VVE table after calculating coefficients

[Alvin]

OK thanks. IDK about once in a blue moon though...on my Gen4 I can trigger it at will and it will stumble every few seconds until I shut off the car.

That sounds like more of a boundary issue. The MAP 2 stuff could be weeks between events. Very few will do it in one drive more than once.

[Cringer]

That sounds like more of a boundary issue. The MAP 2 stuff could be weeks between events. Very few will do it in one drive more than once.

I'll side with Verlon on this one. He look at the BIN file and log and it shows the VVE airflow spikes to the max when this happens.
What Boundary issue? EOIT? Zone???

[Alvin]

I'll side with Verlon on this one. He look at the BIN file and log and it shows the VVE airflow spikes to the max when this happens.
What Boundary issue? EOIT? Zone???

Yes that is what happens.. But every one that I've encountered this with and there have been many. Have been once in a blue moon situation. You couldn't get it to repeat.

If you are just hacking away at VVE and not adjusting boundaries maybe you can get it to happen more often than properly adjusting zones..In fact that was my first go to fix before I started doing other things to get around it.

zone boundaries.

[Cringer]

Yes that is what happens.. But every one that I've encountered this with and there have been many. Have been once in a blue moon situation. You couldn't get it to repeat.

If you are just hacking away at VVE and not adjusting boundaries maybe you can get it to happen more often than properly adjusting zones..In fact that was my first go to fix before I started doing other things to get around it.

zone boundaries.

I can see that perhaps the nature of the zones is a work around (or exploit) to the software defect, but that would obviously not be an ideal solution/work around IMHO. Probably beating a dead horse at this point though.

[Alvin]

Either way.. poor zone boundaries are an issue with two people in this thread alone.

[Abilor]

You have begun your quest! Stick with it, you will figure it out. Glad I can help along the way.

MASSIVE SUCCESS

More soon...

[Abilor]

Either way.. poor zone boundaries are an issue with two people in this thread alone.

I resemble that remark!!

[Abilor]

You have begun your quest! Stick with it, you will figure it out. Glad I can help along the way.

That VVE shape still needs a lot of work. It is important to remember that you are not creating a VE shape, you are creating the shape for each zone...or maybe tuning 30 different VE tables and gluing them together to form one larger shape. I made this video that explains how the nuts and bolts of VVE are implemented, it should help you understand the bigger picture (https://youtu.be/pZ7i9c0sCN8) and thus make the concept of VVE and how to work with it much easier.

I do not go into SD (or OL) to tune VVE. I have developed my own method and formulas to tune MAF and VVE at the same time during normal hybrid and closed loop driving. I initially published them here (https://youtu.be/xRZaTblSQ_0) forgive the audio quality as this was one of my earlier videos.

I disable Desoot and COT (for WOT tuning), LTFT, DFCO and CFCO (for CL tuning). And when I drive I use the lightest and steadiest of throttle inputs to as to now invoke transient fuel. Then for everything else I use filters in the scanner to remove all other transients (some of the filters need to be tweaked a little for Gen5 stuff and I think GHuggins uses a tweaked version of the user defined math for Gen5 too). But this will get you going.

Ok, here's where we landed. Can confirm, the 2021 Camaro 2SS does in fact use the "Open Manifold" VVE table - generic advice peppered throughout various forums and YouTube videos mentions just cloning the tables, but never that the OPEN table is the main table - all the logging and VVE editing I was doing was to the Closed table, and I would usually manage to copy this to the Open table after tuning. But, of course, the Open table on a 6-speed Camaro is substantially different from Closed, so I was basically logging noise, editing the wrong table, leaning out the car, logging more noise... No bueno. Was drawing dead every single time, for DAYS.

Once I got the correct VVE table right though, and loaded Cringer's Dynamic Air formulas along with the filters mentioned in his videos, it finally all came together like it should. This thread helped even more by identifying that not only are there fuel trim parameters to deactivate in the tune itself, but VCM Scanner's tools menu lets you force closed loop, and turn off long-term LTFT learning, which made my attempts to edit even better.

This may all seem obvious to you folks hanging around here, but as a tuner coming from different platforms, GM Gen V can be downright cryptic at times; the barrier to entry for new tuners and those new to tuning itself is higher than any other platforms I've come across. Not complaining; the Gen V 6.2L is a joy to work with, and HPTuners is pretty solid along with the GM ECU to set up some guardrails for a playpen. Despite leaning things out pretty bad, I don't think I was ever in any real danger, and goddamn is she humming now.

Here's the VVE log from when I started:

Dynamic_Air_SD_1.png

Here's the VVE log after 4 passes with Dynamic Air calc & filters; I disabled DFCO, CFCO, and COT for all runs, and turned off LTFT Learning after second run:

Dynamic_Air_SD_4.png

Here's the LTFT for same run:

DA_LTFT_4.png

There's more cleanup I'll be doing in coming days, along with a damn good session tuning MAF tomorrow (Still doing them separately if only for cause-and-effect as a deliberate strategy), but the difference is MASSIVE. Most importantly, I feel like my tuning sanity is back, as I now understand the physics and principles, along with the practical skills with the HPTuners software. No longer chasing my own tail, thank god. In the VVE log above, BTW, I've noticed I get a lot of cheese along the 0.300 pressure band, and the 600/800 RPMs. After going crazy and getting lots of VVE spikes that OP was, I double-checked my stock VVE, and found that the values that HPTuner was setting with coefficient calculations were coming in around close to the stock VVE. In these cases, I ignored what Cringer's VVE Assistant was identifying as a massive delta; I am assuming there is a torque gremlin somewhere in the GM tables that is biting me here. I've since noted that those trouble areas are coming in around 10% below stock, and blend well with what the otherwise automated coefficient calculators are spitting out. I'm content to leave it like that; offer this info for other noob's who might be struggling.

