Official 2 byte thread!
Newbie
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
From: VA
With the addition of the MUT 3D table, I take it that this page -
Evo IX 2-byte Load & Lean Spool for Dummies - is now incorrect for enabling 2-byte load?
Some of the older threads are a little confusing for a newbie, especially if they contain information that is no longer relevant.
Evo IX 2-byte Load & Lean Spool for Dummies - is now incorrect for enabling 2-byte load?
Some of the older threads are a little confusing for a newbie, especially if they contain information that is no longer relevant.
Evolved Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
Likes: 23
From: Sydney
I was recently tuning an Ev08, with 94170015, at some considerable altitude and discovered that the 2-byte load address (895C,895D) was incorrect.
Or more likley, an un-compensated 2-byte load address.
The Load_IAT_BARO_16 address is at 8960, 8961.
Perhaps someone in Colorado might like to test this also and confirm/refute the result.
This got me wondering if any other addresses as listed in Jacks first post may in fact be un-compensated 2-byte.
Or more likley, an un-compensated 2-byte load address.
The Load_IAT_BARO_16 address is at 8960, 8961.
Perhaps someone in Colorado might like to test this also and confirm/refute the result.
This got me wondering if any other addresses as listed in Jacks first post may in fact be un-compensated 2-byte.
I know that :
2-byte LOAD_Temp_and_Baro_Compensated
MUT00 = 898A
MUT01 = 898B
But how can I logging MUT00 and MUT01 request for load ?
Last edited by VGergo; Sep 16, 2010 at 10:03 AM.
I was recently tuning an Ev08, with 94170015, at some considerable altitude and discovered that the 2-byte load address (895C,895D) was incorrect.
Or more likley, an un-compensated 2-byte load address.
The Load_IAT_BARO_16 address is at 8960, 8961.
Perhaps someone in Colorado might like to test this also and confirm/refute the result.
This got me wondering if any other addresses as listed in Jacks first post may in fact be un-compensated 2-byte.
Or more likley, an un-compensated 2-byte load address.
The Load_IAT_BARO_16 address is at 8960, 8961.
Perhaps someone in Colorado might like to test this also and confirm/refute the result.
This got me wondering if any other addresses as listed in Jacks first post may in fact be un-compensated 2-byte.
(x*0.3125)*([baro]/100) and it seems to log fine at 5000-7500 feet above sea level....
**************this is only for ROM 94170015***************
but I would think that it would work on others also....
George
Last edited by jedibow; Sep 30, 2010 at 07:14 AM.
Yes it is uncompensated, I use the following evaluation formula in Evoscan
(x*0.3125)*([baro]/100) and it seems to log fine at 5000-7500 feet above sea level....
**************this is only for ROM 94170015***************
but I would think that it would work on others also....
George
(x*0.3125)*([baro]/100) and it seems to log fine at 5000-7500 feet above sea level....
**************this is only for ROM 94170015***************
but I would think that it would work on others also....
George