[shifterboy45]

Originally Posted by dmurray14

This is funny. "BT commands?" They are HEX CODES sent over the CAN BUS. You yourself even said this defending your CAN implementation before as a response to allegations you were copying the procede commands. Do you mean the CAN id sent with the commands? Which of course doesn't matter?

Using your logic, there'd be a lot of pissed off programmers accusing others of using the "if" and "else" statements.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by shifterboy45

the best (and funniest) times engine builder and tuners have is telling stories about stuff that went soooooo wrong... aw man do you remember.... ???

if you only knew what some of us have blown up in the past

but is all a learning lesson, time tested!!

Very true. But I was actually referring to the 90s where Corky and Jackson Racing were bumping heads on the miata listserver. Corky was always combatting bullshit marketing and misinformation with sound technical fact. It was the start of the turbo-supercharger war

[infinitekidM2C]

Knock knock....


Who's there?




















Terry

[dzenno]

^ LOL...sorry, that was funny...

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

CPS itself is largely a useless feature. It would not have helped Sevak or any meth/race gas owner as they all disable it. It has not proven to help pump gas numbers or reliability either. Also as I said in an earlier post BMS is playing with some new CAN commands that influence the advance set point so at some point CPS itself might be obsolete as well. But for those that want it they've included it on the PRO board as it was easy to add on. The PRO board will follow the G4, but I don't have a firm ETA for you. Once the PRO board is out you should swing by and pop it into your car and give it a test

Mike

You got balls. I'll give you that.

[vasillalov]

Alright,

So the one thing that I probably missed from this entire discussion is how does Procede achieve timing CONTROL? Is it by CPS offsetting or some other method? ...more importantly, does the Procede fool the DME into changing the timing, or is it by DIRECTLY talking to the ignition hardware (spark plugs, etc). Does the timing "control signal" from procede have to go to the DME?

Cause, it seems to me, from my very limited understanding of how procede actually works, no piggy back can beat a true ECU reflash with proper timing maps....

[alextremo]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

CPS itself is largely a useless feature. It would not have helped Sevak or any meth/race gas owner as they all disable it. It has not proven to help pump gas numbers or reliability either. Also as I said in an earlier post BMS is playing with some new CAN commands that influence the advance set point so at some point CPS itself might be obsolete as well. But for those that want it they've included it on the PRO board as it was easy to add on. The PRO board will follow the G4, but I don't have a firm ETA for you. Once the PRO board is out you should swing by and pop it into your car and give it a test

Mike

So to recap:

1. Controlling timing is useless and won't make your car any faster or run more safely
2. BMS is doing R&D to include direct timing control via CAN commands in an upcoming product release
3. BMS will be adding CPS offsetting to the new BMS product as well because it's easy to do

is that really what you meant to write?

[shifterboy45]

when i first joined this forum i had my doubts that anything technical could be supported in an orderly fashion, but this conversation has changed my mind and there seems to be a "gathering of eagles"... not for the purpose of overthrowing a competitor, but sensible people that have experience, and the decency to share it.

i hope that this leads to a trend of knowledge exchange, with proper practices adhered to. not all people have the will to learn what is necessary to undertake the rigors of building/tuning, and possibly most do not have the time to do so, if that is the case -- maybe they should heed the advise of seasoned vets, rather the current trend.

i hope this continues to prevail, because trust is built on truth and knowledge --

my hats off Gentlemen!!

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by vasillalov

Alright,

So the one thing that I probably missed from this entire discussion is how does Procede achieve timing CONTROL? Is it by CPS offsetting or some other method? ...more importantly, does the Procede fool the DME into changing the timing, or is it by DIRECTLY talking to the ignition hardware (spark plugs, etc). Does the timing "control signal" from procede have to go to the DME?

Cause, it seems to me, from my very limited understanding of how procede actually works, no piggy back can beat a true ECU reflash with proper timing maps....

