[DWR]

Originally Posted by bradsm87

Also TunerPro doesn't calculate percentages and offsets properly if the item is more than two decimal places. You have to copy and paste to Excel, do the calculation and copy back. It's annoying on N54 DME work. That issue might not apply to 6HP work though.

It does not have to apply, if you don't want it to. There are no decimal points in the bin!

[bradsm87]

Originally Posted by DWR

It does not have to apply, if you don't want it to. There are no decimal points in the bin!

Yeah probably not an issue in the 6HP bin but for some things like the N54 IJE0S WGDC I-Factor table for example, the conversion is X/65535 and you're working with numbers like 0.00006, 0.00021 etc, if you try and apply a percent change or offset to that, it instantly just makes it 0.00 instead of the actual percent or offset you wanted to apply, even though it's set to display 5 decimal places.

[Unklejoe]

Just pulled in a bunch of changes to the XDF from bradsm87

https://github.com/jakemoroni/BMW-6HPxx-XDF

[drhousedk]

8HP... What would be the newer 8-speed ZF, I guess? How would that apply to the 6HP? Hm. Guess we'll never know.

[Arthuar]

Originally Posted by Unklejoe

Just pulled in a bunch of changes to the XDF from bradsm87

https://github.com/jakemoroni/BMW-6HPxx-XDF

I'm following your efforts in a very passionate way.
I missed the point, which version of 6hp might be covered, using these maps?

[bradsm87]

Originally Posted by drhousedk

8HP... What would be the newer 8-speed ZF, I guess? How would that apply to the 6HP? Hm. Guess we'll never know.

Well there isn't a 6HP WinOLS file that's accessible to the public so anything that can give hints would help a little. Too expensive to take the risk buying it though

[bradsm87]

Originally Posted by Arthuar

I'm following your efforts in a very passionate way.
I missed the point, which version of 6hp might be covered, using these maps?

Anything that xHP can flash to which is anything with HW number 7591971 or 7591972.

[bradsm87]

So what I've read seems to indicate that the pressure regulators in the mechatronics units in the 6HP21 max out at 4.6 Bar which is kind of confusing/contradictory because stock HS 1>2 in common maps upshift targets 5.6 bar and 3>4 is 5.15 bar

So Alpina M mode 3>4 already maxes out this 4.6 bar and the 1>2 isn't far behind at 4.1. Probably only a small reduction in the timespan possible for the 3>4 shift If we're already well and truly maxing the shift pressures by 630nm, there is really no advantage that I can see by increasing the torque limiter on an Alpina flash, other than just for convenience as not to have to mess with the DME flash to get below the limiter.

It would be so damn cool to put in higher max pressure solenoids then find and update the solenoid scaling to suit in the TCU.

I can't help but to dream about what we could acheive together if xHP worked with the community with tuning discussions

[Torqu3]

Originally Posted by bradsm87

I can't help but to dream about what we could acheive together if xHP worked with the community with tuning discussions

That's kind of unfair to say given that the only reason we have xHP now is because of the community. It was a ton of people working together on here, xHP just took the time to make an easy to use app. And as with all apps, upgrades take time, let it take its course. I doubt we have seen the last of xHP.

[JMM]

Originally Posted by Torqu3

That's kind of unfair to say given that the only reason we have xHP now is because of the community. It was a ton of people working together on here, xHP just took the time to make an easy to use app. And as with all apps, upgrades take time, let it take its course. I doubt we have seen the last of xHP.

Fully agree, without this community nothing would happened at all for nobody and i hope in time, this course will take us to the pré 04/2007 335d's.

[DWR]

Originally Posted by bradsm87

Well there isn't a 6HP WinOLS file that's accessible to the public so anything that can give hints would help a little. Too expensive to take the risk buying it though

A purchase by a group could be very little individual risk. And if you think 8HP is not appropriate (false assumption), then choose the 6HP19 Damos that I linked to earlier.

