430 -460tq is reasonable

 

K let me look at this a while

 

are you just guessing? please post a real dyno chart so brad can make a real comparison.

 

I second this...

I'd hate to see the calculations get thrown off as with Mellow numbers they were pretty damn close.

 

haven't tried this program yet but it looks pretty cool. Once you have it where we can use our AEM logs, I will test it out.

Good stuff

 

The version Ive got in development right now should read AEM logs. I think. Ive got so many logs I cant remember where my AEM logs are. Can you send me one? bradbarnhill at hotmail

 

I'll have to give this a whirl tonight.

 

Let me know what you think Colonel ... Working on the next version which will be some major changes in the graphing style. But under the hood everything except smoothing is the same. The smoothing is changing a slight bit.

 

Need me to re-forward my email containing some AEM logs? Did you get your program to pull the data from the AEMLog file type or still from an exported .txt?

 

I actually was pretty on the money. Getting back from the dyno:

516whp/468wtq Dynojet smth 4
500whp/464wtq VDR (Jamie) smth 10
696whp/520wtq VD (Brad) smth 10?

 

I ran you log through and the first thing I noticed was that it needs an unusually high amount of smoothing, I put it to the max and it still couldn't cover up the spikes.

When I run it through with more smoothing the numbers look more realistic, 503 469

it also looks like this log didn't come from evoscan

see attached:

 

I use mitsulogger

 

Nice! Glad to see this is finally out. I'll test if I can.

 

Sure you can test it ... its released

 

Evoryder:

I just ran your log though VDR, VD, and compared them both to the dynojet numbers. I put the dynojets correction factor of 1.03 that is shown on the dyno sheet, in Virtual Dyno and got 536/459 which is within 3% HP / 2% TQ of the dynojets numbers. I compared that to VDR set on its Dynojet setting and got 536/467 which is within 3% HP / 1% TQ of the Dynojets numbers but with a correction factor of 1.11

So its pretty close using the actual correction factor that the dynojet was using. 2-3% could all be in the difference in the way both of them smooth.

Im VERY pleased to know that Virtual Dyno is spot on with the dynojet even when using the SAME correction factor. This has me very excited and makes me even more confident that its working as it should.

By the way ... Mellon is correct that this log has a HUGE number of spikes in it, and this means that high smoothing is required to flatten those spikes out.

Below are the images to back up it up: