[turb0mik3]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Sounds great. How about everyone being educated enough to do the listening? Because letting products speak for themselves have creates a division between the informed and uninformed As this thread (and others) have so perfectly illustrated.

This is somewhat accurate. I think people who don't have anything to add or just people complaining about the argument should just ignore the thread, it isn't that hard. I am not sure if this thread is a good sales pitch persay, but it is a good way to learn why the different tunes are different... eh, offtopic, but good reading.

[BrianMN]

Originally Posted by Mflowt5

This is somewhat accurate. I think people who don't have anything to add or just people complaining about the argument should just ignore the thread, it isn't that hard. I am not sure if this thread is a good sales pitch persay, but it is a good way to learn why the different tunes are different... eh, offtopic, but good reading.

+1. If it weren't for a few key people providing accurate facts as to what each tune really does and doesn't do, there would be so much BS info spread. In that regard, I totally understand why the Vishnu team has to explain and sometimes defend their product and engineering. In this market, and especially with this forum, the products do NOT speak for themselves.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by adrian@vishnu

Actually this is not true and is just a way for BMS to accuse Vishnu of excessive profit.

For a start, the cost of just parts is higher than alluded to here (take the digikey challenge yourself!!). Then there is the cost of the PCB itself which is a custom designed 6 layer PCB. Then there is the cost of the connectors, and the cost of the alluminium extrusion and stamped end plates. Finally, before now BMS used through-hole circuit boards, and I believe they soldered them togeather themselves, and probably did not include the cost of the time for whoever did this for them (maybe it is a trained monkey that charges nothing except food??). However the Procede and I believe the "new" PROJuice use surface mount technology. Although it is possible to hand solder this technology, unless you get free labour and low volume, it does not make economical sense, so you need to get them made properly on a special "pick'n'place" machine. This has an associated cost. Rest assure that the final cost of a completed unit is well over double what is quoted here.... and that does not include the harness which costs even more.

Terry started off in this market by making claims that can be seen in the 2007 thread quoted here that these products should sell for the cost of the parts. He had little regard for the effort required to design them. Since that time he has changed his attitude, since he is now making profit in the same market. He wants to make out that he is the good guy because he charges less. The JB3 costs alot less than the Procede Rev 2. Just look at the two to see why. He will of course try to convince you it does the same things, but that has been exposed as lies many times. On top of that, their development costs are significantly lower than Procede because they just copy what the Procede does rather than spending the time and effort to work out new features. We have spent many months of development on things that ultimately were never released because we could not achieve what we wanted, and we have spent considerably more time on developing the new features than our copycat competitors that just look at what we have done and do it in a fraction of the time.

IMHO, at the price the Procede has dropped to, it is a bargain. To look at it as the sum of the parts is ignorance of the true manufacturing costs and ignorance of the effort of many skilled engineers who have put tens of man years of effort into it.

Adrian

The point of that post was not to degrade either product but to offer a realistic insight in to the cost models. I took the digikey challenge to arrive that that number months ago. I believe Shiv chimed in protesting the number suggesting the little resistors and caps on the back were somehow significantly expensive. The ones that go for a penny or two each. A 6 layer 3"x5" PCB in quantities of 1000 is $3-4 at most. The processor was $11 and everything else a small fraction of that. Assembly is a few dollars and the cases a few dollars as well. Of course those were not included in the $60 so maybe we're up to $80-100.00 for the entire box ready to run. (not including the harness) But my point being that it's a small component of the overall cost. What is being paid for is primarily development time, support, and profit. This is the same for both tunes.

I've heard you make this claim that BMS is somehow copying your features, yet in the same breath you time and time again claim their current G3 hardware platform is nothing like your platform. So then what features are being copied? Shiv posted that they had recently added a feed forward PID system to the mix and suggested they were the first to do so. But the JB3 has had a feed forward PID system since version 1.3. A feed forward PID is so common its discussed in detail on wikipedia. Yet you claim you are being copied? BMS included a shift light in their CAN Tool along with IAT and timing on dash. Suddenly those features are coming soon in your next firmware release. As I've said before you both (BMS and Vishnu) "copied" the CAN commands from BT. BMS has always had a checksum in their boot loader to prevent corrupted firmware uploads and I understand you are still working on that. Does that mean you are copying BMS? Many of these things being done are simply obvious things that one camp or the other has not gotten around to doing yet. That does not mean they are copying the other.

