[smdandb2]

Originally Posted by Bubbles

You are trying to convince those you don't want to see the truth. Ignorance is bliss.

I give you an A for effort though.

That is one way to look at it.

Just giving credit where credit is due I guess. It is a neat idea, but manipulating sensor data to get the desired result is still piggybacking; 'fooling' the DME as to what is really going on.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by smdandb2

That is one way to look at it.

Just giving credit where credit is due I guess. It is a neat idea, but manipulating sensor data to get the desired result is still piggybacking; 'fooling' the DME as to what is really going on.

Here we go again. I hope my DME doesn't hold it against me.

Shiv

[D.B.S]

Why argue with results though? Isn't that what i really all comes down to? Shiv and Terry both provide RESULTS with there products, so what difference does it make it if 'fools' the DME, or reads 100's of inputs from the sensors and other do dads on the car, it provides results and that's all most of care about... I'm happy with the PROcede and I am still testing it out, but I am happy with the results... People who buy the JB3 are more or less happy with the results they get as well... SO they (shiv and terry) don't offer a Flash, so what? Be happy with what you have and the results it provides, or don't be happy and keep posting meaningless garbage... These posts are starting to sound like another 'hater' called NetVader... Any relation?

[onesuperboi]

Originally Posted by Ramos

You guys crack me up... What is the point of speculating who will offer what?
You have a choice of tunes (piggy and flash) at any point in time, you chose what suits your needs best.. period !!!

If you're all so savy, go create your own tunes and save some cash and save the rest of us all this pointless chatter

What are you talking about? There is no speculation here and it's already mentioned that we have choices out there and people can buy whatever product they want.

I just wanted to know why some companies are creating flash tunes whereas some companies are offering piggyback tunes? More specifically, I wanted to know why Shiv or Terry didn't start off by creating flash tunes.

You are not adding anything to this thread but your pointless chatter.

[onesuperboi]

I was trying to start a civilized discussion and now it's turning into garbage. I appreciate some of your guys responses, but there are already some people that have nothing to do but complain and bitch.

I don't know why this forum brings out the worse out of people. I've read threads on n54 tech, and it seems much more friendly and Terry seems very chill. Is it just me?

The only reason I go to this thread more often is because there is more information available and I frankly wasn't interested in the JB3 too much... The PROcede seems more innovative to me.

[onesuperboi]

Originally Posted by Army335xi

Why argue with results though? Isn't that what i really all comes down to? Shiv and Terry both provide RESULTS with there products, so what difference does it make it if 'fools' the DME, or reads 100's of inputs from the sensors and other do dads on the car, it provides results and that's all most of care about... I'm happy with the PROcede and I am still testing it out, but I am happy with the results... People who buy the JB3 are more or less happy with the results they get as well... SO they (shiv and terry) don't offer a Flash, so what? Be happy with what you have and the results it provides, or don't be happy and keep posting meaningless garbage... These posts are starting to sound like another 'hater' called NetVader... Any relation?

"SO they don't offer a flash, so what?" So what? Why don't they? That's what my question was...

And I'll ask it again in a different way. Since the introduction of CANBUS with the Procede, does it mean that you are able to control most of the parameters (other than the rev limiter) and therefore making a flash insignificant? The only difference is that you are intercepting variables instead of creating or writing them directly to the DME?

[D.B.S]

Originally Posted by onesuperboi

"SO they don't offer a flash, so what?" So what? Why don't they? That's what my question was...

And I'll ask it again in a different way. Since the introduction of CANBUS with the Procede, does it mean that you are able to control most of the parameters (other than the rev limiter) and therefore making a flash insignificant? The only difference is that you are intercepting variables instead of creating or writing them directly to the DME?

Flashes aren't insignificant... That was not my intention with my post... But if they don't show an interest in the market of flashing, why ask why? They don't offer and from the response from Shiv, he and his company are not willing to look at flashes at this point in time.. Maybe in a year or two, or 5 they will, but for now we have to accept the fact that he is not going in that direction... Yes this thread has devolved into a bickering match between some people, but right now it's just not in the interests of Shiv and Vishnu... Since Terry (or his group) haven't answered your question, I'm assuming either they don't have plans for a flash or they just don't care...

