[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by HighVoltage

Huh?

¥ep. Surprising, isn't it?

Shiv

[smdandb2]

Ok, so you can go into the software and tell the DME what relative fill you want? You can change the intercooler efficiency table?

So maybe tricking the DME isnt the right way to put it. But you are feeding it different data than what the sensor is actually showing to get the result you want.

I'm not arguing that it does not work, because clearly it does. But people believing that it is like an ecu flash in its ability to control things is hilarious. Your control ability is limited to changing the data the sensors are sending to the DME.

[Rotary Rasp]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

The DME does not hold being "tricked" by modified input data against you. It will still be there in the morning.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by smdandb2

Ok, so you can go into the software and tell the DME what relative fill you want? You can change the intercooler efficiency table?

So maybe tricking the DME isnt the right way to put it. But you are feeding it different data than what the sensor is actually showing to get the result you want.

I'm not arguing that it does not work, because clearly it does. But people believing that it is like an ecu flash in its ability to control things is hilarious. Your control ability is limited to changing the data the sensors is sending to the DME.

It's called tuning. You call it "relative fill". I call it something else that is defined in the PROcede programming software. If you think outside the box, you may see that it is quite liberating not being constrained by the factory DME logic structure. You see this approach as a downside. I (and others who have experience doing this kind of tuning) see it as a distinct advantage. And real world results seem to back us up. I've been ROM editing AND interceptor tuning for years on a number of very dissimilar platforms. I always see pot shots from those (towards either approach) coming from those who have extensive experience from only one approach. This is unfortunate because the truth is that either approach will get the basic job done. But there are things that each approach can't do. In the case of the PROcede, this list of "Cannots" got a lot shorter with the introduction of CANbus intergration. It basically can't raise the rev limit.

In the case of a DME reflash, it's still pretty long:
1) No realtime map switching
2) Diagnostic visible
3) Long flash times
4) No active meth control
5) Limited adaptability ranges
6) History low power output
7) And more...

Shiv

[HighVoltage]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

¥ep. Surprising, isn't it?

Shiv

This implies the Procede is not just a node on the bus, but rather a gateway on the trunk (2 CAN transceivers). I thought the Procede only had 2 transceivers (not the CAN controllers on uP). If so, now I am curious how you are going to access the display cluster while still keeping the other elements displayed in stock.

EDIT: Also, if this is correct, I am also curious about the latency you have inherently introduced.

[smdandb2]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

It's called tuning. You call it "relative fill". I call it something else that is defined in the PROcede programming software. If you think outside the box, you may see that it is quite liberating not being constrained by the factory DME logic structure. You see this approach as a downside. I (and others who have experience doing this kind of tuning) see it as a distinct advantage. And real world results seem to back us up.

Shiv

Good dodge!

So, if thinking outside of the box is soo good what happened to the Xede or the UTECs (I know you didnt make the UTEC but its another piggy)? Thats right, they were replaced by flashes once they were proven.

We arent to that point yet with the N54 flashes, but you cant deny the fact that it is coming. These boxes will start to get passed around like $2 whores.

You'll be on the flash bandwagon as soon as you actually have the ability to do so, mark my words. (I think someone else said it too).

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by smdandb2

Good dodge!

So, if thinking outside of the box is soo good what happened to the Xede or the UTECs (I know you didnt make the UTEC but its another piggy)? Thats right, they were replaced by flashes once they were proven.

We arent to that point yet with the N54 flashes, but you cant deny the fact that it is coming. These boxes will start to get passed around like $2 whores.

You'll be on the flash bandwagon as soon as you actually have the ability to do so, mark my words. (I think someone else said it too).

I'm dodging? You are the one making parallels of other very different products used in other very different applications to the CANbus PROcede and the N54

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

Shiv

[smdandb2]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I'm dodging? You are the one making parallels of other very different products used in other very different applications to the CANbus PROcede and the N54

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

Shiv

Different applications maybe? But the end goal was always the same. More power by manipulating sensor data.

That is exactly what the Procede does, provides more power. Look, I am not trying to bash you or your product. You have a presence here, and your product works.

But the flash tuning will evolve, just like it did for the Subarus and Evos.

