LS1 Boost OS V1

They go by many names, P01, P59, VPW, '0411 etc. Also covering E38 and newer here.
160plus
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:00 pm

Re: LS1 Boost OS V1.0

Post by 160plus »

Based on everyone else saying the same thing I think a new OS number is in need. The next question is what should it be?
This is where I would suggest altering the format that HPT and EFI Live use since you are not making multiple versions of the same OS....unless of course you planned to make multiple versions of the same with various option sets.

When most people refer to an OS number they use the last 4 digits since they the unique values that separate many of the OS's. For example you have the 2156 OS and the 6125 OS. I think it would also be wise to include a version number as part of the OS number similar to the way software does as it would make it easy for people to know if they are using the current version of the OS or not. So you could do something like 21560001, where 1 is your version number. It makes it easily identifiable as to what it is based on while also making it easy to tell what version of the OS is being used. Of course this is simply a suggestion that would keep it simple.
TunerPro seems like the only software that had the ability to patch like this. I feel like this is what it was made for, but I just took it a little further than most people.
I would agree you have taken it much further then any one else and that in it self is very impressive. The danger is that tuner pro does not validate that an XDF is being used with the correct OS number bin file making it very easy for someone to apply the patch onto any file they like and corrupting it in the process....making it also very dangerous.
That all sounds great, but out of my realm of knowledge.
A stand alone program would be something for useful for distribution if you anticipate releasing additional OS's or wanted to create varying levels of patches, for example allowing the user to decide if they wanted a 2 bar version or a 3.5 bar version. However if you planned to release these and do not plan to create additional features or versions than simply distributing a bin file would be all anyone would need and is how both HPT and EFI Live both do it in a manner of speaking. They both require flashing the custom OS into the PCM and then reflashing the PCM with the calibration data.
As awesome as that would be sadly I'm surprised I got as far as I did. I mean I wrote this patch in google sheets lol, so I don't think I'll be able to create an application like that.
There are at least 4 people that have posted in this thread(and 2 people watching it) that are all capable(and likely willing) to write you a simple program that would validate the OS number apply the patch and correct the checksums. What it would really come down to is what format you currently have the patch data stored in and what would be the simplest way for you to supply that data into a program so it was able to create the patch. When you say you wrote the patch in Google Sheets, do you mean spread sheets or was it a data base? If you used a spread sheet, with a columns for starting and ending addressing and then the data that was to be inserted over that range I think it would be pretty simple to make a program read that and create a patch from it. But that's just some speculation as to how you've formatted the data.

Quick thought....what if the patch was a part of PCM Hammer?
Given what the EPA is doing in the US and the way they are cracking down on things this would actually be a terrible idea and put PCM Hammer in a potentially dangerous spot drawing attention from the EPA. While the EPA them selves may not notice it, there are US based companies that are watching both PCM Hammer and Ls Droid who would be more then happy to inform the EPA about it and start pointing fingers.

As far as having support with commercial tuning software, as someone else said, it is very possible EFI Live would add support for this once its been used for a bit and proven its desirable. I would also imagine it would be very easy to get Tuner Cats to add support for this as well and Cats may even welcome the idea since they do not have support for any COS's. It's also almost guaranteed that at least part of what you've created is also going to find its way into Hp Tuners since they have support for most of the EFI Live COS's at this point and have shown they don't care.
bubba2533
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:50 am
cars: 03 Chevy S10 Turbo V6

Re: LS1 Boost OS V1.0

Post by bubba2533 »

kur4o wrote: Universal patcher have very advanced patching system. As the name of the program implies it. You can compare 2 bins and create a patch for the difference by a click of a button. You can add OS numbers as filters. Use condition for the applications of the patch and so on.

Also you can make prefilled tables as a patch. For example make main OS patch separate and add different prefiiled starting tables patches that are applied later.

The best approach will be to add some numbering system of the patch version. Some free byte can be used, that way you can easily identify if the file is patched and add specific data for 1,2,3 bar options.

Top of the line is to add some search string that will find the newly added tables and if the bin is not patched there will be no tables found. [Bringing user made mistakes down to zero]
To be honest when I've tried to look at the universal patcher and I was scared away because there is a lot going on. I imagine that's how many users would feel.

