OpenPort 2.0 + Chrome logging without laptop

[Greg E]

IPW is influenced by injector scaling, but the reporting of it should not be. Whether you have 1000cc injectors or 550s the logger should still see 2 ms or whatever the ecu is commanding and not need to scale it.

That's what I said...

[Jimvr4]

That's what I said...

So why do request 2B and 29 give different IPW between Evoscan v2.9 and Standalone Tacrix 2.0 (they both call for x * 0.256 )? What the heck am I doing wrong?

Is it possible the request ID's are not actually the same?

[Greg E]

So why do request 2B and 29 give different IPW between Evoscan v2.9 and Standalone Tacrix 2.0 (they both call for x * 0.256 )? What the heck am I doing wrong?

Is it possible the request ID's are not actually the same?

Okay I see where the confusion is coming from. Request 2B is the Front bank IPW and 29 is the Rear bank IPW.

Now, the way my EVOScan file is reading IDC is its reading the request 21 which is RPM but it's in hex. So EVOScan is doing all the math at once where Matt is just having the logger do the calculation using RPM and IPW instead of reading the request off the ECU and converting it.

That *shouldn't* make any difference though....


Try replace the 2 definitions in the logcfg file with this:

;paramname=F_InjDutyCycle
;paramid=0x21
;scalingrpn=x,31.25,*,F_InjPulseWidth,*,1200,/
; Requires F_InjPulseWidth params to be logged above

;paramname=R_InjDutyCycle
;paramid=0x21
;scalingrpn=x,31.25,*,R_InjPulseWidth,*,1200,/
; Requires R_InjPulseWidth params to be logged above

[Jimvr4]

Yes I know that the IDC calculations differ between you and Matt.

The issue is not the IDC calculation, it is the IPW. Again in Evoscan request 2B gives 1.5-1.8ms for IPW while Matts gives 7ms for the same request 2B.

The only thing different I can think of is the injector scaling for Evoscan logging. I have 600 in there.

[Greg E]

Yes I know that the IDC calculations differ between you and Matt.

The issue is not the IDC calculation, it is the IPW. Again in Evoscan request 2B gives 1.5-1.8ms for IPW while Matts gives 7ms for the same request 2B.

The only thing different I can think of is the injector scaling for Evoscan logging. I have 600 in there.

Oh you're talking about that input in the upper right corner. That can be disregarded. Back in the day, the EVO guys used that to calculate engine load. It's not used in the IPW calculations anywhere. I might have told people otherwise years ago but that was wrong.

I have no idea why you'd be seeing 2 different values...

[Jimvr4]

Spent some time on OpenEcu.org and couldn't find a thing on it. Is this a question for Colby??

Also logged the car with both methods and again confirmed the IPW request yields different results just like I wrote. Looks like I have to use the netbook method to get good data. That won't be bad if I can figure out how to display the WB scaled on a gauge widget