This is a great thread. It's fun working together on all this stuff.
Printable View
You know what. 4th gen and using sae. Going to need to change that to 78ish I would think?
You guys are really switched on! I just wanted to say that I appreciate all of you working together on this to improve the community! From the agreements to the disagreements, explanations, tweaks here and there, "dumbing it down" etc. etc. I feel that there is so much knowledge, information and experience in this thread, that it will be a "go to" for years to come! Thanks to all who are involved! This is awesome info and great work!
It was my fault. After inputting the new filter into the scanner I guess I didn't save the new layout and then when I copied the filter and put it into the 4th gen layout this morning the new throttle settings weren't there and I didn't notice, so you can guess it from there. It is good to know though when SAE pids are used to change the settings for the lower readings on the 4th gens...
Just want to remind you guys, there are three different TPS PID types - area, position and opening. Keep in mind that you can log TPS PID different from others. This can lead to filter working fine for one is not working for other.
You have to synchronize somehow what PIDs are you logging.
^^^^ Yes, thank you for putting more clarity into what I was hinting at, but obviously not correctly or in full clarity :)
I may be completely off, but if I'm understanding this correctly(likely not), the modified filter(great work Sirius) 'should' be the only one necessary when applied to the simultaneous method in Cringers post for :
https://forum.hptuners.com/showthrea...t=simultaneous
The modified filter leaves us with presumably good steady state data (for CL MAF/VVE and PE) all the way into PE?
Cringer's formulas have been reworked and cleaned up - the corrected ones are in the last couple of pages, but I can confirm the filters are working great. However the math equation for OL has something up with it - I haven't gone through it yet - most likely something that changed from me swapping from layout to layout cause it was working just fine. I've been having problems with the layouts just changing for some unknown reason on their own.
If you are using the filter on really big hp builds it struggles and requires multiple passes to show numbers for some reason even though I don't have an average function turned on. Other than that no problems.
I will say using the dynamic will very quickly show how much the airmass calcs were off. I've seen 30% lean on some fifth gen ZL's that should be making in the 900+ hp range.
The modified filter filters out transients during steady state except for when <95? So it would effectively replace the filters in the original thread including CL/PE, correct?
Yes.
I also confirmed my layout had gotten changed causing my ol one to not read. Now I need to figure out what changed on my 4th gen layout - it's taking about 4 minutes to open logs now - guess I'll just delete out the tables I don't use that much. All this started happening after adding in some new tables for torque modeling. Guess I may be bogging the computer too much and it's loosing some of it's save profiles - only thing I can think of.
Thank you Greg, Sirius and Cringer. Hoping this thread continues.
Good luck on getting scanner working correctly.
All credit to Sirius and Cringer on this plus all of the patents and explanations on how it works. I only did some of the big build test for Sirius to do some filter reworking.
If someone like you finds use with all this then that's credit enough :)
Log all TPS PIDs and try to group them. You will get 2 or 3 groups with almost equal values. 3rd group (actually single PID) will be opening, but it can be absent.
With a slightly pressed pedal the lowest value will be area, next will be position and the highest will be opening.
Gen4 and Gen5 Dynamic Airflow uses Area as TPS in the patent
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050060084A1/en
Kind of a basis of understanding question. I have gen 3 with a blower added so wrong forum but seems applicable. Sirius mentioned a formula he was going to apply to his gen 3 SD so thought I’d look at this. If I am reading this correctly, that filter can be used to filter transients on say an afr error table correct? My plans shift from trying to tune the entire truck open loop, before tuning fuel trims back on, to trying to tune non boost situations with fuel trims and just boost with the wideband. If using the fuel trims, can this be effectively applied even to a stft+ltft graph to the same effect? Or is it even necessary? Given PE is also entered earlier due to boost I was going to try modifying the TPS portion to use the fuel trim codes as well.
I've know that on at least one Gen 3 I've tried there is no Volumetric Efficiency Airflow channel. If you can't use that then the MAP sensor alone will be a reasonable approximation. TPS filter not needed.
Attachment 137170Code:ABS([50030.91]-[50030.91.shift(-10)]) < ([50030.91]/[50030.91.shift(-10)])*0.1
It will if you can log Volumetric Efficiency Airflow. If not then substitute the 50030.91 MAP sensor formula above for the 2311.71 terms and the 50091.156 TPS term.
Code:ABS([50040.71]-[50040.71.shift(-10)]) < ([50040.71]/[50040.71.shift(-10)])*0.1 & ABS([50030.91]-[50030.91.shift(-10)]) < ([50030.91]/[50030.91.shift(-10)])*0.1
What did the filters wind up being with the fuel modes added to them? Forgot what thread that was in to go back and get them.
Just saw these. Thank You Sirius. Oh and change the wot pedal setting to 75 - should cover everything and works pretty good.
Also for anyone out there. If you haven't seen it yet or maybe it's not public yet - don't know for sure - BUT if it is - you need to try out Cringer's new VVE tool. That thing is FANTASTIC....
Right on. That would basically mean WOT for any of the TPS's. Thing is you'd still have to assign the correct PID wouldn't you? Or will logging the general parameter work for all cases?
