That solves the mystery.
Best regards
That solves the mystery.
Best regards
you know from what i saw from the other P66 masks a lot of tables are in the same place.
i betcha what you could do is delete all the XDF tables and constants that aren't obviously real
then go and find the VE and spark tables manually (they are usually pretty obvious shapes and probably the same dimension as the other P66 masks)
that should make it capable of a basic tune
just an idea
It seems to me that when I tried using the P66 V6 XDF on a 93 Fbody ECM one of the VE or SA tables appeared to read correctly (cant remember which one) and the other one was garbage. When using the 94/95 P66 V6 XDF on a 93 Fbody ECM some of the data appears to be correct but not sure if it is, so creating an XDF for the 93 may not be that difficult. Maybe just tweaking the 94/95 XDF can be done. I know nothing about that stuff. In my application I needed more than those 2 tables. The 93 Fbody ECM is the only one that uses the 3.4l with a 700R4 transmission (non electronic). The 94/95 uses the electronic version of transmission. It would have been the perfect choice for my application.
I just needed to adjust radiator fan on and off temperature but these these are totally mixed up and I know nothing in making xdf's.
posted a new version of flashhack, mostly minor bugfixes, took the 'beta' thing off of it since no real issues.
i did add an aldl cable tester tool that checks for consistency and latency, mostly so i have something to run when people are complaining about not being able to connect. it also identifies counterfeit ftdi chips and warns you (although i run counterfeits and they work great)
here are some example test results of a working cable, if you get very different results please post them:
Code:Examining interface COM3... USB Serial Port - FTDI Serial# A50285BIA VID/PID: 403/6001 WARNING! Your FTDI interface is probably counterfeit. This may not be a real problem, but if you have issues, you may have to try another. The bus has been silent for two seconds. Test data: 10 chunks @ 1b Test latency results: TX=0ms TX/RX=14ms RX=14ms Test data: 12 chunks @ 2b Test latency results: TX=0ms TX/RX=15ms RX=15ms Test data: 20 chunks @ 3b Test latency results: TX=0ms TX/RX=15ms RX=15ms Test data: 10 chunks @ 32b Test latency results: TX=0ms TX/RX=15ms RX=47ms Test data: 10 chunks @ 64b Test latency results: TX=0ms TX/RX=15ms RX=79ms Test data: 8 chunks @ 150b Test latency results: TX=74ms TX/RX=0ms RX=116ms Test data: 4 chunks @ 400b Test latency results: TX=386ms TX/RX=0ms RX=108ms Test data: 1 chunks @ 1000b Test latency results: TX=1088ms TX/RX=0ms RX=141ms All tests OK. This interface should be safe to use. No warranty.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks