Good reason to keep adding tables for us 3800 guys....

[johnh]

http://www.clubgp.com/newforum/tm.as...key=&language=

[Bill@HPTuners]

Ouch, bound to happen though I suppose.

[johnh]

Yep, and I think demand for VCM Suite on V6s might just pick up....

And we would all love more tables....

[Keith@HPTuners]

There's always the features request section of this forum.

[JerryH]

The main issue was that what tables are available was hidden from us in the past. There are many very important tables that could immensly improve a tune over and above what is possible at the current time.

If it would be possible to look at the tables available (not all of them, of course, thats a big thing to ask and something "C" would *never* permit... but the ones associated with timing, A/F, TM, etc...), you could ask a few of your more experienced tuners to add a few tables at a time, and see how it would add to the tuning experience.

[Foghorn]

Ouch, bound to happen though I suppose.

Charles is a bit of an odd fellow as you may know. Anyway, onwards and upwards

Cheers,

[Bill@HPTuners]

The main issue was that what tables are available was hidden from us in the past. There are many very important tables that could immensly improve a tune over and above what is possible at the current time.

If it would be possible to look at the tables available (not all of them, of course, thats a big thing to ask and something "C" would *never* permit... but the ones associated with timing, A/F, TM, etc...), you could ask a few of your more experienced tuners to add a few tables at a time, and see how it would add to the tuning experience.

Thats one thing we won't be doing simply because of very sensitive proprietary info that would need to be shared to even consider it not to mention theres already a good amount of hands in the pot as it is...too many would lead to errors, bugs & the like which are the last thing we want for any of you. We are however always willing to add necessary parameters where need be its usually as simply as posting in the feature request section. The major problem that is faced with the v6's is GM created hundreds of different calibrations for each year and what that means is when we add one or 2 or 5 parameters we need to go through each of those 500+ calibrations or whatever it might be and add those parameters and while for example v8's that may take a day or two of strait work might take a month or two for v6's because of the amount of calibrations there are(and they keep growing it seems as we still get in new definition files for them every day), thankfully though we are hiring 2 new software engineers which should help in that area as well as totally new development

Charles is a bit of an odd fellow as you may know. Anyway, onwards and upwards

Never met the guy so I couldn't say.

[Chris@HPTuners]

The main issue was that what tables are available was hidden from us in the past. There are many very important tables that could immensly improve a tune over and above what is possible at the current time.

If it would be possible to look at the tables available (not all of them, of course, thats a big thing to ask and something "C" would *never* permit... but the ones associated with timing, A/F, TM, etc...), you could ask a few of your more experienced tuners to add a few tables at a time, and see how it would add to the tuning experience.

We have all the info in house already, there are a few tables i have on my list to add such as openloop fuel etc. There aren't any major parameters missing that I know of in any of the main tuning areas (apart from a few on my list).

[JerryH]

Thank-you Chris... this is the kind of info that we never heard on the other side, and always appreciated.

[bilemke]

Evening Jerry, busy already I see..

So then, I come from a crowd familiar with what Jerry described.

I thank both Bill and Chris for their comments. It is encouraging. I hope I am not being to direct in what I am about to say..

If I may state something that came up elsewhere (outside of this forum) when asked "what tables do you want to see?" (or something to that sort)...

? * ? / ? + ? - ? * ? * "known table" * "known table" = tune

How can we possibly suggest tables, short of looking at other bins you have already mapped out further (such as some v8 bins), that we want to see?

Those countless tables that we cant see are there for a reason. While I have seen some of these tables that neither tuner currently offers (and know some of them do not change from calibration to calibration, others are full of generic numbers), that doesnt mean gm didnt have them there with no reason/purpose.

Having copied some of the unknown tables from even a newer calibration for a Grand Prix to my own 97, I can assure you they make a difference in some cases. However, even with what I know, I could only guess as to what purpose (or name) I should describe them as if I were asked to for the sake of requesting their addition to a program.

