First Open Port 2 data logger released
Thread Starter
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (50)
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,675
Likes: 132
From: Tri-Cities, WA // Portland, OR
First Open Port 2 data logger released
If anyone wants to give it a shot, an Open Port 2 compatible logger has just been released. It works on the 7/8/9, but it has not been tested on an Evo X yet, so it would be great to see someone with an Evo X give it a try.
http://www.myrollingroad.com/showthread.php?t=91
EDIT: There is a 1.5.1 beta a few posts down from the top of MUTmonitor thread on rollingroad.
http://www.myrollingroad.com/showthread.php?t=91
EDIT: There is a 1.5.1 beta a few posts down from the top of MUTmonitor thread on rollingroad.
Last edited by mrfred; Jan 19, 2009 at 10:23 AM.
If anyone wants to give it a shot, an Open Port 2 compatible logger has just been released. It works on the 7/8/9, but it has not been tested on an Evo X yet, so it would be great to see someone with an Evo X give it a try.
http://www.myrollingroad.com/showthread.php?t=91
http://www.myrollingroad.com/showthread.php?t=91
Thread Starter
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (50)
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,675
Likes: 132
From: Tri-Cities, WA // Portland, OR
Tactrix 2.0 Firmware Version 1.02.2232
Opening Com Port 5
Started 2:56:39 PM 1/18/2009
Sending 5 Baud Init
Changing to 15625 Baud
Connected! 2:56:39 PM 1/18/2009
Starting to Monitor
Invalid Reply or Timeout
Disconnected
Stopped 2:56:45 PM 1/18/2009
Opening Com Port 5
Started 2:56:55 PM 1/18/2009
Sending 5 Baud Init
Changing to 15625 Baud
Connected! 2:56:55 PM 1/18/2009
Starting to Monitor
Invalid Reply or Timeout
Disconnected
Stopped 2:57:01 PM 1/18/2009
Opening Com Port 5
Started 2:57:06 PM 1/18/2009
Sending 5 Baud Init
Changing to 15625 Baud
Connected! 2:57:06 PM 1/18/2009
Starting to Monitor
Invalid Reply or Timeout
Disconnected
Stopped 2:57:12 PM 1/18/2009
Opening Com Port 5
Started 2:57:30 PM 1/18/2009
Sending 5 Baud Init
Changing to 15625 Baud
Connected! 2:57:30 PM 1/18/2009
Starting to Monitor
Invalid Reply or Timeout
Disconnected
Stopped 2:57:36 PM 1/18/2009
Sorry, I'm not following?
1)Are you asking that because I should have seen the answer already in the posts? Or
2)Are you asking if I found information that it worked on the X?
1)I asked because it was stated that:
"It slow for logging though mate with it's pass through protocol.
With normal cables we just send 1 byte to request data and receive 1 byte back.
With the pass through you have to send 10 bytes + your request byte and then you get 31 bytes back which you only use of 1 byte out of."
I'm just curious into what that correlates with speed of logging, and whether that changes the resolution at which you can log at.
I also asked if it logged knock, because I thought that was one of the problems with the 7/8/9 vs X? Even though the screenshots show knock as a parameter, the developer doesn't have an X, so I didn't know if he was able to work it out?
2) There was a post by grayw on the link that indicates that it works on the X. I can't confirm if it was actually tried, or if the user was congratulating the developer on the possibility of it working.
1)Are you asking that because I should have seen the answer already in the posts? Or
2)Are you asking if I found information that it worked on the X?
1)I asked because it was stated that:
"It slow for logging though mate with it's pass through protocol.
With normal cables we just send 1 byte to request data and receive 1 byte back.
With the pass through you have to send 10 bytes + your request byte and then you get 31 bytes back which you only use of 1 byte out of."
I'm just curious into what that correlates with speed of logging, and whether that changes the resolution at which you can log at.
I also asked if it logged knock, because I thought that was one of the problems with the 7/8/9 vs X? Even though the screenshots show knock as a parameter, the developer doesn't have an X, so I didn't know if he was able to work it out?
2) There was a post by grayw on the link that indicates that it works on the X. I can't confirm if it was actually tried, or if the user was congratulating the developer on the possibility of it working.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (50)
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,675
Likes: 132
From: Tri-Cities, WA // Portland, OR
Sorry, I'm not following?
1)Are you asking that because I should have seen the answer already in the posts? Or
2)Are you asking if I found information that it worked on the X?
1)I asked because it was stated that:
"It slow for logging though mate with it's pass through protocol.
With normal cables we just send 1 byte to request data and receive 1 byte back.
With the pass through you have to send 10 bytes + your request byte and then you get 31 bytes back which you only use of 1 byte out of."
