VVE Assistant.exe

[Cringer]

Using the VVE Assistant tool, if I have a broad range of rich and lean in the same zone what is the best way to even it all out?

Attachment 130164

Well this is the art of manipulating VVE! I do not claim to be a master, but I think you have two realistic options:
1) Split the difference. In your screenshot it looks like you have done this (-5 to +6).
2) You can re-zone to group/split adjacent zones so that the resultant shape fits the math:

• convex
• concave
• flat

[[email protected]]

From an engine performance perspective +10 / -10 cam degrees is enough for any engine, the OEM maps go beyond this range for emissions reasons, not performance.

[GHuggins]

It's already been changed to go to 64 positions for the 4th gens crank references. In fact A LOT of updates have been made with lots more to come. Latest update from Cringer should have all of this in it

I would say even from a performance standpoint that it needs to cover at the minimum 15 positions as 11 and 12 are seen often enough.

[Cringer]

Ok, we have a complication. Thanks to KillboyPowerhead I had to doublecheck for E39 and then went to E92
E38/E67 uses crank angle in VVE
E39/E92 uses cam angle in VVE
Seems like tool must have a switch to select angle reference.



We can try. I'll be glad to participate.

Verlon, I have finished coding the logic to account for cam vs crank angle...but here is what I am hung up on...

When in my VVE Assistant utility...
When Gen4 is selected, should I multiply the cam angle by 2 (since crank rotates 2? for each degree of cam)?
-OR-
When Gen5 is selected, should I divide the cam angle by 2 (since the cam rotates 1? for each degree of crank)?

[GHuggins]

I would say multiply the cam by 2 for gen 4's and leave them as is for gen 5's... So tool like it is for gen 5 and multiply by 2 for gen 4's... Would wait on Verion to confirm, but pretty sure it would be that simple.

Just to clarify - gen 4's - change cam position to 1 - the resulting positions or changes in the graph should be doubled or equal to cam position 2

[Cringer]

OK the latest version is available and it is pretty sweet.

• https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yw...m&usp=drive_fs

The main highlights are that I have added Exhaust Cam Angles and am accounting for Gen 4:Gen 5 / crank:cam angle differences. When Gen 4 is selected, the current release is multiplying the cam angle by 2 (to convert from cam degrees to crank degrees). This may change once Verlon can weigh in.

Bonus:

• It also has better compatibility for dropping random tables in there for the 2 bar OS guys or Gen 3 VE guys.
• You can now save multiple project cars and open/close them for later (or just for saving different zone configs as an experiment and refer back them)
• The 3D graphs have been integrated into Basic Mode now
• The 3D graphs now have a rotate horizontal/vertical button (that also conveniently hides the pointless graph data)
• There is also a splitter that allows you to size the 2D/3D chart sizes
• This way in Pro mode as you navigate your zones which may be wider, or taller, you can adjust to see the entire 2D histogram without scrolling

I think the biggest two things that need to be added before calling version 1.0 a wrap are:

• ability to edit zones in the tool
• ability to define both DoD and non-DoD zones for Gen 5's

VVE Assistant Release 4-12-2023.jpg

[GHuggins]

Sent you an email for the labeling, but Thank You for adding the random tables back to it It's worth it just having that back!!!

[verlon]

When Gen4 is selected, should I multiply the cam angle by 2 (since crank rotates 2? for each degree of cam)?

This one. As you already have done.

[Nanserbe]

Is there anything new to do in order to use the exhaust cam coefficients?
Or just use them to adjust the same way we do with intake cams and other coefficients?

[Cringer]

Is there anything new to do in order to use the exhaust cam coefficients?
Or just use them to adjust the same way we do with intake cams and other coefficients?

First you have to copy the exhaust coefficients from the HPT Editor to the tool.
Then when you click on Interactive mode you should see them at the bottom.
Then you can select you VE Mode (open/closed, DoD) and if you are using a cam or crank reference angle.
Then starting increasing the exhaust cam angle and you will see the 3D chart change.


Ex Coeff Mapping.pngEx Interative Mode.jpg

[Cringer]

This one. As you already have done.

Thanks for helping out here!

[Nanserbe]

I'd love to see a video showing how you run this with your Tuning MAF and VVE at the same time and incorporating it into the VVE Assistant.

Sort of a start to finish method for VVE/MAF.

[Cringer]

I'd love to see a video showing how you run this with your Tuning MAF and VVE at the same time and incorporating it into the VVE Assistant.

Sort of a start to finish method for VVE/MAF.

I was thinking about doing this...but that would be a long boring video!

[midTnMike41]

I just gave the VVE assistant a try. I am impressed. It worked awesome. I spent about an hour on laptop after a simple 20 minute drive and after coming to a table I was happy with I reflased and logged again. EVERYWHERE was between - 2 and 2 percent off. Closest I have ever gotten it. I hope Cringer gets an award for this creation. Makes vve tuning a lot easier.

As for combines vve and maf, my opinion is just do maf, it's easy and quick. Then do vve with cringers tool. Very efficient! Combining puts to many variables in it for me.