Not to thread jack, but a current thread (I think in requests) brought up a PE related table that was referenced as an "Enable".. The poster was corrected and the table was noted as being more of a "disable". I did not comment, but I was aware of such a table in other vehicle calibrations and would have called it a disable or filter, but that is why asking for table requests with no knowledge of what is there to be requested is not an easy offer to take up.

[Chris@HPTuners]

This is how i generally measure the usefulness of parameters against what is already there:

1. is there any reason you are not getting the commanded fuel, air or spark you desire in your tune under normal modes of operation + racing. These types of params are the #1 priority. At this time there are no params i know of that are not shown in our editor that are preventing people from tuning for maximum performance.

2. are their any other parameters that are useful for tuning for other reasons. This is where the debate begins. There are 1000's of parameters in the PCM and not all of them are useful. At present i have a list of maybe 20 params that fall into this category that i am trying to prioritize to get into a future release. Things like, additional idle params, openloop fuel tables and few others.

I can't stress enough how long it takes to add just one parameter to all the V6 calibrations we support. To add these additional parmeters is around 2-3 weeks of work which makes it very difficult to proritize. So i have been adding a few each release. Like the AFR spark table and other stuff in the previous release etc.

Also, i'm working on support for the new 06/07 3800's which rates a higher priority than adding params to existing cals.

In the world of unlimited resource the answer would always be yes, but at present we cannot hire people fast enough to service our development projects. The best thing I can suggest you can do to speed things up is take a class in IDA, and embedded systems development and apply for a job, LOL

[bilemke]

This is how i generally measure the usefulness of parameters against what is already there:

1. is there any reason you are not getting the commanded fuel, air or spark you desire in your tune under normal modes of operation + racing. These types of params are the #1 priority. At this time there are no params i know of that are not shown in our editor that are preventing people from tuning for maximum performance.

Fair enough, and understandable. This is important, but I can probably speak for a few that one more then just peak performance in terms of power output. We would like to have the cake and eat it too.

2. are their any other parameters that are useful for tuning for other reasons. This is where the debate begins. There are 1000's of parameters in the PCM and not all of them are useful. At present i have a list of maybe 20 params that fall into this category that i am trying to prioritize to get into a future release. Things like, additional idle params, openloop fuel tables and few others.

I can't stress enough how long it takes to add just one parameter to all the V6 calibrations we support. To add these additional parmeters is around 2-3 weeks of work which makes it very difficult to proritize. So i have been adding a few each release. Like the AFR spark table and other stuff in the previous release etc.

Also, i'm working on support for the new 06/07 3800's which rates a higher priority than adding params to existing cals.

In the world of unlimited resource the answer would always be yes, but at present we cannot hire people fast enough to service our development projects. The best thing I can suggest you can do to speed things up is take a class in IDA, and embedded systems development and apply for a job, LOL

Understandable as well. All to well, as far as mapping tables. Not sure if I am used to doing it quite the same way as you guys, but I can cross reference a single table from one v6 3800 to another pretty quickly.. Not to mention the 3400s. No IDA in use here (I am not really a "programmer" per say). Multiple tables are not too bad either, I guess it just depends on how many cal ids you guys are currently supporting. If IDA wasn't a requirement, I would gladly apply for said job to help just cross referencing tables..

Regarding tables, I know I could list a couple off of memory, and there is probably one or two others uses that could help me add to the list.

[streetcar]

Not to thread jack, but a current thread (I think in requests) brought up a PE related table that was referenced as an "Enable".. The poster was corrected and the table was noted as being more of a "disable". I did not comment, but I was aware of such a table in other vehicle calibrations and would have called it a disable or filter, but that is why asking for table requests with no knowledge of what is there to be requested is not an easy offer to take up.

Not to step on Chris's Toes here...

If I set my TPS trigger to the minimum average I see any boost, we'll say, 20%, take the PE MAP Enable - the name given to the table - to 85-90KpA, you'll have a system that provides additional fueling when it's needed. On something with 11.5:1 compression,6psi by small turbos/pd blower, and a T56 with a .50 overdrive...I'd find that handy.