I'm just curious into what that correlates with speed of logging, and whether that changes the resolution at which you can log at.
I also asked if it logged knock, because I thought that was one of the problems with the 7/8/9 vs X? Even though the screenshots show knock as a parameter, the developer doesn't have an X, so I didn't know if he was able to work it out?
2) There was a post by grayw on the link that indicates that it works on the X. I can't confirm if it was actually tried, or if the user was congratulating the developer on the possibility of it working.
1)Are you asking that because I should have seen the answer already in the posts? Or
2)Are you asking if I found information that it worked on the X?
1)I asked because it was stated that:
"It slow for logging though mate with it's pass through protocol.
With normal cables we just send 1 byte to request data and receive 1 byte back.
With the pass through you have to send 10 bytes + your request byte and then you get 31 bytes back which you only use of 1 byte out of."
I'm just curious into what that correlates with speed of logging, and whether that changes the resolution at which you can log at.
I also asked if it logged knock, because I thought that was one of the problems with the 7/8/9 vs X? Even though the screenshots show knock as a parameter, the developer doesn't have an X, so I didn't know if he was able to work it out?
2) There was a post by grayw on the link that indicates that it works on the X. I can't confirm if it was actually tried, or if the user was congratulating the developer on the possibility of it working.
Thread Starter
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (50)
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,675
Likes: 132
From: Tri-Cities, WA // Portland, OR
Bummer, not working for me. Here's the log:
Tactrix 2.0 Firmware Version 1.02.2232
Opening Com Port 5
Started 2:56:39 PM 1/18/2009
Sending 5 Baud Init
Changing to 15625 Baud
Connected! 2:56:39 PM 1/18/2009
Starting to Monitor
Invalid Reply or Timeout
Disconnected
Stopped 2:56:45 PM 1/18/2009
Opening Com Port 5
Started 2:56:55 PM 1/18/2009
Sending 5 Baud Init
Changing to 15625 Baud
Connected! 2:56:55 PM 1/18/2009
Starting to Monitor
Invalid Reply or Timeout
Disconnected
Stopped 2:57:01 PM 1/18/2009
Opening Com Port 5
Started 2:57:06 PM 1/18/2009
Sending 5 Baud Init
Changing to 15625 Baud
Connected! 2:57:06 PM 1/18/2009
Starting to Monitor
Invalid Reply or Timeout
Disconnected
Stopped 2:57:12 PM 1/18/2009
Opening Com Port 5
Started 2:57:30 PM 1/18/2009
Sending 5 Baud Init
Changing to 15625 Baud
Connected! 2:57:30 PM 1/18/2009
Starting to Monitor
Invalid Reply or Timeout
Disconnected
Stopped 2:57:36 PM 1/18/2009
Tactrix 2.0 Firmware Version 1.02.2232
Opening Com Port 5
Started 2:56:39 PM 1/18/2009
Sending 5 Baud Init
Changing to 15625 Baud
Connected! 2:56:39 PM 1/18/2009
Starting to Monitor
Invalid Reply or Timeout
Disconnected
Stopped 2:56:45 PM 1/18/2009
Opening Com Port 5
Started 2:56:55 PM 1/18/2009
Sending 5 Baud Init
Changing to 15625 Baud
Connected! 2:56:55 PM 1/18/2009
Starting to Monitor
Invalid Reply or Timeout
Disconnected
Stopped 2:57:01 PM 1/18/2009
Opening Com Port 5
Started 2:57:06 PM 1/18/2009
Sending 5 Baud Init
Changing to 15625 Baud
Connected! 2:57:06 PM 1/18/2009
Starting to Monitor
Invalid Reply or Timeout
Disconnected
Stopped 2:57:12 PM 1/18/2009
Opening Com Port 5
Started 2:57:30 PM 1/18/2009
Sending 5 Baud Init
Changing to 15625 Baud
Connected! 2:57:30 PM 1/18/2009
Starting to Monitor
Invalid Reply or Timeout
Disconnected
Stopped 2:57:36 PM 1/18/2009
I'll get back to you
Not sure, I'll check later today and get back to you. The log was just me trying to connect five or so times... the program would initialize to 5 baud and then when it recognized the OP2.0 cable would go to 15625 as can be seen from the logs.
Thread Starter
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (50)
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,675
Likes: 132
From: Tri-Cities, WA // Portland, OR
There is a 1.5.1 beta on the rollingroad website. Maybe give that a try.
mrfred,
Just saw this in the Help file:
*** Notes ***
As stated above for Mitsubishi Vehicles to be placed into MUT Diagnostic mode, Pins 1 and 4 of the OBD-II Connector need to be shorted together.
On some cables you will find this has already been done or is connected to the L-Line to control it.