Mike

[Ilma]

Lol.......

I remember when BMS claimed that eliminating throttle closure like the Procede did first, was just smoke and mirrors and compromised safety systems.

Then ding ding ding....if the customers demand it, then we will incorporate it.....became the BMS credo.

Also forced BMS to develop proper algorithms to manage the boost overshoot that was behind their throttle closure in the first place.

But you are right.....Terry didn't copy this....he collaborated with one of his posting members who volunteered to help him with his PID values.

Honestly.......just stop it.

It's getting embarassing.

[OpenFlash]

I can think of a few things that were originally panned by the BMS boy(s) and then later integrated into their platforn (at times rather poorly):

Feature (Terry's claim):

Duel solenoid control (dangerous and overly complicated)
CAN integration (dangerous and overly complicated)
Bogfix (dangerous)
Torque targetting/throttle control (very dangerous)
PnP harness (dangerous due to all the unnecessary crimps/extra wires)
Datalogging (a completely un-useful frill)
Software updates via laptop (too complicated)
CANclear (terrible idea that can result in lots of bad things)

Yet to come...
CPS Offsetting (does work and can only cause problems)
Direct Solenoid control (very bad and much worse than having customers resoldering resistors themselves)
Autotuning (terrible idea)
Surface mount technology (unnecessary expense)
And I could go on....

But let's not get caught up with all that Mike. Let's hear why you don't offer CPS offsetting with the JB3 despite BMS claims that it used to offer it but was disabled for something better (which itself, turned out to be a hoax). And why wont it be offered with G4? I know you are in a tough position posting the propaganda you are given. But at least be stand up enough to admit when you are caught in a few lies.

shiv

[Belarus]

Originally Posted by Ilma

Lol.......

I remember when BMS claimed that eliminating throttle closure like the Procede did first, was just smoke and mirrors and compromised safety systems.

Then ding ding ding....if the customers demand it, then we will incorporate it.....became the BMS credo.

Also forced BMS to develop proper algorithms to manage the boost overshoot that was behind their throttle closure in the first place.

But you are right.....Terry didn't copy this....he collaborated with one of his posting members who volunteered to help him with his PID values.

Honestly.......just stop it.

It's getting embarassing.

It's called evolution of the product. No different than any other product on the market.

He has as much right to post and state his view in this thread as anyone else, even if in some people's view to embarrass himself. Or has it now become exclusive to Vishnu only supporters.

[OpenFlash]

product evolution? Now that's funny. You get mislead for 2 years and lead to believe things that are proven to be lies. And you defend their actions as an example of "product evolution".

[techlogik]

Originally Posted by Belarus

It's called evolution of the product. No different than any other product on the market.

He has as much right to post and state his view in this thread as anyone else, even if in some people's view to embarrass himself. Or has it now become exclusive to Vishnu only supporters.

Haha..ok, good one.

[dmurray14]

What the fuck? We're arguing about the cost of resistors now? Who gives a shit.

It's all about what the tune can and can't do. Do you call up Dell and rattle off how they're ripping you off with their $.10 capacitors too? Or do you just buy a laptop because it has the features you want and works how it is intended? Damn.

[techlogik]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

product evolution? Now that's funny. You get mislead for 2 years and lead to believe things that are proven to be lies. And you defend their actions as an example of "product evolution".

I'm amazed at his 5000+ posts in 18 months...then he author's that!

[techlogik]

Originally Posted by dmurray14

What the fuck? We're arguing about the cost of resistors now? Who gives a shit.

It's all about what the tune can and can't do. Do you call up Dell and rattle off how they're ripping you off with their $.10 capacitors too? Or do you just buy a laptop because it has the features you want and works how it is intended? Damn.

Actually, do you want an Intel processor, or AMD. It matters to be personally.

[Belarus]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

product evolution? Now that's funny. You get mislead for 2 years and lead to believe things that are proven to be lies. And you defend their actions as an example of "product evolution".

I don't defend any product manufacturer since I'm a paying customer with out any financial gains. I don't have any alliance to any tuner and the only thing I try to do is learn from reading threads like this.

