o


Brad - you might want to make a donation button, you'll certainly get donations from the forum members.

 

Nevermind...it was my csv format that it didn't like. I have it working now.

 

l2r99gst ... use RPM, and LogEntrySeconds, TPS, AFR but only the RPM and LogEntrySeconds are required.

 

Im going to accept donations at my paypal account ... just go to get the button in there. This is more of a response than I figured Id get. Ill work on that tonight if people seriously want to donate. It would help out.

 

Im playing with it right now, its great. Its easy to read and navigate. The only thing I see with it bad is it shoots the end of the pull up on most of my log files where as other programs dont do that. is there a way you can clip it off so it doesn't do that? i really like it so far, im comparing logs right now with it and im seeing things i couldn't see before with previous programs used.

Also if there was a way to make it learn the cars settings and save them for everytime you open a log that would be better also. Other then that the programs perfect. I love how it opens a new box for each log file on the left.

 

Plans to support AEM EMS logs?

 

I asked this in the other thread, but I ask here too.

Regarding your standalone program against Jack's VDR, does they still read different?

When I was doing beta testing for your program, your program always read different then VDR 5.71.

So does it still read different, or has it been editing to read the same?

IMO, if its read different then VDR (which is becoming an EvoM standard), then its kinda useless (dont take this the wrong way)

 

The one log that I tested was just about the same. It wasn't exact, but pretty much identical.

 

I tested many, many logs in Brad's Beta version of this program. All were off, even while using the same settings. Brad explained to me that his software doesnt use the same formula for calculating power as Jack's VDR (which, like I said above, is becoming an EvoM standard).

Thats why Im asking if he changed it to read the same as Jack's VDR.

Because if it reads different but has basically the same name, then the dynos wars/debates are just gonna get worse.

 

The one log I checked was:

398/397 Excel VDR
404/396 VDR standalone

So, nearly identical. But, absolute numbers really don't mean anything anyway. As long as the tool you are using is consistent, and you use the same tool every time, then it will work just as intended. All of these dyno tools are for comparison and tuning purposes on the same car, not for HP bragging rights.

But I agree with you...a lot of people just want the numbers and they want them as high as possible. But, save that for the people who don't know anything. We will use it for it's true purpose.

 

Yeah, Thats is close enough. When I tested it was way more off, like 30-40 HP&TQ off the VDR number, on the same exact log and settings.

And of course, as always, any dyno is just a tuning tool and not for HP number/braggin rights. But if two dynos have the same name (Virtual Dyno and Virtual Dyno Room) and give way different numbers, there could be some confusion.

Hopefully thats not the case, and this program will read around the same as VDR.

 

Great job getting this done! I'm downloading now - I've got about 20 logs I need to analyze!

 

Just played with the software. I like it. Its way better then the beta I tried a while ago and the numbers are fairly similar to VDR #s. Couple comments.

- Where is the 6 speeds for evo 8/9?

- It kinda needs a "max RPM trim" like VDR, as there is upward spikes from the averages getting "screwy" at the end of the run. Or maybe the averaging formula can just be better or use more data points near the end.

Oh yeah, and it need some type of "tire calculator" built into it.

 

Okay. Playing around more with the program, it seems it read higher then VDR 5.71. Here is some data.

In VDR 5.71, using the "dynojet" setting (which puts the "current corr. factor" @ 1.110) = 396hp/365tq

In Virtual Dyno 1.0.0.0, using the "default" Dyno Correction factor (which is 1.12) = 410hp/378tq

In Virtual Dyno 1.0.0.0, using the "custom" Dyno Correction factor (1.10) = 409/371

In Virtual Dyno 1.0.0.0, using the "custom" Dyno Correction factor (which is 1.08) = 396/365

 

Brad and I calculate our values differently so comparing us side by side will probably have variations. THe correction factor values will be different for each program because they are values calibrated by the creator to match whatever target the creator is trying to match. Even my v6.00 will have different correction factors than v5.71 did. Especially since my HP calculations have changed quite a bit from v5.71. Don't get cuaght up with the correction factors, just find the value that best matches what you are trying to simulate and record that value (i.e; Dynojets,Mustangs, your local dyno shop,etc...). I haven't looked at his version yet so I don't know if his DEFAULT setting is supposed to be simulating a Dynojet Dyno or not but he is going off the dyno data he has compiled I'm sure, which will differ from my Dyno Shop data that I compiled when making v5.71. I averaged data from 20+ different dynojet dynos across the U.S to create an 'average' because they all were a hair different).