Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Thursday September 18, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Technical > Engine Management & Tuning

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-02-2012, 09:20 AM   #276
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Sedan
10.9s @ 126mph

Default

This is from the RomRaider download page:

Quote:
Moved the Fast Poll checkbox to a selection item in the Settings menu (selected by default). The polling state is reported in the queries/sec status display.
I'm very curious to see your results with fast polling on vs. off. I haven't had a chance to try it yet.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 10:41 AM   #277
Dartholomew
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 208771
Join Date: Apr 2009
Vehicle:
2009 WRX
OBP

Default

I've noticed this as well, and I think it depends on whether the junk data affects the good data.

I've actually gone through a RR log and deleted rows where the RPM goes down. I recall it not making much difference in the graph, I suspect because in the end, you're still left with (2000rpm @ 0:00" -> 6000rpm @ 6.0") regardless of what's in the middle, and VD doesn't show as much of a taper in the HP towards the end.

FWIW, I log regularly with RR and standalone, and the results are very similar (you may notice a lot of peaks/valleys in the RR logs but if you're reasonably honest about catching outliers, the smoothing brings it inline with standalone results). Just from what I remember...
Dartholomew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 10:55 AM   #278
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Sedan
10.9s @ 126mph

Default

Brad just informed me that Virtual Dyno already throws out points were RPM goes down, so that's why you don't see a difference.
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 11:15 AM   #279
dux10
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 235338
Join Date: Jan 2010
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Georgia
Vehicle:
2002 Faggin Wagon
srp

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xluben View Post
This is from the RomRaider download page:



I'm very curious to see your results with fast polling on vs. off. I haven't had a chance to try it yet.

I did several weeks ago and sent the results to brad.
If you set the smoothing factor to "0" in VD you can sometimes see crazy spikes (sometimes as high as 900hp on a car that makes ~320whp). With these spikes, it makes the final numbers really high with normal smoothing.

With fast polling turned off, you do not get these spikes and therefore more normal numbers....
dux10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 11:18 AM   #280
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Sedan
10.9s @ 126mph

Default

Yep, some of my fast polling logs spike up to like 2,000HP with smoothing turned off. It's good that you confirmed that turning fast polling off seems to fix the problem.
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 12:29 PM   #281
juanmedina
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 133146
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SC
Vehicle:
07 FPgreen 7.37@95
WRX VF39+E85 12.0, 121mph

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xluben View Post
This is from the RomRaider download page:



I'm very curious to see your results with fast polling on vs. off. I haven't had a chance to try it yet.
I will do some pulls tomorrow. I did a 50-100mph video and it was only 4.8sec . I guess I was down in power or something. My car should be a little faster it weight 500lbs less and it should make more power .
juanmedina is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 12:35 PM   #282
dux10
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 235338
Join Date: Jan 2010
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Georgia
Vehicle:
2002 Faggin Wagon
srp

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xluben View Post
Yep, some of my fast polling logs spike up to like 2,000HP with smoothing turned off. It's good that you confirmed that turning fast polling off seems to fix the problem.

Only problem is, I now have to do two pulls: one for data (petter resolution with fast polling means more data to look at) and a second one for dyno readout...

I'm suprised you guys with 32bit ECU's are having similar issues. I know the 2-3 32bit cars I've done in the last month were ok in VD. I just assumed that since the ecu sends data much slower than the 16bit's the errors would be less apparent.
dux10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 12:44 PM   #283
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Sedan
10.9s @ 126mph

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by juanmedina View Post
I will do some pulls tomorrow. I did a 50-100mph video and it was only 4.8sec . I guess I was down in power or something. My car should be a little faster it weight 500lbs less and it should make more power .
Yeah, it definitely should be. Either that or you're entering something into the dyno programs incorrectly and you really have less power? That's another reason I like 50-100mph. More real-world. Road dyno's rely on accurate info from the user for accurate results. 50-100mph just tells you who is faster from one speed to another.

You have a way bigger turbo and same or higher boost and a light car though. I would expect you to be faster! Do you have two shifts? I think I only have to do one shift between 50 and 100mph. I can even do it reasonably quickly with no shifts, but the lag at the beginning makes a hair slower than with the shift.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dux10 View Post
Only problem is, I now have to do two pulls: one for data (petter resolution with fast polling means more data to look at) and a second one for dyno readout...
Yeah, that is a bummer. I'm trying to think of a good way for the software to work around the bad data, but I don't know if it will pan out, or if Brad will want to code it into the program. It seems like it would be possible, but it is kind of stupid that the program has to be modified to work around a crappy data output form the car
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 12:57 PM   #284
juanmedina
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 133146
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SC
Vehicle:
07 FPgreen 7.37@95
WRX VF39+E85 12.0, 121mph

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xluben View Post
Yeah, it definitely should be. Either that or you're entering something into the dyno programs incorrectly and you really have less power? That's another reason I like 50-100mph. More real-world. Road dyno's rely on accurate info from the user for accurate results. 50-100mph just tells you who is faster from one speed to another.

