rescale WGDC & BDE boost tables?
rescale WGDC & BDE boost tables?
Are there any issues with rescaling the rpm rows in the WGDC and BDE psi tables in V7? I know there were issues in the past of rescaling non-tephra rom maps because it affected other maps we dont see. Is there any issue like that with the boost control maps?
Also how tight do you guys typically set your WGDC target? Im seeing the WGDC dropping before pk boost in my logs because its interpolating and basically wanting to know how long I can hold it at 100 before backing off to prevent overshoot. Right now my 3rd gear column goes from 100-82.5-64.5 from 3250-3750. Id like it to go more like 100-100-95-80-65 from 3250-3750 with 2 extra rows.
Also how tight do you guys typically set your WGDC target? Im seeing the WGDC dropping before pk boost in my logs because its interpolating and basically wanting to know how long I can hold it at 100 before backing off to prevent overshoot. Right now my 3rd gear column goes from 100-82.5-64.5 from 3250-3750. Id like it to go more like 100-100-95-80-65 from 3250-3750 with 2 extra rows.
I went ahead and did this. Basically, the last 4 rows are now 4000-4500-5000-7000. And I added enough rows in between 3000-4000 to get about 150 rpm between each one. This morning seemed fine, I just need to start adjusting and see if any of it makes any difference.
Disclaimer:
My high rpm portion of my WGDC map has always been very linear and mostly the same wgdc, so this makes sense. If yours isnt, you may not want to do this.
Id still like to hear of any input on ill affects this may have.
Disclaimer:
My high rpm portion of my WGDC map has always been very linear and mostly the same wgdc, so this makes sense. If yours isnt, you may not want to do this.
Id still like to hear of any input on ill affects this may have.
Ive got that set to 200. Can probably go higher, but Id rather know that the wgdc table is right and that the "wgdc=100%" table is not masking a conservative wgdc map. I think the point of that table is just when you are up/downshifting or punching it from a roll. When doing a pull from low rpm, that table should never come into play...right?
Ive got that set to 200. Can probably go higher, but Id rather know that the wgdc table is right and that the "wgdc=100%" table is not masking a conservative wgdc map. I think the point of that table is just when you are up/downshifting or punching it from a roll. When doing a pull from low rpm, that table should never come into play...right?
That table always come into play, upshifting/downshifting, punching it from a roll or a pull from low rpms.
The point of that table is to keep the WG closed, so it maximize spool.
Trending Topics
250ish. I see what you are saying and it definitely "comes into play" all the time.
But shouldnt I be able to 0 out the "wgdc=100% under this load" table and have my boost curve be exactly the same during a low rpm pull? My WGDC table is 100 from 0-3500ish rpm (3rd gear). That alone should keep it closed until 3500, right? I thought the point was to close the WG during those times when you are above the rpm where you normally start opening it in the wgdc map. In my case if I stab it at 5k, it would close until 200 load, then use the wgdc map.
But shouldnt I be able to 0 out the "wgdc=100% under this load" table and have my boost curve be exactly the same during a low rpm pull? My WGDC table is 100 from 0-3500ish rpm (3rd gear). That alone should keep it closed until 3500, right? I thought the point was to close the WG during those times when you are above the rpm where you normally start opening it in the wgdc map. In my case if I stab it at 5k, it would close until 200 load, then use the wgdc map.
Last edited by charlie.tunah; Jul 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM.
250ish. I see what you are saying and it definitely "comes into play" all the time.
But shouldnt I be able to 0 out the "wgdc=100% under this load" table and have my boost curve be exactly the same during a low rpm pull? My WGDC table is 100 from 0-3500ish rpm (3rd gear). That alone should keep it closed until 3500, right? I thought the point was to close the WG during those times when you are above the rpm where you normally start opening it in the wgdc map. In my case if I stab it at 5k, it would close until 200 load, then use the wgdc map.
But shouldnt I be able to 0 out the "wgdc=100% under this load" table and have my boost curve be exactly the same during a low rpm pull? My WGDC table is 100 from 0-3500ish rpm (3rd gear). That alone should keep it closed until 3500, right? I thought the point was to close the WG during those times when you are above the rpm where you normally start opening it in the wgdc map. In my case if I stab it at 5k, it would close until 200 load, then use the wgdc map.
Since the introduction of the WGDC=100% table, I dont tune WGDC the old way ie having 100s in it for a long as possible. I used the WGDC=100% table to keep the WGDC 100% and then just setup the main WGDC table with the WGDC needed to reach my desired boost curve, while not using it to promote spool. If that makes sense.