[Prince ///M]

The Procede is able to read from vehicle CAN bus all data, but it is able to influence the engine behavior only by modification of analog inputs in ECU.

It is not a Procede limitation, simply the DME is not using CAN messages in order to calculate operation parameters... and also in case (absurd), it is impossible to send critical messages twice (same ID) without conflicts... and I' not talking about simple blinking of dashboard lights

BTW, by monitoring more information, REV II maps will be for sure safer and lead to better performances in every condition (still mantaining piggy's limitations in timing/vanos management).

[smdandb2]

Whoever the troll was got deleted.

[HighVoltage]

Originally Posted by Prince ///M

and also in case (absurd), it is impossible to send critical messages twice (same ID) without conflicts... and I' not talking about simple blinking of dashboard lights

This is incorrect, if indeed the Procede is operating as a gateway on the bus, then it can potentially manipulate all traffic without conflict but will require some very careful finessing of the CAN controllers.

[Prince ///M]

Originally Posted by HighVoltage

This is incorrect, if indeed the Procede is operating as a gateway on the bus, then it can potentially manipulate all traffic without conflict.

I don't think it is collecting frames, elaborating them and sending all again on CAN at 400hz (the automotive CAN bus I work with speaks each 2.5 ms for engine data).

It is possible, but unlikely IMHO (also considering safety issues related to communication between engine and stability system).

[HighVoltage]

Originally Posted by Prince ///M

I don't think it is collecting frames, elaborating them and sending all again on CAN at 400hz (the automotive CAN bus I work with are working at 2.5 ms for engine data).

It is possible, but unlikely IMHO (also considering safety issues related to communication between engine and stability system).

I work with < 1ms response times on CAN bus. I do agree its potentially dangerous. See above ^.

"EDIT: Also, if this is correct, I am also curious about the latency you have inherently introduced."

However you dont need to manipulate every frame, the CAN controller masks can help with that process.

[onesuperboi]

I'm not concerned with the price of the tune if I get my money's worth. I paid a lot for my car, so saving a few hundred dollars is not a bid deal unless there is a significant advantage of one product over the other (Think of some of the options BMW has. I got seat heaters for $500! =P). I am also not too considered about diagnostic invisibility because honestly, I would only visit my dealership 3-4 times under the warranty until I reach 50K or 4 years and I think everyone would purchased the BT tool to clear codes anyways. The on the fly switching is not useful either for me. How often would I want to drive stock? Would I just want one day say to myself, hey I want 330 hp instead of the usual 360 hp. Probably not. No one drives my car besides me, and even if someone else drove the car, I think they would be able to handle it. And, there are only a few upgrades that really warrant an update on a tune. Either you get DCI, FMIC, DP, or a catback exhaust.

There is a market for those that want all these features, but in the end I want performance, safety, and quality from a tune. To me, flashes seem the way things are heading from the new tunes I've seen coming out, so that's why I raised the topic of my Shiv (I should have included Terry as well) are not creating a flash tune. I got a partial answer from Shiv saying that with CANbus he has more parameters to mess around with, but does that mean that it offers as much control as a flash on the DME and the difference therefore would only be intercepting the variables vs direct control and writing of the variables? Because if his piggyback is equivalent to a flash, then it's really down to the buyer whether he wants to flash his ecu with new software or he wants to keep his original BMW software and just have an additional unit installed.

[Prince ///M]

Originally Posted by HighVoltage

I work with < 1ms response times on CAN bus. I do agree its potentially dangerous. See above ^.

"EDIT: Also, if this is correct, I am also curious about the latency you have inherently introduced."

However you dont need to manipulate every frame, the CAN controller masks can help with that process.

IMHO (from the cable images I saw) the Procede is working as an additional node, mainly 'sniffing' frames from CAN bus.

...and (IMHO again) it is impossible to act otherwise.

[ZTUNER]

Originally Posted by smdandb2

I can(and DO) monitor the CANBUS with this thing...

http://www.dashhawk.com/

That is all Shiv is doing. There is no data being changed on the CANBUS (at least in regards to engine parameters). I have no idea what he is doing on the display. I remember hearing about displaying a numerical boost number there, but never heard if he got it working.

