HOW TO - Switch to VersaTune

[Deldran]

So I made the switch to VersaTune. While migrating my ATR tunes, into Versatune I documented what tables in ATR, translate to tables in VersaTune. Many translate directly into VersaTune others do not, and some tables in VersaTune do not exist in ATR.

The document is just the table translations. I hope to use this thread to talk about any little quirks that need to be observed when making the switch, and hopefully some good discussion on what exactly some tables do.

I hope this is helpful to the community. Maybe we can make it a sticky as more people make the switch. If anyone discovers something I missed or anything of that nature, please let me know and I will update it.

Thanks to @phate; there are some more goodies in the document

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?page...O5TeBCdLQ1fOUQ

@phate; @Lex; @rfinkle2; @Justin@Freektune; @Steve@VersaTune; and any other tuners I have forgotten.

Quirks to look out for

The big thing is to watch your Axis values and units of measure while doing this.
Also many tables Scale out to 8k so be sure to adjust the rows above 7k

Absolute Limits tables
Most of these tables are pretty straight forward. Just remember to watch your axis values

Accelerator Pedal Calibration
These all translate directly with the exception of "APP Multiplier Speed Adjustment" The Axis values do not line up

Boost Control
These all copied over nicely, just remember several of the tables in VersaTune scale out to 8k rpm. ATR only goes to 7k so make sure to adjust the 7500 and 8k columns

Fueling
One thing I noticed with these tables. The Closed Loop tables have lower loads listed than the OL tables. So if you copy your OL tables into the CL tables, you will notice the last couple rows did not get changed. Make sure to copy into the first load value that matches on the right, then adjust the first few rows accordingly.

Also the Y axis, which is load, does not share the same values as ATR, so when copying from ATR into VersaTune, be mindful. What I did was copy the rows that where close into VersaTune, then I vertically interpolated between the modified rows to adjust the unmodified rows.

VersaTune used Lambda, and does not use AFR so make sure to switch ATR into lambda

Also it seems ATR has Fuel Specific Gravity labeled wrong. ATR shows the unit of measure as kg/m^3 when it should be kg/l. Which is how versatune labels it.

there is also no injector scalier at the moment, so if migrating a E85 tune be aware of this

Gear Tables
These all translate almost exactly from ATR, they are not covered in the document for this reason

Idle
These also translate without any issue

Ignition
The big thing here is the Y axis which is Load does not line up with the Load axis in ATR. So I used the same method that I used in Fueling tables to get this translated over.

Load Targeting
The axis values in this tables line up between VersaTune, and ATR.
Be aware that VersaTune only does Load based tuning. This means that the values in these tables will need to be modified, if you do boost tuning in ATR, since the have likely been set to a number that your car can not achieve. Running these tables from ATR unmodified could = ZZB. You have been warned.

Sensor Calibration
Be sure to set VersaTune to use Metric units. then you can copy your MAF cal from ATR directly into VT.
It seems VersaTune has the same number of MAP related tables, but I could not figure out exactly how that correlated with the MAP tables in ATR

Throttle Control
These copy over without issue

Valve Timing
These copy over without issue

[phate]

Thanks for starting to sort these out, Andrew. Hopefully this eases some fears about making the move to VT from the AP - I know some folks are fed up with Cobb's lack of updates, but are apprehensive about making the switch.



I just purchased VT, so once the cable gets here I'll start working through and adding anything I find.

[Deldran]

I forgot to mention. After one revision, because I had a couple of tables configured wrong, the car is running super smooth. It does feel a bit down on power, but I was pretty conservative with load targets.

[f15ms6]

Thanks again for sending me the link. I am sure it will be a huge help to get things started once I get VT.

@TiGraySpeed6 I am sure you will be interested on this as well.