The best base tune tables would be a function of the stock tables. I only did a prefilled table because that's all I could do and I didn't want to leave empty/bad values. I'm thinking a version number is a necessity because there will likely be fixes and new features added.
LS1 Boost OS V3 Here. For feature suggestions post in here Development Thread. Support future development ->Patreon.
bubba2533
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:50 am
cars: 03 Chevy S10 Turbo V6

Re: LS1 Boost OS V1.0

Post by bubba2533 »

160plus wrote: This is where I would suggest altering the format that HPT and EFI Live use since you are not making multiple versions of the same OS....unless of course you planned to make multiple versions of the same with various option sets.
I only plan on making 1 patch, but will likely keep improving/expanding on it.
160plus wrote: When most people refer to an OS number they use the last 4 digits since they the unique values that separate many of the OS's. For example you have the 2156 OS and the 6125 OS. I think it would also be wise to include a version number as part of the OS number similar to the way software does as it would make it easy for people to know if they are using the current version of the OS or not. So you could do something like 21560001, where 1 is your version number. It makes it easily identifiable as to what it is based on while also making it easy to tell what version of the OS is being used. Of course this is simply a suggestion that would keep it simple.
I like that idea!
160plus wrote: I would agree you have taken it much further then any one else and that in it self is very impressive. The danger is that tuner pro does not validate that an XDF is being used with the correct OS number bin file making it very easy for someone to apply the patch onto any file they like and corrupting it in the process....making it also very dangerous.
I am validating the Base OS is correct. You cannot patch if the OS doesn't match.
160plus wrote: A stand alone program would be something for useful for distribution if you anticipate releasing additional OS's or wanted to create varying levels of patches, for example allowing the user to decide if they wanted a 2 bar version or a 3.5 bar version. However if you planned to release these and do not plan to create additional features or versions than simply distributing a bin file would be all anyone would need and is how both HPT and EFI Live both do it in a manner of speaking. They both require flashing the custom OS into the PCM and then reflashing the PCM with the calibration data.
No need for multiple versions of patch. There will be multiple revisions though. I don't see a huge benefit to flashing twice. Just because you are separating them doesn't really prevent someone from messing anything up. At least that's how I see it.
160plus wrote: There are at least 4 people that have posted in this thread(and 2 people watching it) that are all capable(and likely willing) to write you a simple program that would validate the OS number apply the patch and correct the checksums. What it would really come down to is what format you currently have the patch data stored in and what would be the simplest way for you to supply that data into a program so it was able to create the patch. When you say you wrote the patch in Google Sheets, do you mean spread sheets or was it a data base? If you used a spread sheet, with a columns for starting and ending addressing and then the data that was to be inserted over that range I think it would be pretty simple to make a program read that and create a patch from it. But that's just some speculation as to how you've formatted the data.
A spreadsheet is how I do everything.
160plus wrote: Given what the EPA is doing in the US and the way they are cracking down on things this would actually be a terrible idea and put PCM Hammer in a potentially dangerous spot drawing attention from the EPA. While the EPA them selves may not notice it, there are US based companies that are watching both PCM Hammer and Ls Droid who would be more then happy to inform the EPA about it and start pointing fingers.
Good point.
160plus wrote: As far as having support with commercial tuning software, as someone else said, it is very possible EFI Live would add support for this once its been used for a bit and proven its desirable. I would also imagine it would be very easy to get Tuner Cats to add support for this as well and Cats may even welcome the idea since they do not have support for any COS's. It's also almost guaranteed that at least part of what you've created is also going to find its way into Hp Tuners since they have support for most of the EFI Live COS's at this point and have shown they don't care.
Anyone can easily add support. I've even created a .cax file for EFI Live, but the Stock VE table MAP axis cannot be modified and therefore it could be confusing seeing the wrong axis. EFI Live doesn't allow overlapping tables in the .cax file so unless they add support there is no clean way to do it.
LS1 Boost OS V3 Here. For feature suggestions post in here Development Thread. Support future development ->Patreon.
User avatar
Gampy
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:38 am

Re: LS1 Boost OS V1.0

Post by Gampy »

Not the best coder here, capable, always willing to help ...
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!
160plus
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:00 pm

Re: LS1 Boost OS V1.0

Post by 160plus »

bubba2533 wrote:
160plus wrote:
160plus wrote: When most people refer to an OS number they use the last 4 digits since they the unique values that separate many of the OS's. For example you have the 2156 OS and the 6125 OS. I think it would also be wise to include a version number as part of the OS number similar to the way software does as it would make it easy for people to know if they are using the current version of the OS or not. So you could do something like 21560001, where 1 is your version number. It makes it easily identifiable as to what it is based on while also making it easy to tell what version of the OS is being used. Of course this is simply a suggestion that would keep it simple.
I like that idea!
If you are going to change the OS number when do you expect to do it?