If it has not been done then you have 2 choices, either short the pins with a piece of wire or paperclip behind the OBD-II Connector on the car, or open up your cable and solder in a wire.
With my cable I soldered inside the cable and placed a small Micro switch, so I could disable this and use the cable for other logging protocols.
Is this something already in place in the OP2.0 cable? Wondering what my problem is here if 'grayw' on that myrollingroad forum got his working on an Evo X...
Just saw this in the Help file:
*** Notes ***
As stated above for Mitsubishi Vehicles to be placed into MUT Diagnostic mode, Pins 1 and 4 of the OBD-II Connector need to be shorted together.
On some cables you will find this has already been done or is connected to the L-Line to control it.
If it has not been done then you have 2 choices, either short the pins with a piece of wire or paperclip behind the OBD-II Connector on the car, or open up your cable and solder in a wire.
With my cable I soldered inside the cable and placed a small Micro switch, so I could disable this and use the cable for other logging protocols.
Is this something already in place in the OP2.0 cable? Wondering what my problem is here if 'grayw' on that myrollingroad forum got his working on an Evo X...
Thread Starter
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (50)
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,675
Likes: 132
From: Tri-Cities, WA // Portland, OR
mrfred,
Just saw this in the Help file:
*** Notes ***
As stated above for Mitsubishi Vehicles to be placed into MUT Diagnostic mode, Pins 1 and 4 of the OBD-II Connector need to be shorted together.
On some cables you will find this has already been done or is connected to the L-Line to control it.
If it has not been done then you have 2 choices, either short the pins with a piece of wire or paperclip behind the OBD-II Connector on the car, or open up your cable and solder in a wire.
With my cable I soldered inside the cable and placed a small Micro switch, so I could disable this and use the cable for other logging protocols.
Is this something already in place in the OP2.0 cable? Wondering what my problem is here if 'grayw' on that myrollingroad forum got his working on an Evo X...
Just saw this in the Help file:
*** Notes ***
As stated above for Mitsubishi Vehicles to be placed into MUT Diagnostic mode, Pins 1 and 4 of the OBD-II Connector need to be shorted together.
On some cables you will find this has already been done or is connected to the L-Line to control it.
If it has not been done then you have 2 choices, either short the pins with a piece of wire or paperclip behind the OBD-II Connector on the car, or open up your cable and solder in a wire.
With my cable I soldered inside the cable and placed a small Micro switch, so I could disable this and use the cable for other logging protocols.
Is this something already in place in the OP2.0 cable? Wondering what my problem is here if 'grayw' on that myrollingroad forum got his working on an Evo X...
grayw hasn't tried it with an X yet.
Good eye,
Clanzer made an earlier post indicating the following:
(I'm assuming he's referring to his Evo VI, but it may be the same for the X)
Here is a quick Pinout of the OBD-II on the EVO.
Pin1 - Shorted to Pin4 places it in Diagnostic Mode
Pin2 Bus positive Line of SAE-J1850 (Standard)
Pin3 -
Pin4 Chassis ground (Standard) Pin5 Signal ground (Standard)
Pin6 CAN high (ISO 15765-4 and SAE-J2234) (Standard)
Pin7 K line of ISO 9141-2 and ISO 14230-4 (Standard)
Pin8 -
Pin9 - ETACS Terminal
Pin10 Bus negative Line of SAE-J1850 (Standard)
Pin11 -
Pin12 -
Pin13 -
Pin14 CAN low (ISO 15765-4 and SAE-J2234) (Standard)
Pin15 L line of ISO 9141-2 and ISO 14230-4 (Standard)
Pin16 Battery voltage 12V+ (Standard)
Clanzer made an earlier post indicating the following:
(I'm assuming he's referring to his Evo VI, but it may be the same for the X)
Here is a quick Pinout of the OBD-II on the EVO.
Pin1 - Shorted to Pin4 places it in Diagnostic Mode
Pin2 Bus positive Line of SAE-J1850 (Standard)
Pin3 -
Pin4 Chassis ground (Standard) Pin5 Signal ground (Standard)
Pin6 CAN high (ISO 15765-4 and SAE-J2234) (Standard)
Pin7 K line of ISO 9141-2 and ISO 14230-4 (Standard)
Pin8 -
Pin9 - ETACS Terminal
Pin10 Bus negative Line of SAE-J1850 (Standard)
Pin11 -
Pin12 -
Pin13 -
Pin14 CAN low (ISO 15765-4 and SAE-J2234) (Standard)
Pin15 L line of ISO 9141-2 and ISO 14230-4 (Standard)
Pin16 Battery voltage 12V+ (Standard)
Last edited by xPRimNT; Jan 19, 2009 at 01:52 PM.