[phate]

Alright, I just finished setting up a base map. I went through all of the tables and made notes and additions to Andrew's document. I also found a couple interesting things



VT has 3 tables called "Closed Loop Load Limits"...they all happen to be set at 2.50 load over the entire rev range. There have been a couple threads posted about AFR "things" happening at 2.50 load here and here

VersaTune has a bunch of tables listed as "overload", but nothing in particular to determine when they are used (same as the Knock/No Knock tables that are labeled incorrectly in ATR). The "Closed Loop Load Limits" are described as being a sort of unknown, so I'm thinking they might be related.

@Lex, @ms6mil, @rfinkle2, @Justin@Freektune - you guys were in those threads and I'm not sure a resolution was ever reached. What say ye guys? We've suspected for a long time that there are multiple closed/open loop transition points for different parameters, this might be one that actually comes in handy.

[Justin@Freektune]

Originally Posted by phate Alright, I just finished setting up a base map. I went through all of the tables and made notes and additions to Andrew's document. I also found a couple interesting things VT has 3 tables called "Closed Loop Load Limits"...they all happen to be set at 2.50 load over the entire rev range. There have been a couple threads posted about AFR "things" happening at 2.50 load here and here VersaTune has a bunch of tables listed as "overload", but nothing in particular to determine when they are used (same as the Knock/No Knock tables that are labeled incorrectly in ATR). The "Closed Loop Load Limits" are described as being a sort of unknown, so I'm thinking they might be related. @Lex, @ms6mil, @rfinkle2, @Justin@Freektune - you guys were in those threads and I'm not sure a resolution was ever reached. What say ye guys? We've suspected for a long time that there are multiple closed/open loop transition points for different parameters, this might be one that actually comes in handy.

That could very well be where an issue lies. We never found a resolution other than putting more work into the maf cal. The maf literally has to be 100% spot on to hold target Afr above that achieved load of 2.5+

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by phate Alright, I just finished setting up a base map. I went through all of the tables and made notes and additions to Andrew's document. I also found a couple interesting things VT has 3 tables called "Closed Loop Load Limits"...they all happen to be set at 2.50 load over the entire rev range. There have been a couple threads posted about AFR "things" happening at 2.50 load here and here VersaTune has a bunch of tables listed as "overload", but nothing in particular to determine when they are used (same as the Knock/No Knock tables that are labeled incorrectly in ATR). The "Closed Loop Load Limits" are described as being a sort of unknown, so I'm thinking they might be related. @Lex, @ms6mil, @rfinkle2, @Justin@Freektune - you guys were in those threads and I'm not sure a resolution was ever reached. What say ye guys? We've suspected for a long time that there are multiple closed/open loop transition points for different parameters, this might be one that actually comes in handy.

I contacted Steve about this issue and he replied that he had never come across that particular situation.

I am growing tired of having to basically tune a fuel curve 2x's but my hope that we will ever bend Cobb's ear is lost.

IMO, this type of project is far more important than being able to rev to 10000k rpm but

[Steve@VersaTune]

Originally Posted by phate Alright, I just finished setting up a base map. I went through all of the tables and made notes and additions to Andrew's document. I also found a couple interesting things VT has 3 tables called "Closed Loop Load Limits"...they all happen to be set at 2.50 load over the entire rev range. There have been a couple threads posted about AFR "things" happening at 2.50 load here and here VersaTune has a bunch of tables listed as "overload", but nothing in particular to determine when they are used (same as the Knock/No Knock tables that are labeled incorrectly in ATR). The "Closed Loop Load Limits" are described as being a sort of unknown, so I'm thinking they might be related. @Lex, @ms6mil, @rfinkle2, @Justin@Freektune - you guys were in those threads and I'm not sure a resolution was ever reached. What say ye guys? We've suspected for a long time that there are multiple closed/open loop transition points for different parameters, this might be one that actually comes in handy.

I push the Load Limit Force Spark Retard table way up in my tunes. That may be why I have never seen this.