[DWR]

Originally Posted by bradsm87

So what I've read seems to indicate that the pressure regulators in the mechatronics units in the 6HP21 max out at 4.6 Bar which is kind of confusing/contradictory because stock HS 1>2 in common maps upshift targets 5.6 bar and 3>4 is 5.15 bar
(

The EDS solenoids that you are referring to have ratings based on a specific standardized main line flow/pressure. So, you can't necessarily compare the rating to the pressure in use.

[bradsm87]

Originally Posted by DWR

The EDS solenoids that you are referring to have ratings based on a specific standardized main line flow/pressure. So, you can't necessarily compare the rating to the pressure in use.

Yeah I thought that but I think half are falling and half are rising type. If the falling characteristic solenoids are 4.6 bar when 0mA applied, we can't go lower than 0mA so 4.6 bar is it. Maybe that's why the offgoing maps exceed 4.6 but the ongoing ones don't. Maybe the offgoing ones use rising type and the ongoing use falling type or some gears use the rising ones and the others falling.

4.6bar is still a minor improvement on 1>2 and potential big improvement on 2>3, 4>5 and 5>6. It just looks like we won't be able to run the timespan values that we may have originally hoped for on the 3>4 shift when running 550+ nm torque.

What do you run in your car out of interest? An OTS map or your own custom one?

[bradsm87]

OK here is my grasp of solenoids used for shifts and pressure limitations. If somebody knows otherwise, please correct me.

- Rising yellow EDS solenoids apply more pressure as more current is applied. It is theoretically possible to apply more current than 4.6bar and get a little more than 4.6bar. Exceeding the rating of the solenoid does not sound like something that BMW would do though.

- Falling blue EDS solenoids start at 4.6bar when no current is applied. I doubt very, very much that the TCU could apply reverse polarity to theoretically get a little more out of it. I think it's safe to assume that 4.6 bar is the limit for these solenoids.

Solenoid types used:

1>2 offgoing - falling
1>2 oncoming - rising
2>3 offgoing - rising
2>3 oncoming - falling
3>4 offgoing - falling
3>4 oncoming - falling
4>5 offgoing - rising
4>5 oncoming - falling
5>6 offgoing - falling
5>6 oncoming - rising

This is what does not make sense:

In the stock 335i calibration, offgoing 1>2 commands up to 5.6bar and 3>4 5.15 bar. Also in the Alpina B3 calibration, the 3>4 offgoing commands 5.1bar. These ALL are commands that use falling type solenoids that absolutely max out at 4.6bar! Surely BMW would not put unachievable values in tables!

Is there a possibility that the conversion formula in the XDF of 0.001*X is incorrect?

[RBT-Tuning]

Originally Posted by bradsm87

But they imply the opposite and that there are more tables needed. When people like myself have a go with what is there, I get cryptic trick questions rather than saying what is missing. The message I'm getting is "Don't create tunes with this. You need more tables and more info".

You're on the wrong side of the table. Sounds like you should be a Tuner, rather then a customer. If you're a Tuner you can do ALL the stuff you want, but that probably involves quitting your Job and pre-financing a business with 4 people working on it for several months and not downloading an App from Play Store.

It's really crazy how some take everything for granted. You payed 119 USD and are getting in arguments, because we as a company don't hand you over the whole project with roughly 2000 work hours of disassembling and testing on it? And that is just the Map finding and testing process, I'm not talking of making it work on an Android phone. To be clear: I'm talking of the work that has happened after Summer 2016. Work that has nothing to do with the things that happened before in this forum.

Just to get you back to reality: COBB didn't give you all Maps, nor does Martial/MHD do that. And there are many, many good reasons for it, apart from people not wanting to respect your God-given right to be your own Tuner.

I would really love to concentrate on making good tunes, further develop the product for people with other cars and transmission hardware, and help our customers, rather then getting 5 E-Mails a week from Kids nagging about "having too less maps to play". The maps are more then enough to build proper calibrations. Believe me, I've done it 2 or 3 times now. And if you need more, you can either invest your time and bring it up by yourself or you can pay someone to do it for you.

