has anyone...
i mean i support the sh*t out of your shop and have a lot of parts on my car from you guys. no need to turn d*ckhead over a question tho
im sure they couldnt even do that anyway. so good luck on your quest
AGAIN, IM NOT SELLING NOR WAS EVER PLANNING ON PRODUCING THESE FOR THE PUBLIC. just my own personal use.
go on ebay, there plenty of cables on there. go send them emails telling them they are stupid and douchebags.
just close the thread, everyone on here hates on people that wanna try something different.
read my post you tool
i asked if anyone else has tried this
please do david
i mean i support the sh*t out of your shop and have a lot of parts on my car from you guys. no need to turn d*ckhead over a question tho
im sure they couldnt even do that anyway. so good luck on your quest
AGAIN, IM NOT SELLING NOR WAS EVER PLANNING ON PRODUCING THESE FOR THE PUBLIC. just my own personal use.
go on ebay, there plenty of cables on there. go send them emails telling them they are stupid and douchebags.
just close the thread, everyone on here hates on people that wanna try something different.
i mean i support the sh*t out of your shop and have a lot of parts on my car from you guys. no need to turn d*ckhead over a question tho
im sure they couldnt even do that anyway. so good luck on your quest
AGAIN, IM NOT SELLING NOR WAS EVER PLANNING ON PRODUCING THESE FOR THE PUBLIC. just my own personal use.
go on ebay, there plenty of cables on there. go send them emails telling them they are stupid and douchebags.
just close the thread, everyone on here hates on people that wanna try something different.
Also you might wanna check out the ECUflash thread on this matter. People are NOT happy with you (or anyone else that thinks its Ok to steal tactrix/limitless cable schematics).
It has NOTHING to do with "trying something different". We have people doing different things and pushing the boundaries everyday. I mean, that other community has made it so you can do the things (SD, MLTS, knock light, etc) we can do with our ECU...NO ONE.
Last edited by Evo_Jay; Sep 8, 2009 at 12:48 PM.
donations are opintional...
i dont use ECUflash, i only log my car
so i use evoscan and i paid for that. but since i found out i can use another cable thats a lot cheaper, im gonna get that instead
i dont use ECUflash, i only log my car
so i use evoscan and i paid for that. but since i found out i can use another cable thats a lot cheaper, im gonna get that instead
ok. Like someone else said, you can get a loggin only cable from them for like $50-60. or maybe cheaper on ebay.
IMO,
For what these guys do for the community, the very least I could do was purchase their cable to show appreciation for what they do and to help fund their efforts for current ant future products and services.
For what these guys do for the community, the very least I could do was purchase their cable to show appreciation for what they do and to help fund their efforts for current ant future products and services.
This thread is curious.
As far as I know, only EcuFlash does cable origin enforcement. EvoScan, Mitsulogger, and most other logging-only products generally don't care where the cable came from, and several don't even care if it's an FTDI interface; an ordinary serial cable is fine. Anyone who has worked with FTDI chips before will probably have a pretty good idea of how EcuFlash is actually "validating" the cable.
The schematics for the 1.3 cables were actually published by Colby on the OpenECU forum (as were the 1.2 schematics), so suggesting that someone who wants to make their own cable for their own use is somehow breaking some unwritten rule is quite wrong. In fact, there's really very little to those cables, if all you're looking for is logging; designs for similar cables have been around for years. No magic here.
The 2.0 schematics were never published, to the best of my knowledge, and that device is considerably more than a simple "cable". I would be very surprised if Colby ever released the schematics for that, unless he decided to exit the market entirely. So, CAN bus folks are out of luck.
This thread should probably be moved to the EcuFlash forum.
As far as I know, only EcuFlash does cable origin enforcement. EvoScan, Mitsulogger, and most other logging-only products generally don't care where the cable came from, and several don't even care if it's an FTDI interface; an ordinary serial cable is fine. Anyone who has worked with FTDI chips before will probably have a pretty good idea of how EcuFlash is actually "validating" the cable.
