looking at the logs in that thread, the only fuel corrections Im seeing applied are decel, where it's dropping to 85% for a blip when you lift. very aggressive and you can see the AFR blip lean everytime.

 

I apologize for these short stabs with my phone.

Let me ask the above question a different way. If I were to turn on Baro Correction, change the default to 100, then turn it back off, you're saying it would change the tune???

 

Alrighty then. Obviously, I can't just say 60 kpa is 40% less than 100 kpa, any more than I could say 60 degrees is 40% less than 100 degrees. So I did some math using DNMakinson's VE table. There are only two parts of our VE Tables that correspond--1500 rpm at 55 fuel load, and 1500 rpm at 65 fuel load. I get 34% and 25% differences. I also compared mine at 2900 rpm with DNM's at 3000. If my math is right, those are 44% and 28% differences, which should actually be smaller since the rpms weren't the same.

Given all that, what would I use as a starting percentage to reduce my VE table if I were to change the default baro from 60 to 100 kpa?

Thanks.

 

I cannot detect that Baro is affecting anything on the present tune and log. The only fuel offset is about 4% and that can be fully attributed to your MAT correction. (it is about 96 ay 75*)

I'm not sure how MS uses your fixed Baro, but all of your corrections are Zero, and if you ask for "Fuel baro cor" to be displayed on your log, it is 100%.

Personally, I would adjust your MAT corrections so that 75* is 100%, and multiply your VE by .96 (select all cells, click the "X" circle, type in ".96" and hit enter.) All will be reduced. But now your correction would be 100, or 4% more, so they offset.

Make MAT correction flat, as Brain said, 100% everywhere at this juncture.

Your VE table is crazy flat. The only other one I have seen like that, is Schuyler's. I don't understand that.

You had sync loss at 6k RPM, but, as I said before, that has no bearing on idle issues.

To further answer your question from a conceptual perspective, you are right that the factor would not be kPa / kPa. Rather, the kPa, if baro corr was being used, would be a separate table in which the corrections would be much smaller. Baro -> table -> corr.