Baseline Automated Tuning Beta Now Available for Download
06-17-2009, 08:32 PM
#253
I divide by zero
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Kane, is there any reason this wouldnt work with access 2000? Newest version of Office I have is Office 2000. If you think it will work I'll give it a go 
:
:
06-18-2009, 09:15 AM
#258
I divide by zero
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work alot the next couple days, but I'll at least try to get it setup and start taking logs one of the evenings.
I need to start playing with my cobb and getting familiar with the software anyway. Probably a good idea to do it before I put my turbo on
I need to start playing with my cobb and getting familiar with the software anyway. Probably a good idea to do it before I put my turbo on
06-19-2009, 06:18 PM
#260
so kane, you said that's NOT BAD, right? That's the one running the maf scale i did in sarasota. i didn't have much log data either. however ...
i still don't have logs for runs on my latest maf calibration using 1.5.
and i'm worried now that my estimations are off when trying to fill in the M value gaps. it would be better if baseline could match the intervals used in the map. I know you mentioned something about that, but i"m just reminding you, and letting others know where they have to be careful.
this is what happens when someone who has no idea what he's doing makes guesses.
i need to just draw a smoother curve through there and use those numbers, i would think, right?.
i still don't have logs for runs on my latest maf calibration using 1.5.
and i'm worried now that my estimations are off when trying to fill in the M value gaps. it would be better if baseline could match the intervals used in the map. I know you mentioned something about that, but i"m just reminding you, and letting others know where they have to be careful.
this is what happens when someone who has no idea what he's doing makes guesses.
i need to just draw a smoother curve through there and use those numbers, i would think, right?.
Last edited by myriadshalaks; 06-19-2009 at 08:33 PM.
06-19-2009, 06:26 PM
#261
Yeah - I want to see the logs of your latest MAF calibration... I agree that the curve looks funky... and I do need to add the MAF table as soon as I can.
However, you need to realize the software needs a lot of data - so the best bet is to log like a bastid and then run it through the MAF scaler to see your changes.
As for the Baseline maf you sent me that I made that graph off - it is pretty close; a few lean spots - but overall your in the 13.5-12.5 sweet spot.
Also remember that the fuel map in Baseline needs to match the fuel map in your AP...... or the measurements will be off.
However, you need to realize the software needs a lot of data - so the best bet is to log like a bastid and then run it through the MAF scaler to see your changes.
As for the Baseline maf you sent me that I made that graph off - it is pretty close; a few lean spots - but overall your in the 13.5-12.5 sweet spot.
Also remember that the fuel map in Baseline needs to match the fuel map in your AP...... or the measurements will be off.
06-19-2009, 07:59 PM
#264
i know i'm where i want to be with the afrs. but i thought the goal was to get to where you're getting exactly what you enter in the fuel map. there are still some spots where i'm having to pull down the afrs, so to speak, to get want i want.
i logged the **** out of that map. i fed baseline an assload of logs; i gave it 20 good 30 sec or longer logs.
i posted my m'values from that. then when i scale the maf off that, and make my guesses, i get the funky green line.
i'm sure i'm doing something wrong, as usual.
and i'm asking what you think i should do as far making better guesses for the gaps. do you think i should scale the whole thing up higher by the same factor?
i figured folks including me would benefit from what you say, homie. not complaining at all.
i logged the **** out of that map. i fed baseline an assload of logs; i gave it 20 good 30 sec or longer logs.
i posted my m'values from that. then when i scale the maf off that, and make my guesses, i get the funky green line.
i'm sure i'm doing something wrong, as usual.
and i'm asking what you think i should do as far making better guesses for the gaps. do you think i should scale the whole thing up higher by the same factor?
i figured folks including me would benefit from what you say, homie. not complaining at all.
Last edited by myriadshalaks; 06-19-2009 at 08:39 PM.
06-19-2009, 08:34 PM
#266
Ok - talked to Chase.... seems like we have two possible issues - AFR latency and the fact that the M Value Scale does not directly tie into the MAF volt scale in the AP - so we are gonna split the difference.
Chase is gonna test his latency and I'm gonna add a "smarter" MAF scaler to the software.... then we will see what happens.
Chase is gonna test his latency and I'm gonna add a "smarter" MAF scaler to the software.... then we will see what happens.
06-19-2009, 09:22 PM
#269
That coincides with my experiences so far as well . It seems you can have your maf scaling give you a perfect result for WOT but then be up to 10% off at part throttle . That is what i've found anyway . So ATM i've split the diff - seems to work pretty well ......
06-20-2009, 04:41 PM
#271
i should have thought of this before.
a set up stock NA engine baseline setup is here.
just import logs and go.
edit: change af latency to 500 ms for accessport and change your fuel map in baseline to match the one you ran when you logged.
a set up stock NA engine baseline setup is here.
just import logs and go.
edit: change af latency to 500 ms for accessport and change your fuel map in baseline to match the one you ran when you logged.
Last edited by myriadshalaks; 06-23-2009 at 01:10 PM.
06-21-2009, 08:30 AM
#272
Bretus (Control C to copy and Control V to paste) try that.
Chase etc... I'll be setting up the new MAF tool this morning I was sick yesterday.
So chase - the latency is 500 ms? One row of your log.... interesting; I think we should set that up - especially when I went to 590 ms for my AFR and saw a much smoother tune.
Chase etc... I'll be setting up the new MAF tool this morning I was sick yesterday.
So chase - the latency is 500 ms? One row of your log.... interesting; I think we should set that up - especially when I went to 590 ms for my AFR and saw a much smoother tune.