And yes "product evolution" no different then your progression from V1 -> V4 which also wasn't with out pitfalls. Statements "just stop" that I interpret as shutting up competition doesn't do any service to you. If they want to dig their own grave let them do so. IMO people with common sense will be able to sort facts, from hearsay from BS and come to their own conclusion.

[Belarus]

Originally Posted by techlogik

I'm amazed at his 5000+ posts in 18 months...then he author's that rubbish!

Sry didn't know you only had the right to author your rubbish.

[infinitekidM2C]

Doesn't evolution connote self-contained progression...not copying another's innovation and updating your product?

[adrian@vishnu]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The point of that post was not to degrade either product but to offer a realistic insight in to the cost models. I took the digikey challenge to arrive that that number months ago. I believe Shiv chimed in protesting the number suggesting the little resistors and caps on the back were somehow significantly expensive. The ones that go for a penny or two each. A 6 layer 3"x5" PCB in quantities of 1000 is $3-4 at most. The processor was $11 and everything else a small fraction of that. Assembly is a few dollars and the cases a few dollars as well. Of course those were not included in the $60 so maybe we're up to $80-100.00 for the entire box ready to run. (not including the harness) But my point being that it's a small component of the overall cost. What is being paid for is primarily development time, support, and profit. This is the same for both tunes.

I've heard you make this claim that BMS is somehow copying your features, yet in the same breath you time and time again claim their current G3 hardware platform is nothing like your platform. So then what features are being copied? Shiv posted that they had recently added a feed forward PID system to the mix and suggested they were the first to do so. But the JB3 has had a feed forward PID system since version 1.3. A feed forward PID is so common its discussed in detail on wikipedia. Yet you claim you are being copied? BMS included a shift light in their CAN Tool along with IAT and timing on dash. Suddenly those features are coming soon in your next firmware release. As I've said before you both (BMS and Vishnu) "copied" the CAN commands from BT. BMS has always had a checksum in their boot loader to prevent corrupted firmware uploads and I understand you are still working on that. Does that mean you are copying BMS? Many of these things being done are simply obvious things that one camp or the other has not gotten around to doing yet. That does not mean they are copying the other.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Your costs are wrong. I order PCBs daily in the thousands. They are not that cheap. We pay more than double that and go direct to China. Not sure where you prices are coming from. We do order from quality suppliers. Assembly is a few dollars... which means if I asked a company to do 100, they would earn $300.... for several hours use of an expensive machine (>$100,000) with high maintenence costs, and setup of the machine.... you have got to be kidding. Your prices are WAY under real world manufacturing prices. You obviously have not done this before. Your part prices are not realistic either.

Your hardware may be different to mine, and you claim this somehow means you cannot copy. By copy I do not mean taking my firmware and coping it byte for byte. By copying I mean seeing a feature that took many hours of development to even determine if it can be done and then many hours to work out how to do it most effectively, and you just copy the algorithm we have by analysing the IOs of the Procede. Writing the software to make an output do a certain thing takes no time compared to working out what to make the output do.

Your claims of Procede copying are rediculous. Procede works out how to display data on a guage, and BMS decides to put different parameter on a guage in the same way. Procede expands their original feature to include the same parameter used by BMS.... and we are the copier??? We flash a light for meth, and you copy that as a shift light, so when we add the shift light capability, we are copying. Can I tell you that basing the guage/light feature on a different parameter took all of 5 minutes and 2 lines of code.

Procede has always had checksum in the data sent to the Procede (all data including logging and map updates and firmware upgrades). We do not have a checksum in the actual firmware file. Do you think that BMS was the first to do a firmware upgrade to a product with a checksum?? What a laugh!! We must be coping BMS!! Feedforward PID... The Procede had that in its firmware since day 1!! It has been used in other Procede applications but was not used on BMW until we had the CAN feedback or boost target and went to isolated control very early this year. Have you got any real features that BMS pioneered other than these crazy claims where you slightly modify one of our features?

[onesuperboi]

I remember when BMS claimed that the PROcede could be causing wastegate problems.

It was something about the PROcede overworking the wastegates and introducing wear and tear because the wastegates were being adjusted too frequently to control boost.

[BrianMN]

I think everyone can agree that all this talk about cost to produce the units is moot. Nobody is really arguing that..To any sensible person, the real cost value is in the engineering/pioneering of what the computers are told to do. Nobody ever complains that the $499 Windows Office software comes on a $0.50 CD.

