|
|
|
|
|
|
BMW Garage | BMW Meets | Register | Today's Posts | Search |
|
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum
>
N55 MEVD17 DIY Tuning
|
|
03-15-2017, 05:17 PM | #1 |
Lieutenant
229
Rep 538
Posts |
N55 MEVD17 DIY Tuning
With the release of MHD we now have the ability to flash our own cars with:
1) Off-the-shelf maps 2) A "pro" tune provided by a known N55 vendor 3) A tune we have created on our own (from the bin and associated xdf). I'm guessing that some of us out there plan to go down option 3 listed above (i.e. tune it ourselves), or at least do some tweaking ourselves. The intent of this thread is to have a working area where we can talk about our experiences and share information about MEVD17 tuning in general. We can use this thread to talk about things like:
What I would like to avoid:
Quick reference to various software/documentation:
Last edited by WhatsADSM; 03-15-2017 at 09:53 PM.. |
Appreciate
6
|
03-15-2017, 05:18 PM | #2 | ||||||
Lieutenant
229
Rep 538
Posts |
I guess I can start. I plan to flash my car in the spring after some basic hardware upgrades, and have started to look into the bin and xdf. In general there seemed to be a lot of tables unlocked thus far which is very promising. However like many cracks unless its really well documented it can be hard to decipher the various tables, and models (many are still titled in German to boot). So I sent Martial a PM and he eventually got back to me on some of my questions. I figured I would post those questions here to start off:
Reguarding the "%" units I see as the axis scalars for many of the tables: Quote:
Quote:
Me trying to get a handle on a flow chart of how the load request ultimately gets generated: Quote:
Quote:
Me trying to find the base WGDC table: Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
Appreciate
1
Joey91162.00 |
03-15-2017, 10:39 PM | #4 |
Lieutenant
229
Rep 538
Posts |
First off, just a note that I added some more links to the first post. I archived some information in a public area of my google docs. This includes a copy of the BMS back end flashes (reference for fuel and ignition control only), as well as stock bin, for the N55. Also added a copy of the COBB ATR guide for the N55.
Next I had some free time here at home so I took a closer look at the "Compressor characteristic with required compressor / turbine power" (KF_ATL_PVERD) table. I took that table and cross-referenced it against a picture that COBB has in their manual for the "WGDC (Base)" table. They don't directly match but are clearly the same with different scaling, and I say this for two reasons: 1) The Y axis in the MHD XDF is exactly half that of COBB. Did someone miss a bit somewhere? Someone didn't notice a shift right/left in the assembly? I don't know. In any case the COBB manual does clearly state that it is the "boost setpoint factor", and if that is so, I would *think* MHD got it correct, and the value is likely closely related to commanded absolute pressure. 2) The Z values in the table are definitely different but are related by a factor of 1.5626 (i.e. multiply MHD by this number and that is what the COBB table shows). MHD claims these values are in "kw" (power to spin the turbo), COBB seems to suggest they are a direct duty cycle command. I'm not sure who is correct there, although if they are really in kw, then there needs to be some other table involved to resolve kw to a duty cycle... and Martial@MHD never said anything about it. Maybe COBB is right for the Z?! Who knows. While the engineer in me would really like this all to make sense in terms of units, scales, etc. ultimately as long the boost setpoint and maf g/s can be logged accurately, and the scaling is correct at the Y-axis and X-axis level I guess I'm not *too* worried as you can always tweak the Z-value up or down and with some trial and error get the compressor mapped out. I will say I do like the idea of a table that is referenced by commanded pressure as well as a air mass... That should really help to nail down the boost curve pretty well. Last edited by WhatsADSM; 03-15-2017 at 11:03 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
03-16-2017, 07:44 AM | #5 |
Lieutenant Colonel
247
Rep 1,595
Posts
Drives: 2011 335i xDrive Msport
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Orlando
|
Unfortunately I may go down this route too. I really wish the OTS maps were unlocked. I would love to just buy the E30 OTS map and make a few tweaks for my car. I am running a PS1 so I can run a little more boost than a stock turbo car. It is never a bad thing to learn to tune your own car. I used an AEM EMS on my last car.
