2009 Lancer Ralliart - GST Basemap
Aug 8, 2012, 01:45 PM
#3421
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is probably the wrong place to post this, but i need help getting proper log files. i need the proper logcfg.txt for my 2012 RA. Im using a log file i found on the "Logging with the (beta) Standalone Tactrix Cable Logger" thread. I dont know what im doing wrong or if i have something set up wrong. I get logs in csv format saved on my card, but cant view anything with evoscan. somebody please help me. Im a total noob and am getting very frustrated.
Aug 8, 2012, 03:22 PM
#3422
This is probably the wrong place to post this, but i need help getting proper log files. i need the proper logcfg.txt for my 2012 RA. Im using a log file i found on the "Logging with the (beta) Standalone Tactrix Cable Logger" thread. I dont know what im doing wrong or if i have something set up wrong. I get logs in csv format saved on my card, but cant view anything with evoscan. somebody please help me. Im a total noob and am getting very frustrated.
Aug 8, 2012, 03:29 PM
#3423
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is also a problem I have. I plug my tactrix into my car and plug the USB into my computer then start my car. I have only seen data for only a few of the gauges when you click the start data log option. Nothing else seems to work. And when I do stand alone data logging, I get a bunch of "csv" files saved on my memory card, but idk what to do with them. I try dragging them into evoscan and it throws me some error, which I can't recall what the error says at the moment. Headed to work right now and don't have time to mess with it. It would be greatly appreciated if somebody could help me get everything sorted out and running smoothly. I'm almost to the point of pulling hair out of my head due to frustration!!!! Lol not really that bad, but it is driving me nuts. And odds are that it's something simple that I'm over looking.
Aug 8, 2012, 09:14 PM
#3426
Evolved Member
No worries. I've got emails to and from a couple of 2012 owners who ran the advance testing of the beta '12 Base Maps. We worked on getting logging going, both in Evoscan and standalone. If I dump it here in the GST thread it'll be lost in the maelstrom in no time, lol. Better to put it somewhere easier to search and read.
Look out - I may start the "2012 logging" thread myself.
Oh, and regarding the "v30.005_Test_A" revision: I applied this to my own car today, and it does seem to have resolved the minor "2nd to 1st downshift indecision" issue. I might play with the odd other combination of values while I'm focusing on it, but it's likely to lead me to post up a new beta fileset by the weekend.
Rich
Look out - I may start the "2012 logging" thread myself.
Oh, and regarding the "v30.005_Test_A" revision: I applied this to my own car today, and it does seem to have resolved the minor "2nd to 1st downshift indecision" issue. I might play with the odd other combination of values while I'm focusing on it, but it's likely to lead me to post up a new beta fileset by the weekend.
Rich
Aug 9, 2012, 11:34 PM
#3427
Newbie
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ukraine
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard, what improves the increase values for the map "Throttle Requested" in the cells 1000-2000 rpm and TPS 50-100?
This will be applied during the launching? Maybe it would delay the raise rpm of engine and would later fall into the turbo area of rpm?
This will be applied during the launching? Maybe it would delay the raise rpm of engine and would later fall into the turbo area of rpm?
Aug 10, 2012, 03:14 AM
#3428
Evolved Member
I've spent loads of time trying to improve the "dead" feeling the SST seems to impart when you stamp on the throttle from stationary idle.
Very little actually helps. You can crank all the 3D ECU SST tables (including Throttle Requested Torque) sky-high, but none of these will eliminate the from-start "pregnant pause".
From what I've seen in the code, the "Throttle Requested Torque" numbers get used whenever throttle changes by more than a minimum threshold value. They are then run through the "SST Throttle Requested Torque Ramp Rate - SST Normal Mode" (or SPORT Mode) multiplier.
That is what makes NORMAL mode have different feeling throttle response to SPORT mode. It's not actually changing anything about the throttle - it's changing how much faster the SST clutches grip as throttle increases.
It doesn't do this for long - a fraction of a second. The length of time it does this "Throttle Requested Torque" multiplying thing depends on the recently discovered "SST Throttle Requested Torque Ramp Rate Interval" A and B tables.
Interestingly, Aussie and European Ralliarts spent longer doing the TRT thing after throttle-up than our USDM counterparts. We have (had) sloppier feeling SST on applying throttle. Fixed.
Also, "Throttle Requested Torque" edits seem to have an impact on SST downshift decisions. I don't yet know how.
Finally, sstevojr swears blind that zeroing out the "TRT Interval A" table affects his upshifts and his standing start clutch engagement point.
Oh, and if you radically change these table sets, about a million side effects come rampaging out of the SST. Sooo much fun. Very soon, I'll be posting up v30.006 for - you guessed it - elimination of another wacky side-effect!
