Table resolution and size

[gurov]

thank you for the technical information.

can there be a page in the documentation detailing instructions on how to set up the additive dual fuel table (not table switch), showing where the zeros have go around the edges and common configurations to give those that want this a way to achieve the bigger table.

[hassmaschine]

I'm gonna give leaving things alone a big thumbs up. If you can't get your car running smoothly on 16x 30 or 30x 30 you've got other issues anyhow. I know I had no probs with just 16x16 fuel and spark when I was running the 8V N/A setup on my car and I'm sure I could do the same thing now that I have added 12 valves and 12psi boost.

I already answered your question above.

with a 16x30 table (not even 32x32 or even 64x64, yikes!), in the areas where VE is flat, too much resolution actually ends up with a *jagged* VE table. This is using VE analyze, it would be really hard to tune that by hand.

The reason? with so many cells and so much granularity, you have to get good "hits" on *every* cell in the table to tune it well, which isn't really possible nor easy. So you end up with some areas that get "hit" more often, next to other areas that get skipped. Whereas on a smaller table (with well placed RPM columns and load sites), those areas would be very smooth since it would be interpolated, and VE is *flat* anyway. There's just no point to having a cell for every bin when it's basically flat for 2000rpm, you know?

there areas where it's non linear (mostly where the torque curve increases and decreases), you just need to be mindful of where you are placing your RPM columns.

[Gokart]

I'm gonna give leaving things alone a big thumbs up. If you can't get your car running smoothly on 16x 30 or 30x 30 you've got other issues anyhow. I know I had no probs with just 16x16 fuel and spark when I was running the 8V N/A setup on my car and I'm sure I could do the same thing now that I have added 12 valves and 12psi boost.

Hope you have the opportunity to have your hands on 10 - 12,000 rpm motor with more than 35psi of boost and call it easy with 16x16. Plus you have about 1 - 2 hour of time to wrapped up on the dyno.

there areas where it's non linear (mostly where the torque curve increases and decreases), you just need to be mindful of where you are placing your RPM columns.

That is the time consuming part I was talking about. With big tables these are addressed in advance. During a tuning session what you should do is to tune the motor, not addressing problems. Time constraint contribute to hard thinking.

[muythaibxr]

The "time on the dyno" excuse is a pretty bad one. You can get a good idea of where you need more resolution from a decent tune, and if you don't think you can, use a second, third, or fourth table.

Ken

[ChevytoyR1]

The "time on the dyno" excuse is a pretty bad one. You can get a good idea of where you need more resolution from a decent street tune, and if you don't think you can, use a second, third, or fourth table.

Ken

Lol.... u make it seem like everyone that owns a megasquirter car is actuly a "street car" where u can just drive it on the road with race gas or alcohol, with open headers or open down pipes like if it was nothing....
Ken ive seen ur youtube vids of u driving ur car i see how u can just easily drive ur cars on the high way and do WOT pulls... try doing that in los angeles highways where the speed limit is 65mph but u can only go 15 cuz of traffic.. not to mention law enforcement all over the place... its not as easy as u make it seem to just get a street tune.. a lot of megasquirt cars arent street cars....

[muythaibxr]

Again, I'm repeating myself over and over. My points are:

1) With movable bins, 16x16 is enough. You would have to have several non-linear points in your engine's operation for that to be untrue.
2) Without msq's and datalogs to back the msq's up, I'm not going to make a single table larger than 16x16. IMO that's already larger than it really needs to be.
3) For those who feel convinced that they need more bins, you can get 16x30, 30x16, 30x30 by making use of the multiple tables features that we already support.

I'm not going to waste data-flash space needlessly. So show me a real need with datalogs to back it up. Point #3 should cover every gripe I've heard so far.

Ken

[Keithg]

amen

[gurov]

Again, I'm repeating myself over and over. My points are:

1) With movable bins, 16x16 is enough. You would have to have several non-linear points in your engine's operation for that to be untrue.
2) Without msq's and datalogs to back the msq's up, I'm not going to make a single table larger than 16x16. IMO that's already larger than it really needs to be.
3) For those who feel convinced that they need more bins, you can get 16x30, 30x16, 30x30 by making use of the multiple tables features that we already support.

I'm not going to waste data-flash space needlessly. So show me a real need with datalogs to back it up. Point #3 should cover every gripe I've heard so far.