[onesuperboi]

Originally Posted by Army335xi

Flashes aren't insignificant... That was not my intention with my post... But if they don't show an interest in the market of flashing, why ask why? They don't offer and from the response from Shiv, he and his company are not willing to look at flashes at this point in time.. Maybe in a year or two, or 5 they will, but for now we have to accept the fact that he is not going in that direction... Yes this thread has devolved into a bickering match between some people, but right now it's just not in the interests of Shiv and Vishnu... Since Terry (or his group) haven't answered your question, I'm assuming either they don't have plans for a flash or they just don't care...

Thanks for your response.

I don't know, maybe I'm not technical enough, but I think I'm not getting my current question across.

Shiv said there are more benefits with his PROcede than flashes. Fine, I agree with that right now. However, he said that with the introduction of CANbus to the PROcede that he is able to control/interpret hundreds of more variables.

Sooo, I was wondering that if he is able to control most of the important variables, that in essence it's pointless for him to create a flash since his product controls just as much variables, albeit a different way which is intercepting and putting his own variables rather than writing directly into the DME?

I am leaning more towards a flash tune for my personal reasons, and I was hoping and inquiring if Shiv would be creating a flash tune since the other flash tunes are disappointing to me.

[hotrod2448]

Originally Posted by onesuperboi

What are you talking about? There is no speculation here and it's already mentioned that we have choices out there and people can buy whatever product they want.

I just wanted to know why some companies are creating flash tunes whereas some companies are offering piggyback tunes? More specifically, I wanted to know why Shiv or Terry didn't start off by creating flash tunes.

You are not adding anything to this thread but your pointless chatter.

Mostly because the ability to reflash the DME wasn't there when they started tuning these cars.

[andrew@southernBM]

To be able to flash tune you need a constant auxillary stable battery supply as a starting point. When you flash the ECU you will always have a footprint with date, time and what program has been installed, it shows that the ECU has been flashed. This is also the case with deleting fault code memory. In most late model cases you only have an option in the DME for 14 flashes then it is expired and it can be binned. A failing DME ecu is common and are regularly replaced now even when doing progman updates. The DME is not the only ECU that intergrates either, when they do update the DME the likihood of another ECU's falling over is high. The inteface to be able to talk and modify the DME is way different to any other brand cars as others have posted above. The BMW DME just does not work like that for this car.

Now as a viable option for the tuners why would you produce a flash when all the owner has to do is go back to the dealer or independent and get a service and updates done and then the tuner would have to offer free updates for his tuned files again. In the life of the car the tuner would then be married to that car for life. Hardly a good business practice. When the owner of the car gets DP's then he'd need to get a new flash, what about an exhaust or intake, new flash, your burning up the ECU slots. Talking to the Germans recently i know they have no plans at all to have home DIY'ers doing there own form of tuning through OBD, it is just too complex. If you want to talk about the the companies who have to send the ECU's off, then they are probably offering "ECU modification" burning directly to the chip rather than through the OBD.

Just a few random thoughts in no particular order.

What the future holds with new technology, no-one knows.

[nood1es]

Originally Posted by andrew@southernBM

To be able to flash tune you need a constant auxillary stable battery supply as a starting point. When you flash the ECU you will always have a footprint with date, time and what program has been installed, it shows that the ECU has been flashed. This is also the case with deleting fault code memory. In most late model cases you only have an option in the DME for 14 flashes then it is expired and it can be binned. A failing DME ecu is common and are regularly replaced now even when doing progman updates. The DME is not the only ECU that intergrates either, when they do update the DME the likihood of another ECU's falling over is high. The inteface to be able to talk and modify the DME is way different to any other brand cars as others have posted above. The BMW DME just does not work like that for this car.

Now as a viable option for the tuners why would you produce a flash when all the owner has to do is go back to the dealer or independent and get a service and updates done and then the tuner would have to offer free updates for his tuned files again. In the life of the car the tuner would then be married to that car for life. Hardly a good business practice. When the owner of the car gets DP's then he'd need to get a new flash, what about an exhaust or intake, new flash, your burning up the ECU slots. Talking to the Germans recently i know they have no plans at all to have home DIY'ers doing there own form of tuning through OBD, it is just too complex. If you want to talk about the the companies who have to send the ECU's off, then they are probably offering "ECU modification" burning directly to the chip rather than through the OBD.

