Boost Control for Smooth Response

[fjames]

I'm at the head of the pack for bitching about the jerky throttle response of the 103 maps, and for me the big thing is actual cut (part throttle.) It's a big deal for me. I tried the TRL table that Aaron posted, but I don't really like it - I call it the mashed potato because that's what it makes me think of when I put my foot in it around town. It's still an improvement though, and encouraging that useful changes can be made.

So I've been exploring and learning and have a different solution to the issue. The Boost Target field seems obviously full of "void" entries, so the ecu won't use it. This forces it to use the "Throttle - Requested Load" table for part throttle work since they're the only two tables available with throttle position. So I put some entries in the Boost Target table and now it uses those. Or part of those. It's definitely not using the TRL table for low throttle work.

I've been working on it a few days and have a solution that's simple and so far effective. It's basically the stock values, subtly tweaked a bit more conservative. If I get cuts I'll just take the appropriate values down a hair (I'm just loving this interpolating and multiplying stuff.) So far no issues though.

The "feel" of driving it is smooth, linear, and powerful but without the 'roid rage of the 103s. Using these values will give you more poop down low, but progresses nicely up the scale of power, and still allows for mellow driving without massive concentration. I may tweak it as time goes on, but for now it's good enough that I can move on to other things (unless I get cuts.)

Things to note of you want to try it:

1. I have the mashed potato (Aaron's TRL table from the FMIC map) installed, and now with usable values in both tables, there's no way of knowing when it goes where. In other words, this Boost Target table might not work as intended with the standard TRL table.

2. The bottom two rows on all the Boost Target tables (93.75 and 100) contain mostly a boost number that corresponds to the max load as seen in the gear load tables. If you try my Boost Target table you might want to check your own for the map you're using and copy over those last two rows, or just the high values, if they're different than mine. I'm not sure it matters, you should be in the load tables by then, but just to keep things neat and tidy.

So here you go, I hope someone tries it so I can get some feedback

-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50
-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50
-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50	-14.50
0.23	0.46	0.56	0.64	1.19	2.42	3.80	3.80	3.50	2.29	0.67	-1.04	-1.64	-1.93	-2.05
0.23	1.12	3.17	5.22	6.25	7.27	9.32	11.37	10.89	10.79	10.92	9.20	8.86	7.01	2.03
0.23	1.33	3.68	6.04	7.21	8.39	10.75	13.10	12.81	12.84	13.08	11.18	9.92	8.89	3.93
0.23	1.44	3.97	6.49	7.75	9.02	11.54	14.07	13.88	13.82	14.13	12.13	11.47	8.89	5.00
0.23	1.49	4.12	6.75	8.06	9.37	12.00	14.63	14.49	14.42	14.65	12.68	11.47	8.89	5.11
0.23	1.51	4.20	6.89	8.24	9.59	12.28	14.97	14.88	14.84	14.94	13.01	11.47	8.89	5.11
0.23	1.54	4.26	6.98	8.34	9.70	12.42	15.14	15.07	14.88	14.94	13.17	11.47	8.89	5.11
0.23	2.74	5.25	7.77	9.02	10.28	12.79	15.30	15.27	14.91	14.94	13.34	11.47	8.89	5.11
0.25	2.84	5.44	8.04	9.34	10.64	13.24	15.84	15.81	15.45	15.40	14.04	12.47	10.33	7.31
0.26	2.95	5.63	8.32	9.66	11.00	13.69	16.37	16.36	15.99	15.86	14.75	13.47	11.77	9.51
0.28	3.05	5.82	8.59	9.98	11.37	14.14	16.91	16.90	16.53	16.31	15.45	14.47	13.22	11.70
0.29	3.15	6.01	8.87	10.30	11.73	14.59	17.45	17.44	17.07	16.77	16.15	15.48	14.66	13.90
0.29	3.24	6.92	10.61	12.45	14.29	17.98	17.98	17.98	17.61	17.23	16.85	16.48	16.10	16.10
1.54	4.28	7.70	11.13	12.84	14.55	17.98	17.98	17.98	17.61	17.23	16.85	16.48	16.10	16.10

And for reading this far, a little surprise. For all you guys that think we're a bunch of pussies for worrying about silly shit like throttle response, the below is the Throttle Requested Load A&C table from a Map Christian sent me a few months ago. It's from a S2+ 91 FMIC map so take note. If you want to know what a 600 hp ms3 would feel like, load this thing up and drive around on 50% throttle and pretend it's linear lol.

