20 miles total.. to and from work. I tried to open her up a few times just so the car could experience it and learn.

I dont know what is going on between 1k to 2k but it is not a smooth rev and almost bucks slightly.

If the newest beta tune 1.33 is safer than the prior then I will accept that.. did they reduce the timing or something? if its not safer at all and the prior beta is just as safe then I may flash back.

thoughts? ill give it another commute to work.

jeebus · 11-06-2013, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boofneenee

So,.. I flashed the latest beta and drove to and from work. Thus far I can say that I am really not happy and would prefer to flash back to the prior beta. The prior beta pulled like a train, was snappy and the tq dip disappeared sooner as I rev'd the car.

It is a strong possibility that perhaps my car has not had time to read the ecu but I drove about 20 miles total.. to and from work. I tried to open her up a few times just so the car could experience it and learn.

I dont know what is going on between 1k to 2k but it is not a smooth rev and almost bucks slightly.

If the newest beta tune 1.33 is safer than the prior then I will accept that.. did they reduce the timing or something? if its not safer at all and the prior beta is just as safe then I may flash back.

thoughts? ill give it another commute to work.

based on the compare bin tool, the only real changes are to the scaling of the transient ignition retard, so I can't image it would feel much different anywhere else?

jeebus · 11-06-2013, 06:48 PM

I do have a question about the Knock Detection RPM range table. Should this go up to 7650 since our redline has been raised?

toysub · 11-06-2013, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boofneenee

So,.. I flashed the latest beta and drove to and from work. Thus far I can say that I am really not happy and would prefer to flash back to the prior beta. The prior beta pulled like a train, was snappy and the tq dip disappeared sooner as I rev'd the car.

It is a strong possibility that perhaps my car has not had time to read the ecu but I drove about 20 miles total.. to and from work. I tried to open her up a few times just so the car could experience it and learn.

I dont know what is going on between 1k to 2k but it is not a smooth rev and almost bucks slightly.

If the newest beta tune 1.33 is safer than the prior then I will accept that.. did they reduce the timing or something? if its not safer at all and the prior beta is just as safe then I may flash back.

thoughts? ill give it another commute to work.

New to the OFT. Is it better to run v1.31 or v1.33beta for the first go-around (no-headers installed).

BRZ Fanboi · 11-06-2013, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boofneenee

So,.. I flashed the latest beta and drove to and from work. Thus far I can say that I am really not happy and would prefer to flash back to the prior beta. The prior beta pulled like a train, was snappy and the tq dip disappeared sooner as I rev'd the car.

It is a strong possibility that perhaps my car has not had time to read the ecu but I drove about 20 miles total.. to and from work. I tried to open her up a few times just so the car could experience it and learn.

I dont know what is going on between 1k to 2k but it is not a smooth rev and almost bucks slightly.

If the newest beta tune 1.33 is safer than the prior then I will accept that.. did they reduce the timing or something? if its not safer at all and the prior beta is just as safe then I may flash back.

thoughts? ill give it another commute to work.

I too feel the same thing... Not sure what was changed but the car accelerated a lot faster with 1.31 than 1.33 beta. Shifts seem smoother though.

clintavo · 11-06-2013, 07:24 PM

Every time I reflash, it takes a few drives (50 miles?) to get back to normal.

garfull · 11-06-2013, 07:29 PM

Give it a few miles. Right after I reflashed to 1.33b the car was sluggish and the vvt didn't come on till what felt like 4.5krpm. After I got to my destination and was going home the car felt like it should.

11-05-2013, 11:01 PM	#184
Grip Ronin The Mechanic Join Date: Mar 2012 Drives: Civic Turbo,FR-S Location: NJ Posts: 928 Thanks: 130 Thanked 171 Times in 119 Posts Mentioned: 2 Post(s)	shiv is there any purpose to the vented cover thing near the snorkel that mounts to the bumper beam??? __________________ IG-Joey_Soul Progress Thread Ported billet 20G