The schematics for the 1.3 cables were actually published by Colby on the OpenECU forum (as were the 1.2 schematics), so suggesting that someone who wants to make their own cable for their own use is somehow breaking some unwritten rule is quite wrong. In fact, there's really very little to those cables, if all you're looking for is logging; designs for similar cables have been around for years. No magic here.
The 2.0 schematics were never published, to the best of my knowledge, and that device is considerably more than a simple "cable". I would be very surprised if Colby ever released the schematics for that, unless he decided to exit the market entirely. So, CAN bus folks are out of luck.
This thread should probably be moved to the EcuFlash forum.
i appreciate what these guys do. but i dont use their stuff.
so to set this straight, i now understand that i can get a cheaper cable on Ebay to log my car which is all i wanna do, so im not gonna try to make the tatrix or nothing. now if someone could of just told me that 3 pages ago, the thread would of been over with. sorry to everyone who got offended
so to set this straight, i now understand that i can get a cheaper cable on Ebay to log my car which is all i wanna do, so im not gonna try to make the tatrix or nothing. now if someone could of just told me that 3 pages ago, the thread would of been over with. sorry to everyone who got offended
This thread is curious.
As far as I know, only EcuFlash does cable origin enforcement. EvoScan, Mitsulogger, and most other logging-only products generally don't care where the cable came from, and several don't even care if it's an FTDI interface; an ordinary serial cable is fine. Anyone who has worked with FTDI chips before will probably have a pretty good idea of how EcuFlash is actually "validating" the cable.
The schematics for the 1.3 cables were actually published by Colby on the OpenECU forum (as were the 1.2 schematics), so suggesting that someone who wants to make their own cable for their own use is somehow breaking some unwritten rule is quite wrong. In fact, there's really very little to those cables, if all you're looking for is logging; designs for similar cables have been around for years. No magic here.
The 2.0 schematics were never published, to the best of my knowledge, and that device is considerably more than a simple "cable". I would be very surprised if Colby ever released the schematics for that, unless he decided to exit the market entirely. So, CAN bus folks are out of luck.
This thread should probably be moved to the EcuFlash forum.
As far as I know, only EcuFlash does cable origin enforcement. EvoScan, Mitsulogger, and most other logging-only products generally don't care where the cable came from, and several don't even care if it's an FTDI interface; an ordinary serial cable is fine. Anyone who has worked with FTDI chips before will probably have a pretty good idea of how EcuFlash is actually "validating" the cable.
The schematics for the 1.3 cables were actually published by Colby on the OpenECU forum (as were the 1.2 schematics), so suggesting that someone who wants to make their own cable for their own use is somehow breaking some unwritten rule is quite wrong. In fact, there's really very little to those cables, if all you're looking for is logging; designs for similar cables have been around for years. No magic here.
The 2.0 schematics were never published, to the best of my knowledge, and that device is considerably more than a simple "cable". I would be very surprised if Colby ever released the schematics for that, unless he decided to exit the market entirely. So, CAN bus folks are out of luck.
This thread should probably be moved to the EcuFlash forum.
why the hell would he post schematics if you guys wanna act like this is some huge secret???
again, everyone just jumps on david buchurs hate bandwagon. i understand that hes a shop and people are probably copying his crap all day long, or trying. so i see why he might be upset over this. but i think all this is real unnecessary
thank you for that post...
why the hell would he post schematics if you guys wanna act like this is some huge secret???
again, everyone just jumps on david buchurs hate bandwagon. i understand that hes a shop and people are probably copying his crap all day long, or trying. so i see why he might be upset over this. but i think all this is real unnecessary
why the hell would he post schematics if you guys wanna act like this is some huge secret???
again, everyone just jumps on david buchurs hate bandwagon. i understand that hes a shop and people are probably copying his crap all day long, or trying. so i see why he might be upset over this. but i think all this is real unnecessary
We are NOT jumping on buschur bangwagon, we are all hating on your on our OWN, because we dont like what you wanna do (not giving major contributors to our community the little money they ask for).