Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 38

Thread: Flashhack EE continued

  1. #16
    Fuel Injected! spfautsch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Montgomery City, MO
    Age
    52
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by steveo View Post
    i implemented my own substitute for BPROT on the flashhack side of things, since there are still 4 bytes at the beginning of the tside and the xE60–xEDF range on the e-side that i don't want modified until we understand them.
    Just a wild theory here, but having just rebuilt two computer controlled GM transmissions, I've discovered the transmission shift pressure adaptations seem to be stored in eeprom on these (a 2006 and 2008 model year). I've no idea if they were doing stuff like this back in the 90s, but thought I'd throw it out there as something to consider for the unknown data on the e-side.

  2. #17
    LT1 specialist steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,002
    totally could be but the eside doesn't have much code on it regarding transmission control so that'd be a weird place to put it

  3. #18
    Fuel Injected! JimCT_9C1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    63
    Sharing some thoughts and ideas on relocated "quick tune" tables -

    With limited space I wonder if it's possible to create a few clusters of tables to choose between depending on what a user might be doing. Examples might be VE alone, MAF+PE(+more?), and spark+PE(+KR?). Looks like there might be room to squeeze some transient fueling parameters and injector tables in along with MAF?

    I'd also be interested to know if/how this approach could be applied to auto trans tables. I haven't dug in enough to try to figure the space required for various tables vs how much space might be available, but if it's possible this is another useful application.

    These relocated tables also provide the opportunity to make quick tune adjustments when vehicle usage changes (daily, tow, track, etc). This would be a nice improvement over a full bin rewrite or swapping PCMs.

    Thoughts and comments on the above are more than welcome.

    Jim

    PS I like kur4o's comment on using an onboard bin id and compare for selective write. Simplifies the case when more than one computer may be used for flashing.
    1995 Caprice 9C1 LT1 - 4.10s, Dynomax Catback, K&N Cold Air Kit, Other Little Stuff
    1996 Caprice 9C1 LT1 - 3.73s, Stock

  4. #19
    LT1 specialist steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,002
    thats pretty much what i had in mind
    what automatic transmission tables would benefit and how big are they?
    keep in mind each one will require effort to arrange relocation so i wont have infinte patience for making everything relocatable
    basically if it isn't something you'll have to change dozens of times to get perfect then its not worth the time

  5. #20
    Fuel Injected! JimCT_9C1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    63
    My high level thoughts on the trans tables were the normal mode up/down shift table, kickdown mode speed and rpm tables, and normal mode TCC engage and disengage tables. Performance mode shift and TCC tables would be nice for those who have it. I'd want someone to double check me, but my count is five tables / 216 bytes for normal+kickdown mode, and performance mode adds three tables / 204 bytes.

    To the point of relative benefit, there are tools available such as Bluecat's that can get pretty close on the first couple iterations, but there's always some tweaking. And again this would also be nice for changing of shift points for towing or track use, particularly for kickdown mode and those without performance mode.

    Nice to have, but I suspect engine tuning has priority for most users. Hopefully others will chime in with their thoughts as well.

    Jim
    1995 Caprice 9C1 LT1 - 4.10s, Dynomax Catback, K&N Cold Air Kit, Other Little Stuff
    1996 Caprice 9C1 LT1 - 3.73s, Stock

  6. #21
    LT1 specialist steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,002
    it's possible it's not even necessary or that anyone will care, but the code is there and it's always fun to optimize, and i think partial calibration upload is something we never really thought we'd have on this series of ECM. i definitely plan to release it anyway, so anyone could easily just make a patch, move a table, modify their bin in the appropriate EEPROM area, and flashhack would cooperate. that part is already finished.

  7. #22
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    757
    Small note, but I was going through Flashhack 1.2 and it appears the archive on your site also contains several BINs read out from EE test vehicles. I'm guessing they weren't actually intended to be included. Not that they're taking up a ton of space or doing any harm by being there, but just thought it was interesting when I went to copy over the STORAGE folder from 1.3 (since I'd used it to read out my '95) and had it tell me there were already files by those names in the 1.2 folder.

    As for my thought on transmission stuff, while I do have an auto $EE car, I don't really see the need to have relocated tables to mess with it. Generally I just do everything "pen and paper" style, and then flash the update wholesale. I don't think I would personally benefit from having realtime transmission changes. They're easy enough to update all at once. But that's just me.
    1990 Corvette (Manual)
    1994 Corvette (Automatic)
    1995 Corvette (Manual)

  8. #23
    Fuel Injected! JimCT_9C1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    63
    It's fantastic that tables can be relocated via patch and still be supported for quick changes via flashhack. This will be a very powerful customizable.capability, regardless of which tables end up being prepackaged. I'll be thinking of ways to use it for sure.