I was going to start adding your 2156 XDF into a complete XDF but I've run into an issue with the first table I looked at, your formula for cylinder volume does not match other XDF's and since this is used in the VE Map tables that is a huge issue and drastically alters the displayed VE tables values.

Because this is a custom OS I have no idea if your cylinder volume formula was done like this intentionally or if this is an error. If you did intended for the cylinder volume to use the formula you have in the XDF that's going to be a deal breaker.....if it is an error would you mind correcting it and updating your file?

As others have also commented, having to use 2 XDF's for tuning would be a huge pain to deal with(especially in a car with a laptop) and it would require basically rewriting a large portion of an existing XDF to work with your altered formula. I have gone to great length's to make sure that the common XDF's people are using have the same layout structure and formula format so that things are generally constant between OS's and it doesn't confuse people. TunerPro is already hard enough for a lot of people to use so keeping things unified and simplistic are very important to the majority of users.
bubba2533
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:50 am
cars: 03 Chevy S10 Turbo V6

Re: LS1 Boost OS V1.0

Post by bubba2533 »

I started it already, just have to wrap it up.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand as you aren't explaining what is different. From my research my formula looks to be fine and I posted up here how I am using it to calculate VE.
LS1 Boost OS V3 Here. For feature suggestions post in here Development Thread. Support future development ->Patreon.
User avatar
Gampy
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:38 am

Re: LS1 Boost OS V1.0

Post by Gampy »

If I had to guess, this is what 160plus is talking about ...

From 12212156.xdf

Code: Select all

  <XDFCONSTANT uniqueid="0x43AB" flags="0xC">
    <title>B0104 - Cylinder Volume</title>
    <description>The volume in Cubic Centimeters (CC) of each Engine Cylinder.</description>
    <CATEGORYMEM index="0" category="2" />
    <EMBEDDEDDATA mmedaddress="0x867A" mmedelementsizebits="16" mmedmajorstridebits="0" mmedminorstridebits="0" />
    <units>CC</units>
    <decimalpl>0</decimalpl>
    <rangehigh>1600.000000</rangehigh>
    <datatype>0</datatype>
    <unittype>0</unittype>
    <DALINK index="0" />
    <MATH equation="X*0.0305175">
      <VAR id="X" />
    </MATH>
  </XDFCONSTANT>
From 12212156_LS1_Boost_OS_V1.0.xdf

Code: Select all

  <XDFCONSTANT uniqueid="0x4913">
    <title>Cylinder Volume</title>
    <description>Units - Single Cylinder Volume (liters)

*Modification Not Recommended*</description>
    <EMBEDDEDDATA mmedaddress="0x867A" mmedelementsizebits="16" mmedmajorstridebits="0" mmedminorstridebits="0" />
    <datatype>0</datatype>
    <unittype>0</unittype>
    <DALINK index="0" />
    <MATH equation="X / 32768">
      <VAR id="X" />
    </MATH>
  </XDFCONSTANT>
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!
160plus
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:00 pm

Re: LS1 Boost OS V1.0

Post by 160plus »

bubba2533 wrote:I started it already, just have to wrap it up.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand as you aren't explaining what is different. From my research my formula looks to be fine and I posted up here how I am using it to calculate VE.
What Gampy posted is what I am referring to. It creates a massive difference in VE values between the formula you are using and what all the other XDF's are using.
bubba2533
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:50 am
cars: 03 Chevy S10 Turbo V6

Re: LS1 Boost OS V1.0

Post by bubba2533 »

One is cc and mine is liters.
LS1 Boost OS V3 Here. For feature suggestions post in here Development Thread. Support future development ->Patreon.
User avatar
NSFW
Posts: 679
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: LS1 Boost OS V1.0

Post by NSFW »

<MATH equation="X*0.0305175">
<MATH equation="X / 32768">

"X / 32768" is the same as "X * 0.0000305175"

Other than the number of zeros in between the "0." and the "305175" it's the same thing.
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!
Post Reply