Just a few random thoughts in no particular order.

What the future holds with new technology, no-one knows.

So would that part be true if you were to have a future giac,let dinan or any given flash? And deleting fault codes are detectable if the dealer was to really snoop?

[meyergru]

Originally Posted by onesuperboi

OK, I understand what you are saying. I'm just trying to prevent a general discussion of flashes vs. piggys. I want a specific discussion on why these tuners are not offering the product when there are more and more flashes are becoming available. I don't know of any other piggy-back systems besides JB and Procede, and I haven't heard any new tuners using this method and are rather creating flashes. Why is that?

Originally Posted by onesuperboi

Shiv said there are more benefits with his PROcede than flashes. Fine, I agree with that right now. However, he said that with the introduction of CANbus to the PROcede that he is able to control/interpret hundreds of more variables.

Sooo, I was wondering that if he is able to control most of the important variables, that in essence it's pointless for him to create a flash since his product controls just as much variables, albeit a different way which is intercepting and putting his own variables rather than writing directly into the DME?

I am leaning more towards a flash tune for my personal reasons, and I was hoping and inquiring if Shiv would be creating a flash tune since the other flash tunes are disappointing to me.

He already told you he won't. However, to answer your questions in more detail, you have to understand that when Vishnu and Burger Tuning developed their tunes, they simply had no other choice than piggybacking.

The reason for this was the innovative way the N54 ECU (initially, MSD80) was secured. You could not just alter the parameter tables and flash it, since the whole ECU is protected by a cryptographic key - and not merely by a checksum like earlier ECUs usually used. BMW knew that a turbo gas engine would be THE target of choice for tuners and did not want to warrant the damages associated with "wild tunes". So, they protected their ECU in an almost uncrackable way.

In Germany, BMW's partner Alpina was involved into N54 development at an early stage in order to develop their 360 HP B3. Rumor says that the former head of Alpina's engine development, Noelle, got hands on an unprotected pre-beta version of the engine software, which laid the basis for the Noelle flash tune.

Maybe Dinan bought that version, frankly, I don't know. Matter-of-fact, those two companies were the first - and for a long time, only - ones that could actually flash an N54 ECU.

BMW knew this and developed the MSD81 ECU, which used another cryptographic key - along with some tricky new mechanisms in the software to detect tuning measurements. This was the main reason, why at its advent, no flash tuner was able to flash the MSD81 ECU. This condition continued a few months.

Then, an israeli company cracked the keys and put out a toolset which every tuner could buy and use to flash the N54 ECU (both types).


Thus, for a tuner that entered the N54 arena later, there now was an option to tune the ECU in the "traditional" way. It is way easier and cheaper if you don't have to build hardware, so your profit is maximised. I doubt that any of the me-too flash tuners out there modify something more than parameter tables and limits (such as max speed or anti-tune detection). Alteration of the ECU software itself is most likely kept to a minimum.

Given the long experience and new possibilities (think of CAN bus) of Vishnus piggyback solution, I can understand why Shiv does not re-invest just in order to bring forward a flash solution which might be more limited in terms of power than the Procede by the internal structure of the ECU software itself (even the most aggressive flash tunes make less power than the Procede). Analyzing and altering that structure would probably cause more cost than anybody would like to pay for, you included.

[NM_BMW]

Originally Posted by meyergru

He already told you he won't. However, to answer your questions in more detail, you have to understand that when Vishnu and Burger Tuning developed their tunes, they simply had no other choice than piggybacking.

The reason for this was the innovative way the N54 ECU (initially, MSD80) was secured. You could not just alter the parameter tables and flash it, since the whole ECU is protected by a cryptographic key - and not merely by a checksum like earlier ECUs usually used. BMW knew that a turbo gas engine would be THE target of choice for tuners and did not want to warrant the damages associated with "wild tunes". So, they protected their ECU in an almost uncrackable way.