While it doesnt provide fueling directly proportional to MAP like boost enrich, it still provides a satey zone for high load, low TPS FI setups.

[Chris@HPTuners]

Multiple tables are not too bad either, I guess it just depends on how many cal ids you guys are currently supporting.

my current spreadsheet shows 549 calibrations for the V6's 97-05...

As an example, the LS1 has around 30 for the same period.

There is a reduction of course as some V6 cals are the same layout as others, but it's not much (and they still need to be checked anyway). It's still around 10x the work. => GM

edit: and it's boring as hell!!

[johnh]

Any way to automate that checking process? We've got some fairly bright folks here (both on the forum and your staff). It seems there should be a way to check...

How about some of the more SC control tables? (eg. Boost Ramp Rate etc.)

Anything on the 04+ Drive by wire Throttle control (I've seen the PCM close my throttle during shifts.....nothing like a 55% TPS with your foot planted!)

[Bill@HPTuners]

Anything on the 04+ Drive by wire Throttle control (I've seen the PCM close my throttle during shifts.....nothing like a 55% TPS with your foot planted!)

Something like this we usually have no problem offering new tables if needed, but we'd need more info, specifically your stock file, modified file & a scanner log showing this issue with said modified file so we can at least attempt to determine what is causing the issue.

Normally the first steps would be to see if theres something in the currently calibration that can be changed to fix this situation, if so(and usually is the case) then no additional parameters need to be added, but if theres a case where doing x + y + z still doesn't equal the desired result we can look into that specific cal to figure out what tables need to be added to achieve the desired result.

[Perforator]

Something like this we usually have no problem offering new tables if needed, but we'd need more info

I apologize if I misread your reply but it seems odd that we would need to prove to you we need the table before you would consider adding it...

[JerryH]

Before asking for tables, I'd like to suggest that we take a look at the HPT as a dedicated group of tuners and see how far we can take it before asking for more. Consider it something aking to starting over but with a better base... and see how we can apply whats there.

In other words... gimme a chance to at least see and play with it!

Concerning FBW (fly-by-wire), most of the time it "releases the cable" with your foot to the floor due to several conditions:
- Torque management
- rev limiters
- what it considers to be imporper MAF settings
- a few others, I cannot recall off the top of my head.

Too bad my 99 doesn't have it, I would be a little more experienced with it!

[Russ K]

Any way to automate that checking process? We've got some fairly bright folks here (both on the forum and your staff). It seems there should be a way to check...

How about some of the more SC control tables? (eg. Boost Ramp Rate etc.)

Anything on the 04+ Drive by wire Throttle control (I've seen the PCM close my throttle during shifts.....nothing like a 55% TPS with your foot planted!)

I tuned a 2004 GTP, and had to raise the ETC RPM. Then once the shift pressures are set up right, I disable the upshift & downshift torque reduction tables.

Russ Kemp

[Bill@HPTuners]

I apologize if I misread your reply but it seems odd that we would need to prove to you we need the table before you would consider adding it...

No need to prove anything, but we need to know a table is missing & know which table it is to be able to even add it

99% of issues we see can be fixed with the current tables, that other 1% that cannot be we add whatever tables need to be added but either way we still need scanner info to be able to determine WHERE to look in the mud that is the code within pcm's.

For instance, the AFR spark adder table, someone who is commanding 12.0:1 afr might never be affected by this table, but someone that is running 11.5:1 might have an additional 3 or more * of timing added, but we could need a scan of all important info to at least point US in the right direction so we can figure out where to look in the code.

Another for instance is the speed limiters in I4 calibrations, 90% of calibrations were not affected by these couple of Traction control limiters that kicked in at around 100mph but others were...in the end its usually as easy as logging pertinent parameters in the scanner to point us in the proper direction as nobody expected gm to put traction control to come on full tilt at 100mph as a speed limiter lol.

We're always willing to work with our customers in adding parameters but need your help to be able to do so in many cases so we're not looking for a needle in a haystack, thats all I was saying.