Rich
Very little actually helps. You can crank all the 3D ECU SST tables (including Throttle Requested Torque) sky-high, but none of these will eliminate the from-start "pregnant pause".
From what I've seen in the code, the "Throttle Requested Torque" numbers get used whenever throttle changes by more than a minimum threshold value. They are then run through the "SST Throttle Requested Torque Ramp Rate - SST Normal Mode" (or SPORT Mode) multiplier.
That is what makes NORMAL mode have different feeling throttle response to SPORT mode. It's not actually changing anything about the throttle - it's changing how much faster the SST clutches grip as throttle increases.
It doesn't do this for long - a fraction of a second. The length of time it does this "Throttle Requested Torque" multiplying thing depends on the recently discovered "SST Throttle Requested Torque Ramp Rate Interval" A and B tables.
Interestingly, Aussie and European Ralliarts spent longer doing the TRT thing after throttle-up than our USDM counterparts. We have (had) sloppier feeling SST on applying throttle. Fixed.
Also, "Throttle Requested Torque" edits seem to have an impact on SST downshift decisions. I don't yet know how.
Finally, sstevojr swears blind that zeroing out the "TRT Interval A" table affects his upshifts and his standing start clutch engagement point.
Oh, and if you radically change these table sets, about a million side effects come rampaging out of the SST. Sooo much fun. Very soon, I'll be posting up v30.006 for - you guessed it - elimination of another wacky side-effect!
Rich
Aug 10, 2012, 08:47 AM
#3429
Evolved Member
Hi folks.
Here is v30.006...
v30.006 Base Maps - Pre-release Fileset
As discussed previously, this is simply a bit of side-effect removal. The update addresses some SST indecision when in 2nd, slowing to a crawl, selecting 1st, then applying very light throttle. The SST sometimes stayed in 2nd, thought about things for a bit, and only then went meandering into 1st.
Now, I've definitely noticed it do the same thing when on the factory tune too, so it's not like we invented this weirdness. But it was happening rather a lot more on recent Base Map revisions. Should be fixed now.
No other changes made, but this revision just might feel a tiny bit more responsive on initial light throttle application. And we never say no to that...
Cheers,
Rich
Here is v30.006...
v30.006 Base Maps - Pre-release Fileset
As discussed previously, this is simply a bit of side-effect removal. The update addresses some SST indecision when in 2nd, slowing to a crawl, selecting 1st, then applying very light throttle. The SST sometimes stayed in 2nd, thought about things for a bit, and only then went meandering into 1st.
Now, I've definitely noticed it do the same thing when on the factory tune too, so it's not like we invented this weirdness.
But it was happening rather a lot more on recent Base Map revisions. Should be fixed now.No other changes made, but this revision just might feel a tiny bit more responsive on initial light throttle application. And we never say no to that...
Cheers,
Rich
Aug 10, 2012, 04:46 PM
#3430
Does this revision also include the slight change you had the other 2 guys testing out to fix the "judder" effect? And is the best way to show you a video of my sst slippage when shifting to upload it to youtube and link it here?
Hi folks.
Here is v30.006...
v30.006 Base Maps - Pre-release Fileset
As discussed previously, this is simply a bit of side-effect removal. The update addresses some SST indecision when in 2nd, slowing to a crawl, selecting 1st, then applying very light throttle. The SST sometimes stayed in 2nd, thought about things for a bit, and only then went meandering into 1st.
Now, I've definitely noticed it do the same thing when on the factory tune too, so it's not like we invented this weirdness. But it was happening rather a lot more on recent Base Map revisions. Should be fixed now.
No other changes made, but this revision just might feel a tiny bit more responsive on initial light throttle application. And we never say no to that...
Cheers,
Rich
Here is v30.006...
v30.006 Base Maps - Pre-release Fileset
As discussed previously, this is simply a bit of side-effect removal. The update addresses some SST indecision when in 2nd, slowing to a crawl, selecting 1st, then applying very light throttle. The SST sometimes stayed in 2nd, thought about things for a bit, and only then went meandering into 1st.
Now, I've definitely noticed it do the same thing when on the factory tune too, so it's not like we invented this weirdness.
But it was happening rather a lot more on recent Base Map revisions. Should be fixed now.No other changes made, but this revision just might feel a tiny bit more responsive on initial light throttle application. And we never say no to that...
Cheers,
Rich
Aug 10, 2012, 05:48 PM
#3431
Evolved Member
Note that I've never had any "judder" occur, nor am I aware of it being a tuning-related issue for anyone in the 8 months we've been doing the SST beta map mash.
In the 2009 owner's case, he apparently has an actual "judder". His RA has done 18,000 miles on the original SST fluid - before doing anything on his ECU->SST tune, the first step would be to get some fresh fluid in there.