0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
0.64	0.46	0.34	0.25	0.21	0.19	0.17	0.16	0.15	0.13	0.11	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.08
0.67	0.68	0.61	0.50	0.46	0.42	0.36	0.32	0.27	0.24	0.20	0.19	0.18	0.19	0.17
0.68	0.77	0.80	0.76	0.73	0.72	0.67	0.56	0.49	0.44	0.41	0.37	0.33	0.30	0.38
0.69	0.80	0.90	0.97	1.01	1.14	1.14	1.01	0.90	0.76	0.70	0.64	0.59	0.55	0.50
0.69	0.81	0.94	1.08	1.36	1.56	1.58	1.46	1.38	1.30	1.11	1.03	0.96	0.90	0.84
0.70	0.82	0.95	1.13	1.48	1.69	1.70	1.61	1.56	1.50	1.44	1.34	1.21	1.10	0.77
0.70	0.83	0.96	1.14	1.55	1.76	1.74	1.67	1.66	1.62	1.56	1.47	1.36	1.15	0.70
0.70	0.82	0.97	1.20	1.59	1.79	1.77	1.70	1.69	1.68	1.64	1.57	1.40	1.15	0.70
0.70	0.83	0.97	1.22	1.62	1.83	1.82	1.74	1.73	1.72	1.68	1.61	1.46	1.19	0.72
0.70	0.83	0.97	1.24	1.65	1.87	1.86	1.78	1.77	1.75	1.72	1.65	1.51	1.23	0.75
0.70	0.83	0.97	1.25	1.69	1.91	1.91	1.82	1.82	1.79	1.76	1.69	1.63	1.56	1.15
0.70	0.83	0.97	1.27	1.72	1.95	1.95	1.86	1.86	1.83	1.80	1.74	1.68	1.62	1.15
0.78	0.91	0.97	1.34	1.75	1.99	2.00	1.90	1.90	1.86	1.84	1.78	1.72	1.67	1.15
0.70	0.83	0.97	1.92	2.13	2.24	2.25	2.20	2.20	2.18	2.17	2.14	2.11	2.09	1.83
0.70	0.83	0.97	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50
0.70	0.83	0.97	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50	2.50

[dread]

If you want more power down low you can also make a steeper incline on the throttle requested load table.

[fjames]

Yeah, but why did the factory make it so there were both, and why has Christian made it so there's just one for all occasions? On the load tables it makes sense to limit it to the gear tables like he has, but for low load, using boost tables gets you the Boost Comp to play with.

For me, I was half way down the boost road and didn't want to turn around and start over with load, but I like the idea of having the Boost Comp available and also having the ecu using boost like it's supposed to at some point lol. I think some of what I'm seeing in these maps is more the result of Christians work load and flow than what would be best for a user with ATR. In other words, when these maps came out, nobody could edit them, it was take it or leave it. So who cares if low load targets are load and not boost. But now you can edit all you like, and Boost Comp makes this a whole lot easier than trying to rejigger a whole map, and then not liking it so how do you get back - no problem with BC.

It's a good question, that I asked myself, and what I just said is what I told myself before I got involved with it too much.

[08_ms3_gt]

damn double post.. read below plz vvvvv

[08_ms3_gt]

cool.

per your first table, did you basically insert the values for your 'ideal' boost curve?

and would using this table eliminate the ECU's habit of increasing/decreasing boost given ambient temperatures since it's no longer looking for a load target?

would this be applicable to any map? theoretically, given mods, the boost curve will vary for each car.

makes me wonder why Christian wouldn't have done this sort of thing to begin with.

[dread]

With the load targets you car should be more consistent in different weather conditions. If you tune for boost, you will have more power when its colder. That being said, I have the same boost in warm temps that I was getting in cold temps.