You have a way bigger turbo and same or higher boost and a light car though. I would expect you to be faster! Do you have two shifts? I think I only have to do one shift between 50 and 100mph. I can even do it reasonably quickly with no shifts, but the lag at the beginning makes a hair slower than with the shift.


Yeah, that is a bummer. I'm trying to think of a good way for the software to work around the bad data, but I don't know if it will pan out, or if Brad will want to code it into the program. It seems like it would be possible, but it is kind of stupid that the program has to be modified to work around a crappy data output form the car
I shifted once from second to third. I know my parameters for the road dyno are correct since I had the car corner weight. The only bad thing is that it was 90*F.
juanmedina is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 12:58 PM   #285
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Sedan
10.9s @ 126mph

Default

Yeah, yours should do it much faster than mine!
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 11:29 PM   #286
bbarnhill
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 256281
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kansas City, KS
Vehicle:
2007 Shelby GT 500
Grey

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xluben View Post
it is kind of stupid that the program has to be modified to work around a crappy data output form the car
... but its not crappy data from the car its crappy recording of data ... the time should be stamped when the RPM value is returned not before the request is made.
bbarnhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 11:33 PM   #287
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Sedan
10.9s @ 126mph

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbarnhill View Post
... but its not crappy data from the car its crappy recording of data ... the time should be stamped when the RPM value is returned not before the request is made.
How did you come to this conclusion? The time stamp goes up steadily with each data point. The rpm does not. This tells me that the ECU is outputting incorrect or erratic data. If it was a bad time stamp the rpm would go up consistently and the time would jump around. Does anyone have any fast polling COBB AP Subaru logs? Do they do the same thing?
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 08:20 AM   #288
bbarnhill
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 256281
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kansas City, KS
Vehicle:
2007 Shelby GT 500
Grey

Default

Not necessarily. ECUs dont have to respond immediately when a request is made. This is in all of their designs. You request a pid and when they get around to it they respond. So you can NOT say time is linear all the time. It must be timestamped when the response returns as this would be the only accurate way of recording time and RPM and getting them to correlate. The delays will be in milliseconds but the faster the sample rate is the more pronounced the problem in the graphed data. In excel graph Time on the X axis and RPM on the Y axis and see what I mean. Its not big humps but the small humps will cause be time spikes in VD as that calculation for power is very sensitive. Does that help?
bbarnhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 08:31 AM   #289
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Sedan
10.9s @ 126mph

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbarnhill View Post
Not necessarily. ECUs dont have to respond immediately when a request is made. This is in all of their designs. You request a pid and when they get around to it they respond. So you can NOT say time is linear all the time. It must be timestamped when the response returns as this would be the only accurate way of recording time and RPM and getting them to correlate. The delays will be in milliseconds but the faster the sample rate is the more pronounced the problem in the graphed data. In excel graph Time on the X axis and RPM on the Y axis and see what I mean. Its not big humps but the small humps will cause be time spikes in VD as that calculation for power is very sensitive. Does that help?
That make sense, but I would assume (maybe incorrectly?) that the ECU would at least respond to the request in the same order that they receive them. If that's the case, then there is no reason that the RPM's would go down from one data point to the next.

In the situation you're describing, you could get erratic RPM data (would not correlate properly with time), but it should still always be sequential (assuming the ECU responds first in, first out). The only way it would not be sequential is if the RPM data is junk.

I'm no software engineer, so correct me if I'm wrong.
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 08:05 PM   #290
bbarnhill
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 256281
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kansas City, KS
Vehicle:
2007 Shelby GT 500
Grey

Default

well who knows how RR is sending them too. The polling may be multithreaded in the application(RR) and RR be putting them in order incorrectly due to mishandling of threads. Who knows it could be either one. Both are very plausible.

