Page 66 of 72 FirstFirst ... 16566162636465666768697071 ... LastLast
Results 976 to 990 of 1070

Thread: new $EE tuning thing!

  1. #976
    Fuel Injected! spfautsch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Montgomery City, MO
    Age
    52
    Posts
    883
    Thanks, I'll report back if and when I get to test. I'm currently fighting with an untested diy-ltcc prototype, so I may be several days before I'm ready to tweak on the bin.

    edit: I meant to add some possibly anecdotal information I noticed the other night trying to flash a few changes w/ eehack. Mind you this is on a y-body where the CCM is the aldl master. After having the ECM disconnected, I was unable to get it into programming mode - the exact error escapes me at the moment but it was something related to the key seed - eehack suggests trying key off and trying again. The only way I could get into programming mode was to try starting the engine. After that it flashed on the first attempt. Same thing happened when I pulled the red connector to check some pinouts were correct.

  2. #977
    Carb and Points!
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1
    Hi.

    Seen some posts on this topic before.. Norton don't like eehack4.7-install.exe.

    Won't let me install.

    Probably Norton being paranoid as usual.

    norton.jpg

  3. #978

  4. #979
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by kur4o View Post
    Since I haven`t time to test it yet, the patches were not implementet in eehack yet.
    You have to apply patch manualy, from the xdf I provided.
    I did some limited initial testing and all works fine.
    Now have to figure out how to insert patches through eehack program.

  5. #980
    LT1 specialist steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,002
    Now have to figure out how to insert patches through eehack program.
    i made it fairly easy

    in bin_file.cpp:

    see the apply_patches() function; it calls functions to apply each individual patch component

    by the time the apply_patches function is called, the bin is already split.

    they all call install_patch(bin_side,patch_offset,patch_data,siz eof(patch_data))

    see patch_enhanced_logging() or patch_eside_comms() for a good example of how to use it

    you could also do some tests on the raw eside or tside bin at this point to make sure it's OK to apply your particular patch, returning false if you can't.

  6. #981
    Fuel Injected! spfautsch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Montgomery City, MO
    Age
    52
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by steveo View Post
    any antivirus that would think eehack is a virus should be taken off the market
    I'm not sure I've seen one that should be "on the market". Antivirus software is a lot like credit monitoring / identity theft protection, the majority of which are marketed by the companies that maintain said data (Equifax ring a bell with anyone). The words "conflict of interest" come to mind.

    Sorry I haven't had a chance to test these yet, my chariot is finally running but today was largely spent getting blades sharpened and oil changed on all the lawn mowers I'm responsible for. Yesterday wasn't a great day either b/c I discovered that I think I have a valve sticking slightly, and my new dual friction clutch was engaging like I'd mistakenly left my wristwatch between the friction disc and pressure plate.

  7. #982
    LT1 specialist steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,002
    I'm not sure I've seen one that should be "on the market". Antivirus software is a lot like credit monitoring / identity theft protection, the majority of which are marketed by the companies that maintain said data (Equifax ring a bell with anyone). The words "conflict of interest" come to mind.
    windows built-in antivirus will stop simple viruses just fine... i never really minded AVG's products either (not that i use them, but they're a lot less obnoxious than others)

  8. #983
    Fuel Injected! spfautsch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Montgomery City, MO
    Age
    52
    Posts
    883
    My preferred method of antivirus is to avoid using any microsoft operating system. It gives me "plausible deniability" when someone asks if I can clean their machine. I simply reply "sorry, I haven't run windows in 10 years so wouldn't know where to start". It's not an entirely true statement, but I sleep just fine at night using it.

    Curious, what version of QT are you guys building with? I've had to make some changes to get it to compile under 5.8 and higher (on Ubuntu linux). This, for example, from launcher.h

    Code:
    #include <QDesktopServices> // spfautsch - added to resolve missing type under qt 5.8 and above
    I can send all the diffs if wanted. It looks like QT has removed version 5.7 and below from their installer which is why I discovered this when I setup my laptop last spring.

  9. #984
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,469
    Qt Creator 3.6.1
    Based on Qt 5.6.0 (MSVC 2013, 32 bit)

    Built on Mar 14 2016 09:57:09

    From revision d502727b2c
    I used this as most OS compatable.

  10. #985
    Fuel Injected! spfautsch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Montgomery City, MO
    Age
    52
    Posts
    883
    Understandable.

