"paste special" and secondary VE

[ixc]

When running off the secondary VE, are the values in the AFR% in the scanner histogram accurate?

I know the secondary VE has a different resolution than the primary. However, it doesnt look like the histogram picks up on this. Meaning there will be values for 1200x25 when the secondary doesnt disply 1200x25 (rpm x map).

So i guess to clarify the question: when running off the secondary VE and logging AFR%, can i just copy the whole histogram table and "paste special" -> %-half on the secondary VE and have it come out correct? or will i have to copy each individual % and paste it to the appropriate cell?

[12secSS]

Here is how Ken suggested I do it (IIRC), copy the values from your histogram and paste it on to your Primary VE (I didn't use the 1/2 % option). Then manually copy the coresponding tables from the Primary to the Secondary. Seems to work good.

[JimMueller]

Works too slow. How about adding the standard interface of the Ctrl or Shift keys. For instance, click the first row, then shift-click the end row to select the entire range. Or Ctrl-click on each row, to highlight all the individual rows at once, then paste them to the secondary with a single Paste operation.

[BQuicksilver]

Real dumb question, where is my secondary VE????

I only see primary VE vs RPM vs MAP under engine > airflow > general

[txhorns281]

Real dumb question, where is my secondary VE????

I only see primary VE vs RPM vs MAP under engine > airflow > general

secondary is only for 98-00 users... keep on keepin on with your primary you lucky bastard!

[ixc]

Here is how Ken suggested I do it (IIRC), copy the values from your histogram and paste it on to your Primary VE (I didn't use the 1/2 % option). Then manually copy the coresponding tables from the Primary to the Secondary. Seems to work good.

for now, i have just been taking the rows I need for the given resolution and pasting them where i need to in the Secondary VE. I was told that the .5 (other part to the histogram resolution) was just interpolated by the pcm. So far its working alright

except for the fact i am having trouble pasting in the "90" row of the table - it raises the ve the way it is supposed to but when i hit save, it doesnt keep those changes...i wonder if it is possible a safety thing?

once i get my secondary VE dialed in, im going to use a spreadsheet i found over on ls1tech to recalculate my primary ve and then scale the maf to get everything back inline.

[txhorns281]

for now, i have just been taking the rows I need for the given resolution and pasting them where i need to in the Secondary VE. I was told that the .5 (other part to the histogram resolution) was just interpolated by the pcm. So far its working alright

except for the fact i am having trouble pasting in the "90" row of the table - it raises the ve the way it is supposed to but when i hit save, it doesnt keep those changes...i wonder if it is possible a safety thing?

once i get my secondary VE dialed in, im going to use a spreadsheet i found over on ls1tech to recalculate my primary ve and then scale the maf to get everything back inline.

hmmm the paste special acts up for me once in awhile too, but I don't have any problems with the 90 kpa row... ??? As far as the way you are tuning, that's the exact way I did it too and it does interpolate, but even through the smoothing function you can see that it will naturally interpolate. I got flamed a little at first for tuning the secondary only but I really think it's a good idea since obviously data is being created in the histogram whether certain rows are missing or not. Eithery way though, doing the primary first as opposed to the secondary still probably yields a close enough result. I just like manipulating data that i know I'm dealing with