__________________
2011 335Xi 6AT - VRSF catless DP - VRSF 7" FMIC with turbo inlet pipe - VRSF chargepipe - Pure Stage 1 turbo - JB4 - E30 - xHP Stage 3 - Strongflex tension bushings - Whiteline RSFB - UUC rear swaybar
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-16-2017, 11:03 AM | #7 | |
Lieutenant
229
Rep 538
Posts |
Quote:
The issue with the model as-is is that those of us who purchased the OTS tune aren't allowed to then modify it. AND on top of it all there is a conflict of interest. Why should MHD help the community of DIY tuners (although we have purchased their product which clearly states I can DIY tune)? If they help me and I come up with a tune that is roughly equivalent to their OTS offering, then you are back to the point where you just buy MHD and use the community provided OTS tune for free bypassing their OTS offering and costing them money. If you ask me this is all backwards and I suspect why all tuning packages I have ever worked with instead just make you pay for the platform in its entirety (tune, and all base maps) first. Then you can use it as you please. Going that route there are no worries about someone circumventing the IP, because there is no reason to protect it in the first place. Essentially you just bundle all of the map packs they offer now into the price of the tool. If they outsource the tuning work to a 3rd party, then just pay the 3rd party a flat rate upfront or a small royalty for every sale of the tool (just as they do now). You might say "but that would cost the customer more; everything is bundled". My answer is "not on the bottom line". Most people today have to purchase the tool and then purchase the map pack anyways, since they can't tune their car on their own so the bottom line price is the same. For the few of us that do tune it ourselves, I'm guessing we would have no problem paying a little extra to have a nice base map to start from (hell I purchased the map pack, just because). Not to mention you no longer need to pay the R&D to protect the map IP, and there is more economy of scale as well since everyone is inherently buying all of the maps. Seems like a win-win relative to where we are today... but I will freely admit my background is not in marketing. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-16-2017, 11:25 AM | #9 | |
Lieutenant
229
Rep 538
Posts |
Quote:
So I have a few questions still around the WGDC (assuming for now the target boost is understood): 1) The "Compressor characteristic with required compressor / turbine power" table. Are the cells really in kW? If so what tables are involved after that to go to a base duty cycle? Wastegate Position - Modell? 2) What do the "ATL - Regler" tables model? Last edited by WhatsADSM; 03-16-2017 at 11:36 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-16-2017, 12:03 PM | #10 |
Lieutenant Colonel
247
Rep 1,595
Posts
Drives: 2011 335i xDrive Msport
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Orlando
|
My last modified car was also a DSM
First thing, it seems that load based tuning is the way to go. Wedge uses that and it seem like Justin is also switching to that. I also totally agree with your assessment of the buying process for MHD/maps. I guess it saves you a little money if you don't have to buy the OTS maps and only get a protune. I see zero reason the logging isn't included, you can't do anything without logging. It kind of opens up a legal issue for them where if an OTS tune blows up a car that they weren't logging with. You could say you should be logging even with an OTS tune, but if you make the tune available without logging capabilities... Anyway, that is beside the point, we can't change that. I am still on JB4 for a short while longer, but I will be joining in to the fray soon. Depending on time I may do my own tune or I may just have a protune done and be done with it.