In Germany, BMW's partner Alpina was involved into N54 development at an early stage in order to develop their 360 HP B3. Rumor says that the former head of Alpina's engine development, Noelle, got hands on an unprotected pre-beta version of the engine software, which laid the basis for the Noelle flash tune.

Maybe Dinan bought that version, frankly, I don't know. Matter-of-fact, those two companies were the first - and for a long time, only - ones that could actually flash an N54 ECU.

BMW knew this and developed the MSD81 ECU, which used another cryptographic key - along with some tricky new mechanisms in the software to detect tuning measurements. This was the main reason, why at its advent, no flash tuner was able to flash the MSD81 ECU. This condition continued a few months.

Then, an israeli company cracked the keys and put out a toolset which every tuner could buy and use to flash the N54 ECU (both types).


Thus, for a tuner that entered the N54 arena later, there now was an option to tune the ECU in the "traditional" way. It is way easier and cheaper if you don't have to build hardware, so your profit is maximised. I doubt that any of the me-too flash tuners out there modify something more than parameter tables and limits (such as max speed or anti-tune detection). Alteration of the ECU software itself is most likely kept to a minimum.

Given the long experience and new possibilities (think of CAN bus) of Vishnus piggyback solution, I can understand why Shiv does not re-invest just in order to bring forward a flash solution which might be more limited in terms of power than the Procede by the internal structure of the ECU software itself (even the most aggressive flash tunes make less power than the Procede). Analyzing and altering that structure would probably cause more cost than anybody would like to pay for, you included.

Good history lesson.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by meyergru

He already told you he won't. However, to answer your questions in more detail, you have to understand that when Vishnu and Burger Tuning developed their tunes, they simply had no other choice than piggybacking.

The reason for this was the innovative way the N54 ECU (initially, MSD80) was secured. You could not just alter the parameter tables and flash it, since the whole ECU is protected by a cryptographic key - and not merely by a checksum like earlier ECUs usually used. BMW knew that a turbo gas engine would be THE target of choice for tuners and did not want to warrant the damages associated with "wild tunes". So, they protected their ECU in an almost uncrackable way.

In Germany, BMW's partner Alpina was involved into N54 development at an early stage in order to develop their 360 HP B3. Rumor says that the former head of Alpina's engine development, Noelle, got hands on an unprotected pre-beta version of the engine software, which laid the basis for the Noelle flash tune.

Maybe Dinan bought that version, frankly, I don't know. Matter-of-fact, those two companies were the first - and for a long time, only - ones that could actually flash an N54 ECU.

BMW knew this and developed the MSD81 ECU, which used another cryptographic key - along with some tricky new mechanisms in the software to detect tuning measurements. This was the main reason, why at its advent, no flash tuner was able to flash the MSD81 ECU. This condition continued a few months.

Then, an israeli company cracked the keys and put out a toolset which every tuner could buy and use to flash the N54 ECU (both types).


Thus, for a tuner that entered the N54 arena later, there now was an option to tune the ECU in the "traditional" way. It is way easier and cheaper if you don't have to build hardware, so your profit is maximised. I doubt that any of the me-too flash tuners out there modify something more than parameter tables and limits (such as max speed or anti-tune detection). Alteration of the ECU software itself is most likely kept to a minimum.

Given the long experience and new possibilities (think of CAN bus) of Vishnus piggyback solution, I can understand why Shiv does not re-invest just in order to bring forward a flash solution which might be more limited in terms of power than the Procede by the internal structure of the ECU software itself (even the most aggressive flash tunes make less power than the Procede). Analyzing and altering that structure would probably cause more cost than anybody would like to pay for, you included.

+1

There have been flashing tools available for the MSD80/81 for nearly a year now. So there is no actual technical hurdle to cross when it comes to the actual read/write process. Even basic re-mapping, for most tuners, will only involve reading a stock ROM and that of a Dinan/Noelle/etc,. tuned car and doing a ROM image comparison to see what tables do what and re-tuning from there. And even then, we would be stuck with the same constraints that the current flash tuners are faced with. Of course, they wont tell you that. But results speak louder than words.