[smakdown61]

Originally Posted by dread With the load targets you car should be more consistent in different weather conditions. If you tune for boost, you will have more power when its colder. That being said, I have the same boost in warm temps that I was getting in cold temps.

Don't you mean same load? (aka power)

[dread]

That too, but my boost has been consistent in both cold temps and warm temps. I get about 18.5 psi. So the data is counter to my argument, which probably means at a certain rpm or in open loop the ecu is not using the load targets.

[fjames]

I've never noticed the boost variation with temp, but I've seen people talk about it. The ecu uses load targets under heavy load, so it shouldn't matter what the boost targets are at light loads. I don't car if power/load changes a little at light loads, and I'd prefer it be stable at high loads.

All I did was paste in the light load area of the stock table and rejigger the low rpm and throttle part of that to be a little more conservative. I got the idea because I had run the stock map recently, just to refresh my memory of what the car is actually like without all the changes. You get lost in all the maps sometimes, and i just wanted to see where it all began. So, I liked the response of the stock map and away I went.

The talk here of load vs. boost is because with boost targets available, now the car can decide what to do, like it was designed for. If it looks at boost at low load and load at high load, I don't see any issues. The question I guess is when does it switch? The BT table in all the maps is very weird looking - the negative values make the "starting point" of the real values at about 50% throttle. The transitions from low to high from there, but since it's starting with such a high throttle position, the values are way low from about 50-75% throttle. Whatever, there are usable values in there at the higher load settings, so I'm not too concerned about adding usable values at the lower load settings.

[dread]

I would think it is the opposite the ecu uses load targets at low load and boost targets at high load. This way you won't overshoot the maximum boost and boost at low load will be related to how much power you are requesting with the gas pedal.

[smakdown61]

Originally Posted by dread I would think it is the opposite the ecu uses load targets at low load and boost targets at high load. This way you won't overshoot the maximum boost and boost at low load will be related to how much power you are requesting with the gas pedal.

Christian confirmed it uses load targets in all high load situations.

[dread]

So it will overshoot the boost targets if it is not meeting its load target? This doesn't make sense to me.

[fjames]

Why - boost is just an arbitrary number, means nothing the way I look at it. If it meant anything, you could put a BT on and run the same boost as stock. But obviously you can't because you'd be pushing a whole lot more air mass. Load is load - it accommodates all variables, so referencing load at high load conditions keeps you safe. That's the way I look at it anyway.

[bast525]

I definitely see lower boost in colder temps, and it makes sense that it should do that. My SRT-4 did the exact same thing. With load based tuning I don't see how you would NOT have lower boost in colder temps.

[fjames]

Since getting ATR I've included load in all logs. It's interesting to look at the relationship of boost to load at a given rpm in different gears.

[FreeFlyFreak]

Funny, when I copy and paste your numbers into the boost target table all the values that are supposed to be -14.50 come up as -2.90

I had a similar problem earlier when trying to interpolate with the boost target the lowest value that would come up was -2.90 so it was skewing the interpolation.

Bug in ATR maybe?
Or user error....... Can ayone else get it to work, copy paste style?

Anyway it looks like you took the stock curve and upped the top end.

[fjames]

Wow, my brain just melted. There must be some obvious explanation for that but I can't think of it. It pastes "-2.90" anywhere in that table when you copy "-14.50" but paste it in a text file or whatever and it's fine. If you wanted to try it, just paste it and select the top three lines and do a "e" -> "14.5." Okay, that doesn't work - so ATR won't let you enter a lower value. I seriously doubt if it matters.

It's the stock curve mellowed out on the low side and massaged for linearity overall. I read that table left to right, so it's like imagining holding a steady throttle, and what does the ecu do. That's the area I changed the most, call it the upper left quadrant. I tried to get it decent vertically because we don't now when it crosses over to load targets.

I realized the other day that one of the first things I changed was the DBW (mellowed it) so if someone tried it with the default DBW it wouldn't be the same feel. I just made a small DBW tweak last night, it never stops I do stuff every night with it.