Ken

Can we get a description of how to do a 30x30 fuel table please with screenshots ? I have a vague idea on how to accomplish this, but last time i tried this, i ended up with pretty odd results. 30x30 would be table switch plus dual fuel with additive method and same load as primary with zeroes on the edges of left/right or top/down tables, yes ? Do the rpm and kpa bins have to match ?

[gurov]

Also, table switch does not operate on percent baro which leves me with a very large hole if main map is based on percent are and table switches based on map and i'm at high altitude.

[kjones6039]

Can we get a description of how to do a 30x30 fuel table please with screenshots ? I have a vague idea on how to accomplish this

I would be glad to see an example of this also. Would like to do some experimenting with a 16X30 on my NA SBC, but not sure where to put the zero's etc.

Ken

[muythaibxr]

You can use the dual load feature with % baro as the y axis for both with multuply or add. Either will work. You can do that with table switch based on rpm I believe.

Ken

[gurov]

You can use the dual load feature with % baro as the y axis for both with multuply or add. Either will work. You can do that with table switch based on rpm I believe.

Ken

Okay, yeah, that table switch doesn't need perent baro option then.

[elturbonitroso]

16*16 its more than enougth i have seen car running 12000rpm and more than 50 psi of boost with out a problem.

[Gokart]

16*16 its more than enougth i have seen car running 12000rpm and more than 50 psi of boost with out a problem.

How many cars does he have? Only that 1 car? or a fleet?
I hope this community will be able to sponsor a world class race car
just like what the other branded ecu does to show it's capability in
top notch.

[elturbonitroso]

16*16 its more than enougth i have seen car running 12000rpm and more than 50 psi of boost with out a problem.

How many cars does he have? Only that 1 car? or a fleet?
I hope this community will be able to sponsor a world class race car
just like what the other branded ecu does to show it's capability in
top notch.

well if i told you that i lost count on how many car i have seen running low 7 and even a couple cars in the 6 sec in the dragstrip with a ecu that its just a 16*16 without movable bin and lees features than the ms they dont complain they really love the ecu so 16*16 its more than enough and if you are not satisfied use 2 tables.

[James]

a drag car is not likely to need high resolution surely?

I can see a road car needing a high resolution but surely race cars and drag cars need less? they're on full power the whole time?

[Gokart]

well if i told you that i lost count on how many car i have seen running low 7 and even a couple cars in the 6 sec in the drag strip with a ecu that its just a 16*16 without movable bin and lees features than the ms they dont complain they really love the ecu so 16*16 its more than enough and if you are not satisfied use 2 tables.

I have several championship too with 16x16. No complain about that but what I meant was a bigger table is easier to cope with.
As I said, long ago while ms3 was still in proposal, I'd like to see a 24x24 or 32x32 table IF possible. However, that request was denied.
To me, having to make correction during tuning is a distraction not saying that it can't be done. Most tuners like to have a bigger table
so that they can concentrate only on tuning the cells. Altering the bin need more than just the numbers in the axis but retuning the whole
table again. With customer staring at you during the runs, it's not that easy to make several changes to have a decent tune. I'm not talking
about my own benefit here but ms itself.

My point about having a world class racing car is actually to proof that ms too can cope just like the branded ones. If that can be achieve,
be it 16x16 or whatever the table size you presented, no one will dare to argue it's not feasible. Just like myself, after having several
championship, road race and drag, only then I'd be able to shut some awful mouth who said that ms can't perform. However, I'm just in a
small community. I'd like to see a world champion using ms. Then ms will be the same level as those big names.

[James]

If its about tuning then a big gain could be had from improving the way the tables are edited?

In fact I can envisage large virtual tables which are then converted intelligently to lower resolution. Making sure those parts of the table that need detail have more axis resolution around them.

Also being able to adjust the axis a lot more easily— being able to freeze the bins then drag the axis around to add more resolution where needed.

IMHO the way we edit tables is really clunky at the moment.

(I am a interface/experience designer)

[jsmcortina]

Also being able to adjust the axis a lot more easily— being able to freeze the bins then drag the axis around to add more resolution where needed

I'd like to see that too. An "Axis tuner" would be helpful.

James

[Gokart]

Agree.
Hope that Phil may be able to have this feature available the soonest possible when he have the time.