Your dream ECU - Page 2 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


ECUs and Tuning Discuss Engine Management, Tuning, & Programming

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-12-2013, 07:42 PM   #21
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 3,325
Total Cats: 235
Default

Haha I'm pretty sure I just found your first post on the Adaptronic forum.

According to the rest of that thread, they used a simple yet unreliable way to estimate torque output with their changes, so I can see why it wasn't popular (although I would still try it if it was offered but I like automation).

And I'm guessing that nobody has ever done it with EGT, since anyone who has an EGT sensor probably isn't worried about autotuning spark.

Edit: wait I forgot Reverant has 4 EGT sensors!!! Come on Reverant you know you want to write some spark autotune code that uses the EGT input.
thenuge26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 10:18 PM   #22
NB/VVT Connoisseur
iTrader: (24)
 
viperormiata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Key West
Posts: 6,074
Total Cats: 253
Default

My dream ECU: Braineack in the passenger seat doing everything for me while I drive and holla at females.
viperormiata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 05:27 AM   #23
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (10)
 
Reverant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 5,441
Total Cats: 199
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenuge26 View Post
And I'm guessing that nobody has ever done it with EGT, since anyone who has an EGT sensor probably isn't worried about autotuning spark.

Edit: wait I forgot Reverant has 4 EGT sensors!!! Come on Reverant you know you want to write some spark autotune code that uses the EGT input.
What's the method? I also have 5 widebands if that helps.
Reverant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 06:48 AM   #24
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Warrington/Birmingham
Posts: 2,658
Total Cats: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenuge26 View Post
Haha I'm pretty sure I just found your first post on the Adaptronic forum.

According to the rest of that thread, they used a simple yet unreliable way to estimate torque output with their changes, so I can see why it wasn't popular (although I would still try it if it was offered but I like automation).

And I'm guessing that nobody has ever done it with EGT, since anyone who has an EGT sensor probably isn't worried about autotuning spark.

Edit: wait I forgot Reverant has 4 EGT sensors!!! Come on Reverant you know you want to write some spark autotune code that uses the EGT input.
As I understand it EGT doesn't vary massively before or after MTBT, only when you're way WAY out timing wise.

Ergo it's not a very good way to tune spark as a primary input.
richyvrlimited is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 09:39 AM   #25
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 3,325
Total Cats: 235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richyvrlimited View Post
As I understand it EGT doesn't vary massively before or after MTBT, only when you're way WAY out timing wise.

Ergo it's not a very good way to tune spark as a primary input.
Ah, that explains why someone hasn't already done that. Thanks for crushing my dreams.
thenuge26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 09:42 AM   #26
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Leafy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NH
Posts: 9,093
Total Cats: 90
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenuge26 View Post
Ah, that explains why someone hasn't already done that. Thanks for crushing my dreams.
If you had that accelerometer though. You could use it to determine both acceleration in the direction of travel and road inclination. And you could use it to tune spark that way. Maybe. How accurate is a moderately priced 2 axis or 3 axis accelerometer? Within 0.1 degree if trying to sense inclination based on how much of the downward acceleration from gravity is in one of the other directions and some trig?
Leafy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 10:26 AM   #27
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

I can dream about my perfect computer, if I can't hold it tonight.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 11:26 AM   #28
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 325
Total Cats: 20
Default

A few things missing from this list... oh wait, here is the answer:

http://www.bosch-motorsport.de/en-US/literature/en-US/Engine_Control_Unit_MS_5.5_Datasheet_51_en_2775686 027.pdf


Multiple power supplies, all IO protected, flexible io, internal high quality logging, current feedback on outputs, programmable current parameters, vibration isolation, high quality connectors, advanced turbo control with turbo speed inputs, wide power range for when the alternator dies, on and on...

Really the biggest difference between the best ECUs and the worst are in the basic design, board layout, software and a TON of little details. On a spec sheet you could line up the best and worst 4 cylinder standalones and the spec sheet shouldn't be miles apart. I've seen bad ECUs die because of a momentary grounding of the 5v bus or a user misconnection of gnd and +12v.

Specifying the processor is odd at best. You want automotive temps and most ideal processors have a coprocessor or time processing unit that do the heavy lifting. At the customer level XXX Mhz becomes transparent and irrelevant. You can get an old series ~50Mhz MPC5xx processor with multiple TPU cores that will be much more appropriate than a 1GHz + Arm core as used in cell phones. If we were in a Mhz race, we would all be using Arm cores and nobody would be using the automotive specific processors from Freescale, ST, Atmel, Fujitsu, Infineon etc.
vtjballeng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 11:37 AM   #29
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Leafy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NH
Posts: 9,093
Total Cats: 90
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vtjballeng View Post
A few things missing from this list... oh wait, here is the answer:

http://www.bosch-motorsport.de/en-US/literature/en-US/Engine_Control_Unit_MS_5.5_Datasheet_51_en_2775686 027.pdf


Multiple power supplies, all IO protected, flexible io, internal high quality logging, current feedback on outputs, programmable current parameters, vibration isolation, high quality connectors, advanced turbo control with turbo speed inputs, wide power range for when the alternator dies, on and on...