[Haltech]

Originally Posted by FreeFlyFreak Funny, when I copy and paste your numbers into the boost target table all the values that are supposed to be -14.50 come up as -2.90 I had a similar problem earlier when trying to interpolate with the boost target the lowest value that would come up was -2.90 so it was skewing the interpolation. Bug in ATR maybe? Or user error....... Can ayone else get it to work, copy paste style? Anyway it looks like you took the stock curve and upped the top end.

Are you using standard measurement in the software?

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by Haltech Are you using standard measurement in the software?

Yes

[FreeFlyFreak]

OK I was playing this afternoon.
I currently have the "mashed potatoes" installed on my Cali 91 Stage1+ 103 map.
It does indeed make things much more linear and I like it better than the full boost at 25% which is what I had before.

However I do feel the flat mashed potatoes description you have been talking about, so I went digging looking for torque down low and tinkered with the Throttle DBW maps......

The result..... LMAO!! Well shit!! I found torque, Gobbs of it.
So much the car was close to undrivable, certainly unenjoyable. I did make a large change though, most of it down low.
I basically made Throttle DBW linear and it gave me too much of a touchy throttle .
If you look at the graph of the OTS map and my change you will see it is huge down low.
The solution may be there, in a toned down curve, about half way between the OTS map and what I did.
The boost seemed similar to before this change, linear, but just drove to the store so didnt test it fully. There was just too much torque/ too sensitive throttle in the first part of the pedal movement, it made it difficult to pull away from a stop. Drivable, but not enjoyable. I had to be really careful not to run into the back of someone when setting off from a stop. Try it if you want to LOL.

It is back to the mashed potatoes for now. I am going to Laguna Seca tomorrow, it will be nice to have some control instead of the on/off switch I am used to. Hope I haven't lost top end though.

What I did was this: paste in Throttle tables, DBW Throttle A and B:

0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
4.62	4.29	4.12	4.00	3.33	3.33	3.33	3.33	3.33	3.33	3.33	3.33	3.33	3.33	2.86
9.23	8.57	8.24	8.00	6.67	6.67	6.67	6.67	6.67	6.67	6.67	6.67	6.67	6.67	5.71
13.85	12.86	12.35	12.00	10.00	10.00	10.00	10.00	10.00	10.00	10.00	10.00	10.00	10.00	8.57
18.46	17.14	16.47	16.00	13.33	13.33	13.33	13.33	13.33	13.33	13.33	13.33	13.33	13.33	11.43
23.08	21.43	20.59	20.00	16.67	16.67	16.67	16.67	16.67	16.67	16.67	16.67	16.67	16.67	14.29
27.69	25.71	24.71	24.00	20.00	20.00	20.00	20.00	20.00	20.00	20.00	20.00	20.00	20.00	17.14
32.31	30.00	28.82	28.00	23.33	23.33	23.33	23.33	23.33	23.33	23.33	23.33	23.33	23.33	20.00
36.92	34.29	32.94	32.00	26.67	26.67	26.67	26.67	26.67	26.67	26.67	26.67	26.67	26.67	22.86
41.54	38.57	37.06	36.00	30.00	30.00	30.00	30.00	30.00	30.00	30.00	30.00	30.00	30.00	25.71
46.15	42.86	41.18	40.00	33.33	33.33	33.33	33.33	33.33	33.33	33.33	33.33	33.33	33.33	28.57
50.77	47.14	45.29	44.00	36.67	36.67	36.67	36.67	36.67	36.67	36.67	36.67	36.67	36.67	31.43
55.38	51.43	49.41	48.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	34.29
60.00	55.71	53.53	52.00	43.33	43.33	43.33	43.33	43.33	43.33	43.33	43.33	43.33	43.33	37.14
60.00	60.00	57.65	56.00	46.67	46.67	46.67	46.67	46.67	46.67	46.67	46.67	46.67	46.67	40.00
60.00	60.00	61.76	60.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	42.86
60.00	60.00	65.88	64.00	53.33	53.33	53.33	53.33	53.33	53.33	53.33	53.33	53.33	53.33	45.71
60.00	60.00	70.00	68.00	56.67	56.67	56.67	56.67	56.67	56.67	56.67	56.67	56.67	56.67	48.57
60.00	60.00	70.00	72.00	60.00	60.00	60.00	60.00	60.00	60.00	60.00	60.00	60.00	60.00	51.43
60.00	60.00	70.00	76.00	63.33	63.33	63.33	63.33	63.33	63.33	63.33	63.33	63.33	63.33	54.29
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	66.67	66.67	66.67	66.67	66.67	66.67	66.67	66.67	66.67	66.67	57.14
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	70.00	70.00	70.00	70.00	70.00	70.00	70.00	70.00	70.00	70.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	73.33	73.33	73.33	73.33	73.33	73.33	73.33	73.33	73.33	73.33	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	76.67	76.67	76.67	76.67	76.67	76.67	76.67	76.67	76.67	76.67	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	60.00