[DefactoM6]

Originally Posted by BrianMN

Nobody ever complains that the $499 Windows Office software comes on a $0.50 CD.

QFT. I bought a Procede because of the R&D behind the software and features, since that's what matters. I could care less if the JB3 uses pure gold in the wiring harness, the PCB and tops every last cap and processor with a big gold heatsink. For me, without the abilities and R&D behind it, that golden box is only worth it's melt weight. So let's stop this childish bickering and arguing. It's like watching when two kids get into a fight after kid 1 kicks kid 2, and when confronted and shut down by the teacher on every point, kid 1 accuses kid 2 of having farty pants. Though kid 1 may have farty pants, doesn't mean that kicking kid 2 is right or okay.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by adrian@vishnu

Hi Mike,

Your costs are wrong. I order PCBs daily in the thousands. They are not that cheap. We pay more than double that and go direct to China. Not sure where you prices are coming from. We do order from quality suppliers. Assembly is a few dollars... which means if I asked a company to do 100, they would earn $300.... for several hours use of an expensive machine (>$100,000) with high maintenence costs, and setup of the machine.... you have got to be kidding. Your prices are WAY under real world manufacturing prices. You obviously have not done this before. Your part prices are not realistic either.

Your hardware may be different to mine, and you claim this somehow means you cannot copy. By copy I do not mean taking my firmware and coping it byte for byte. By copying I mean seeing a feature that took many hours of development to even determine if it can be done and then many hours to work out how to do it most effectively, and you just copy the algorithm we have by analysing the IOs of the Procede. Writing the software to make an output do a certain thing takes no time compared to working out what to make the output do.

Your claims of Procede copying are rediculous. Procede works out how to display data on a guage, and BMS decides to put different parameter on a guage in the same way. Procede expands their original feature to include the same parameter used by BMS.... and we are the copier??? We flash a light for meth, and you copy that as a shift light, so when we add the shift light capability, we are copying. Can I tell you that basing the guage/light feature on a different parameter took all of 5 minutes and 2 lines of code.

Procede has always had checksum in the data sent to the Procede (all data including logging and map updates and firmware upgrades). We do not have a checksum in the actual firmware file. Do you think that BMS was the first to do a firmware upgrade to a product with a checksum?? What a laugh!! We must be coping BMS!! Feedforward PID... The Procede had that in its firmware since day 1!! It has been used in other Procede applications but was not used on BMW until we had the CAN feedback or boost target and went to isolated control very early this year. Have you got any real features that BMS pioneered other than these crazy claims where you slightly modify one of our features?

With regard to PCB assembly, board costs, etc, BMS has shared many of their figures with me so either they are getting things a lot cheaper or building in larger batches for a better economy of scale. But we're arguing over a few dollars here. My point was to the poster asking how BMS could do things cheaper. It's not because they are spending less on staff but because so much of the products are profit margin.

On the copying you clearly misunderstood my post. Many of these things are basic common sense items that have nothing to do with "innovation" and everything to do with getting around to doing them. It would have been great for the JB3 1.0 to include a full interface with firmware updates but it wasn't possible at that time given the resources and time line so had to be added later. That doesn't mean the JB3 copied you by making an interface. Such interfaces have existed long before the 335i did. Same for most of these "innovations". The entire argument is really silly. You blasted BMS for using a similar Tyco connector to you but then when I reminded you BMS was using Tyco connectors first you mocked it as not being an innovative idea.

Things such as boost/throttle control just represent a deeper understanding of the platform. If we knew two years ago what we know now many things would be different. There would have never been a PROcede V2 and there probably never would have been a JB3 1.2 either as both use offset tables. Holding the throttle open regardless of boost is dangerous as BMS suggested but better targeting can better control the throttle position as you suggested. In the end some throttle movement around the shift especially with automatics is required to maintain proper boost control.

Mike

[lawdude]

Tuner banter sounds like SNL Point Counter-Point:

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by lawdude

Tuner banter sounds like SNL Point Counter-Point:

"Jane, you magnificently ignorant slut!!!!!"

[Potty_Pants]

man you guys should take a chill pill.

40 pages and 90% is all about this and that piggy.

I want to hear about the OPs car.

ppp