Power FC FC Tune preview
#452
FastHatch,
Firstly, great work, its coming along very well!
I've been watching this thread for the last 4month, and have now finally bought, installed and tuned my PowerFC.
So, now that I actually have one, if you need any information regarding the PowerFc for the Nissan SR20DET engine to enable you to create a version of your software for it, I would be more than happy to help out.
Thanks and keep up the great work.
Firstly, great work, its coming along very well!
I've been watching this thread for the last 4month, and have now finally bought, installed and tuned my PowerFC.
So, now that I actually have one, if you need any information regarding the PowerFc for the Nissan SR20DET engine to enable you to create a version of your software for it, I would be more than happy to help out.
Thanks and keep up the great work.
#454
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MichaelB145
Do we have a date on release yet?
Tuesday: Load/Save channel selection, finishing monitoring
Wednesday: Export log files (import already done)
Thursday: Finishing user interface
Friday: Fixing known bugs (only a few and nothing bad)
Sunday: Testing, testing, testing...
Unfortunately the graph/chart won't make it into that release, I need a few more days for that.
Other chart types are already supported, but I haven't made the dialogs yet to create them. They are the same as in DataLogLab / AEM Log.
#457
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FastHatch
http://www.fctune.com/video/monitoring.avi
#459
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (61)
Originally Posted by FastHatch
is there a newer beta than 0_53 that we can test. I tired to use 53 with a dat file from my AP Engr PFC and it say "model or version not supported"
Last edited by 87GTR; 05-10-06 at 01:53 AM.
#460
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 87GTR
is there a newer beta than 0_53 that we can test. I tired to use 53 with a dat file from my AP Engr PFC and it say "model or version not supported"
#461
it makes me really glad when people with this much knowledge, also have the compassion to share it with the masses. i cant wait for this to be released. do you have schematics i could use to make a box myself? i wouldnt mind tapping in to the huge feeling of accomplishment swimming around in this thread!
by the way have you made support for an sr20det engine yet?
by the way have you made support for an sr20det engine yet?
#464
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Progress looks great. I drop in on this thread from time to time to see the progress. Since there's no version of this for the MRS/Celica, I'm forced to make do with FC Edit. Not a major issue for me, but there are always a few things I'm trying to clear up and this thread seems like the prime place on the net to do it.
Just wanted to clarify something and see if anyone knows the answer to something else. It was mentioned that Advanced and Basic features are redundant, and differences in logged values are due to the timing of packets. This is a from a log on a Celica, and shown are Advanced and Basic knock:
Now obviously these are two different curves. I want to clarify that they are indeed the same information, but the timing causes them to appear different? It also sounds as if the reduncancy causes less actual information to be logged, and by eliminating the reduncancy, FC Tune's version of knock would be like a hybrid of the two curves?
The other question I've never seen answered in this thread. In FC Edit, from the Map Watch window, there is an option called Map Source. You can select either Advanced or MapRef from here. Selecting one or the other causes the log to appear slightly difference. Any idea what the difference is?
Just wanted to clarify something and see if anyone knows the answer to something else. It was mentioned that Advanced and Basic features are redundant, and differences in logged values are due to the timing of packets. This is a from a log on a Celica, and shown are Advanced and Basic knock:
Now obviously these are two different curves. I want to clarify that they are indeed the same information, but the timing causes them to appear different? It also sounds as if the reduncancy causes less actual information to be logged, and by eliminating the reduncancy, FC Tune's version of knock would be like a hybrid of the two curves?
The other question I've never seen answered in this thread. In FC Edit, from the Map Watch window, there is an option called Map Source. You can select either Advanced or MapRef from here. Selecting one or the other causes the log to appear slightly difference. Any idea what the difference is?
#465
There are technically not the "same" information. Data packets are requested and received asynchronously over the serial connection.
If you are logging Basic and Advanced with FC-Edit (probably same with FCEdit), you will get Timestamp, then Basic packet, then Advanced packet... There is an inherent time delay and FC-Edit creates the timestamp for the first packet read/write request. You can observe this delay by differences between common values for Basic and Advanced (like RPM) appearing on the same line in your logs..
Basically, the only difference is time. I would suggest you trust both / all values.