I see what youre saying. So what does a "normal" wgdc map of yours look like? If you dont mind posting... And what is the reason for that being "the old way"?
It seems like a duplicative effort the way Im doing it. But at the same time I dont see why not to do it this way. At one point last year I ran with the "wgdc=100" table at 0, trying to figure out part throttle surging that ended up getting fixed with my TPS WGDC table. Aside from slow spool from a roll and shifting, it was fine at 0 and low rpm pulls were basically the same. I thought the table was introduced to promote quicker spool in all conditions other than low rpm pulls.
It seems like a duplicative effort the way Im doing it. But at the same time I dont see why not to do it this way. At one point last year I ran with the "wgdc=100" table at 0, trying to figure out part throttle surging that ended up getting fixed with my TPS WGDC table. Aside from slow spool from a roll and shifting, it was fine at 0 and low rpm pulls were basically the same. I thought the table was introduced to promote quicker spool in all conditions other than low rpm pulls.
I see what youre saying. So what does a "normal" wgdc map of yours look like? If you dont mind posting... And what is the reason for that being "the old way"?
It seems like a duplicative effort the way Im doing it. But at the same time I dont see why not to do it this way. At one point last year I ran with the "wgdc=100" table at 0, trying to figure out part throttle surging that ended up getting fixed with my TPS WGDC table. Aside from slow spool from a roll and shifting, it was fine at 0 and low rpm pulls were basically the same. I thought the table was introduced to promote quicker spool in all conditions other than low rpm pulls.
It seems like a duplicative effort the way Im doing it. But at the same time I dont see why not to do it this way. At one point last year I ran with the "wgdc=100" table at 0, trying to figure out part throttle surging that ended up getting fixed with my TPS WGDC table. Aside from slow spool from a roll and shifting, it was fine at 0 and low rpm pulls were basically the same. I thought the table was introduced to promote quicker spool in all conditions other than low rpm pulls.
Now with the "wgdc=100%" table, I dont really use the main WGDC map to promote spool. I find that this makes boost more consistent and lessens the chances of spiking over your boost target, due to not trying to keep high WGDC values to promote spool. Here is an example below.
Info - FP BLACK, 28psi from pk boost to redline. 25psi WGA heavily preloaded. That pic was a work in progress, but it helps you get the idea.
Last edited by Boosted Tuning; Jul 30, 2012 at 12:00 PM.
Aaahhh.. I see says the blind man. Instead of wasting precious map space with rows of 500- 2000....you skip those rpm rows and use the map exclusively for the rpm ranges you are actually controlling the BCS.
Got it. Seems like both ways can be used to acheive the same result. Id just need to figure out what realistic rpm in high gear I hit 200 load and move that row to the top. Just for reference, my wgdc map before rescaling last night is in the 1st post in the thread linked below.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...tc-inside.html
Got it. Seems like both ways can be used to acheive the same result. Id just need to figure out what realistic rpm in high gear I hit 200 load and move that row to the top. Just for reference, my wgdc map before rescaling last night is in the 1st post in the thread linked below.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...tc-inside.html
After looking at your WGDC map in the other thread, I see your issue now.
In 3rd gear, you have 90% at 3250 and then 65% at 3500, the next cell. That is too big of a jump around the peak boost area. It seems the reason you have it that way, is you are doing it the "old way", using highest numbers in the main WGDEC map to help promote spool. If you just used the "WGDC=100" map then put like 65% or 68% at 3250, I think it would be better.
In 3rd gear, you have 90% at 3250 and then 65% at 3500, the next cell. That is too big of a jump around the peak boost area. It seems the reason you have it that way, is you are doing it the "old way", using highest numbers in the main WGDEC map to help promote spool. If you just used the "WGDC=100" map then put like 65% or 68% at 3250, I think it would be better.
Do you use the lowest load at high rpm to set the WGDC=100 map? The way the load drops, I can see it being an issue if I only focus on the spool up area. Say if I put 230 in there, then wgdc would spike up to 100 during the latter part of the pull (bad).
Thank you very much for the insight. I hadnt looked at it this way before.
Thank you very much for the insight. I hadnt looked at it this way before.
Do you use the lowest load at high rpm to set the WGDC=100 map? The way the load drops, I can see it being an issue if I only focus on the spool up area. Say if I put 230 in there, then wgdc would spike up to 100 during the latter part of the pull (bad).
Thank you very much for the insight. I hadnt looked at it this way before.
Thank you very much for the insight. I hadnt looked at it this way before.
No problem.