__________________
2011 335Xi 6AT - VRSF catless DP - VRSF 7" FMIC with turbo inlet pipe - VRSF chargepipe - Pure Stage 1 turbo - JB4 - E30 - xHP Stage 3 - Strongflex tension bushings - Whiteline RSFB - UUC rear swaybar
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-16-2017, 02:12 PM | #11 | |
Lieutenant
337
Rep 258
Posts |
Quote:
Not sure what the ATL - Regler tables are used for. Maybe someone else can chime in on that. MHD Tuning |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-16-2017, 04:14 PM | #12 | |
Lieutenant
229
Rep 538
Posts |
Quote:
"This table uses the Z value and Y value to deduce the X value. For tuning, the X axis must be modified." BUT... 2 things: 1) Lets take for face value that the Y-axis is infact air-mass in kg/h (as the XDF states). This scaling is not consistent with g/s in the compressor table. To correct this I figured I would normalize on g/s (more common) which means I simply divide by 3.6. If it were true that it was in kg/h then that means the largest value in the Y-axis is 269 kg/h or 74.7 g/s... That's VERY low, which means the DME would be essentially constantly operating in the last row of the table... given we are talking about boost here. I actually started to go into the XDF to change it to g/s and found something interesting. The Y-axis scaling is listed as "X*0.03125/3.6"... That 3.6 sure is suspicious isn't it. In a nutshell I'm pretty sure the XDF has an error, and the Wastegate Position - Modell Y-axis is in terms of g/s. Which makes much more sense. I hate to be picky about this stuff but its very important. Incorrect units can lead to expensive stuff not working... just ask NASA and Lockheed 2) The XDF shows the wastegate position model cell (Z) as "%". That can't be load as it wouldn't make any sense ans wouldn't mean you couldn't do as you are saying and translate from kW to duty cycle. Sounds like that should be kW. If it *is* kW this also means that the highest possible duty cycle value to EVER come out of the open-loop wastegate modelling is 45% (that's the greatest X-axis). I actually buy that since that is probably as high as BMW ever wants the open loop to command. Anything more has to be done via a P-I regulator. However that was just considering the biggest number in the X-Axis. If I instead run an example car through like say a PPK car making 340hp (~270 g/s) in reality if we use the compressor characteristic table alone the highest ultimate duty cycle you could ever see coming off the base table is like 17% duty cycle. Something doesn't add up there, 17% is too low. There has to be another table being applied in between the compressor characteristic table and the wastegate position model table. "Additional WG due to the spring"? "WGDC Adder"? one of the ATL-Reglers? Last edited by WhatsADSM; 03-16-2017 at 04:23 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
1
Joey91162.00 |
03-17-2017, 07:40 AM | #13 | ||
Lieutenant
62
Rep 582
Posts |
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
03-17-2017, 10:37 AM | #14 | |
Lieutenant
337
Rep 258
Posts |
Quote:
As Joey said there's errors all over the XDF. The Y axis is g/s. Also you'll notice that the boost setpoint factor in the WGDC (spool) table is scaled incorrectly (X/16384). As it's currently scaled it would almost never be used. The correct conversion appears to be X/8192 (same as the compressor characteristic table). When using the commanded WGDC system you'll notice "boost setpoint commanded" logging parameter is not scaled to match the boost setpoint factor in the commanded wgdc table. The logged parameter needs to be multiplied by 2 to match the command wgdc table. Logging parameter WGDC Base % is actually the cell value from the compressor characteristic table but it looks like the MAF g/s used is actually the MAF req. WGDC g/s logging parameter HOWEVER it appears the logged parameter WGDC Base % is scaled like Cobb. If you change the compressor table to multiply the cell value by 1.5626 you'll then be able to line up MAF req. WGDC g/s & Boost setpoint get the correct WGDC Base "%" from the compressor table. |
|
03-17-2017, 11:12 AM | #15 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
247
Rep 1,595
Posts
Drives: 2011 335i xDrive Msport
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Orlando
|
Quote:
__________________
2011 335Xi 6AT - VRSF catless DP - VRSF 7" FMIC with turbo inlet pipe - VRSF chargepipe - Pure Stage 1 turbo - JB4 - E30 - xHP Stage 3 - Strongflex tension bushings - Whiteline RSFB - UUC rear swaybar
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-17-2017, 11:19 AM | #16 | |
Lieutenant
229
Rep 538
Posts |
Quote:
I'm going to ask MHD if I can make fixes to the XDF and commit/merge them back to his GitHub. There is no real excuse for errors in the XDF certainly if we know the fixes for them. |
|
Appreciate
1
bbnks21217.50 |
03-17-2017, 01:14 PM | #17 |
Colonel
720
Rep 2,460
Posts |
I don't fully understand what you guys are talking about, but thanks for posting and working on the xdfs. Please let post what MHD says when you bring the errors to his attention.
