ok guys,

I really want to finalise the map size (and therefore ROM location)

Can I please get a vote on:

25 RPM and 29 Load (what I have posted thus far)
25 RPM and 30 Load (for nice round numbers)
30 RPM and 30 Load (not sure if we need so many RPM's)
* some other size (post up what you think)

 

IMO if its an option 30x30 is my vote. the more the better. if it can be done you miles well go all out that way it will benefit every single person.

my new setup i would really like 250rpm increments and 10 to 20 scale load increments as i will be up to the 460 500 area. so i vote for the more the better.

30x30 haha.

 

25x29 fits my desires, but 25x30 will work just as easy. Might as well go a little bigger if its no extra trouble.

 

The more the better. If you can fit 30x30,then by all means...do it up!

God, going from 19x20 to 30x30 is nuts. That's like 235% bigger! If I look at the stock maps now, I just think "God its so small!"

 

I am up for anything... but 25x30 sounds good to me, nust for the round numbers!

 

25 x 30 is perfect for me!

 

i think u might have problems with people wanting to run live map if going that high (30x30) and yes there arent too many of us.

 

yeh I have taken a quick look at livemapping, realistically we have 2k of memory to work with, so 30x30 maps are 900+ bytes each, so basically the fuel+timing will take up 90% of the livemap RAM space...

I can do 30x30 - its not too hard, I would prefer to get it right first time around

 

Forget the livemapping. You need a C++ certification to even understand that stuff anyhow.

 

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...able-size.html

 

25x30 ftw.... no its like a Japanese electronics gizmo... looks cool but no one knows what the buttons mean

anyway i though ppl wanted a standalone ecu functionality, so live mapping is it

 

Interestingly, that's the kind of thing people were saying about working with EcuFlash as a general tuning tool just a few years ago.

 

In case anyone didn't see

VOTE HERE!

 

tephra or logic, have either of you guys given any consideration to the additional processor cycles required to do a lookup using the larger maps?

 

yes.

there are 2 things here:

1) the extra axis lookup's I have had to implement into the IgnitionLookup routine
2) the extra cycles required for having bigger axis's.

In both cases I think the overall hit to performance will be marginal, given there is SOOO much code in the ECU this little change seems fairly harmless.

You thoughts?