If it supports the LM1, can't it support the LC1 too, if you configure the outputs like the LM1???

 

that does not make any sense. The only difference between the LC1 and the LM1 is the LC1 is a permenant install, the LM1 is not.

 

no, that is not true. Both can be installed permenantly if you like. The major difference is the LC-1 has a different protocol and slightly higher sampling rate then the LM-1. The LM-1 has 44 minutes worth of internal datalogging memory which makes it an excellent choice for use with the RPM converter (LMA-3).

 

Correct. The LM-1 uses a different protocol. The LC-1 uses a newer protocol that also supports the LM-1 protocol. I suspect that Evo4Mad will use the newer protocol that supports both devices.

Somewhere in another post he mentioned that the device was 'Not as fast as he thought". Sounds like the data rate needed to be adjusted.

 

What does it mean that the Evoscan 0.9 will "support" the LM-1/LC-1? I have an LM-1 and I want to get the tactrix cable and Evoscan. What physical means do we need to connect them together? Sorry, for the newbish question, but I just want to know how this would work.

 

It means that when it is released we all get to hook it up, fire up Evoscan and hope that:

a.) it logs data on Com-1 from the Innovate wideband
b.) it doesn't make the idle jump to 3000 rpm
c.) it doesn't scramble the XD-1 settings

Hopefully Evo4mad will have an LC-1 to test with before he released 0.9, but if he doesn't, then we'll be the testers. That's pretty much par for the course for beta software.

l8r)

 

Ludi, did EvoScan mess with the XD-1(6) when you tried it?

I think that Evo4Mad has access to an LM-1 and not an LC-1. Hopefully with the next release it will be sorted out for both units. As you are aware they are different.

I got the standalone kit (LC-1 and XD-16) and the sensor was defective. This has been a major bummer. This has been a 6 week process to get the wideband. One guy I spoke with from Innovate (not Phillipe) was one of the most stupid and clueless customer service people I have ever dealt with ...OK I will quit *****ing. Sorry. I just want my WB LOL.

 

I have a few issues with evoscan in general.. I think the method for reading is pretty haphazard and is way too influenced by the CPU, GUI, etc... He really needs to sample data in a regular manner at a consistent sample rate, otherwise he'll never be able to snapshot other devices accurately.. I needs timer loops to sample different com ports simultaneously so the data needs to be as current as possible, and then snapshot it using a main loop when needed (to get a consistent log..)

The biggest problem is the sample rate can vary drastically under different conditions, and it needs to be locked (as an adjustable rate of course) Without that, it may be difficult to impossible to correlate logs with other devices/loggers..

I'm looking at getting a Edelbrock data aquisition computer that was recently released, and I have a GPS device, all log by time or sample number, It is nearly impossible to correlate all of that data.. NMEA Nav coordinates are a different speed than my Beltronic accelerometer, which is different than my ECU+, which is different than Evoscan, which in turn CHANGES depending on the current load on the system and what windows are doing what.. Very frustrating.

 

so you just have an issue with the sample rates and not the actual accuracy of the data being logged correct?

I'm using EVOScan along with my LM-1/RPM converter (logworks software) to log A/F, TPS & boost. The only way I have to coorlate the innovative logs with EVOScan is to look at the RPM points and parts of the map I went WOT. Its not the best way to look at the information but compared to where I was a few months ago, using a pocketlogger & SAFC its great.

 

Yes, during one logging attempt it did. Somehow it reset the lamdba to AFR ratio on the gauge. Didn't do it on any of the other logging attempts, but that once was enough for me not to try it again.

l8r)

 

yes EvoScan 0.9 is keeping the wideband readings in the main loop so that it will be recorded in the same time band as the other values.

 

This is a problem I hear over and over again. nj1266 begs for this info, yet it is posted all over the internet. Innovate is not only inaccurate, many units are defective. Many even denied warranty claims.

The solution is to get a better wideband such as the zeitronix we use. Evo4mad already has it set up in v0.8 evoscan. I suspect v0.9 it should be fully functional. I personally got Zeitronix in touch with the Evoscan developer so it would be ready to go.

Wideband Accuracy TEST click here!

 

Do you have to pollute every thread with this clap trap about the superiority of the ZT to Innovate? You invade every thread with this rubbish. You prefer the ZT, others prefer the Innovate. Let it go.

 

Why keep the truth a secret? This is an information forum. Providing information is what the forum is about. If the Innovates are defective, why keep it a secret? You work there or something?

 

I've been holding back from posting a response similar to yours. Glad it wasn't just me.

TTP, we know.... the ZT unit is much morether better than the oh-so crappy Innovate. Let it go.

My LC1 works like a charm BTW.