The Procede generates a new crank position signal based upon the original one. The dme uses this signal to time the ignition event. Phase shifting this signal in either direction changes the DME'd reference point. Which effectively changes the timing advance setpoint/target. The procede is capable of firing the could directly as well as reference its own temp compensated timing advance table. Buy that would eliminate the factory knock control system and make Procede autotuning impossible.

[vasillalov]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

The Procede generates a new crank position signal. The dme uses this signal to time the ignition event. Phase shifting this signal in either direction changes the DME'd reference point. .

Got it. Thanks. So basically, the CPS signal has to be pre-processed from the procede unit, then sent to the DME where it gets further processing and then changes are applied.

Sorry for my ignorance here, but doesn't it seem that all piggys add an extra layer of hardware/electronics which further delay the processing of the signals from the sensors. My thinking would be that a well designed system will not cause a delay in signal processing, ESPECIALLY when it comes to critical factors like cps, knock, vanos and other vital engine sensors.

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

The procede is capable of firing the could directly as well as reference its own temp compensated timing advance table. Buy that would eliminate the factory knock control system and make Procede autotuning impossible.

That makes sense! Thank you again for sharing more info on this.


Overall, it seems to me that no piggy back system can offer faster and more responsive control over the vital engine parameters than the stock DME simply because there are no additional layers of processing and algorithms.

The things that I've learned from my VW/AUDI days are still true: proper high quality ECU reflash will be marginally faster, more efficient and definitely better engine management than any piggy back.

[dzenno]

Current problem I have with Flashes is that they don't offer meth flow integration of any sort...otherwise GIAC is looking great with their flash loader..

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by vasillalov

Got it. Thanks. So basically, the CPS signal has to be pre-processed from the procede unit, then sent to the DME where it gets further processing and then changes are applied.

Sorry for my ignorance here, but doesn't it seem that all piggys add an extra layer of hardware/electronics which further delay the processing of the signals from the sensors. My thinking would be that a well designed system will not cause a delay in signal processing, ESPECIALLY when it comes to critical factors like cps, knock, vanos and other vital engine sensors.



That makes sense! Thank you again for sharing more info on this.


Overall, it seems to me that no piggy back system can offer faster and more responsive control over the vital engine parameters than the stock DME simply because there are no additional layers of processing and algorithms.

The things that I've learned from my VW/AUDI days are still true: proper high quality ECU reflash will be marginally faster, more efficient and definitely better engine management than any piggy back.

The processor requirement for triggering a CPS tooth pattern at the right time is minimal. At 6000rpm, and engine is operating at 100hz which isn't a challenge for a processor which is operating in the mHz range. And this can be verified on a oscilloscope. There is virtually no measureable delay to the signal added by this stage. At most, maybe a fraction of a tooth which may account for 0.1-0.2 degrees of passive ignition retard. If that.

Compared to a reflash, it's always been my opinion that the actual shortcomings of a proper CAN based piggyback are greatly overshadowed by it's advantages.

[JoeyFiasco]

I'm reading through the "Genesis" as I like to call it of the Tuner war and came up to this post . I'm not trying add fuel to the fire but his comment just seemed interesting to me.

[dzenno]

^ They thought Earth was flat once too..

[Ilma]

Originally Posted by dzenno

^ They thought Earth was flat once too..

Wait...the earth is not flat?

When did that happen.

[Ilma]

Originally Posted by JoeyFiasco

I'm reading through the "Genesis" as I like to call it of the Tuner war and came up to this post . I'm not trying add fuel to the fire but his comment just seemed interesting to me.

Lol....I think this has been disucssed before.

It's not the delivery media....it's the programming behind it.

[dzenno]

Originally Posted by Ilma

Wait...the earth is not flat?

When did that happen.

Not too long ago LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

[vasillalov]

Originally Posted by dzenno

Current problem I have with Flashes is that they don't offer meth flow integration of any sort...otherwise GIAC is looking great with their flash loader..

Valid point!

