dont forget that the fuel map is smaller than the ignition map as well.

stock map I mean.

this new BIGMAP stuff means they (fuel + ign) will be the same size.

agreed on the do it once bit

 

When I figured out my resolution version to screenshot, I chose 31 LOAD/25 RPM because the map utilized the stock scaling in load and RPM while increasing the limits to 10,500 RPM and 500 load since that's what I know Mellon was seeing with his setup and figured MOST stock ECU guys wouldn't need more scaling than that ever. That way any other map scaling wouldn't have any ill effects while cruising. This would make a high HP car have equal resolution to a 260 load car,while allowing lower powered cars even MORE resolution if they desired. Whatever you choose, I'll gladly take though. This is a huge help no matter how its configured.

 

If you increment load by 25 from 300 on, then it will finish up at 500, if that's your goal, with the 29 columns.

 

No matter what he chooses, we can scale it out to whatever load we want. I personally would never space my load scaling MORE than 20 if I didn't have to. The higher HP the car, the more precise and repeatable you'll want the tune. I'm just thinking about the high HP guys, for us average powered cars, this will be more than enough resolution

 

anyone want to pm Mellon to get him to chime in?

 

PM sent

 

I agree and that's why I mentioned the 25 load jump at higher loads. You have to take into the account the percent jump you are doing. If you have too much resolution at a higher load, your tune will not be repeatable since a slight variation at such a high load may start jumping columns, which would cause the non-repeatable tune.

A 25 load jump at 500 load represents a 5% resolution. A 25 load jump at 400 load represents a 6.25% resolution. The stock maps start jumping 20 load after load of 100. That's represents 20% resolution. At 300 load, a 20 jump (best resolution of the stock map at higher loads) represents a 6.67% resolution. So, I think a 25 load jump would be perfectly fine in the neighborhoods of 300-500 load. But, if you don't have to, I agree to keep it at 20. For us normal people, that will take us up to 460 load. But again, you may want slightly bigger jumps for consistency in tune.

 

Well, there's always the idea of running VIII code on an IX ECU.

 

For you guys advocating the smallest possible axis increments, please remember that the ROM code does interpolate. If your fuel and timing maps follow a smooth arc with no sharp changes in trajectory or not too strong of an arc, there is no need for really small axis increments. All that is needed is to capture the shape.

It might be of value for you guys to consider which maps could benefit from the smaller axis increment. The nice thing about the timing map is that what you put into the map is what you get in real life. I think it would be pretty safe to have load increments of 30 and RPM increments of 500 or perhaps even 750 here. Fuel on the other hand is a bugger because what you put into the map is never what you get in real life, and I constantly have issues with the fuel doing funny things inside of an increment. This is especially true at low to mid rpms. Here, I think it might be nice to perhaps go to load increments of 15 or maybe 10. Out past about 5500 rpm though, fuel never seems to do anything unexpected, and I think we could get away with a load increment of 30 for load cells from 5500 rpm and onward.

 

Regardless of what we all think about the scaling, the end user can rescale them however they see fit for their personal preference. I'm just glad we're gonna have more resolution at ALL! lol I think 500 RPM increments as the 'default' is fine and just set the load increments to 20 for the default maps so its consistent with the factory maps. From there, people can change it however they choose

 

I'll buy into that.

 

I'd like to get in on this. Tephra, can you e-mail me a 96530006 test copy to play with?

monochrome@w3si.org

 

You guys keep adding these cool features and delaying V7 final!

I love it! Currently running V7b6 and working great. Would love to run the new expanded setup since I need to retune for my new HTA Green. Hit me at fixem2 at yahoo dot com.

 

This is exactly why i wanted to see this. I have seen cars go lean then rich between two RPM cells. Very tough to combat on the stock resolution.

 

As another point of reference, the extended maps seem to be working just fine on my car as well.