But I keep an open mind. These aren't computer programs we're running - it's mechanical parts, friction faces, fluid dynamics, etc. etc. There is going to be a bell curve of SST behaviours (various) - "normal" is simply an arbitrary range in the middle. The factory making these will have limits for behaviour they class as acceptable. Some SSTs will come out fine, but go beyond those limits early in their life and need replacing. And some SSTs will respond differently to the same aftermarket tuning revisions.
So... it stands to reason that a minority of vehicles won't respond satisfactorily to a "one-size-fits-all" Base Map tune. Which is technically only meant as a starting point anyway. In that case, the choice is to progress a custom tune, address the mechanics... or don't run a Base Map version tune.
See my earlier comments on the bell-curve. So far, we've had very good results for WOT upshifting - quick, firm, decisive. In SPORT mode, most RAs with these recent maps upshift like a champ. If yours isn't doing that, consider rolling back to stock until you get a custom tune.
But... logging. Hard data is very important.
Rich
Aug 10, 2012, 06:55 PM
#3432
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Philly
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it was aimed at fixing 2nd-to-1st indecisiveness... but the one owner with some "judder" reckoned it got better too. So... win.
Note that I've never had any "judder" occur, nor am I aware of it being a tuning-related issue for anyone in the 8 months we've been doing the SST beta map mash.
In the 2009 owner's case, he apparently has an actual "judder". His RA has done 18,000 miles on the original SST fluid - before doing anything on his ECU->SST tune, the first step would be to get some fresh fluid in there.
But I keep an open mind. These aren't computer programs we're running - it's mechanical parts, friction faces, fluid dynamics, etc. etc. There is going to be a bell curve of SST behaviours (various) - "normal" is simply an arbitrary range in the middle. The factory making these will have limits for behaviour they class as acceptable. Some SSTs will come out fine, but go beyond those limits early in their life and need replacing. And some SSTs will respond differently to the same aftermarket tuning revisions.
So... it stands to reason that a minority of vehicles won't respond satisfactorily to a "one-size-fits-all" Base Map tune. Which is technically only meant as a starting point anyway. In that case, the choice is to progress a custom tune, address the mechanics... or don't run a Base Map version tune.
Note that I've never had any "judder" occur, nor am I aware of it being a tuning-related issue for anyone in the 8 months we've been doing the SST beta map mash.
In the 2009 owner's case, he apparently has an actual "judder". His RA has done 18,000 miles on the original SST fluid - before doing anything on his ECU->SST tune, the first step would be to get some fresh fluid in there.
But I keep an open mind. These aren't computer programs we're running - it's mechanical parts, friction faces, fluid dynamics, etc. etc. There is going to be a bell curve of SST behaviours (various) - "normal" is simply an arbitrary range in the middle. The factory making these will have limits for behaviour they class as acceptable. Some SSTs will come out fine, but go beyond those limits early in their life and need replacing. And some SSTs will respond differently to the same aftermarket tuning revisions.
So... it stands to reason that a minority of vehicles won't respond satisfactorily to a "one-size-fits-all" Base Map tune. Which is technically only meant as a starting point anyway. In that case, the choice is to progress a custom tune, address the mechanics... or don't run a Base Map version tune.
I can say that the judder I've experience with my car is most likely unique. And that I should have mentioned it happens very random (difficult to make happen on demand ), which doesn't seem to occur these past few days
. But I'm still happy with the tweaked base maps that Rich posts up for us. Now I'm going to test the new base map v30.006 this weekend!!!
Keep up the great work Rich and Bryan!!!
Last edited by Silver09RA; Aug 10, 2012 at 06:59 PM.
Aug 10, 2012, 09:41 PM
#3433
Well don't say useless.. because you will at least be able to see/understand what I mean lol. I've been wanting to do some logging and flash the newer version but my laptop charger chose to break a few days ago... have a new one on its way. And like I said... I'm already saving for a custom tune after really realizing what exactly a base map tune is. But I figure until then I might as well ask as many questions about the base tune and what I've experienced with it. And my shifts are great 90% of the time... the slippage I see is generally at wot and the "judder" I experience has actually mellowed out a bit... but what I experienced was that sometimes at low speeds when getting back on the gas the rpms would jump a little like its in neutral and then go in to gear with a slight "clunk" or "judder ". Like if ur in d in a normal automatic.. push it to n.. let it Rev up 100-200rpms and pull it back to d... that's what it feels like. But anyway.. the main reason I want to show the "slippage" is because if what its doing is not good then I WILL revert to stock until I get a custom tune. Also... wouldn't buying a Cobb AP and using their tunes be the same exact thing as a base map tune....? Its obviously also one size fits all. And lastly.. idk if it sounds like it or not... but I am in Noo way complaining ... I love the fact I was able to have more fun with my car for cheap right away... my questions and concerns arise from my inquisitive nature and my extreme desire to learn.