All that said, updating on my original monstrosity, the Klingon Ski Slope, this is what my VVE looks like now to get the log above:

AD_SD_VVE_4.png

There's still a few weird shapes I'd love to smooth a bit, but I'm following Cringer's advice to respect that the borders between zones can be abrupt, and that's ok, and to look to the logs themselves as the success criteria. That's probably the most important thing that got me finally getting somewhere: logging LTFT as a parameter against RPM and Pressure Ratio (getting -1/1 across board), and noting VVE CL EQ Error against RPM/Pressure Ratio, and shooting for -5/+5 across board as a modest and attainable goal.

Cringer, thanks a ton, along with everyone else who chimed in on this thread and others. Thanks to y'all, I now consider myself a GM Gen V Tuner, with more to learn, but I can finally tune my car.

Now, where are the Power Enrichment tables...

[Cringer]

Ok, here's where we landed. Can confirm, the 2021 Camaro 2SS does in fact use the "Open Manifold" VVE table - generic advice peppered throughout various forums and YouTube videos mentions just cloning the tables, but never that the OPEN table is the main table - all the logging and VVE editing I was doing was to the Closed table, and I would usually manage to copy this to the Open table after tuning. But, of course, the Open table on a 6-speed Camaro is substantially different from Closed, so I was basically logging noise, editing the wrong table, leaning out the car, logging more noise... No bueno. Was drawing dead every single time, for DAYS.

Once I got the correct VVE table right though, and loaded Cringer's Dynamic Air formulas along with the filters mentioned in his videos, it finally all came together like it should. This thread helped even more by identifying that not only are there fuel trim parameters to deactivate in the tune itself, but VCM Scanner's tools menu lets you force closed loop, and turn off long-term LTFT learning, which made my attempts to edit even better.

This may all seem obvious to you folks hanging around here, but as a tuner coming from different platforms, GM Gen V can be downright cryptic at times; the barrier to entry for new tuners and those new to tuning itself is higher than any other platforms I've come across. Not complaining; the Gen V 6.2L is a joy to work with, and HPTuners is pretty solid along with the GM ECU to set up some guardrails for a playpen. Despite leaning things out pretty bad, I don't think I was ever in any real danger, and goddamn is she humming now.

Here's the VVE log from when I started:

Dynamic_Air_SD_1.png

Here's the VVE log after 4 passes with Dynamic Air calc & filters; I disabled DFCO, CFCO, and COT for all runs, and turned off LTFT Learning after second run:

Dynamic_Air_SD_4.png

Here's the LTFT for same run:

DA_LTFT_4.png

There's more cleanup I'll be doing in coming days, along with a damn good session tuning MAF tomorrow (Still doing them separately if only for cause-and-effect as a deliberate strategy), but the difference is MASSIVE. Most importantly, I feel like my tuning sanity is back, as I now understand the physics and principles, along with the practical skills with the HPTuners software. No longer chasing my own tail, thank god. In the VVE log above, BTW, I've noticed I get a lot of cheese along the 0.300 pressure band, and the 600/800 RPMs. After going crazy and getting lots of VVE spikes that OP was, I double-checked my stock VVE, and found that the values that HPTuner was setting with coefficient calculations were coming in around close to the stock VVE. In these cases, I ignored what Cringer's VVE Assistant was identifying as a massive delta; I am assuming there is a torque gremlin somewhere in the GM tables that is biting me here. I've since noted that those trouble areas are coming in around 10% below stock, and blend well with what the otherwise automated coefficient calculators are spitting out. I'm content to leave it like that; offer this info for other noob's who might be struggling.

All that said, updating on my original monstrosity, the Klingon Ski Slope, this is what my VVE looks like now to get the log above:

AD_SD_VVE_4.png

There's still a few weird shapes I'd love to smooth a bit, but I'm following Cringer's advice to respect that the borders between zones can be abrupt, and that's ok, and to look to the logs themselves as the success criteria. That's probably the most important thing that got me finally getting somewhere: logging LTFT as a parameter against RPM and Pressure Ratio (getting -1/1 across board), and noting VVE CL EQ Error against RPM/Pressure Ratio, and shooting for -5/+5 across board as a modest and attainable goal.

Cringer, thanks a ton, along with everyone else who chimed in on this thread and others. Thanks to y'all, I now consider myself a GM Gen V Tuner, with more to learn, but I can finally tune my car.

Now, where are the Power Enrichment tables...

Your fuel trims do look amazing! However, that VVE beast still needs to be tamed. Not only do you need to control the individual zones, you also need to ensure their boundaries have a nice transition. No engine is going to have a VVE shape that looks like the one you posted. It it s OK to have some minor anomalies in the overall shape, but you do need to look for consistency as well. Understand that your driving habits and the formulas and filters are going to add some noise to the data (and even fuel system pressure resonance), so you have to do a little interpretation to understand what the data is telling you the shape should be (this is harder on the Gen5 stuff vs Gen4 in my experience).