If you are logging Basic and Advanced with FC-Edit (probably same with FCEdit), you will get Timestamp, then Basic packet, then Advanced packet... There is an inherent time delay and FC-Edit creates the timestamp for the first packet read/write request. You can observe this delay by differences between common values for Basic and Advanced (like RPM) appearing on the same line in your logs..
Basically, the only difference is time. I would suggest you trust both / all values.
#466
DGRR 2017 4/26-4/30, 2017
iTrader: (13)
wow! i JUST finished reading 460+ posts..
Great work FastHatch!!
Can't wait to see the new version of this..
Like Rotorbrain and Howard Coleman, I'm interested in somehow managing the Auxiliary Injection system (H20 injection, Methanol, or Ethanol injection)
Also, Ky7, how is your gauge thing going??
Great work FastHatch!!
Can't wait to see the new version of this..
Like Rotorbrain and Howard Coleman, I'm interested in somehow managing the Auxiliary Injection system (H20 injection, Methanol, or Ethanol injection)
Also, Ky7, how is your gauge thing going??
#467
It's pretty much ready to go.. just need to distribute to a few people for testing. Was testing and using it with another guys FD over the weekend tuning, all good. I've started putting together something for the website for people to get more info.. Just really busy with the day job at the moment..
Will post with updates on the FCWatch thread soon.
https://www.rx7club.com/power-fc-forum-47/new-software-power-fc-users-fcwatch-preview-533202/
Will post with updates on the FCWatch thread soon.
https://www.rx7club.com/power-fc-forum-47/new-software-power-fc-users-fcwatch-preview-533202/
Last edited by ky7; 05-16-06 at 04:53 AM.
#468
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ky7
There are technically not the "same" information. Data packets are requested and received asynchronously over the serial connection.
If you are logging Basic and Advanced with FC-Edit (probably same with FCEdit), you will get Timestamp, then Basic packet, then Advanced packet... There is an inherent time delay and FC-Edit creates the timestamp for the first packet read/write request. You can observe this delay by differences between common values for Basic and Advanced (like RPM) appearing on the same line in your logs..
Basically, the only difference is time. I would suggest you trust both / all values.
If you are logging Basic and Advanced with FC-Edit (probably same with FCEdit), you will get Timestamp, then Basic packet, then Advanced packet... There is an inherent time delay and FC-Edit creates the timestamp for the first packet read/write request. You can observe this delay by differences between common values for Basic and Advanced (like RPM) appearing on the same line in your logs..
Basically, the only difference is time. I would suggest you trust both / all values.
#469
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jesse IL
In FC Edit, from the Map Watch window, there is an option called Map Source. You can select either Advanced or MapRef from here. Selecting one or the other causes the log to appear slightly difference. Any idea what the difference is?
#470
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jesse IL
In FC Edit, from the Map Watch window, there is an option called Map Source. You can select either Advanced or MapRef from here. Selecting one or the other causes the log to appear slightly difference. Any idea what the difference is?
Also what do you mean by "slightly difference"?
#471
I was also trying to think if it would make any difference that the MapRef just logs the exact cell, but the Advanced uses PIM and RPM to interpolate between cells, as shown by watching the Mapwatch box. Maybe Edit doesn't implement the breakpoints for which cell shows the data exactly the same, or something else along those lines?
#473
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here you go, log showing Advanced IGN.
This is with Map Source set as Advanced and MapRef, respectively, Avg log:
This is with Map Source set as Advanced and MapRef, respectively, Num log:
This is with Map Source set as Advanced and MapRef, respectively, Avg log:
This is with Map Source set as Advanced and MapRef, respectively, Num log:
Last edited by Jesse IL; 05-16-06 at 11:00 PM.
#474
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dude, if you managed to get launch control and antilag working correctly through a datalogit box, you would have a lot of these people worshipping you.
I will be more than happy to donate too.
This software looks very, very good.
I will be more than happy to donate too.
This software looks very, very good.
#475
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Jesse: Could you please email me the dat and log file to andre at fctune dot com
Some performance tests have been made yesterday, with FC Tune and the Datalogit box logging Advanced we've got 42 samples ("lines") per second.
Some performance tests have been made yesterday, with FC Tune and the Datalogit box logging Advanced we've got 42 samples ("lines") per second.