I *think* the Overload tables are used for low octane tuning. I've seen CX-7 calibrations that have the Load Limit Force Spark Retard set to all zeros for certain regions. In those calibrations, the overload tables are different from the normal tables. Based on this, I suspect that exceeding the Load Limit Force Spark Retard may cause you to run off of the Overload tables.

[Lex]

If going through the exercise of familiarizing yourself with VT coming from COBB one of the things to do is to look at a stock tune for the same generation car. You can then see which tables match with which. This is what I did when the answer wasn't obvious and was porting tunes.

I personally also love to see logs in .csv. There is a .csv output function on the logs and you will see that the variables have lots of digits after the decimal that makes the log hard to read. If viewing in excel, select the entire sheet and click on the "comma" for comma style. This will limit the number of decimal places and make the log much easier to read.

[Raider]

Enki's discussion was moved here: Enki's Bluetooth VT Discussion

[Deldran]

Thanks @Raider;

Any chance we could make this a sticky?

[chaser27]

Originally Posted by phate Alright, I just finished setting up a base map. I went through all of the tables and made notes and additions to Andrew's document. I also found a couple interesting things VT has 3 tables called "Closed Loop Load Limits"...they all happen to be set at 2.50 load over the entire rev range.... We've suspected for a long time that there are multiple closed/open loop transition points for different parameters, this might be one that actually comes in handy.

I'm not sure we actually see any true OL with the AP unless we are over 2.5 load.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by chaser27 I'm not sure we actually see any true OL with the AP unless we are over 2.5 load.

The ECU always trims fueling even under WOT. We just don't see the trims so you are correct.

[torquemaniac]

Originally Posted by Steve@VersaTune I've seen CX-7 calibrations that have the Load Limit Force Spark Retard set to all zeros for certain regions. In those calibrations, the overload tables are different from the normal tables. Based on this, I suspect that exceeding the Load Limit Force Spark Retard may cause you to run off of the Overload tables.

I can confirm that if you exceed the Load Limit Force Spark Retard, you will run on the Overload tables

The 2nd gen CX-7 OEM tune has all zeros in the Load Limit Force Spark Retard (why?), and all attempts at altering the Normal Ignition tables did not work because of this

If you ask me, the OEM tuning can be fucking retard

[phate]

Originally Posted by torquemaniac I can confirm that if you exceed the Load Limit Force Spark Retard, you will run on the Overload tables The 2nd gen CX-7 OEM tune has all zeros in the Load Limit Force Spark Retard (why?), and all attempts at altering the Normal Ignition tables did not work because of this If you ask me, the OEM tuning can be fucking retard

Do you know if it's just the ignition tables, or all overload tables (specifically fueling) are used in this case?

[CWP_MS3]

@Evan@COBB; You guys should be aware if you're customers aren't satisfied.

Perhaps people beginning to jump ship is enough to promote changes. Adapt to survive.

[Enki]

Holy shit, do the fan control tables actually work for genwon? I've literally been dying to get this.

[TiGraySpeed6]

Originally Posted by CWP_MS3 Adapt to survive.

Not sure I'd push that too much at cobb....

They're adapting to Subaru, Ford, BMW, Porsche, Nissan...
All of whom are actively producing new cars for them to work with. Mazda isn't, at least not currently. I'd look for the resurgence when the new Speed3 is released.

I'd love to see some of the promised updates get released, but even the beta testing for the stutter fix has fallen off, and that's almost current activity.....

VT related content- that stutter fix is putting a check in a box. Cobb has some talented people, but come on, a checkbox, compared to cobb ignoring or not being able to correct an issue for years....

[CWP_MS3]

Originally Posted by TiGraySpeed6 Not sure I'd push that too much at cobb.... They're adapting to Subaru, Ford, BMW, Porsche, Nissan... All of whom are actively producing new cars for them to work with. Mazda isn't, at least not currently. I'd look for the resurgence when the new Speed3 is released. I'd love to see some of the promised updates get released, but even the beta testing for the stutter fix has fallen off, and that's almost current activity..... VT related content- that stutter fix is putting a check in a box. Cobb has some talented people, but come on, a checkbox, compared to cobb ignoring or not being able to correct an issue for years....