Really the biggest difference between the best ECUs and the worst are in the basic design, board layout, software and a TON of little details. On a spec sheet you could line up the best and worst 4 cylinder standalones and the spec sheet shouldn't be miles apart. I've seen bad ECUs die because of a momentary grounding of the 5v bus or a user misconnection of gnd and +12v.

Specifying the processor is odd at best. You want automotive temps and most ideal processors have a coprocessor or time processing unit that do the heavy lifting. At the customer level XXX Mhz becomes transparent and irrelevant. You can get an old series ~50Mhz MPC5xx processor with multiple TPU cores that will be much more appropriate than a 1GHz + Arm core as used in cell phones. If we were in a Mhz race, we would all be using Arm cores and nobody would be using the automotive specific processors from Freescale, ST, Atmel, Fujitsu, Infineon etc.
All good points. On the processor, why multi-core. Its obviously very hard to program something to multi thread as shown by any single pc software company that has more programmers than the entire automotive aftermarket. And the more power the more accurate you can do your airflow simulations and interpolation between cells in a table. And it would open up the ability to actually model transient fueling based on port wall coating rather than just stomp comp. But we're getting into serious feature creep range on a lot of things. I don't picture this being a bosch/pectrel/mclaren competitor on price point.
Leafy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 11:44 AM   #30
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,904
Total Cats: 1,793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by viperormiata View Post
My dream ECU: Braineack in the passenger seat doing everything for me while I drive and holla at females.
females? you have the wrong ECU.
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 12:04 PM   #31
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafy View Post
All good points. On the processor, why multi-core. Its obviously very hard to program something to multi thread as shown by any single pc software company that has more programmers than the entire automotive aftermarket.
You are thinking of multi-core processors designed for general purpose applications, which suck for real-time control. *This* radically different multi-core microcontroller is suited for real-time embedded control:
Parallax Propeller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Quote:
And the more power the more accurate you can do your airflow simulations and interpolation between cells in a table. And it would open up the ability to actually model transient fueling based on port wall coating rather than just stomp comp.
Bah, mid-range microcontrollers have more than enough power to do those.

For the hobbyist, what's more important are the auto-tune wizards for the time-consuming stuff like boost control, idle, and transient fuel.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 12:11 PM   #32
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Leafy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NH
Posts: 9,093
Total Cats: 90
Default

The more you know I guess. Electronics are not my strong suite, especially imbedded electronics. Which is why I missed requirements like power supplies and filters and whatever else. My real gripe with most standalones is not the hardware its the software anyways. For example, the EMS4 is MORE than capable enough to do the math for VE based tuning, its not supported and they have no intention of ever supporting it even though it should be like 20-50 lines of code on the controller and some added code to the tuning software. Instead I have to make an excel to convert between real tuning and injector pulsewidth 90's tuning.
Leafy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 12:52 PM   #33
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
 
sixshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 15,695
Total Cats: 1,562
Default

As long as you are making a dream list, how about that it should do those things and still retail for $600 or less.
sixshooter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 12:54 PM   #34
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Leafy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NH
Posts: 9,093
Total Cats: 90
Default

I think you could do everything in the required section for that price, maybe. But I'd rather open it up to sub 1500 and get more of the optional features into it.
Leafy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 03:56 PM   #35
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 325
Total Cats: 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafy View Post
All good points. On the processor, why multi-core. Its obviously very hard to program something to multi thread as shown by any single pc software company that has more programmers than the entire automotive aftermarket. And the more power the more accurate you can do your airflow simulations and interpolation between cells in a table. And it would open up the ability to actually model transient fueling based on port wall coating rather than just stomp comp. But we're getting into serious feature creep range on a lot of things. I don't picture this being a bosch/pectrel/mclaren competitor on price point.
Jason got there first but basically this isn't at all like coding for a computer. Embedded can be quite different and Automotive cares about timed events and not so much processing power. Those timed events are absolutely critical and just to take one processor, the MPC5xx or 5xxx series they offer time processing units that handle the critical events for you. Otherwise you are spending a lot of time crafting your own base operating code to ensure that you are handling your critical events when and as required. This is even harder to do in simulation or C rather than assembly. Once in the main processing system there is often custom A/D, output handling, timer compares, etc that are made for this market (sometimes industrial too).