Now, he can monitor what is going on and whatever sensor signals he is interpreting he can change the output to try to adjust based on the CAN information. But it is still 'tricking' the DME. It works, and he makes power. But don't think he is actually changing data in the DME directly. It is a cause and effect type deal.

you are using a DH on the 335 ? Where are you getting the BMW specific pid's ?

Harry

[smdandb2]

Originally Posted by ZTUNER

you are using a DH on the 335 ? Where are you getting the BMW specific pid's ?

Harry

I have a friend that works at Edge (diesel chips) and the DH is based off their Evolution. So he had one on his desk and gave it to me since he had no use for it. Mine actually is in an Edge Evolution case still.

I was merely making a point actually. The PIDs on the DH really suck (at least on the REV1 I have), just the most basic of basic. The point of the matter was, its nothing innovative to pull data from the CAN. Now is it cool that the Procede can monitor the data and adjust sensor data to to get the desired result? Sure. But its no software change.

[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

[Bubbles]

Originally Posted by smdandb2

I have a friend that works at Edge (diesel chips) and the DH is based off their Evolution. So he had one on his desk and gave it to me since he had no use for it. Mine actually is in an Edge Evolution case still.

I was merely making a point actually. The PIDs on the DH really suck (at least on the REV1 I have), just the most basic of basic. The point of the matter was, its nothing innovative to pull data from the CAN. Now is it cool that the Procede can monitor the data and adjust sensor data to to get the desired result? Sure. But its no software change.

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

I give you an A for effort though.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Ramos

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

It cracks me up how people, who have vested interest in reflash sales, are so cranky about the PROcede and what it does. We worked hard to get it to where it is right now (code reading, code clearing, CAN integration, CAN logging, dash displays and soon auto-tuning and in-dash boost display). Just let your product (or the product that you support/promote) speak for itself. If it's not good enough, make it better. Yeeesh.

Shiv

[ZTUNER]

Originally Posted by smdandb2

I have a friend that works at Edge (diesel chips) and the DH is based off their Evolution. So he had one on his desk and gave it to me since he had no use for it. Mine actually is in an Edge Evolution case still.

I was merely making a point actually. The PIDs on the DH really suck (at least on the REV1 I have), just the most basic of basic. The point of the matter was, its nothing innovative to pull data from the CAN. Now is it cool that the Procede can monitor the data and adjust sensor data to to get the desired result? Sure. But its no software change.

Sorry to get off topic but since the topic is getting ugly anyway...

Do you have the firmware number that you used on your DH ? reason i ask is i have a DH from my mazdaspeed that i would use if possible. FYI you are correct the caliberations in the DH suck. We finally went thru several firmware upgrades and got a set of mazda specific pids that work well. I have to say i like the inteface and i regret that the DH team dropped development.

On the topic itself. I don't understand why anyone would begrudge Shiv or Terry or any other tuner whatever profit they are making or what path they chose to get the results. IMO in the end its the results that matter. If its making power its making power, end of story. That being said i like flashing because where i come from (Z32 tuning) flashing has produced the most consistent and best results. Obviously this may or may not hold true for different platforms like the N54 because of different parameters and issues. Not knowing enough about this platform it would be foolish of me to comment. I will say that on the DI platform tuning has been quite hard (from my mazdaspeed experience). If we get safe and consistent tunes with piggies i see no harm in staying with them. Maybe there will be a time when flashing will be better (once we have cars going out of warranty) but till then the current results are quite good IMO.

No matter the approach, IMO results are what matter. I am still vacilating between JB and Procede but it will all depend on the best support to price ratio for me.

Harry

[smdandb2]

Originally Posted by ZTUNER

Sorry to get off topic but since the topic is getting ugly anyway...

Do you have the firmware number that you used on your DH ? reason i ask is i have a DH from my mazdaspeed that i would use if possible. FYI you are correct the caliberations in the DH suck. We finally went thru several firmware upgrades and got a set of mazda specific pids that work well. I have to say i like the inteface and i regret that the DH team dropped development.


Harry

It is whatever comes with the software for the revision 1 DH. I don't think it has seen an update in like 2 years.

Actually, still have the software here. V116 is the latest for the Rev1 DH.

Like I said, mine is in an Edge Evolution case still. Its a neat toy if the car you are using it on is supported. Most supported PIDs are from the big3 automakers.