PCM Hammer release 011

They go by many names, P01, P59, VPW, '0411 etc . Circa 1999 to 2006. All VPW OBD2 PCMs.
Site Admin
User avatar
Posts: 6041
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:34 pm

Re: PCM Hammer release 011

Postby antus » Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:10 pm

Jim Blackwood wrote:Is there such a thing as a stock xdf for the 12202088 OS?
It seems like all the ones I'm seeing are derived from Dimented24x7's xdf which I'll grant you is pretty great, but am I not right in saying that he deleted all the flags except for an even dozen?

I'd like to use the DTCs for troubleshooting but without the flags I don't see just how that would be possible. So is there a relatively simple way to put the flags back that a non-programmer like myself might be able to do?

Jim


Yep the best XDF for that OS is Dimented 24x7's. I thought it was pretty good though. Did you see its split in to a different file for each segment? There is also LRT's XDF which I can see has 12 flags only.

I'll add the copy of Dimenteds XDF here for now. I'll add it to the repo along side the other ones at some stage.
Attachments
2500S-Tuning Defs.zip
(626.94 KiB) Downloaded 11 times
Have you read the FAQ? For lots of information and links to significant threads see here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1396

Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:31 am

Re: PCM Hammer release 011

Postby Dirty Burgers » Sat Feb 22, 2020 3:45 am

Been trying out the logging functionality and am not able to log for more than a couple seconds. Using an OBDLink SX cable, anyone have luck logging with one?

Here is the error I receive after a couple seconds of logging, any idea what is going on?

[04:05:17:243] Requesting row...
[04:05:17:243] TX: STPX H:6C10F0, R:2, D:2A01FEFD
[04:05:17:321] RX: 6C F0 10 6A FE 0B 90 03 10 20 00
[04:05:17:321] RX: 6C F0 10 6A FD 28 55 83 7E 00 92
[04:05:17:321] ReadLogData: 6C F0 10 6A FE 0B 90 03 10 20 00
[04:05:17:321] ReadLogData: 6C F0 10 6A FD 28 55 83 7E 00 92
[04:05:17:324] Requesting row...
[04:05:17:324] TX: STPX H:6C10F0, R:2, D:2A01FEFD
[04:05:17:418] RX: 6C F0 10
[04:05:17:418] ReadLogData: 6C F0 10
[04:05:17:427] System.IndexOutOfRangeException: Index was outside the bounds of the array.
at PcmHacking.Message.get_Item(Int32 index)
at PcmHacking.Vehicle.<ReadLogData>d__45.MoveNext()
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.ThrowForNonSuccess(Task task)
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.HandleNonSuccessAndDebuggerNotification(Task task)
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter`1.GetResult()
at PcmHacking.Logger.<GetNextRow>d__5.MoveNext()
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.ThrowForNonSuccess(Task task)
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.HandleNonSuccessAndDebuggerNotification(Task task)
at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter`1.GetResult()
at PcmHacking.MainForm.<LoggingThread>d__25.MoveNext() in C:\GitHub\PcmHacks\Apps\PcmLogger\MainForm.cs:line 342

Just let me know if the full log is needed, I can edit to include. Just trying to save space...

User avatar
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: PCM Hammer release 011

Postby NSFW » Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:22 pm

The SX sent back only the first 3 bytes of a longer message. The app should not have crashed though, that's a bug, and I think I just fixed it. I do still need to test it, but it'll be in the next release for sure.

It's not something I ran into when testing with the AllPro or LX, so it may be that the Scantool SX isn't a good candidate for logging - or there may be two bugs going on here... We've seen a few issues lately related to how long the devices wait for incoming messages, and I think this might tie into that. The fix to that issue might be redo the way timeouts are set everywhere. I had hoped that the app could specify timeouts in a uniform way and use math to get the right timeout values for each device, but I'm starting to think that what we really need to do is specify timeouts for each device and each specific scenario (reading, writing, logging, etc).

But the next release will go out as soon as we get P59 full-flash support working reliably. The timeout change would come some time after that.
Please don't PM me with questions about tuning or flashing - start a thread instead. Thanks!

Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:48 pm

Re: PCM Hammer release 011

Postby jlvaldez » Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:31 am

Back from my work travels. Curious where y'all are at with full flash support of a P59 ;)

Posts: 393
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:38 am

Re: PCM Hammer release 011

Postby Gampy » Tue Feb 25, 2020 12:29 pm

jlvaldez wrote:Back from my work travels. Curious where y'all are at with full flash support of a P59 ;)

I hear there is a high possibility that the next release will have full support for both Intel and AMD flashed P59's. :thumbup:
See from here on.

Previous

Return to GM LS1 512Kbyte and 1Mbyte

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Scott68B and 4 guests