Virtual Dyno - Standalone Software
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 692
Likes: 1
From: Kansas City, KS
send me a log and let me verify that V3 works ok ... I am just cautious and want to test it.
Last edited by bbarnhill; Jan 24, 2012 at 02:11 PM. Reason: dyslexia
Newbie
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
From: Fayetteville, N.C.
ok you're a good man then. 
no problem Brad. its by far the best virtual dyno in existence to date and i don't think anyone will be able to top it. I dont mind the power loss, and i did notice it smooths nicer now also. 
@tscompusa: I looked a back (as I keep a record) ... you were my first donation brother. Thanks for the belief in me from the beginning. Its come a long way from where it was for sure. Ive put in hundreds of hours since then. Ohh and the power difference comes only from the change I made to smoothing in 1.1.6/1.1.7 as there was a bug in the smoothing algorithm that I made. It actually smoothed the first part of the run more than the last part of the run if I remember correctly. It was an obvious flaw when I stumbled upon it while looking for another bug. I fixed it and NOW it is correct according to my tests. Sorry it dropped the power by a smidge but I felt like accuracy was WAY more important than egos Keep the faith my friend and thanks again.
@Ninja63: Sorry about that error man. I reworked the file structure of the project and organized some of the code in seperate DLL files. It may have caused an error or two by doing that. I feel like it is worth the trouble to uninstall and reinstall for me to be able to reorganize the code and clean in up some.
Keep the faith my friend and thanks again.@Ninja63: Sorry about that error man. I reworked the file structure of the project and organized some of the code in seperate DLL files. It may have caused an error or two by doing that. I feel like it is worth the trouble to uninstall and reinstall for me to be able to reorganize the code and clean in up some.
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 692
Likes: 1
From: Kansas City, KS
I think some will mind the power loss but it was a false sense of power before I just didnt know it. The smoothing is correct now and will stay the same until I figure out bezier curves for smoothing. I think that is a superior way to smooth but its not a high priority.
I hope its the best as thats what I aim for and so far it looks like its filling the top spot quite nicely. Ive got some issues with some of the loggers but I think that is just due to expanding too quickly.
I hope its the best as thats what I aim for and so far it looks like its filling the top spot quite nicely. Ive got some issues with some of the loggers but I think that is just due to expanding too quickly.
Originally Posted by bbarnhill
@tscompusa: I looked a back (as I keep a record) ... you were my first donation brother. Thanks for the belief in me from the beginning. Its come a long way from where it was for sure. Ive put in hundreds of hours since then. Ohh and the power difference comes only from the change I made to smoothing in 1.1.6/1.1.7 as there was a bug in the smoothing algorithm that I made. It actually smoothed the first part of the run more than the last part of the run if I remember correctly. It was an obvious flaw when I stumbled upon it while looking for another bug. I fixed it and NOW it is correct according to my tests. Sorry it dropped the power by a smidge but I felt like accuracy was WAY more important than egos Keep the faith my friend and thanks again.
@tscompusa: I looked a back (as I keep a record) ... you were my first donation brother. Thanks for the belief in me from the beginning. Its come a long way from where it was for sure. Ive put in hundreds of hours since then. Ohh and the power difference comes only from the change I made to smoothing in 1.1.6/1.1.7 as there was a bug in the smoothing algorithm that I made. It actually smoothed the first part of the run more than the last part of the run if I remember correctly. It was an obvious flaw when I stumbled upon it while looking for another bug. I fixed it and NOW it is correct according to my tests. Sorry it dropped the power by a smidge but I felt like accuracy was WAY more important than egos Keep the faith my friend and thanks again.
103hp.
........
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 692
Likes: 1
From: Kansas City, KS
@3k: do you have some sort of spikes in the last 2 logs? Peak numbers have to be taken into context with the curve shape. If there is a spike ... I understand the gain and its probably some anomaly caused by wheel spin or clutch slipping.
I upgraded to the latest and greatest version, and ran a log from 2010 through it to test it out, and it's giving me waaaaayyyy overinflated numbers. About 200 whp and 100 wtq kind of high. Any ideas or suggestions?
Account Disabled
iTrader: (38)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,319
Likes: 1
From: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Often this is the result of people changing tires sizes, transmission gearing, passengers etc...over the years. Run a fresh log with the current specs of your car.
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 692
Likes: 1
From: Kansas City, KS
Good lord Mellon ... you're like a ninja man ... never see ya coming. Thanks for answering GG06MR's question as I was in training all day for my new job in Kansas City. Any members from near Kansas City?