[FreeFlyFreak]

Oh and one more thing.
What does your car do when you do this:
Turn on the key but do not start, measure accelerator pedal position untouched and then floored, what do you get.
Mine shows 7.8 and 68. I can get up to 70 if I push very hard, but normal WOT would be 68......
So looking at the tables..... am I ever going to get full power??
I would say not, most max out at 80 ish. Im only getting 68, 70 if I press hard.
Problem!?
Solution??

EDIT: solved I was looking at the wrong accelerator position. Doh!

[evidence]

You sure you werent logging relative throttle? Actual pedal pos is how far down your foot is (%) (though I'm not sure what to the metal % is), relative throttle is how far the throttle plate is open, but it only goes to mid/low 70s. On absolute throttle 90% is the most you will ever see, but it's unclear wether this is actually an angle (90 degrees, straight open), or if the car is just limited to 90% like many drive by wire.

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by evidence You sure you weren't logging relative throttle? Actual pedal pos is how far down your foot is (%) (though I'm not sure what to the metal % is), relative throttle is how far the throttle plate is open, but it only goes to mid/low 70s. On absolute throttle 90% is the most you will ever see, but it's unclear whether this is actually an angle (90 degrees, straight open), or if the car is just limited to 90% like many drive by wire.

You know what there are more than that.
I just went out to check again. I was using my dashdaq.
I was using the first one I saw. There are lots, apparently I picked the wrong one, anyway I found the correct one..... 0-99.
Some are the throttle plate, they dont move when you arnt started. Some are the accelerator pedal position, I picked the only/first one I saw and it gave me 7.8-68 but I found another further down the list gave me the 0-99
Thanks.

[fjames]

Hey Steve,

I was going to edit my first post, but I guess I'll reply to you instead.

Umm, I get confused with all the throttle/pedal discussions. There's an accelerator pedal position value that's the actual pedal in the car I presume and it's 99.x for me. Then there's absolute and relative throttle, which I assume is the throttle plate - I always use relative and for me it's about 71.x max. Then there's "TPS" in ATR ... I assume it's pedal position, but not sure - it goes to 100, and that's the only one that does, but ...? People seem to use "throttle" to mean both pedal and throttle plate, and you can't do that with DBW - I try to always say pedal when I mean the thing in the car you step on to make noise.

On with my edit. I made a mental error in my first post thinking. Long story - I was fed up with the response of the 103 maps, I hated it and Christian wouldn't do anything about it. I really thought it should be easy to adjust, but what can you do? So ATR is on the way and i grabbed the support docs and read them all through twice before getting ATR. Once I got it, I immediately began what turned into a 14 hour marathon session with it.

About the first thing I did was adjust DBW. Once I got that first map made, the response was improved but still not to my liking. Then I saw Arron's post and tried that. Didn't like it too much and that led to this thread.

See the problem? I forgot about adjusting the DBW - so Aaron's torque table was softer than it would be for anyone running the default DBW, and anyone who tried my Boost Targets wouldn't get what I got for the same reason.

My conclusion is that DBW is probably the best way to effect part throttle response, or at least maybe it should be the first step. Today I tried increasing mine (DBW) to get just a little more response and I went to far. It was still more conservative than the default, but it almost immediately cut. I'm going to try again tonight, but it's a tightrope - maybe I got lucky with my first effort (I just used the stock values modded a bit more aggressive.)

