OFT Tune Usefull Information and Tweaks

[mid_life_crisis]

Originally Posted by phrosty

OpenFlash OTS bumps up redline on MT but not AT. Shiv mentioned a while ago that the AT has some issues shifting with even a small increase.

Thank you. Talk about having a brain cramp. That was me. I completely forgot about that.

[phrosty]

Originally Posted by mid_life_crisis

Thank you. Talk about having a brain cramp. That was me. I completely forgot about that.

FWIW the only effect I've noticed is that sometimes it takes longer to shift, not quite the instant times you expect from an AT.

[mid_life_crisis]

Originally Posted by phrosty

FWIW the only effect I've noticed is that sometimes it takes longer to shift, not quite the instant times you expect from an AT.

But it is just as fast when you go full manual, right?

[phrosty]

Originally Posted by mid_life_crisis

But it is just as fast when you go full manual, right?

Sorry, could have worded that better. It's not that it holds a gear for longer, but that the actual shift takes longer.

This is in full manual. In normal auto mode it uses its normal shift points and never gets up that high.

[Pooverdam]

Hey Everyone,
I just have a question when editing the Post Start Ignition Advance Table.

Steve mentioned to change the timing to -4. When I punch '-4' into the table the display value shows '-3.83'.
The image @steve99 posted shows a value of '0.04'. When I enter '0.04' the table will display '0.04'.

I'm curious as to why this is happening.

[steve99]

Originally Posted by Pooverdam

Hey Everyone,
I just have a question when editing the Post Start Ignition Advance Table.

Steve mentioned to change the timing to -4. When I punch '-4' into the table the display value shows '-3.83'.
The image @steve99 posted shows a value of '0.04'. When I enter '0.04' the table will display '0.04'.

I'm curious as to why this is happening.

yes sometimes romraider adjusts the values slightly for you.

that entry of 0.04 is actually zero degrees, sorry screen shot did not match text entering -4 and getting -3.83 is fine although on usa roms you will probably need to disable cel code P050B else it may pop up after a couple of starts ,its a code related to warming up cats ,post start timing performance.

[Kodename47]

The answer is due to the way that the data is stored, only certain values can be used. If you look at the advance and base timing tables everything is done in 0.35 degree changes.

[mid_life_crisis]

@steve99
I'm figuring that you can't change the number of rows. The existing ones must be manipulated.
I'm assuming that the ECU extrapolates for values in between those listed in the tables.
If you are trying to increase the effective rev limit, not talking about the soft limit yet, should you change all the tables that have an rpm scale so they all use the same scale? This seems reasonable, because what good is a timing table that goes to 7600 without a fuel table to match?
The rpm scale goes in 400 rpm increments until it is almost at the limit, when it changes to 200. The very lowest are also 200. For example, they seem to be
800, 1000, 1200, 1600....6400, 6800, 7000, 7200, 7400.
If you wanted to raise the limit to 7600, should every table be changed to something like this along the rpm scale?
800, 1000, 1200, 1600....6400, 6800, 7200, 7400, 7600.
Correcting the associated values if they are different, of course.

[Kodename47]

Originally Posted by mid_life_crisis

@steve99
I'm figuring that you can't change the number of rows. The existing ones must be manipulated.
I'm assuming that the ECU extrapolates for values in between those listed in the tables.
If you are trying to increase the effective rev limit, not talking about the soft limit yet, should you change all the tables that have an rpm scale so they all use the same scale? This seems reasonable, because what good is a timing table that goes to 7600 without a fuel table to match?
The rpm scale goes in 400 rpm increments until it is almost at the limit, when it changes to 200. The very lowest are also 200. For example, they seem to be
800, 1000, 1200, 1600....6400, 6800, 7000, 7200, 7400.
If you wanted to raise the limit to 7600, should every table be changed to something like this along the rpm scale?
800, 1000, 1200, 1600....6400, 6800, 7200, 7400, 7600.
Correcting the associated values if they are different, of course.

It's interpolated, not extrapolated


You don't need to change the scales or anything, however if you find it will suit your tune better then you can.


The tables work like this, any time you are lower than the lowest value on an axis you will use the lowest value. The same for the maximum value. So if your axis max RPM is 7400, at 7500 you will use the same value. This may not be an issue for timing or fuel so unless it's detrimental, why change?


Also not all 3D tables have the same RPM or load axis, you would do what suits best for the table you're changing.

[mid_life_crisis]

Originally Posted by Kodename47

It's interpolated, not extrapolated


You don't need to change the scales or anything, however if you find it will suit your tune better then you can.


The tables work like this, any time you are lower than the lowest value on an axis you will use the lowest value. The same for the maximum value. So if your axis max RPM is 7400, at 7500 you will use the same value. This may not be an issue for timing or fuel so unless it's detrimental, why change?


Also not all 3D tables have the same RPM or load axis, you would do what suits best for the table you're changing.

So unless you are changing the values for an rpm level that isn't in the table, don't bother because the program will fill in the blanks even if that level is outside the rpm range of the table. Is that about right?

[xxBrun0xx]

Every single post I've ever seen you write has been really helpful. You the man, Steve!

[Kodename47]

Originally Posted by mid_life_crisis

So unless you are changing the values for an rpm level that isn't in the table, don't bother because the program will fill in the blanks even if that level is outside the rpm range of the table. Is that about right?

The tendency would be to change the load ranges as power increases rather than the RPM bands. Just think of it that if you go outside the boundary of the table the ECU will use the nearest cell, so yes there's no need unless you think that there is a needed change. That's why the soft limiter has changed upper boundaries.

[steve99]

Originally Posted by mid_life_crisis

@steve99
I'm figuring that you can't change the number of rows. The existing ones must be manipulated.
I'm assuming that the ECU extrapolates for values in between those listed in the tables.
If you are trying to increase the effective rev limit, not talking about the soft limit yet, should you change all the tables that have an rpm scale so they all use the same scale? This seems reasonable, because what good is a timing table that goes to 7600 without a fuel table to match?
The rpm scale goes in 400 rpm increments until it is almost at the limit, when it changes to 200. The very lowest are also 200. For example, they seem to be
800, 1000, 1200, 1600....6400, 6800, 7000, 7200, 7400.
If you wanted to raise the limit to 7600, should every table be changed to something like this along the rpm scale?
800, 1000, 1200, 1600....6400, 6800, 7200, 7400, 7600.
Correcting the associated values if they are different, of course.

+1 on what @Kodename47 says plus after the max values in a table is exceeded then i believe ecu just continues to use same values is if the last rpm row was 7600 and you revved to 7800 then it would just continue to use the values from 7600.

If it between rows ie row at 1200 rpm then 1600 rpm and you at 1400 rpm it appears the ecu uses a value that appears to be the average of the 1200 and 1600 values. for timing or fueling ect.

[Wayno]

Originally Posted by phrosty

FWIW the only effect I've noticed is that sometimes it takes longer to shift, not quite the instant times you expect from an AT.

I've never noticed this. Same soft limit as MT with -0.12 timing, 7600 fuel cut which it never reaches. I have an ATF cooler though so probably have more consistent ATF temps and pressures at that repeated high rpm.