Why different table sizes?
#2
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Warrington/Birmingham
Posts: 2,642
Total Cats: 42
MS3 has 16x16 fuel & ignition tables, the rest are 12x12 tertiary stuff, (WI map etc), is smaller still.
The reason is space limitations, particularly on MS1 and MS2 there is a premium on the amount of flash space available.
Is the table size really limited though? particularly on our implementation? Bigger tables are just a bigger ball ache to tune, and as all the numbers are interpolated, and you can set the break points wherever you like there isn't really much need for bigger tables unless you're revving extremely high and have very very high boost figures.
Even then with blended tables you can have a much larger table for those applications.
The reason is space limitations, particularly on MS1 and MS2 there is a premium on the amount of flash space available.
Is the table size really limited though? particularly on our implementation? Bigger tables are just a bigger ball ache to tune, and as all the numbers are interpolated, and you can set the break points wherever you like there isn't really much need for bigger tables unless you're revving extremely high and have very very high boost figures.
Even then with blended tables you can have a much larger table for those applications.
#5
I was going off of the information provided by 949 on the table size.
http://949racing.com/megasquirt-miata-PNP3.aspx
According to MSLabs their MS3 does have 16x16 available on most tables.
The reason for wanting higher resolution tuning maps is obvious, if it's adequate for what you guys are doing that's great...
http://949racing.com/megasquirt-miata-PNP3.aspx
According to MSLabs their MS3 does have 16x16 available on most tables.
The reason for wanting higher resolution tuning maps is obvious, if it's adequate for what you guys are doing that's great...
#6
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
While it may seem obvious in the abstract sense, I can't say that I've ever encountered a situation in which I actually took advantage of the extra resolution of a 16x16 map (as opposed to an 8x8 or 12x12) in any meaningful way.
I'd be curious as to what sort of engines you've been dealing with wherein you find yourself needing to enter steeply nonlinear series of values in adjacent cells of your fuel and ignition tables. This is not a common scenario, to say the very least.
I'd be curious as to what sort of engines you've been dealing with wherein you find yourself needing to enter steeply nonlinear series of values in adjacent cells of your fuel and ignition tables. This is not a common scenario, to say the very least.
#7
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 15,177
Total Cats: 1,681
You can search on the MSExtra forums about table size. Both the developers that write the code for MS have commented on it several times and why they have chosen the sizes they did. Realistically it comes down to the added resolution is just not needed.
#8
What they said: There are enough transient compensations and other gizmo's that 16x16 is more than adequate. In fact, for most tables you don't even need 16x16. Or even 12x12.
I tried a 250rpm step size with an adaptronic and it was pretty pointless and stupid, and the car didn't run any better at all, but took way longer to tune
I tried a 250rpm step size with an adaptronic and it was pretty pointless and stupid, and the car didn't run any better at all, but took way longer to tune
#10
working a 32x32 table in hydra 2.6 was worse. With the you know, not being able to click on a cell and having to use the arrow keys to navigate to it from the bottom left cell every time I did try to click on a cell. The EMS4 has some wonky like 24x17 table for fuel and spark or some other bullshit like that which is a super bizarro size. And a lot of the breakpoints transfer between tables oddly so I end up having a few fuel rpm columns at the top of the fuel map that are past redline just to trick the ecu into giving me the rpm columns I want on other tables like boost targets. But 16x16 is normally sufficient, 24x24 is probably really the perfect sweet spot, but more so you could rev as high as I do while having basically linear rpm breakpoints.
#11
Yeah, the 2.5/2.6 software UI is craptastic. Supposedly the 2.7 one is better, but I haven't used it. "Software written by hardware engineers" is how I describe it.
One of the nicer things about switching to the MS3 is that Tuner Studio isn't (AFAIK) written by the same guys who build/design the hardware. This means that it actually needs to not suck.
That said, big tables are less annoying in fuel than they are in spark, because fuel can be effectively autotuned.
--Ian
One of the nicer things about switching to the MS3 is that Tuner Studio isn't (AFAIK) written by the same guys who build/design the hardware. This means that it actually needs to not suck.
That said, big tables are less annoying in fuel than they are in spark, because fuel can be effectively autotuned.
--Ian
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Motorsport-Electronics
ECUs and Tuning
0
09-05-2015 08:02 AM