[GHuggins]

I just gave the VVE assistant a try. I am impressed. It worked awesome. I spent about an hour on laptop after a simple 20 minute drive and after coming to a table I was happy with I reflased and logged again. EVERYWHERE was between - 2 and 2 percent off. Closest I have ever gotten it. I hope Cringer gets an award for this creation. Makes vve tuning a lot easier.

As for combines vve and maf, my opinion is just do maf, it's easy and quick. Then do vve with cringers tool. Very efficient! Combining puts to many variables in it for me.

The new version - which you should have if it was downloaded in the last day or two - will work with any table including the MAF if you want to use it for that to see expected trim outcomes

I've been using it for a while now and it's come a long long way. A MUST HAVE tuning tool in my opinion!

That stinking coefficient calculator is what makes it take so long - lots of back and forth with checking and making zones work

[Cringer]

I just gave the VVE assistant a try. I am impressed. It worked awesome. I spent about an hour on laptop after a simple 20 minute drive and after coming to a table I was happy with I reflased and logged again. EVERYWHERE was between - 2 and 2 percent off. Closest I have ever gotten it. I hope Cringer gets an award for this creation. Makes vve tuning a lot easier.

As for combines vve and maf, my opinion is just do maf, it's easy and quick. Then do vve with cringers tool. Very efficient! Combining puts to many variables in it for me.

I appreciate the kind words! It means more than you know!

[liviner]

Got to give another shout out to Cringer on the new tool. Also want to mention his take on using dynamic airflow as the tuning standard and not separate MAF/VVE. My methodology for tuning both was:

1. Disable LTs, DFCO, CFCO (M6).
2. Log MAF (g/s), VE (g/s), dynamic (g/s), STFT.
3. Calculate corrected airflow using dynamic and STFT.
4. Use corrected dynamic to get MAF correction factor/VVE correction factor.
5. Apply MAF corrections, interpolate/smooth.
6. Use Cringer tool to iterate on VVE zones until zone stats show -1 to 0 avg correction factor.
7. Apply VVE changes per zone.
8. Re-enable step 1.

This was the resulting actual histograms for STFT and LTFT after this tuning sequence on approximately a 10 minute drive:

stft_histo.pngltft_histo.png

STFT was almost perfect bell curve around 0%, and majority of LTFT stayed in the -2% - 0% range.

[Cringer]

Got to give another shout out to Cringer on the new tool. Also want to mention his take on using dynamic airflow as the tuning standard and not separate MAF/VVE. My methodology for tuning both was:

1. Disable LTs, DFCO, CFCO (M6).
2. Log MAF (g/s), VE (g/s), dynamic (g/s), STFT.
3. Calculate corrected airflow using dynamic and STFT.
4. Use corrected dynamic to get MAF correction factor/VVE correction factor.
5. Apply MAF corrections, interpolate/smooth.
6. Use Cringer tool to iterate on VVE zones until zone stats show -1 to 0 avg correction factor.
7. Apply VVE changes per zone.
8. Re-enable step 1.

This was the resulting actual histograms for STFT and LTFT after this tuning sequence on approximately a 10 minute drive:

stft_histo.pngltft_histo.png

STFT was almost perfect bell curve around 0%, and majority of LTFT stayed in the -2% - 0% range.

Great to hear and I am glad you got great results! Thanks for sharing!

[smokeshow]

Got to give another shout out to Cringer on the new tool. Also want to mention his take on using dynamic airflow as the tuning standard and not separate MAF/VVE. My methodology for tuning both was:

1. Disable LTs, DFCO, CFCO (M6).
2. Log MAF (g/s), VE (g/s), dynamic (g/s), STFT.
3. Calculate corrected airflow using dynamic and STFT.
4. Use corrected dynamic to get MAF correction factor/VVE correction factor.
5. Apply MAF corrections, interpolate/smooth.
6. Use Cringer tool to iterate on VVE zones until zone stats show -1 to 0 avg correction factor.
7. Apply VVE changes per zone.
8. Re-enable step 1.

This was the resulting actual histograms for STFT and LTFT after this tuning sequence on approximately a 10 minute drive:

stft_histo.pngltft_histo.png

STFT was almost perfect bell curve around 0%, and majority of LTFT stayed in the -2% - 0% range.

Just so we are crystal clear here, dynamic airflow is equal to MAF airflow in 100% of the data that you should be using to perform fueling correction. Anywhere dynamic =/= MAF is when the fueling feedback should be ignored entirely. Ipso facto if you have done your due diligence with data filters and steady state collection, using MAF airflow in place of dynamic airflow will yield the same results.

[mememe123]

I'm having some issues with this method. Mainly my wideband 02 is opposite of what's in the log.
"Traditional" EQ/MAF or VVE method is showing rich (lets say -15), but DyAir is completely flipped and shows +24 on the same log (Had similar issue with GMVE).
I think I'm gonna stop chasing my tail for now, and use the regular method.
VVE and MAF tools are freaking awesome thu !