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-17-2017, 01:18 PM | #18 | |
Lieutenant
337
Rep 258
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-17-2017, 01:39 PM | #19 |
Lieutenant Colonel
247
Rep 1,595
Posts
Drives: 2011 335i xDrive Msport
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Orlando
|
If Justin is creating them, then it is a serious conflict of interest. The more he releases to us, the more people that won't buy his OTS maps. I sure hope Martial is in charge of them as he will be less biased, but still somewhat biased as he has to be getting a cut of map sales too.
__________________
2011 335Xi 6AT - VRSF catless DP - VRSF 7" FMIC with turbo inlet pipe - VRSF chargepipe - Pure Stage 1 turbo - JB4 - E30 - xHP Stage 3 - Strongflex tension bushings - Whiteline RSFB - UUC rear swaybar
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-17-2017, 01:54 PM | #20 | |
Lieutenant
337
Rep 258
Posts |
Quote:
I also have some possibly unfounded doubts about the Wastegate Position model table being an inverse lookup for the Z of the compressor characteristics map (at least directly). The conversion factors are not the same, so I don't know how you can accurately compare the two. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-17-2017, 02:04 PM | #22 | |
Colonel
1218
Rep 2,030
Posts |
Quote:
MHD/Justin are under no obligation to publicly release anything. You are paying Martial $200 for his efforts to bring OBD flashing to your POCKET (via an app). The license is a fair price for unlimited flashing. That has nothing to do with mapping out the DME. Martial gives you BMW's .bin files to do with as you please! You are then paying Justin $50 for a generic re-map (if you choose that route). His time and effort has gone into generating these maps. He has intellectual property to protect, which is why they SHOULD and ARE locked to prevent abuse. You are already getting your money worth 10x over with what is being provided with the $50 V25 OTS maps! Go ahead and compare the value to COBB, JB4, or Dinan... Just about every map gets locked by the tuner (with a few exceptions - COBB OTS). Cobb Vin locked their flash device, so allowing their OTS tunes to be edited wasn't an issue. You had to pay COBB $700 to buy their AP to flash your car with (proprietary cobb file type), which protected their revenue stream from competitors flashing their files. Look at Dinan too. I can guarantee they have more bytes of the DME mapped than the public N55 XDF does (and probably a deeper understanding of it). Why aren't people fighting them to release it publicly? Why aren't people fighting them to unlock their maps so you can copy their tables? They'd laugh you out the door... Luckily for us, the COLLABORATIVE work of various people to define tables is being shared PUBLICLY. Anyone can contribute to the XDF and help advance the platform, as is being done above and as has already been done by people previously (look at the change log on GitHub)! Justin has no obligation to educate people on how to custom tune their cars or on how to interpret his work. If Justin intentionally put some eggs into the public XDF to keep himself ahead of the "game" than that is a serious ethical issue. However, I don't want to believe that is the case. Especially without something to support it! I would imagine Justin probably knows himself what each table does when he tweaks the numbers a certain way, just like COBB probably knew with their tables (looking back, I'd gladly take my COBB pro-tune back). How the tables are scaled, or how they are labeled, are probably a non issue for Justin... I do find it interesting that people are finding so many errors in the details though. It's kind of ironic after seeing MHD boast about how COBB is the one who had things scaled incorrectly... FYI, have you guys compared a base .bin to a ppk .bin? The public XDF hasn't even mapped out HALF of the bytes of changes BMW made from stock to ppk. I am guessing there is a lot more to learn and expand upon, which will surely happen over time if people put effort into it! Last edited by bbnks2; 03-17-2017 at 05:04 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
2
Tricki215.00 MHD Tuning1982.00 |
Bookmarks |
|
|