+1. I have the same problem. It didn't happen on the last version. Although the reason I downloaded this newer version was because the last version started acting up a little bit too. I downloaded AVG antivirus and I don't know if that is causing part of the problem or not .

 

HUH?

If its only that bumpy on 1 smoothing, you should only need 3-5 to make it smooth, not 20.

 

I'm just saying that it's bumpy as hell all the way up to 20. i've played with it, and nothing would smooth it out, so i just left it at 1. I was agreeing with you about the power output numbers, and the affect smoothing will have on them.

 

What Im saying is if its that wavy (which its not actually that wavy) at 1 smoothing, then it will only need 3-5 to make it perfect. I have no idea how you are saying that when you use 20 smoothing on it, it cant smooth those small humps.

 

the graphs are smoother if the time stamp period is longer, 150-250ms gives a good result. Superfast logging does not help here.

Brad, can we have an option to change the AFR and Boost lables on the graph?
I dont mean the log column names, but the names as they appear on the lower graph. I often include load and spark for example, which the app graphs nicely, just the label is incorrect.

 

Logging speed is not his issue. Nor is time or superspeed logging an issue with the program.

He just needs to smooth his graph more.

 

Jay_..._Im_going_to_kick_your_a$$

 

Im contemplating how to add graphing of any column ... if I do that then Ill include the label of that in the chart. Im just trying to find the time and motivation while on break to work on this Trying to get divorced at the same time ... which is eatting into my christmas break :P

 

i'm not saying anything confusing....all I said is that on THAT particular log, I adjusted the smoothing on every setting 1 through 20, and none of them produced a truly smooth graph. that particular log just shows up extremely jagged. because of that, I just decided to use the one with the highest numbers for fun.

 

I didnt say you said anything confusing.

I help brad develop this program and I dont find what your saying to be true. With the graph only that wavy @ 1 smoothing, it should be totally fine on 3-5, but you are saying its not even good at 20. That just doesnt make sense to me and I have plotted 100s and 100s of plots with VD.

How bout you just post up that run, with the smoothing on 10 and let us see it?

 

I'll do it when I get home. I don't think the issue is with the program. what program are you using to make the logs? when i was using EVOscan 2.7, all my logs were smooth on 1. as you can see from the first log I posted, I didn't smooth it at all. every one I've done with EVOscan 2.8 though, and plugged into VD, it's come out jagged as hell

 

I wonder if the RPM logging changed in Evoscan 2.8? Because there are some issues with RPM being delayed in being written to the log causing jagged graphs. I dont know how to even explain this to hamish so it could get fixed. RPM if selected needs to be the first value recorded so its as close to the timestamp as possible. I wish all logging took place like this so it made it easier on graphing and it also would smooth out the random massive spikes in some logs.

 

I use Evoscan 2.7. And I have to use anywhere from 1-10, usually. On most cars, most are smooth with only 1-5 smoothing, but sometime i have to bump it up to 5-10, even on cars that only needed 1-5 on some plots.

What Im trying to say is even if some logs from you car are good @ 1 smoothing, other logs from the same car may need more smoothing.

 

every log I did with EVOscan 2.7 is fine @ 1. every one with 2.8 looks like the one I posted.

 

This sounds just from the brief reading Ive done to be an issue with Evoscan ... if we could pinpoint what it is from the data then maybe we could approach hamish about it and see what he could do. Im sure he would love to know if there is a bug or glitch. Thats how programs get better. Pinpointing the issue though is the trouble.