Shiv

[onesuperboi]

Originally Posted by meyergru

He already told you he won't. However, to answer your questions in more detail, you have to understand that when Vishnu and Burger Tuning developed their tunes, they simply had no other choice than piggybacking.

The reason for this was the innovative way the N54 ECU (initially, MSD80) was secured. You could not just alter the parameter tables and flash it, since the whole ECU is protected by a cryptographic key - and not merely by a checksum like earlier ECUs usually used. BMW knew that a turbo gas engine would be THE target of choice for tuners and did not want to warrant the damages associated with "wild tunes". So, they protected their ECU in an almost uncrackable way.

In Germany, BMW's partner Alpina was involved into N54 development at an early stage in order to develop their 360 HP B3. Rumor says that the former head of Alpina's engine development, Noelle, got hands on an unprotected pre-beta version of the engine software, which laid the basis for the Noelle flash tune.

Maybe Dinan bought that version, frankly, I don't know. Matter-of-fact, those two companies were the first - and for a long time, only - ones that could actually flash an N54 ECU.

BMW knew this and developed the MSD81 ECU, which used another cryptographic key - along with some tricky new mechanisms in the software to detect tuning measurements. This was the main reason, why at its advent, no flash tuner was able to flash the MSD81 ECU. This condition continued a few months.

Then, an israeli company cracked the keys and put out a toolset which every tuner could buy and use to flash the N54 ECU (both types).


Thus, for a tuner that entered the N54 arena later, there now was an option to tune the ECU in the "traditional" way. It is way easier and cheaper if you don't have to build hardware, so your profit is maximised. I doubt that any of the me-too flash tuners out there modify something more than parameter tables and limits (such as max speed or anti-tune detection). Alteration of the ECU software itself is most likely kept to a minimum.

Given the long experience and new possibilities (think of CAN bus) of Vishnus piggyback solution, I can understand why Shiv does not re-invest just in order to bring forward a flash solution which might be more limited in terms of power than the Procede by the internal structure of the ECU software itself (even the most aggressive flash tunes make less power than the Procede). Analyzing and altering that structure would probably cause more cost than anybody would like to pay for, you included.

Ahhh, that makes more sense to me. Thank you for educating me.

[onesuperboi]

So, the main reason that the PROcede is better than flashes is because the flashes out there can modify less parameters than the PROcede, especially with the introduction of CANbus?

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by onesuperboi

So, the main reason that the PROcede is better than flashes is because the flashes out there can modify less parameters than the PROcede, especially with the introduction of CANbus?

The real question should be why the flash tunes haven't performed well. The reason for that is that there are a number of internal "checks and balances" integrated into the code that have prevent higher boost/powered maps. BMW wanted to make an ECU that was un-tunable and they partly succeeded. Not just in terms of encryption (which only takes time to get around) but also in terms of mapping structure logic. And, from my contacts at BMW, it's only going to get worse with upcoming updates. So good luck to them.

The PROcede approach is so much less evasive and invisible to the DME. It's here to stay.

Shiv

[AWD Addict]

Originally Posted by Humtek

If you go dinan it does. You get flash the first time... what is it now $1500? Stage 2 is like another $1000 or so? I'm not exactly sure on the numbers because I don't follow the dinan flashes, but it just about costs $1000 or so through each stage. Where with the piggy it costs you once and then you upgrade maps for free.

Flashes for the evo are on completely different level. Most mail in flashes or custom tuning will cost you $300 give or take a few, each time your re-tuned or re-flashed and that doesn't include dyno time if that is how you choose to get tuned. Tuners won't charge you $350 once and then give you unlimited flashes when you put more parts on. Their out to make money not give away their tuning abilities for free.

DINAN isn't really a good model for comparison though. There were many tuners flashing ECUS in EVOS and Subys that didn't require anything but a laptop or module to reflash custom or tuner produced maps.

Obviously as I said, the DME on this car is different and more complicated, but I still think that only means it's a matter of time, not an impossibility.

dR

[onesuperboi]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

The real question should be why the flash tunes haven't performed well. The reason for that is that there are a number of internal "checks and balances" integrated into the code that have prevent higher boost/powered maps. BMW wanted to make an ECU that was un-tunable and they partly succeeded. Not just in terms of encryption (which only takes time to get around) but also in terms of mapping structure logic. And, from my contacts at BMW, it's only going to get worse with upcoming updates. So good luck to them.