I'll post my DBW below, it might be interesting for you to try it in combination with my Boost Target table. Don't for get I'm a road racer (okay, was, but I was pretty good) so my sensibilities should be in tune with yours. I'd be interested in your opinion of my combination vs. Arron's load table with the default DBW.

Oh, welcome home, I didn't know you were back.

0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
1.50	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	2.00	2.00
1.70	1.50	1.50	1.50	1.80	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	3.50	3.50
1.90	2.50	2.60	2.60	2.90	3.30	3.00	2.60	3.00	3.00	3.00	4.00	4.00	5.00	5.00
2.10	3.50	4.40	4.40	4.60	4.90	4.60	4.50	3.90	4.50	4.50	5.50	6.00	7.00	5.80
2.30	4.00	5.00	5.70	6.10	6.50	6.40	6.20	6.00	6.70	7.00	7.00	7.60	8.10	7.70
2.50	4.50	5.50	7.30	7.80	8.20	7.80	7.60	7.60	8.20	8.40	8.90	9.90	9.60	9.60
2.70	5.00	6.80	9.50	9.70	9.90	9.80	9.20	9.20	10.00	10.10	10.40	11.40	11.20	10.30
2.90	5.50	8.20	10.90	11.30	11.70	11.00	10.70	10.50	11.40	11.70	12.00	12.20	12.50	12.20
3.10	6.00	10.00	12.60	12.80	13.10	12.50	12.30	11.80	12.20	12.60	13.10	13.80	13.80	14.10
5.30	7.20	11.70	14.20	14.50	14.80	13.80	13.20	12.80	13.30	14.50	14.40	14.70	14.90	16.70
7.40	9.40	13.60	15.90	16.10	16.40	15.50	14.40	13.60	14.50	15.30	15.50	16.00	15.80	19.30
18.00	11.10	16.10	17.90	17.90	17.90	16.50	15.30	14.70	15.60	16.00	16.50	17.80	19.50	22.50
60.00	22.00	18.60	19.00	18.70	18.30	17.10	16.10	15.80	16.90	17.30	18.20	19.50	21.50	24.10
60.00	60.00	20.30	20.50	20.00	19.50	17.80	16.90	16.50	17.70	18.60	19.70	21.10	22.00	27.00
60.00	60.00	23.80	22.00	21.30	20.60	18.10	17.70	17.50	18.40	20.30	21.20	22.80	24.40	32.30
60.00	60.00	35.60	24.50	23.30	22.00	19.00	19.00	19.10	20.10	22.20	23.30	25.00	27.00	37.60
60.00	60.00	70.00	26.60	24.70	22.80	19.70	20.00	20.40	21.70	23.30	24.70	26.90	29.90	42.90
60.00	60.00	70.00	32.00	27.80	23.60	20.00	21.10	22.30	23.60	25.10	27.20	29.80	29.90	48.20
60.00	60.00	70.00	50.00	30.80	24.00	21.50	23.30	24.50	26.00	28.20	30.90	36.10	36.10	53.50
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	35.30	24.90	22.70	25.60	28.00	28.90	31.30	37.00	50.00	52.30	58.80
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	39.80	25.20	25.30	31.50	32.70	32.00	34.80	45.20	55.50	57.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	45.00	25.80	30.00	35.40	36.90	38.90	43.20	48.70	60.00	60.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	50.00	36.64	40.00	44.32	45.52	47.12	50.56	51.50	60.00	60.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	70.00	47.48	50.00	53.24	54.14	55.34	57.92	61.20	65.00	60.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	58.32	60.00	62.16	62.76	63.56	65.28	70.00	70.00	60.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	69.16	70.00	71.08	71.38	71.78	72.64	70.00	70.00	60.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	70.00	60.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	70.00	60.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	70.00	60.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	70.00	60.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	70.00	60.00	60.00
60.00	60.00	70.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	80.00	75.00	70.00	60.00

[dread]

that could be dangerous

[jayspeed3]

