Easy speed density? First test...
Evolved Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,392
Likes: 2
From: uk
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,399
Likes: 6
From: UK
Pictures show my new MAF smoothing table and you can see in "fuel" the small changes I made to some of the load axis - this is because the MAF smoothing table only affects the IPW calculation, not the load lookup, so if you want the right AFR to be looked up this is the quick and dirty method. Even without it wouldn't be wildly out.
Also attached is a spreadsheet screen grab showing the scaling, smoothing and combination of the two. We could simplify the smoothing and scaling tables into one simple master VE table which would be your only calibration for the speed density patch.
There are many possibilities, I don't want to confuse. If you want a tested version, stick to the main thread.
Also attached is a spreadsheet screen grab showing the scaling, smoothing and combination of the two. We could simplify the smoothing and scaling tables into one simple master VE table which would be your only calibration for the speed density patch.
There are many possibilities, I don't want to confuse. If you want a tested version, stick to the main thread.
Last edited by jcsbanks; Mar 2, 2009 at 01:04 PM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 569
Likes: 1
From: UK
Ok changed it to airflow16 (not airflow HZ) and it still doesn't display correctly for some reason.
Address's are the same as yours though
EDIT:
Sorted it, the scaling wasn't correct in my evo9base for some reason it was set to x/6.24 instead of x/10.24
However it's only giving me to the nearest 1.
i.e the first in the list is 19 and not 18.8
Address's are the same as yours though
EDIT:
Sorted it, the scaling wasn't correct in my evo9base for some reason it was set to x/6.24 instead of x/10.24
However it's only giving me to the nearest 1.
i.e the first in the list is 19 and not 18.8
Last edited by cossie1; Mar 2, 2009 at 02:33 PM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 569
Likes: 1
From: UK
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,399
Likes: 6
From: UK
cossie1, you asked about colo(u)rs 
Re your fuel map - if your load at low levels (say 40) has lost its approx 80% VE correction (because we flattened the VE tables), then we'll be moving the load site accessed from 40 to 50 (ie 50kPa is now 50 load, used to be about 40 load). By the time we get to about 130 load we would have about 100% VE anyway, so no further rescaling. You don't need a huge map, just scale it for where you need the changes. Or even just leave the load scaling along and rewrite the contents - this is the "my MAF readings were so screwed up I decided to start again" thread after all?
esevo, can you post a pic of what you have? It may be that someone clever took out the smoothing table as it never used to look very useful.
Both - it might be that we should combine these two tables into one easy to understand VE map then you would have the freedom to rescale. I'll think about it in my sleep and post again tomorrow
Re your fuel map - if your load at low levels (say 40) has lost its approx 80% VE correction (because we flattened the VE tables), then we'll be moving the load site accessed from 40 to 50 (ie 50kPa is now 50 load, used to be about 40 load). By the time we get to about 130 load we would have about 100% VE anyway, so no further rescaling. You don't need a huge map, just scale it for where you need the changes. Or even just leave the load scaling along and rewrite the contents - this is the "my MAF readings were so screwed up I decided to start again" thread after all? esevo, can you post a pic of what you have? It may be that someone clever took out the smoothing table as it never used to look very useful.
Both - it might be that we should combine these two tables into one easy to understand VE map then you would have the freedom to rescale. I'll think about it in my sleep and post again tomorrow
Last edited by jcsbanks; Mar 2, 2009 at 03:21 PM.