The PROcede approach is so much less evasive and invisible to the DME. It's here to stay.

Shiv

Thank you Shiv for taking the time to answer my question.

[AWD Addict]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

These "tricking" the DME comments make me chuckle. Last I checked, computers were logic machines. Completely predictable and repeatable based upon input data (all of which can be monitored by the CANbus PROcede). The DME does not hold being "tricked" by modified input data against you. It will still be there in the morning. It may even still make you breakfast if you are nice.

And yes, we can alter CANbus data as well as read it.

Shiv

While the ECU may still be there in the morning, it's not unusual to actaully want the sensors to report to the ECU what's actually happening in real time, rather than altering the signal to please the ECU.

I'm not worried about it's feelings, I simply prefer that the ECU actually see what sensors are reporting, and adjust fuel, timing etc. appropriately.

Obviously the piggybacks are much more effective on the N54 than on the EJ20, but it's still an altered signal in order to achieve a goal, rather than a pure signal and a map designed to use that instead.

I know you dismiss the difference though. I just think the current issues for flashing the N54 will eventually be solved, and it'll be a superior solution, just like it was on the DSMs, the subies, and the EVOs. Certainly not bashing your product now. It's clearly the class of the ECU tuning market right now (IMO).

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Whatever floats your boat. I got tuning to do. You can get back to posting on the internet.

Shiv

[meyergru]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

The PROcede approach is so much less evasive and invisible to the DME. It's here to stay.

I agree - to a certain extent. However, there's a downside to a seemingly good feature of the Procede, at least here in Germany:

In order to get approval for a tune (and you need it, or otherwise you lose insurance protection along with heavy fines), it has to be scrutinzed by an appointed expert. Approved products have to fulfill emission regulations, among many others. Noelle has approval, as have some other flash tunes.

Field-programmable tunes like the Procede have one very important feature too many: They cannot get approval, because they can easily and invisibly be modified after approval.

That is the main reason why I don't have a piggyback on my car.

Originally Posted by AWD Addict

While the ECU may still be there in the morning, it's not unusual to actaully want the sensors to report to the ECU what's actually happening in real time, rather than altering the signal to please the ECU.

I'm not worried about it's feelings, I simply prefer that the ECU actually see what sensors are reporting, and adjust fuel, timing etc. appropriately.

Obviously the piggybacks are much more effective on the N54 than on the EJ20, but it's still an altered signal in order to achieve a goal, rather than a pure signal and a map designed to use that instead.

I know you dismiss the difference though. I just think the current issues for flashing the N54 will eventually be solved, and it'll be a superior solution, just like it was on the DSMs, the subies, and the EVOs. Certainly not bashing your product now. It's clearly the class of the ECU tuning market right now (IMO).

Obviously, you did not read or comprehend what Shiv and I said: BMW has done heavy trickery to avoid modifying the ECU beyond mere parameter changes. Whilst the cryptographic barrier has been broken about 15 months ago, I doubt that anyone will invest the same money and develop their own software. The alternative, namely reengineering the software, comes to its limits when BMW alters their scheme a bit. Since the other programmable units in the car have dependencies on the ECU unit (think odometer signals), there has to be a consistent set of software on the car (called ISTA/P revisions). If a flash tuner wants to guarantee interoperability of all ~40 units (and he better does), he has to keep up with whatever BMW delivers to him. Not updating the car is no viable way out, since many repairs require a software update (potentially of all units) first. That is why N54 flash tuners update their software quite often - their solutions rely on a recent BMW ECU software release and alter the parameters. I have yet to see anything better than that with flash tunes for this particular engine.


As Shiv put it:

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

BMW wanted to make an ECU that was un-tunable and they partly succeeded. Not just in terms of encryption (which only takes time to get around) but also in terms of mapping structure logic. And, from my contacts at BMW, it's only going to get worse with upcoming updates. So good luck to them.