And yeah Cringer does some impressive work. I like his intentions, too.
I'm going to have a go at that whenever i get some free time. Bout to finish up this accelerated class in a couple of weeks and should be able to get back into it. I rotated the MAF tube to try and not have the MAF directly impacted by the radiator heat and boy did it make a big difference lol Everything went lean so this will give me the opportunity to play with it.
Well, I use a particular set of channels so can't comment on that part - I'll attach to make things easy for everyone. Should work on most nearly all gen 4's then they can be customized for additional pids for each person.
To use - download - right click - show in folder - right click - copy - open scanner - go to open recent channel configs - open recent config - paste here and then click on.
I should have probably clarified that more - Cringer has a NEW VVE tool. It auto applies corrections and allows you to interpolate or average the histo data for the given zones. Really looking forward to version 2.0's future release now that I've used 1.5 ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnA1rA5QQ7A&t=2s
Thanks for the channels. There have been a few questions on how to use this filter, so that helps a lot. Here's some clarification on filter usage:
MAF and MAP simultaneous stability:
CL:
OL:Code:UMAF & UMAP
ABS([50040.71]-[50040.71.shift(-10)]) < ([50040.71]/[50040.71.shift(-10)])*0.1 & ABS([2311.71]-[2311.71.shift(-10)]) < ([2311.71]/[2311.71.shift(-10)])*0.1
CL if Volumetric Efficiency Airflow can't be logged:Code:(UMAF & UMAP) OR (TPS>75% & MAP>80kPa & MAP_SS)
(ABS([50040.71]-[50040.71.shift(-10)]) < ([50040.71]/[50040.71.shift(-10)])*0.1 & ABS([2311.71]-[2311.71.shift(-10)]) < ([2311.71]/[2311.71.shift(-10)])*0.1) OR ([50090.156] > 75 & [50030.91] > 80 & ABS([50030.91]-[50030.91.shift(-10)]) < ([50030.91]/[50030.91.shift(-10)])*0.1)
OL if Volumetric Efficiency Airflow can't be logged:Code:UMAF & MAP_SS
ABS([50040.71]-[50040.71.shift(-10)]) < ([50040.71]/[50040.71.shift(-10)])*0.1 & ABS([50030.91]-[50030.91.shift(-10)]) < ([50030.91]/[50030.91.shift(-10)])*0.1
Code:(UMAF & MAP_SS) OR (TPS>75% & MAP>80kPa & MAP_SS)
(ABS([50040.71]-[50040.71.shift(-10)]) < ([50040.71]/[50040.71.shift(-10)])*0.1 & ABS([50030.91]-[50030.91.shift(-10)]) < ([50030.91]/[50030.91.shift(-10)])*0.1) OR ([50090.156] > 75 & [50030.91] > 80 & ABS([50030.91]-[50030.91.shift(-10)]) < ([50030.91]/[50030.91.shift(-10)])*0.1)
For SD remove the UMAF component:
CL SD:
OL SD:Code:UMAP
ABS([2311.71]-[2311.71.shift(-10)]) < ([2311.71]/[2311.71.shift(-10)])*0.1
CL SD and OL SD if Volumetric Efficiency Airflow can't be logged:Code:UMAP OR (TPS>75% & MAP>80kPa & MAP_SS)
ABS([2311.71]-[2311.71.shift(-10)]) < ([2311.71]/[2311.71.shift(-10)])*0.1 OR ([50090.156] > 75 & [50030.91] > 80 & ABS([50030.91]-[50030.91.shift(-10)]) < ([50030.91]/[50030.91.shift(-10)])*0.1)
UMAF and UMAP are the stability terms per the patent.Code:MAP_SS
ABS([50030.91]-[50030.91.shift(-10)]) < ([50030.91]/[50030.91.shift(-10)])*0.1
MAP_SS is the same steady state formula but applied to the MAP sensor itself. Filtering only MAP_SS is applicable to all airflow tuning schemes and works for every case; however, it's also not quite as accurate. Still, it's more accurate than filtering for TPS stability.
It's on the user to make sure PE/Boost Enrichment enables and filter conditions match. Generic TPS PID [50090.156] is used and set to 75% to enable WOT capture for all types of TPS. For more precision substitute the exact TPS PID that scales 0-100% then set accordingly.
Feel free to add to the filter as needed, such as substituting a fuel trim cell for WOT TPS and MAP enables. Boolean logic can be blocked out with parenthesis.
This airflow filtering method applies to any form of airflow tuning Gen 3 - Gen 5. In fact, it can even be reconfigured for the traditional method of tuning MAF and VE/VVE individually by selecting the applicable terms.
this thread starting to come together thanks for sharing
I changed stuff up a bit on that post.
I tried the fuel trims but got odd results. You probably have a better grasp on how to use them. They're intended to substitute the TPS PE term right? Using the fuel trim flags I wasn't getting all the data during WOT like I should have.
What'd you end up with?
I changed the tps setting to 75 and then just added the fuel modes to the end of the filter. Seemed to work good, but I only had to do one tonight and it was two very well logged runs using good pedal control that I averaged together, so it didn't have any wot stomps in them. I'll see how the wot stomps goes on the next one with the formulas.