    To NomakeWan's point on trans tuning, I never needed to dither with trans line pressure, so may have been remiss in not mentioning it in my prior post. I realized that others may spend some time working in that area so I figured I'd mention it for completeness. I see two main tables for line pressure vs speed vs TPS (289 bytes each), and two smaller tables (51 bytes each) with line pressure offsets vs TPS vs gear (one normal, one performance mode). These add up to 680 bytes if taken as a single chunk. Do we know how much room is available?

    This is an exciting advancement for $EE -
    Kudos to all who worked to get us here!

    Jim
    1995 Caprice 9C1 LT1 - 4.10s, Dynomax Catback, K&N Cold Air Kit, Other Little Stuff
    1996 Caprice 9C1 LT1 - 3.73s, Stock

  9. #24
    LT1 specialist steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,002
    Quote Originally Posted by NomakeWan View Post
    Small note, but I was going through Flashhack 1.2 and it appears the archive on your site also contains several BINs read out from EE test vehicles. I'm guessing they weren't actually intended to be included. Not that they're taking up a ton of space or doing any harm by being there, but just thought it was interesting when I went to copy over the STORAGE folder from 1.3 (since I'd used it to read out my '95) and had it tell me there were already files by those names in the 1.2 folder.
    the release process for flashhack is really just 'zip my development directory' and if i forget to remove my testing bins you get them for free
    probably the best thing to do for upgrades is overwrite and replace and keep whatever leftover garbage that does no harm

    As for my thought on transmission stuff, while I do have an auto $EE car, I don't really see the need to have relocated tables to mess with it. Generally I just do everything "pen and paper" style, and then flash the update wholesale. I don't think I would personally benefit from having realtime transmission
    changes. They're easy enough to update all at once. But that's just me.
    to be clear nothing is real time and you still cant' do this with your car running

    i figure we are just looking for 'less time' and 'less risk'.

    tables that are written to the onboard EEPROM:

    - have zero risk of bricking the ECM since we do not have to erase the executable code or data regions involved in communication
    - involve probably a few seconds of upload time to make a change (totally variable depending on how much you're changing)

  10. #25
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    757
    Do we have enough space in the EEPROM for two copies of the VE table? I think that's the largest of the engine tuning parameter tables?

    I was just thinking we could accomplish actual realtime if so; include two copies of the table, and a pointer. Have the pointer tell the PCM's run routine to use the table that isn't about to be replaced. Then when you update the EEPROM, the pointer flips to the table that just got updated after the update completes. Rinse and repeat back and forth. Unless writing to the EEPROM requires completely erasing it first, in which case of course that wouldn't work. But it would be neat if something like that could work, considering only a generation later you have aftermarket firmwares that allow for updating tables in realtime.
    1990 Corvette (Manual)
    1994 Corvette (Automatic)
    1995 Corvette (Manual)

  11. #26
    Fuel Injected! JimCT_9C1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    63
    I believe from earlier posts there is only room for one copy of the VE table. However, it seems a static "initial" VE table would/could still exist in still in the bin and could be used as the temporary backup during the EEPROM update. Shift pointer to initial table, write new table, shift pointer back. All presuming live EEPROM changes are viable of course.

    I like the pointer based thinking - I was conceptually thinking something along those same lines could serve as a framework for a multi-tune capability where multiple copies of various tables are stored with the bin with changeable pointers in the onboard EEPROM for a quick tune swap.
    Just some armchair noodling...

    Glad to see the ideas flowing!

    Jim
    1995 Caprice 9C1 LT1 - 4.10s, Dynomax Catback, K&N Cold Air Kit, Other Little Stuff
    1996 Caprice 9C1 LT1 - 3.73s, Stock

  12. #27

  13. #28
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Age
    41
    Posts
    149
    and here is no way to keep VE in RAM typ memory where You upload and use VE table until EEhack and/or Flashhack is connected ?

  14. #29
    LT1 specialist steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,002
    Quote Originally Posted by WASyL View Post
    and here is no way to keep VE in RAM typ memory where You upload and use VE table until EEhack and/or Flashhack is connected ?
    i'm not sure that makes sense, but i'm not doing that with flashhack

  15. #30
    LT1 specialist steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,002
    honestly, are the following benefits even worth it for a few tables or is it just 'it's not realtime tuning so don't bother'

    - have zero risk of bricking the ECM since we do not have to erase the executable code or data regions involved in communication
    - involve probably a few seconds of upload time to make a change (totally variable depending on how much you're changing)

Similar Threads

  1. Flashhack - New LT1 flash tool
    By steveo in forum GM EFI Systems
    Replies: 320
    Last Post: 08-17-2021, 05:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •