Thoughts on OS improvements

They go by many names, P01, P59, VPW, '0411 etc. Also covering E38 and newer here.
User avatar
ShorTuning
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:42 pm
cars: 2002 Camaro
2002 Formula
Location: On the Dyno
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on OS improvements

Post by ShorTuning »

A Standalone OS would be the shizzle. The hardware has enough I/O on it already to do a lot of stuff. I feel CO2 boost control would be a possibility as well as wideband closed loop control. I mean if a old OBD1 Honda ECU can do all the crazy stuff they do think of the possibilities with a P59 controller.
User avatar
Gampy
Posts: 2330
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:38 am

Re: Thoughts on OS improvements

Post by Gampy »

No doubt starting over is a huge mountain to climb ... All the more exhilarating when you get to the top!

I am also a believer the hardware could be beat into submission for other purposes. Just need to map it out and and take control!

My only complaint about these units is their weight, my gawd I would of had to drop a carefully placed weight to afford one weight wise.

I wouldn't start over, I would do what the big guys did and STEAL IT!
(Thus the side by side machines comment)
Just a basic main and all the hardware code from a GM OS (like 12587603) , then plan and build from there.

Working in 68k of course.

As for debugging, Simulator maybe?
Intelligence is in the details!

It is easier not to learn bad habits, then it is to break them!

If I was here to win a popularity contest, their would be no point, so I wouldn't be here!
User avatar
antus
Site Admin
Posts: 8237
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:34 pm
cars: TX Gemini 2L Twincam
TX Gemini SR20 18psi
Datsun 1200 Ute
Subaru Blitzen '06 EZ30 4th gen, 3.0R Spec B
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on OS improvements

Post by antus »

Simulator wont cover the custom hardware.
Have you read the FAQ? For lots of information and links to significant threads see here: http://pcmhacking.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1396
User avatar
Gampy
Posts: 2330
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:38 am

Re: Thoughts on OS improvements

Post by Gampy »

Maybe I'm stupid, but isn't that the point of a simulator, to simulate what's there in your own controlled environment.

Meaning that hardware would have to be simulated as well.

I get the challenge, It's no walk in the park.

But y'all got the brains.

If I could only type as fast as I dream it would be done the day after today ...
Intelligence is in the details!

It is easier not to learn bad habits, then it is to break them!

If I was here to win a popularity contest, their would be no point, so I wouldn't be here!
User avatar
NSFW
Posts: 679
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: Thoughts on OS improvements

Post by NSFW »

ShorTuning wrote:I have started mapping out the EGR parameters thinking that I could use the 0-5v input as a target for a boost controller. If someone want's to play around with the paremeters I have mapped out you are more than welcome to give it a go. Some of the scalers and table axis aren't defined either so it's a work in progress still. Descriptions should be accurate for those that are defined.

This XDF is for the 2004 12587603 OS which is compatible with C5, Trucks, Vans, SUV's.
Wow, that is really intriguing!

Any idea what the frequency and duty cycle of the output to the EGR solenoid is like?

What are the units on the axis of the Initial Duty Cycle table? Does the PCM interpolate between them, or they just discrete values used in different scenarios / operating modes?

Now I'm wondering if there's anything interesting I can do on my NA car with a 0-5v sensor, solenoid output, and a feedback loop. :)
Please don't PM me with technical questions - start a thread instead, and send me a link to it. That way I can answer in public, and help other people who have the same question. Thanks!
User avatar
NSFW
Posts: 679
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: Thoughts on OS improvements

Post by NSFW »

As for debugging...

A lot of the code could be written in C and tested on a PC, if you mock out the interactions with sensors, actuators, and factory ECU code. That's how I did a bunch of stuff for my Subaru.

For debugging on the PCM, I need to figure out how to get my logging app to read values from memory. That would let us get some insight into what's going on - make lots of global variables, and log them to find out what's happening at every point in the code. The hard part was figuring out what's causing differences between the values I expected to see in memory and values I actually ended up with, or if the car didn't behave in the way I expected based on what was in memory. Or if it causes reboots or something like that. Nothing impossible, just varying degrees of tedious.
Please don't PM me with technical questions - start a thread instead, and send me a link to it. That way I can answer in public, and help other people who have the same question. Thanks!
User avatar
ShorTuning
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:42 pm
cars: 2002 Camaro
2002 Formula
Location: On the Dyno
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on OS improvements

Post by ShorTuning »

NSFW wrote:
ShorTuning wrote:I have started mapping out the EGR parameters thinking that I could use the 0-5v input as a target for a boost controller. If someone want's to play around with the paremeters I have mapped out you are more than welcome to give it a go. Some of the scalers and table axis aren't defined either so it's a work in progress still. Descriptions should be accurate for those that are defined.

This XDF is for the 2004 12587603 OS which is compatible with C5, Trucks, Vans, SUV's.
Wow, that is really intriguing!

Any idea what the frequency and duty cycle of the output to the EGR solenoid is like?

What are the units on the axis of the Initial Duty Cycle table? Does the PCM interpolate between them, or they just discrete values used in different scenarios / operating modes?

Now I'm wondering if there's anything interesting I can do on my NA car with a 0-5v sensor, solenoid output, and a feedback loop. :)
Another good one is the EVAP solenoid control. It should have a table for duty cycle and frequency setting for the solenoid. Not made it that far to try and repurpose it for a standard open loop 3-port duty cycle based boost controller.

As far as the Axis goes on those tables, your guess is a good as mine. I don't have a way of seeing the axis breakpoints with the material I have.
User avatar
antus
Site Admin
Posts: 8237
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:34 pm
cars: TX Gemini 2L Twincam
TX Gemini SR20 18psi
Datsun 1200 Ute
Subaru Blitzen '06 EZ30 4th gen, 3.0R Spec B
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on OS improvements

Post by antus »

There is a command (mode 23) to read 4 bytes of ram from cal space.

Send a mode 23 with 3 byte address payload then 01, expect back mode 63 (23 + 40 for success) then the last byte of the address, then 4 bytes payload. Note that the OS only allows read from the calibration area, so we'd need to remove that check from the OS, update OS segment checksum then flash it in before you'd be able to read ram.

@gampy, if you know of software that can emulate the 68k, the TPM, the VPW chip and anything else needed for the OS to run, go for it! I could only find software that emulates the 68k and it was too much work to get the rest of the platform in there, and stable to be a viable solution.
Have you read the FAQ? For lots of information and links to significant threads see here: http://pcmhacking.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1396
User avatar
Gampy
Posts: 2330
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:38 am

Re: Thoughts on OS improvements

Post by Gampy »

antus wrote:@gampy, if you know of software that can emulate the 68k, the TPM, the VPW chip and anything else needed for the OS to run, go for it!
Antus, IMO that statement is below you!

Why, for expecting something to exist in the first place!
Just my opinion.

Of course nothing exists (except possibly in GM's hands), it would have to be created.

And I have made it perfectly clear, I ain't got them kinda smarts and know it!
I am smart enough to find those that are and can. Getting them to do it is another story.
Intelligence is in the details!

It is easier not to learn bad habits, then it is to break them!

If I was here to win a popularity contest, their would be no point, so I wouldn't be here!
Post Reply