My apologies. I certainly didn't mean to offend you. As far as wordsmithing, I was copying the part of your post that I thought my response was relevant to.

If we're talking about the Delphi closed loop system, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree (I agree with you if you're talking about tuning with wideband sensors). In the Delphi closed loop system, the ECM does the calculation of the variation from the desired voltage and then reports the results of its various calculations as the VE New. The external software simply uses the VE New as reported by the ECM. It would not be wise to do these calculations in the external software for two reasons: 1) the work has already been done by the ECM and 2) the ECM's calculations will be more accurate as it has access to the data at every revolution of the engine. The external software merely has a snapshot of the data at intervals in time.

I do not know the specific programming in the TTS either, but I have written software that essentially produces the same results as the TTS. I initially wrote it for wideband tuning, which means it does all the calculations you are talking about. I have since adapted it to do narrowband tuning as well.

It could be the case that when you say "software", you're including that to mean the software in the ECM in addition to the external software that is generating the new VE tables. When I say software, I'm only talking about the external software, not the ECM. If this is the case, we're simply misunderstanding each other.

 

Messed around a little w/my AFR table using the SEST Pro software. Wouldn't allow me to set all cells at 14.6, some values would go no higher than 14.5 or 14.1 but I take it this is still within the range of the Narrow band sensors ability to return accurate information. A little Googling tells me that the HD Narrow band sensors are accurate from 14.0 to 15.1. So any AFR cell w/a value w/in this range should return closed loop data. Correct?

 

This turns into a pissing match every time. The truth is that it does not work the way tobefrank believes it does. If he does real instrumented testing he will figure that out in the long run. Now if I was to sit here and tell everyone what we spent plenty of time to figure out and make work correctly I would just be giving away a very valuable feature of our product, now does that make sense to anyone?

PG

Setting the AFR table to 14.6 only enables the system to work any other value shuts it off, the CLB sets the value the system is trying to achieve and it is only part of it but it needs to be handled. Use the O2 calculator to get to the voltage you desire but we do not recommend you go beyond 14.2 AFR

 

I was waiting for that...

And that. The difference between you and me is I'm willing to share what I figure out. That includes how a tuning algorithm works.

You get really worked up when you even think someone is questioning your V-Tune (remember the HTT thread where you got my posts wrong?) so I'd appreciate the same courtesy of you not saying I don't know how a tuning algorithm works. My algorithm works very well.

 

Guess I am back to where I started.

 

Let's get this chip off your shoulders as I'm not worked up at all, I merely stated a fact and if you sit down and instrument things properly and do the work you will find just what I said. It's not what you think it is and all you need to do is go do the work and you will figure it out for yourself. I've never said you could not do it, what I've said is you cannot do it the way you've stated and come out with the proper results.

 

If you cannot set the system to operate in closed loop (14.6) then it's in open loop. Open loop means it has no learning ability.

 

You mean an opinion.

Then I guess I've proven you wrong. The instrumenting has been done, the algorithm has been written, and it's been verified with AFR sensors.

 

I take it this will be locked soon

 

I would hope not. Can't really have a discussion if we're not allowed to disagree.