I'm just speaking from a person who is in the automotive industry to sell a product as well, and thinks customer satisfaction is above all. I prefer to know what my customers think of us regardless of good or bad.

I'm just bringing it to their attention that people are leaving to another company; and I meant nothing more. Whether or not they give a shit, and do what they can to make the desired changes, is up to them.

We all appreciate the things they have done for our cars. I meant nothing negative. However, if we're progressing, it would be nice to have them progress with us.

[Deldran]

So I have ran into something that kinda boggles my mind.

I copied my MAF CAL tables straight out of ATR and into VT.

Good thing it is cold out because I saw upper 12's and even a 13 on a 4th gear woot pull.
everywhere I can see, I checked both OL and CL fueling tables. I should be l .7xx lamba range, I never got below .8xx lambda during my pull.

I have no issues doing a maf cal, all though I despise them, it just seems this is something that should copy over without issue.

[chaser27]

Originally Posted by Deldran So I have ran into something that kinda boggles my mind. I copied my MAF CAL tables straight out of ATR and into VT. Good thing it is cold out because I saw upper 12's and even a 13 on a 4th gear woot pull. everywhere I can see, I checked both OL and CL fueling tables. I should be l .7xx lamba range, I never got below .8xx lambda during my pull. I have no issues doing a maf cal, all though I despise them, it just seems this is something that should copy over without issue.

Are you converting from lambda back to AFR or vis versa? If so are you on an E mix? If so, stoich isn't going to be 14.7... Just an idea.

Again, assuming you are on an E mix. Did you use fuel scalars or just redid your MAF?

[phate]

Originally Posted by chaser27 Are you converting from lambda back to AFR or vis versa? If so are you on an E mix? If so, stoich isn't going to be 14.7... Just an idea. Again, assuming you are on an E mix. Did you use fuel scalars or just redid your MAF?

NNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Stoich IS 14.7:1 no matter the fuel mix for our cars. O2's read in lambda, then convert to an AFR scale of choice. In our case the scale is based on 1.00 lambda equal to 14.7:1.

[chaser27]

Originally Posted by phate NNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Stoich IS 14.7:1 no matter the fuel mix for our cars. O2's read in lambda, then convert to an AFR scale of choice. In our case the scale is based on 1.00 lambda equal to 14.7:1.

I was thinking backwards (and outloud)... O2 reads AFR, then converts back to lambda.

I'll shut up now


EDIT: Does VT (Or ATR for that matter) give us the option of changing that AFR scale it converts back to?

[phate]

Another note that I've written about before and will write more on later: the scaling of maf curves for e85 is NOT a single multiplier. I developed maf scalar curves back in the day, before we had the very convenient injector controls. Why this is the case, I'm not sure. But, those scalar curves were consistently accurate in the cars I tuned using the maf scalar approach.

Edit: I'm interested to see if this holds true in VT.

[Enki]

To further elaborate, some cars actually convert the lambda AFR into a gasoline AFR before using the number. Fortunately, our cars do not.

[Deldran]

Originally Posted by chaser27 Are you converting from lambda back to AFR or vis versa? If so are you on an E mix? If so, stoich isn't going to be 14.7... Just an idea. Again, assuming you are on an E mix. Did you use fuel scalars or just redid your MAF?

It seems VT defaults logging in AFR, instead of Lamda, so I convert the logged AFR into lambda by dividing it by 14.67 (AFR/14.67)

I am just trying to understand why it is so far off. I know the Cal was not that far off with the AP.