    Here are all the diffs - they're all relatively minor so it shouldn't be a problem applying them without using the patch binary. I don't think I have a working version of QT older than 5.8 so have no idea if this would compile on older versions. If it will I'd love to see them included in the 4.9 branch.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  11. #986
    Fuel Injected! spfautsch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Montgomery City, MO
    Age
    52
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by kur4o View Post
    I did some limited initial testing and all works fine.
    Now have to figure out how to insert patches through eehack program.
    I still haven't had a chance to test, but I had some time today to port some older mods into the 4.9 branch you posted earlier. Things like tying accelerator keys to functions in the controller ui. For instance I tied the 'S' key to the spark skew checkbox so you can adjust timing by just pressing S and then using the arrow keys (no clicking required). If you have a chance to test in another branch, it would be great to see these mods make it back to the main source tree. This also includes all the diffs in my previous post to allow compiling under QT 5.8 and newer.

    I'm going to pull my engine back out to swap to a tamer clutch disk and have the sticky valve guides honed, so I'm going to be several more weeks before I can test.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  12. #987
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,469
    I test it on 5.6 and it compliles without error.
    However the base source code you used was some old beta test version that is not good.

    Here is an upload of the latest tested source with all mode 4 working and some initial changes to patch.
    I am sorry to tell you but you will have to transfer all the changes to this source code.

    The keyboard shortcuts is very good idea. I did give it a test and it is awesome. It will be great to other m4 controls and expand it to other functions of the program, like call mode4 window with a button or call datalog window.

    Steveo I am thinking to split the patch on main patch and some add-on enhancements which will be user configurable. The main patch will contain only logging enhancement and sd/maf switching. The add-ons will add extra mode4 controls. That way when you are finished with tuning you can load the basic version and save PCM cpu power with unnecessary jumps.

    The patch side is implemented by global enable switch and is hard to manupilate. The easiest way will be to add a check box on the flash window that will be visible in the bin_file.cpp. I hope you can help with the linking or give some hints how can it be done.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  13. #988
    Fuel Injected! spfautsch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Montgomery City, MO
    Age
    52
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by kur4o View Post
    Here is an upload of the latest tested source with all mode 4 working and some initial changes to patch.
    I am sorry to tell you but you will have to transfer all the changes to this source code.
    No problem, I'll try to get it done and post back later today / tonight.

  14. #989
    LT1 specialist steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,002
    Quote Originally Posted by kur4o View Post
    Steveo I am thinking to split the patch on main patch and some add-on enhancements which will be user configurable. The main patch will contain only logging enhancement and sd/maf switching. The add-ons will add extra mode4 controls. That way when you are finished with tuning you can load the basic version and save PCM cpu power with unnecessary jumps.

    The patch side is implemented by global enable switch and is hard to manupilate. The easiest way will be to add a check box on the flash window that will be visible in the bin_file.cpp. I hope you can help with the linking or give some hints how can it be done.
    you could do user configurable custom patches for sure. adding more checkboxes to enable patches wouldn't be too hard.

    you do have to think about something, though.. right now eehack has a patch version scheme so it knows exactly what functionality is present when you connect, and it can modify the ui accordingly, hide/disable controls, whatever. i did it like this so you could plug it into any car and it would behave properly, whether it was patched, factory, or even patched with older versions.

    if you did individual switchable patches, you could either:

    - extend that version scheme, maybe assign a second byte or two somewhere so you have enable switches for each additional patch you do, something that is 0x00 in the factory bin, and at least that would make it backwards compatible with bins patched from older eehack versions

    - forget it and leave the ui inconsistent with controls that may or may not work depending on which patches the user chooses to install, which would confuse everyone

    - store the last patch state and use that as your 'detection', which would be very easy to do and work just great as long as you are only tuning one vehicle and only flashing with eehack

    i hope you pick the first one, things are pretty seamless right now, which took a lot of thought to achieve

    just what kind of enhancements are you working on anyway?

  15. #990
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,469
    I`ve been thinking about a secret check byte for each addon so ui can be updated accordingly.
    The main patch will be v4 and the addon add a sub patch version with different check byte. That way it will be backwards compatible and there won`t be any non functional options.
    The addon patches will be strictly mode4 control enhancements.

    I have done already Individual cylinder corrections, delta VE change and end of injection control.
    Also MAF/SD switching from mode 4.

    I am still having trouble with the check box linking with the bin_file.cpp.

Similar Threads

  1. 1badcell and thats not the only thing
    By 1badcell in forum Introductions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-31-2013, 02:25 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-27-2012, 09:03 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-07-2012, 05:26 PM
  4. Minor thing.
    By historystamp in forum GearHead EFI Forum Support
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-22-2012, 12:00 AM

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
  •