If you want your money back, because you're feeling that you got screwed, then uninstall xHP, send me your VIN and logfile and I will be happy to issue a refund in that case.

For the rest of the discussion:

I would really suggest everyone who wants to do his own setups, to change the maps slightly and see and feel what is changing. There's no way around that.

The pressures in the maps are not the pressures at the EDS valves, they are resulting differential pressures. And they are highly abstract, as they are are not measured, nor directly controlled by the transmission. So it does not matter the slightest if the values in these tables are Bar, psi, or if the factor is 0.001 or 0.01. Just treat the pressure tables as what they are: A bunch of numbers that indicate how base pressures change with load and speed.

And for the future: We WILL take part in the discussion, but theres a main job, which limits time for such things inherently. I can discuss the whole day, but that will involve a lot of people endlessly waiting for support of their cars.

[Torqu3]

Originally Posted by RBT-Tuning

You're on the wrong side of the table. Sounds like you should be a Tuner, rather then a customer. If you're a Tuner you can do ALL the stuff you want, but that probably involves quitting your Job and pre-financing a business with 4 people working on it for several months and not downloading an App from Play Store.

It's really crazy how some take everything for granted. You payed 119 USD and are getting in arguments, because we as a company don't hand you over the whole project with roughly 2000 work hours of disassembling and testing on it? And that is just the Map finding and testing process, I'm not talking of making it work on an Android phone. To be clear: I'm talking of the work that has happened after Summer 2016. Work that has nothing to do with the things that happened before in this forum.

Just to get you back to reality: COBB didn't give you all Maps, nor does Martial/MHD do that. And there are many, many good reasons for it, apart from people not wanting to respect your God-given right to be your own Tuner.

I would really love to concentrate on making good tunes, further develop the product for people with other cars and transmission hardware, and help our customers, rather then getting 5 E-Mails a week from Kids nagging about "having too less maps to play". The maps are more then enough to build proper calibrations. Believe me, I've done it 2 or 3 times now. And if you need more, you can either invest your time and bring it up by yourself or you can pay someone to do it for you.

If you want your money back, because you're feeling that you got screwed, then uninstall xHP, send me your VIN and logfile and I will be happy to issue a refund in that case.

For the rest of the discussion:

I would really suggest everyone who wants to do his own setups, to change the maps slightly and see and feel what is changing. There's no way around that.

The pressures in the maps are not the pressures at the EDS valves, they are resulting differential pressures. And they are highly abstract, as they are are not measured, nor directly controlled by the transmission. So it does not matter the slightest if the values in these tables are Bar, psi, or if the factor is 0.001 or 0.01. Just treat the pressure tables as what they are: A bunch of numbers that indicate how base pressures change with load and speed.

And for the future: We WILL take part in the discussion, but theres a main job, which limits time for such things inherently. I can discuss the whole day, but that will involve a lot of people endlessly waiting for support of their cars.

Don't let your pride take a hit my friend. You did some incredible work and plenty of people will attest to that. You just keep doing what you do. 99% of us appreciate it.

[robnitro]

Brad, on a solenoid or these regulators which are similar but have a bypass port, you are opening or closing it. The 4.6 bar is at some rated flow and pressure calibration. So just think open and closed... It can't do 4.6 bar if flow and pressure feed to it is less and vice versa, it cab do more in other environments. I think the way they come up w those pressures as I have seen on other solenoid valves at work is with a set calibration standard, so programming can be done relatively.

[bradsm87]

Originally Posted by RBT-Tuning

The maps are more then enough to build proper calibrations. Believe me, I've done it 2 or 3 times now.

Thanks. That's all I need to know. Another member implied otherwise.

Originally Posted by RBT-Tuning

The pressures in the maps are not the pressures at the EDS valves, they are resulting differential pressures. And they are highly abstract, as they are are not measured, nor directly controlled by the transmission. So it does not matter the slightest if the values in these tables are Bar, psi, or if the factor is 0.001 or 0.01. Just treat the pressure tables as what they are: A bunch of numbers that indicate how base pressures change with load and speed.