[Steve@VersaTune]

Originally Posted by phate NNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Stoich IS 14.7:1 no matter the fuel mix for our cars. O2's read in lambda, then convert to an AFR scale of choice. In our case the scale is based on 1.00 lambda equal to 14.7:1.

Stoich is lambda 1.000 for all fuels.
Stoich AFR of 14.7 is only for gasoline. E85 is very different.

[phate]

Originally Posted by Steve@VersaTune Stoich is lambda 1.000 for all fuels. Stoich AFR of 14.7 is only for gasoline. E85 is very different.

Understood. It's around 9:1 for E100, and somewhere in between for lesser ethanol content. My point was that 1.00 lambda will be converted to 14.7 in our cars no matter the fuel.

[Steve@VersaTune]

I never work in AFR, so I forget about that conversion.

[Enki]

The description for the MAP Targets (Boost Targeting Mode) says that the table isn't used, but I don't see a way to set boost targets/limits other than this table, which also happens to be set to 30 psi (or roughly stock boost if viewed as absolute pressure). Is this the proper table to use?

[phate]

Originally Posted by Steve@VersaTune I never work in AFR, so I forget about that conversion.

Lambda makes WAY more sense, because we never know the exact fuel content from a typical gas station. Ergo, we never really know what the actual stoich AFR is haha.

[Steve@VersaTune]

Originally Posted by Enki The description for the MAP Targets (Boost Targeting Mode) says that the table isn't used, but I don't see a way to set boost targets/limits other than this table, which also happens to be set to 30 psi (or roughly stock boost if viewed as absolute pressure). Is this the proper table to use?

VT does not use boost targeting mode, only load targeting mode. The Boost Target table is not used. The boost limit tables in the Absolute Limits section are used.

[torquemaniac]

Originally Posted by phate Do you know if it's just the ignition tables, or all overload tables (specifically fueling) are used in this case?

Good question...I will check this tonight!

Edit : I wasnt sure if there was overload tables for fueling, but there is indeed for open loop and WOT...the overload fueling tables are different than the normal fueling tables (richer...), however, I cant say if they are related to the load limit force spark retard table because I dont have log with the OEM fueling tables (I changed the normal and overload fueling tables to the same since day one)

[Enki]

Originally Posted by Deldran there is also no injector scalier at the moment, so if migrating a E85 tune be aware of this

Just to confirm, need to multiply maf curve by current AP scalar correct? This will fuck up the values from my existing load tune

[Deldran]

Originally Posted by Enki Just to confirm, need to multiply maf curve by current AP scalar correct? This will fuck up the values from my existing load tune

Yes. That's what I did, but I have not ran my e85 tune yet.

my 93 maf Cal is horrendous and I copied it straight from ATR and I do not know why. Hopefully it's not some major difference in how ATR and VT handle the maf tables.

[Enki]

Horrendous how?

[Steve@VersaTune]

A formal VT E85 tuning guide is very very near.

[mituc]

I'm using VT and my tune currently has a MAF cal with less than 3% adjustments in some areas (probably only because the fuel on this side or the planet) initially exported from an AP tune.
I'd say that as long as the voltage points line up you're good to go. Take some MAF cal logs to check if everything looks right and that's it.

[Enki]

Originally Posted by Steve@VersaTune A formal VT E85 tuning guide is very very near.

just so you know, it *SHOULD* be possible to calculate the scalar from the FSG, however, if your going to do that as a feature, it would be more user friendly to just input an ethanol percentage number instead.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by Deldran Yes. That's what I did, but I have not ran my e85 tune yet. my 93 maf Cal is horrendous and I copied it straight from ATR and I do not know why. Hopefully it's not some major difference in how ATR and VT handle the maf tables.

If you copied all the fuel tables and MAF tables in the correct areas there shouldn't be a difference between AP and VT. Recheck the tables to start.

The AP AFR is scaled based on gasoline. So lambda 1 in the AP is 14.7 AFR. If you want an 11AFR you need to target 0.748 lambda in VT.