0.5.1b RC4 Download!

kascade · **Posted:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:58 pm

tmarcel wrote:

ev8siv3 wrote:

LM-1 is working, just has a funky initialization sequence

Check LM-1
Activate LM-1 from dropdown and choose comport
Uncheck LM-1
Recheck LM-1

I'll have to give this a shot. Aside from one of the stranger OP 2.0 issues that I've got right now (working with Colby on a fix) this LM-1 logging problem is just icing now

kascade,

Any chance this will be worked out in a future release? The LM-1 definitely connects to any available com port as the LM Programmer has no issues at all. Thanks for all your work.

I would like to fix this but with nothing to test it against (my car is back to stock), it's a bit hard. So, maybe, one day...

Tgui · **Joined:** Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:25 pm **Posts:** 992

kascade wrote:

tmarcel wrote:

ev8siv3 wrote:

LM-1 is working, just has a funky initialization sequence

Check LM-1
Activate LM-1 from dropdown and choose comport
Uncheck LM-1
Recheck LM-1

I'll have to give this a shot. Aside from one of the stranger OP 2.0 issues that I've got right now (working with Colby on a fix) this LM-1 logging problem is just icing now

kascade,

Any chance this will be worked out in a future release? The LM-1 definitely connects to any available com port as the LM Programmer has no issues at all. Thanks for all your work.

I would like to fix this but with nothing to test it against (my car is back to stock), it's a bit hard. So, maybe, one day...

OT

Please don't say EVO! :lol:

Whats in store?

/OT

tmarcel · **Posted:** Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:40 am

kascade wrote:

I would like to fix this but with nothing to test it against (my car is back to stock), it's a bit hard. So, maybe, one day...

Well you could install it in the rear O2 bung and zip tie the other one out of the way

Up to you though, it's a bit of work jacking the car up/down etc.

Thanks again.

Paul_P1 · **Joined:** Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:53 pm **Posts:** 38

Just tried to do a log on this version and it wouldn't connect. I could connect to the Learning View App no problem. As soon as I uninstalled it and reinstalled the 0.5.0 Beta it connected first time. Any ideas?

This is on Vista btw.

kascade · **Posted:** Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:39 pm

Paul_P1 wrote:

Just tried to do a log on this version and it wouldn't connect. I could connect to the Learning View App no problem. As soon as I uninstalled it and reinstalled the 0.5.0 Beta it connected first time. Any ideas?

This is on Vista btw.

Plenty of ideas. Read the full thread.

Paul_P1 · **Joined:** Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:53 pm **Posts:** 38

Thanks helpful post. :roll:

I did read the whole post and didn't see anyone having the exact same problem. One user couldn't log with any version of RR, and fixed it running as Admin, I don't see my problem being the same but I'll try it tomorrow. I just thought there might have been an other issue......

scubasteve · **Joined:** Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:27 am **Posts:** 1

Edit: nevermind - dodgy Windows install

Airboy · **Posted:** Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:12 am

After using Openport 2.0 cable a bit, I noticed that the logging "speed" is slower. For the same list of parameters, the 2.0 cable takes 20-30% longer per sample. For example, a list of three parameters takes ~80ms on the 1.2 cable but is ~100ms on the 2.0 cable. With a list of 10 items, the 1.2 cable takes ~170ms while the 2.0 cable takes ~200ms.

Is this just from more "overhead" in the 2.0 cable firmware?

kascade · **Posted:** Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:06 am

Airboy wrote:

After using Openport 2.0 cable a bit, I noticed that the logging "speed" is slower. For the same list of parameters, the 2.0 cable takes 20-30% longer per sample. For example, a list of three parameters takes ~80ms on the 1.2 cable but is ~100ms on the 2.0 cable. With a list of 10 items, the 1.2 cable takes ~170ms while the 2.0 cable takes ~200ms.

Is this just from more "overhead" in the 2.0 cable firmware?

I have noticed this as well. There is definitely more overhead using the J2534 protocol vs straight serial read/write, both in the logger and in the cable. Where the bulk of the slowdown is I can't say, but the fact that there is also the extra overhead of JNI (java native interface for integrating the openport DLL) won't be helping either. I would be interested to compare the performance of a straight C/C++ logger implementation.

merchgod · **Joined:** Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:38 pm **Posts:** 4225

kascade wrote:

I have noticed this as well. There is definitely more overhead using the J2534 protocol vs straight serial read/write, both in the logger and in the cable. Where the bulk of the slowdown is I can't say, but the fact that there is also the extra overhead of JNI (java native interface for integrating the openport DLL) won't be helping either. I would be interested to compare the performance of a straight C/C++ logger implementation.

Have you tried using a non-zero timeout for a read rather than looping reads with zero timeout? Maybe that would be faster?

tmarcel · **Posted:** Tue Nov 04, 2008 9:29 am

Airboy wrote:

After using Openport 2.0 cable a bit, I noticed that the logging "speed" is slower.

No doubt. I've noticed this is especially noticeable logging an LM-1 with other core tuning paramters, i.e. RPM, FLKC, Boost, EL, etc. Just the basics and the LM-1 sometimes lags big time. Maybe something to do with the LM-1 hardware though?

kascade · **Posted:** Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:00 pm

merchgod wrote:

kascade wrote:

I have noticed this as well. There is definitely more overhead using the J2534 protocol vs straight serial read/write, both in the logger and in the cable. Where the bulk of the slowdown is I can't say, but the fact that there is also the extra overhead of JNI (java native interface for integrating the openport DLL) won't be helping either. I would be interested to compare the performance of a straight C/C++ logger implementation.

Have you tried using a non-zero timeout for a read rather than looping reads with zero timeout? Maybe that would be faster?

Yes, I'm sure there's room for improvement in the logger code as well. I'll have a look at that and give it a try. What have you used as a timeout for the Learning View tool?

merchgod · **Joined:** Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:38 pm **Posts:** 4225

kascade wrote:

Yes, I'm sure there's room for improvement in the logger code as well. I'll have a look at that and give it a try. What have you used as a timeout for the Learning View tool?

2000 ms, but it doesn't wait for the timeout to expire. This is mentioned in the Drewtech document - "The API/DLL will not wait the entire timeout interval if an error occurs or the specified number of messages have been read.", but I'm not sure how the API determines a complete message when reading over ISO9141. A block read takes about 50-75 ms in Learning View.

kascade · **Posted:** Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:21 pm

merchgod wrote:

kascade wrote:

Yes, I'm sure there's room for improvement in the logger code as well. I'll have a look at that and give it a try. What have you used as a timeout for the Learning View tool?

2000 ms, but it doesn't wait for the timeout to expire. This is mentioned in the Drewtech document - "The API/DLL will not wait the entire timeout interval if an error occurs or the specified number of messages have been read.", but I'm not sure how the API determines a complete message when reading over ISO9141. A block read takes about 50-75 ms in Learning View.

That's probably the issue then. Thanks for pointing that out, I must have missed it.

dwmoss · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:41 pm

Anyone having issues when logging of getting empty (title row only) data files??

using rc4 (installed as admin under vista - running as admin as well)
tactrix 1.3 cable

I can see the data and even do some maf scaling, but when I go to open the log files I'm getting 1kb log files?? I thought I had this taken care of, but when I went to look at my data files from this morning all are 1kb and only have the title row of the items i was logging.

thanks in advance
dm

RomRaider

0.5.1b RC4 Download!

Who is online