11-06-2013, 06:43 PM	#190
Boofneenee Go-Kart Enthusiast Join Date: Aug 2013 Drives: Toyota Scion FRS Location: Yup Posts: 800 Thanks: 576 Thanked 309 Times in 188 Posts Mentioned: 9 Post(s)	So,.. I flashed the latest beta and drove to and from work. Thus far I can say that I am really not happy and would prefer to flash back to the prior beta. The prior beta pulled like a train, was snappy and the tq dip disappeared sooner as I rev'd the car. It is a strong possibility that perhaps my car has not had time to read the ecu but I drove about 20 miles total.. to and from work. I tried to open her up a few times just so the car could experience it and learn. I dont know what is going on between 1k to 2k but it is not a smooth rev and almost bucks slightly. If the newest beta tune 1.33 is safer than the prior then I will accept that.. did they reduce the timing or something? if its not safer at all and the prior beta is just as safe then I may flash back. thoughts? ill give it another commute to work. __________________ FRS Current mods: K&N air filter, OFT, OFH, berk high flow cat front pipe, Q300 exhaust, lighter wheels

11-06-2013, 06:48 PM	#192
jeebus Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Drives: 2015 Mustang GT (on order) Location: San Diego Posts: 904 Thanks: 114 Thanked 471 Times in 208 Posts Mentioned: 9 Post(s)	I do have a question about the Knock Detection RPM range table. Should this go up to 7650 since our redline has been raised? Attached Images __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
OpenFlash Tablet	Rombinhood@OpenFlash	Software Tuning	1838	07-29-2023 06:35 PM
Quick Review-OpenFlash (Dyno Test) - Stock vs. Vishnu Stage 1.0 vs. Vishnu Stage 1.1	FRSTEVE	Software Tuning	105	08-04-2017 04:48 AM
anyone trying to use the openflash tablet with forced induction?	FRSTEVE	Software Tuning	69	12-07-2014 04:07 PM
Is Openflash tablet detectable?	Boofneenee	Software Tuning	25	05-02-2014 10:03 PM
OpenFlash Tablet Stage 1 v1.2 maps available for download	Shiv@Openflash	Software Tuning	31	10-31-2013 08:45 PM

11-05-2013, 10:43 PM	#183
vgi Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Drives: frs Location: nj Posts: 723 Thanks: 237 Thanked 348 Times in 232 Posts Mentioned: 58 Post(s)	does anyone with A01C v1.33beta tried to rev the engine? for some reason the engine couldn't pass 6k rpm and it was shaking strong.

11-05-2013, 11:23 PM	#187
vgi Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Drives: frs Location: nj Posts: 723 Thanks: 237 Thanked 348 Times in 232 Posts Mentioned: 58 Post(s)	@cnk @fstlane thank you guys, didn't think of it.

11-06-2013, 04:09 PM	#188
Td-d Garden variety obsessive Join Date: Oct 2013 Drives: 2009 Sti Hatch; 2015 Audi RSQ3 Location: South Africa Posts: 532 Thanks: 54 Thanked 448 Times in 245 Posts Mentioned: 74 Post(s)	You're good jeebus - Shiv is correct. Other than that one table scaling, there was no discernable difference between A00C and A01C. If you've uploaded one of the OTS maps and it's based off A01C, the scaling will be correct (i.e. the -50 offset). I would assume that Vishnu would have standardised the OTS roms off one CAL id. If you're using OFT to open up stock roms, not provided by Vishnu (e.g. Ecuflash extracted), and the scaling has been changed to -50 for all the A0*C roms, A00C would be incorrectly displayed - unless a separate XDF file has been created specifically for A00C. I haven't checked out the latest OFT maps, so Shiv would have to answer that one.

11-06-2013, 07:24 PM	#195
clintavo Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Drives: BRZ Location: 91351 Posts: 128 Thanks: 106 Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts Mentioned: 2 Post(s)	Every time I reflash, it takes a few drives (50 miles?) to get back to normal.

11-06-2013, 07:29 PM	#196
garfull Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Drives: FRS(sold), AP2, R35, FJC, ED9 Location: 510 Posts: 527 Thanks: 370 Thanked 192 Times in 128 Posts Mentioned: 42 Post(s)	Give it a few miles. Right after I reflashed to 1.33b the car was sluggish and the vvt didn't come on till what felt like 4.5krpm. After I got to my destination and was going home the car felt like it should.

User Name		Remember Me?
Password