The bottom line is that more processing power is /= better and from a customer standpoint is a largely irrelevant point. Just trying to debunk a common customer misconception.
vtjballeng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 04:39 PM   #36
Elite Member
iTrader: (10)
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 1,780
Total Cats: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafy View Post
All good points. On the processor, why multi-core. Its obviously very hard to program something to multi thread as shown by any single pc software company that has more programmers than the entire automotive aftermarket. And the more power the more accurate you can do your airflow simulations and interpolation between cells in a table. And it would open up the ability to actually model transient fueling based on port wall coating rather than just stomp comp. But we're getting into serious feature creep range on a lot of things. I don't picture this being a bosch/pectrel/mclaren competitor on price point.
Did somebody say McLaren?
Multicore is an absolute non-issue as the vast majority of embedded systems don't feature any sort of pre-emption, i.e. there are no threads. At best you use protothreads to give the illusion of sequential processing, at worst, you use a bunch of ticking state machines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
You are thinking of multi-core processors designed for general purpose applications, which suck for real-time control. *This* radically different multi-core microcontroller is suited for real-time embedded control:
Parallax Propeller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Propellers are neat and all, but they're quite unsuitable for anything serious. I know they now have GCC support and they look great on paper, but you have to bit-bang everything. Weak. You end up defeating the coolness of the hub + processing spokes architecture by burning up entire cores to interface with external ICs. By the time you've covered SPI, CAN, I2C, and USART, you're half occupied. Also, even though the hub memory window shifts predictably, I'd be hesitant to rely on a hard real time system that could potentially miss out on it's memory access.

Quote:
Bah, mid-range microcontrollers have more than enough power to do those.

For the hobbyist, what's more important are the auto-tune wizards for the time-consuming stuff like boost control, idle, and transient fuel.
Troof. I've streamed and decoded compressed, reasonably high quality audio (32khz) using a lower-mid range ARM. The vast majority of engine control doesn't need nearly as much processing power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vtjballeng View Post
Automotive cares about timed events and not so much processing power.
I can't stress enough how important timing and avoid concurrency issues are. Engine control (from a strictly _control_ standpoint) isn't rocket science. Interpolating between cells, extrapolating values, and calculating stuff like wall wetting based on a fixed algorithm really aren't difficult from a programming standpoint. What's harder is making all of those happen inside their own event windows and without negative consequences should they be pre-empted by an interrupt.



My dream ECU is simple: MS2 featureset, with a proper power supply, on a single board, with real connectors, a better communication protocol and a codebase that isn't a huge, flaming pile of ****. I'm sorry guys, I know it works, but MS has some of the _worst_ code I've ever seen. It's so bad, we show it to developers here as an example of how to get fired.

Seriously.
Jeff_Ciesielski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 05:32 AM   #37
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Warrington/Birmingham
Posts: 2,658
Total Cats: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff_Ciesielski View Post
Did somebody say McLaren?
I'm sorry guys, I know it works, but MS has some of the _worst_ code I've ever seen. It's so bad, we show it to developers here as an example of how to get fired.

Seriously.
I haven't the first clue as to how to code, so please excuse my ignorance, but could you explain to me why/how it is bad?

Is it just inefficiencies/bad math, or fragments of dead code left behind or?

I'm beginning to suspect my MS3 ECU is displaying signs of a bug, but it's not apparent on most setups, I presume bad code could well be a cause of something like that?
richyvrlimited is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 08:14 AM   #38
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (10)
 
Reverant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 5,441
Total Cats: 199
Default

This is definitely a bug, no doubt about it.
Reverant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 08:32 AM   #39
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Warrington/Birmingham
Posts: 2,658
Total Cats: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverant View Post
This is definitely a bug, no doubt about it.
Presumably that's why the devs are conspicuous by their absence on my thread :(
richyvrlimited is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 11:35 AM   #40
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafy View Post
For example, the EMS4 is MORE than capable enough to do the math for VE based tuning, its not supported
That's not an issue with the ECU, that's an issue with the tuning software. Whether it's VE based or injW based, the tuning software will send the same tables to the ECU. Put another way, one can re-write the tuning software to present VE based tuning to you, then translate it into whatever the ECU needs.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Raleigh: Fiberglass headlight scope, 1.6L ECU, AFM, Hardtop latches, more bigmackloud Miata parts for sale/trade 13 09-22-2017 01:34 PM
3rd Time's a Charm...hopefully. zephyrusaurai Meet and Greet 2 09-28-2015 11:59 PM
Are my coils failing? viriiguy General Miata Chat 5 09-28-2015 08:39 PM
ME221 Now has Autotune and Long Term Fuel Trim Tables Motorsport-Electronics ECUs and Tuning 0 09-05-2015 09:02 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:13 AM.