Originally Posted by fjames Wow, my brain just melted. There must be some obvious explanation for that but I can't think of it. It pastes "-2.90" anywhere in that table when you copy "-14.50" but paste it in a text file or whatever and it's fine. If you wanted to try it, just paste it and select the top three lines and do a "e" -> "14.5." Okay, that doesn't work - so ATR won't let you enter a lower value. I seriously doubt if it matters. It's the stock curve mellowed out on the low side and massaged for linearity overall. I read that table left to right, so it's like imagining holding a steady throttle, and what does the ecu do. That's the area I changed the most, call it the upper left quadrant. I tried to get it decent vertically because we don't now when it crosses over to load targets. I realized the other day that one of the first things I changed was the DBW (mellowed it) so if someone tried it with the default DBW it wouldn't be the same feel. I just made a small DBW tweak last night, it never stops I do stuff every night with it.

I notice the same problem. Has anyone figured this out, or is this something that the ATR will not allow?

[FreeFlyFreak]

EDIT:
I got it let me take a look....

[FreeFlyFreak]

Shouldnt be driving, a little wine, but stayed close.....

That map IS what I am looking for. It will be my map tomorrow @ Laguna Seca, unless I see something in the map details that I dont like.
I will take a closer look now at the details......
Just briefly looking at it, it looks like the stock Boost curve tweaked up, meeting the Cobb higher targets but the stock curve shape. Stock Throttle DBW tweaked with the higher parts of the Cobb OTS map added, and of course the linear throttle from the linear maps.......

Damn near perfect.

Thanks VERY much for posting it.

Of course it was only a short drive, so I reserve my right to change my opinion........ but I doubt I will, and will definitely be running it tomorrow. Way better than anything I have tried thus far.

I should mention I did leave the boost upper limits the same as my S1+ OTS map not yours as you suggested.... good catch.

Regarding your cut. Do you know what is causing it..... have you thought about raising some of those cut limits a little, I know Christian did that for some others....... is it boost cut, if so what are you spiking.

Oh yes I am back, was away for a couple of months, but back with a vengeance now.

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by dread that could be dangerous

What could be dangerous and why??

[fjames]

I just got back from a long drive working in a new MAF table and trying a new DBW curve. I think if I was going to track the car, I'd use the one you have, but for daily driving, maybe this new one. It's just a little more assertive in the middle. I think what I'm going to do is save two identical maps, except for the DBW, so any changes I make will be to both. I believe in the A-B-A testing theory - get used to A, change to B and get used to that, then back to A. So I"m going to live with the new DBW for awhile, then go back to the other one and see what I think.

Anyhow, I'm glad you like it, but fear what you'll think when you sober up . Please, if you see anything in the details that seems funky, let me know. It's hard trying to keep the horizontal and vertical copacetic sometimes, and hard for me to know which is more important when there's a conflict. It's also hard to catch oddities in a large table like DBW.

The cut I'm talking about is easy for me to understand intuitively, but not to explain technically. I think a lot of people get it, but call it different things, like a hesitation or stumble or whatever. It's a part throttle issue, not the boost cut at full power [people talk about.

It's real simple - too much pedal at too low an RPM in too high a gear = the big sneeze. It's because of too high a boost target from the ots maps, and not using enough rpm in a previous gear to miss the danger zone. I do a lot of driving on 45-55 mph roads with widely spaced lights - miles of this stuff any time I leave the house. So it's common to bump it through the first few gears, then realize I need more in 3rd or 4th, but the rpm is too low and there you go.

Some people don't get it because they never short shift. Obviously even if it never actually cut, the throttle mapping/load-boost targeting is horrible for proper control, but that cut was making me crazy. I have a very free intake side - don't know if that contributes or not.

I made a log of a part to full throttle 4th gear run tonight - never did that before . I'll post it if I can remember how to chart it, or maybe just post the log.

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by fjames I just got back from a long drive working in a new MAF table and trying a new DBW curve. I think if I was going to track the car, I'd use the one you have, but for daily driving, maybe this new one. It's just a little more assertive in the middle.

A B A let me know.....