Here is the RR thread on it:

http://www.romraider.com/forum/viewt...ea771&start=30
bbarnhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 08:27 PM   #291
V8 GTFO Lesbic WGN
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 191212
Join Date: Oct 2008
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Nashboringville
Vehicle:
2007 FXT-5MT E85 20G
TD06SL2 TurboTektuning

Default

so what version of VD is the most accurate/reliable now? logs from AP, 32-bit ECU.
V8 GTFO Lesbic WGN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 09:38 AM   #292
bbarnhill
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 256281
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kansas City, KS
Vehicle:
2007 Shelby GT 500
Grey

Default

??? all of them ??? 1.1.8 just corrects a smoothing bug that over flattens the graph.

http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...-close-110718/

Thats just one comparison that has been done ... there are more throughout the message boards out there. They all come to the same conclusion ... "its pretty darn close"

Last edited by bbarnhill; 05-04-2012 at 09:44 AM.
bbarnhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 11:22 AM   #293
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Sedan
10.9s @ 126mph

Default

Here's how my logs compared to the two times that I was on an actual Dynojet.

20G XTR 27psi - Fast Polling RomRaider Log
  • Actual Dynojet: 462WHP / 492WTQ
  • Airboy Excel File: 438WHP / 460WTQ
  • Virtual Dyno 1.1.7: 501WHP / 520WTQ
  • Virtual Dyno 1.1.8: 520WHP / 514WTQ

VF52 21psi - Normal Polling RomRaider Log
  • Actual Dynojet: 340WHP / 369WTQ
  • Airboy Excel File: 326WHP / 348WTQ
  • Virtual Dyno 1.1.7: 338WHP / 381WTQ
  • Virtual Dyno 1.1.8: 351WHP / 38WTQ
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 12:47 PM   #294
dux10
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 235338
Join Date: Jan 2010
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Georgia
Vehicle:
2002 Faggin Wagon
srp

Default

Xluben, do a slow poll and see where it slots in on your current setup?
dux10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 01:20 PM   #295
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Sedan
10.9s @ 126mph

Default

Yeah, it's on my to-do list, but my laptop doesn't like logging very much.
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 01:34 PM   #296
bswilmington
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 217563
Join Date: Jul 2009
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Eden NC
Vehicle:
2006 Sti 12.68 @ 108
321WHP 422WTQ dynojet SAE

Default

Here is VD and pull done on innvotive dyno today on dynojet. This is buddies car that I tuned and he had dyno pulls done. I believe he still has the old logger with non fast poll but Ill double check shortly. The VD dyno is weather and pressure corrected and it was done in 3rd gear. The dyno pulls was done in 4th VD in 3rd
VD 328hp/331trq
Real dyno 317hp/307tq

VD-3rd gear pull


Real dyno 4th gear pull using dynojet correction

Last edited by bswilmington; 05-04-2012 at 02:42 PM.
bswilmington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 01:37 PM   #297
Dartholomew
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 208771
Join Date: Apr 2009
Vehicle:
2009 WRX
OBP

Default

Here's another test: does anybody have a pull from a CAN-line log? Does that present the same up/down rpm as fast polling, or is it both faster AND cleaner?
Dartholomew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 01:38 PM   #298
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Sedan
10.9s @ 126mph

Default

That's a Mustang dyno printout. And it must be a SUPER high reading Mustang if it nearly matches Virtual Dyno 1.1.8 on Dynojet mode! Either that or something else is going on... I would have expected the VD on that setting to read 15-20% higher than the Mustang dyno.
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 01:51 PM   #299
bswilmington
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 217563
Join Date: Jul 2009
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Eden NC
Vehicle:
2006 Sti 12.68 @ 108
321WHP 422WTQ dynojet SAE

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xluben
That's a Mustang dyno printout. And it must be a SUPER high reading Mustang if it nearly matches Virtual Dyno 1.1.8 on Dynojet mode! Either that or something else is going on... I would have expected the VD on that setting to read 15-20% higher than the Mustang dyno.
Are you sure it's mustang? Not saying your not right but I looked up which one it was and they said its dyno dynamics or dynojet readout, customers choice. But I agree I would expect VD on dynojet to be 15% higher than mustang.

link to page http://www.wrxmodders.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13751

bswilmington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2012, 01:55 PM   #300
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Sedan
10.9s @ 126mph

Default

Maybe I'm wrong, but that looks like a Mustang printout to me.
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Log analyzer - check it out jmc9809 Engine Management & Tuning 42 11-04-2007 09:00 AM
New Log-Analyzer program comming soon! NavyBlueSubaru Engine Management & Tuning 69 03-24-2007 03:17 PM
U-LAME -- UTEC Log Analyzer and Map Editor WolfDrive Engine Management & Tuning 14 12-05-2005 11:01 PM
UTECA (new log analyzer software)... need beta testers WolfDrive Engine Management & Tuning 10 05-31-2005 02:42 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.