Thanks again rich
Thanks again rich
Well, it was aimed at fixing 2nd-to-1st indecisiveness... but the one owner with some "judder" reckoned it got better too. So... win.
Note that I've never had any "judder" occur, nor am I aware of it being a tuning-related issue for anyone in the 8 months we've been doing the SST beta map mash.
In the 2009 owner's case, he apparently has an actual "judder". His RA has done 18,000 miles on the original SST fluid - before doing anything on his ECU->SST tune, the first step would be to get some fresh fluid in there.
But I keep an open mind. These aren't computer programs we're running - it's mechanical parts, friction faces, fluid dynamics, etc. etc. There is going to be a bell curve of SST behaviours (various) - "normal" is simply an arbitrary range in the middle. The factory making these will have limits for behaviour they class as acceptable. Some SSTs will come out fine, but go beyond those limits early in their life and need replacing. And some SSTs will respond differently to the same aftermarket tuning revisions.
So... it stands to reason that a minority of vehicles won't respond satisfactorily to a "one-size-fits-all" Base Map tune. Which is technically only meant as a starting point anyway. In that case, the choice is to progress a custom tune, address the mechanics... or don't run a Base Map version tune.
No, videos are pretty much useless. Data logging is the way to go. You can log all sorts of vital stuff - rpm, load, boost, timing, knock, odd-gear clutch slip, even-gear clutch slip, SST temperature, etc. Then upload or email the log.
See my earlier comments on the bell-curve. So far, we've had very good results for WOT upshifting - quick, firm, decisive. In SPORT mode, most RAs with these recent maps upshift like a champ. If yours isn't doing that, consider rolling back to stock until you get a custom tune.
But... logging. Hard data is very important.
Rich
Note that I've never had any "judder" occur, nor am I aware of it being a tuning-related issue for anyone in the 8 months we've been doing the SST beta map mash.
In the 2009 owner's case, he apparently has an actual "judder". His RA has done 18,000 miles on the original SST fluid - before doing anything on his ECU->SST tune, the first step would be to get some fresh fluid in there.
But I keep an open mind. These aren't computer programs we're running - it's mechanical parts, friction faces, fluid dynamics, etc. etc. There is going to be a bell curve of SST behaviours (various) - "normal" is simply an arbitrary range in the middle. The factory making these will have limits for behaviour they class as acceptable. Some SSTs will come out fine, but go beyond those limits early in their life and need replacing. And some SSTs will respond differently to the same aftermarket tuning revisions.
So... it stands to reason that a minority of vehicles won't respond satisfactorily to a "one-size-fits-all" Base Map tune. Which is technically only meant as a starting point anyway. In that case, the choice is to progress a custom tune, address the mechanics... or don't run a Base Map version tune.
No, videos are pretty much useless. Data logging is the way to go. You can log all sorts of vital stuff - rpm, load, boost, timing, knock, odd-gear clutch slip, even-gear clutch slip, SST temperature, etc. Then upload or email the log.
See my earlier comments on the bell-curve. So far, we've had very good results for WOT upshifting - quick, firm, decisive. In SPORT mode, most RAs with these recent maps upshift like a champ. If yours isn't doing that, consider rolling back to stock until you get a custom tune.
But... logging. Hard data is very important.
Rich
Aug 10, 2012, 10:31 PM
#3434
Evolved Member
I remember at one point when my laptop wasn't available, I carried my entire home pc out to the car, and had it running in the open hatchback. Car idling in the driveway with a big, fat Antec P180 case, monitor, kb, mouse...
...the "judder" I experience has actually mellowed out a bit... but what I experienced was that sometimes at low speeds when getting back on the gas the rpms would jump a little like its in neutral and then go in to gear with a slight "clunk" or "judder ". Like if ur in d in a normal automatic.. push it to n.. let it Rev up 100-200rpms and pull it back to d... that's what it feels like.
By "judder", I was thinking more like that rough-clutch feel in an abused manual (like my last "well tracked" 5-speed, ahem).
From a fine-tuning point of view, it's a pretty strong base to start from. Nearly every table that's edited for these Base Maps can be found freely defined on goldenevo.com, and the abovementioned coding patches are freely available here, complete with full documentation in pdf. It's a good platform for learning what goes into an aftermarket tune.
You can tear apart the Base Map and learn all about it - check out the "Compare ROMs" feature of EcuFlash. Load up a modded ROM, load up your original stock ROM and compare tables. Weeks (if not months) of fun.
Cheers,
Rich
