Narrowband Tuning Tool

[steveo]

oh and the wb data is likely quite different due to the 'minimum records' setting in advanced

it writes off a cell as junk based on trim behavior so might have to lower it when analyzing small wideband data sets

[steveo]

0.9 BETA:
- some code cleanup and general optimization
- ammended dictionary
- fixed bug where filter statistics were not reset
- ignore integrator in arbitrary input mode
- add option to more easily ignore integrator
- add option to use leanest trim in dual bank configs

.... you should know where to get it by now

[dud]

thanks very much for that detail. the data looks pretty decent

does your spreadsheet use integrator data? to make the comparison for error checking you might have to disable it. the new version will have a toggle for it. otherwise looks pretty good.

No my spreadsheet doesn't use Integrator data. I hadn't thought about the integrator. I ran the log again with the integrator disabled and got the exact same numbers in all three modes as if the integrator was enabled. Another bug maybe?

I'm still impressed with the data. The data presented is after using Trimalyzer to tune my ve's with the "Geometric" method. I also used it to adjust my PE AFR (WBO2), and the output on the dash gauge is more in line with your tool than my spreadsheet. Go figure.

[steveo]

my tool uses the integrator data but not in its entirety, it just skews the blm value with it slightly to get pre-learning and inter-blm-cell type data. this is done with a reduction multiplier, it's in advanced settings. TUNE_INTEGRATOR_REDUCTION. by default 38%

[Stokes1114]

Heres my results from my log done today. Im now on my 5th run through your program. Started out extremely rich and now its definitely not as bad. Does it look as though its leaning too much?Attachment 11597

[steveo]

well it's definitely not rich now, that's a bit too lean for my liking though, might have gone too far.

[Stokes1114]

Ran it through with a new log and seemed to help a bit..Overall worked perfectly to get the table very close and quick. I think i just need to fine tune now. Was it loose or strict that would be more helpful in that case?Trim#6.PNG

[steveo]

yeah it's definitely pretty good! remember that 132 is only a 3% fueling error, which is really nothing, it's just running at nearly 15:1 instead of 14.7:1, and that's just until your trims take effect. totally safe unless under really heavy load.

loose should be ideal even for fine tuning. by 'loose' it just means that samples close to the border are averaged into both cells. it's not spreading the data around very much. you can tighten the boundaries on map and rpm hysteresis (go a bit lower). i think there's no reason to use 'strict', rather just see you tune 'loose' until it behaves for you...

i wonder if at this point not using the integrator might help it get closer too. some configurations have a stable integrator and some don't.

edit: since obviously the shape of the table is pretty good, maybe just *0.98 the whole table in tunerpro and see where that gets you.