Here is what my current understanding is of how piggy back tunes work:




It is a very oversimplified diagram that relates to engine control only, obviously. Basically, when it comes to engine control, the piggies intercept the signals produced by the stock engine sensors. Then they process those signals according to proprietary algorithms and they feed the resulting signals to the stock DME.

The DME does additional processing of those signals using proprietary BMW algorithms and then finally issues signals that control directly the N54 engine hardware components.

To me, two things come out as obvious:

1. All piggies try to guess what the DME will do with their signal. I don't like guesswork

2. All piggies add an additional processing layer that takes time and slows down the effectiveness of the DME. This is not optimal.

Say the engine is running full boost, full load at 6000 rpms. This means that the engine turns 100 times EVERY second. 1 second = 1000 miliseconds.

This means that there is one revolution every 10 miliseconds.

I am not sure what embedded processor each one of these piggies is running on board, but chances are, they will cause a signal delay long enough for the engine to complete one full revolution before the sensor signal is actually fed for DME for adjustments. Don't forget, autotuning has been marketed as highly advanced and complex proprietary algorithm, so it will take a shit load of CPU instructions to get proper output.

I don't know if this is relevant delay or not, but I'd rather not have it.

[scottp999]

Originally Posted by JoeyFiasco

I'm reading through the "Genesis" as I like to call it of the Tuner war and came up to this post . I'm not trying add fuel to the fire but his comment just seemed interesting to me.

I would add that in a true technology competition, one competitor usually leap frogs the other in substantial features for a major release. (Think of the old ATI and Nvidia releases of video cards)

In this case, it seems that one competitor is usually copying the work of another. At the same time they are playing catch up, they bash the new advances, only later to include them in their copy.

Just my understanding, not asking anyone else to come to the same conclusion.

[scottp999]

Originally Posted by vasillalov

I don't know if this is relevant delay or not, but I'd rather not have it.

Valid concern, but do you consider logs that show a happy motor in your analysis? Dyno's, other anecdotal evidence like performance, longevity? (not to mention, you could do the electrical legwork to prove if there is, or is not, a "relevant" delay in your eyes.

If a flash is for you, and you can't get past a delay that might or might not be relevant, then by all means stay with a flash option. Too many advantages with the top of the line "interceptor" in my eyes.

The great thing is that we have many choices, and we are all risking our own asset and not someone else's property, if we "own" the car.

[dzenno]

Originally Posted by vasillalov

Say the engine is running full boost, full load at 6000 rpms. This means that the engine turns 100 times EVERY second. 1 second = 1000 miliseconds.

This means that there is one revolution every 10 miliseconds.

I am not sure what embedded processor each one of these piggies is running on board, but chances are, they will cause a signal delay long enough for the engine to complete one full revolution before the sensor signal is actually fed for DME for adjustments. Don't forget, autotuning has been marketed as highly advanced and complex proprietary algorithm, so it will take a shit load of CPU instructions to get proper output.

I don't know if this is relevant delay or not, but I'd rather not have it.

When was the last time you looked into clock frequency of microprocessors...100Hz wasn't hard to match for a LONG time now unless you have an endless loop condition in your piggyback logic there's next to no "measurable" delay here...don't need to measure and prove this honestly..just reality

[JoeyFiasco]

Originally Posted by scottp999

I would add that in a true technology competition, one competitor usually leap frogs the other in substantial features for a major release. (Think of the old ATI and Nvidia releases of video cards)

In this case, it seems that one competitor is usually copying the work of another. At the same time they are playing catch up, they bash the new advances, only later to include them in their copy.

Just my understanding, not asking anyone else to come to the same conclusion.

yeah i get that. i mean, thus the reason why the JB3 now has CAN etc. the only problem with playing catch up is that although you minimize your r&d by copying the other product (reverse engineering, consumer reaction to features, and implementation), to leap frog, you need to come up with that killer feature(s). which in turn may suffer because you cannot devote your full resources.

we'll have to wait and see what the G4 and PRO have to offer and how they stack up against the Procede