Thanks for passing this on. The number 1 thing I need to know at this stage is: What is the maximum value for these cells? If you are unsure, what is a rough maximum where you have noticed no change going further? 6? 7? 8? I feel like I really should not just extrapolate these tables up to 650nm without knowing what the highest achievable value should be.

Originally Posted by RBT-Tuning

And for the future: We WILL take part in the discussion

Excellent. I look forward to it. If you could take a look at my question above, I would greatly appreciate it.




Thanks again for building your great app and providing the XDF. As you can see, I just do have a couple of very quick questions that would help me hugely. I will update the XDF table descriptions with further clarification once I know so that people in the future won't ask you the same questions as I have

[_TB_]

Originally Posted by bradsm87

what is a rough maximum where you have noticed no change going further? 6? 7? 8? I feel like I really should not just extrapolate these tables up to 650nm without knowing what the highest achievable value should be.

Can I ask why you are so focused on extending to 650Nm ? Does it slip? or is there something else that make you want to extend to 650Nm? (And have you verified the torque on a rolling road?)

Having said that - Clemens said something _very_ important in his post. Developing "remaps" takes _AGES_ on these gearboxes. It's not like a DDE/ECU where you can whack out big power with absolutely minimal effort.
When I started looking into the files and the structure I thought that it as a simple task of altering 5-10 maps and then you had a killer. Boy was I wrong. The maps are interconnected much more than you think.. It takes _time_ getting it right. There are no golden shortcuts.
Also like Clemens said - make some subtle changes and the drive and feel the difference, then you'll start to learn how things are working.

[bradsm87]

Originally Posted by _TB_

Can I ask why you are so focused on extending to 650Nm ? Does it slip? or is there something else that make you want to extend to 650Nm? (And have you verified the torque on a rolling road?)

My DME's reported torque is around 680nm if I don't change the DME tables to limit it. The TCU tables in question get the torque from the DME's reported torque.

As you can see in the stock TCU maps, the higher the torque, the higher the pressure should be and it should increase as torque increases to get consistant, predictable shifts.

I personally only scale my shift pressure tables to 600nm but people making more torque than me will want to go further. We just need to know what the point is where increasing numbers does nothing because it's exceeded physical limitations.

[TDIwyse]

Here's some interesting news with the TCU flash tool that I thought might interest others.

DWR has done some excellent work with making some modifications that I highly desired. With the addition of the new hybrid LP turbo I was wanting to extend the rpm range, but also keep the "auto shift" capability in manual mode. And be able to start in M2. And not have quite as aggressive shifting in manual mode as the xHP stg3 files.

Here's some recent data of his efforts (TestO rpm data overlayed with PerfExpert accelerometer data).

This is starting in 2nd and letting the car self shift.

I like the stock rpm shift point for the 2-3 shift, and really like the higher shifts for 3-4 and 4-5.

The extended rpm range helps utilize the higher rpm power output capability without having to rely on excess mid range torque (which I am purposely trying to minimize in this system, but its likely a bit higher than what it should be for long term reliability).

Thanks xHP for this great app. And thanks DWR for your help!

[bradsm87]

Originally Posted by TDIwyse

Here's some interesting news with the TCU flash tool that I thought might interest others.

DWR has done some excellent work with making some modifications that I highly desired. With the addition of the new hybrid LP turbo I was wanting to extend the rpm range, but also keep the "auto shift" capability in manual mode. And be able to start in M2. And not have quite as aggressive shifting in manual mode as the xHP stg3 files.

Here's some recent data of his efforts (TestO rpm data overlayed with PerfExpert accelerometer data).

This is starting in 2nd and letting the car self shift.

I like the stock rpm shift point for the 2-3 shift, and really like the higher shifts for 3-4 and 4-5.

The extended rpm range helps utilize the higher rpm power output capability without having to rely on excess mid range torque (which I am purposely trying to minimize in this system, but its likely a bit higher than what it should be for long term reliability).

Thanks xHP for this great app. And thanks DWR for your help!

Nice one! So got a custom tune from DWR?