If I were doing it I think I may leave the DBW the same and tame the boost a hair........ maybe.
Wont know till I get some time in on it.
All I know is, it is better than stock, and better than OTS. That is good enough for me now.
Once again thanks for your work and posts.

[fjames]

Here's a log of the new DBW, trying for a progressive acceleration through 4th gear. I've never done a log like this so I don't know what it would normally look like. It's kind of interesting how boost seems to increase disproportionately to load, but that load and pedal position stay pretty much together (until pedal is maxed at 100.)

[jayspeed3]

Originally Posted by FreeFlyFreak EDIT: I got it let me take a look....

Did you figure it out?

[fostersafb]

fjames and FreeFlyFreak, can you post the changes to each of tables you guys are working on in the ATR user maps section with any information pertaining to it? I, like others I'm sure, am eager to test these out but wading through this whole thread, its tough to tell whats what. Thanks guys.

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by fostersafb fjames and FreeFlyFreak, can you post the changes to each of tables you guys are working on in the ATR user maps section with any information pertaining to it? I, like others I'm sure, am eager to test these out but wading through this whole thread, its tough to tell whats what. Thanks guys.

I posted the map for you to look at. It is a cali one Im not sure if you have a cali car or what your mods are. If your ATR is not for a cali car you wont be able to look at it. If not, let me know and I will post the exact changes that were made.

[fostersafb]

Originally Posted by FreeFlyFreak I posted the map for you to look at. It is a cali one Im not sure if you have a cali car or what your mods are. If your ATR is not for a cali car you wont be able to look at it. If not, let me know and I will post the exact changes that were made.

Thanks, I have an 09 though so i couldn't load the map directly. Can you post up the individual tables?

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by fostersafb Thanks, I have an 09 though so i couldn't load the map directly. Can you post up the individual tables?

Done. It is in the other thread.
If I were you I would read this thread through first.

[fostersafb]

Originally Posted by FreeFlyFreak Done. It is in the other thread. If I were you I would read this thread through first.

I have a couple times but I thought for those of us who are more novice compared to you and others posting, it would be nice to have the maps posted for us to see and compare with the established maps. I've learned more from comparing Cobbs OTS maps to the stock maps than anything else. The same I figure would apply to the user maps you guys create.

Thanks!

On a side not is 2.50 the max for the abs load target?

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by fostersafb I have a couple times but I thought for those of us who are more novice compared to you and others posting, it would be nice to have the maps posted for us to see and compare with the established maps. I've learned more from comparing Cobbs OTS maps to the stock maps than anything else. The same I figure would apply to the user maps you guys create. Thanks!

I am a novice too. Dont think Im anything else.
I learned the same way. And have basically just copied others, except my failed initial attempt at modifying the DBW table.

I did not load this map onto my car until I had compared, the changes made, to both the stock calibration and the Cobb OTS maps.
I could see all curves were similar in shape to one or the other, with changes made that did not seem (on quick examination) to exceed the max of what Christian had done. So at that point I ran it.

[Fobio]

Originally Posted by fjames So here you go, I hope someone tries it so I can get some feedback -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 -14.50 0.23 0.46 0.56 0.64 1.19 2.42 3.80 3.80 3.50 2.29 0.67 -1.04 -1.64 -1.93 -2.05 0.23 1.12 3.17 5.22 6.25 7.27 9.32 11.37 10.89 10.79 10.92 9.20 8.86 7.01 2.03 0.23 1.33 3.68 6.04 7.21 8.39 10.75 13.10 12.81 12.84 13.08 11.18 9.92 8.89 3.93 0.23 1.44 3.97 6.49 7.75 9.02 11.54 14.07 13.88 13.82 14.13 12.13 11.47 8.89 5.00 0.23 1.49 4.12 6.75 8.06 9.37 12.00 14.63 14.49 14.42 14.65 12.68 11.47 8.89 5.11 0.23 1.51 4.20 6.89 8.24 9.59 12.28 14.97 14.88 14.84 14.94 13.01 11.47 8.89 5.11 0.23 1.54 4.26 6.98 8.34 9.70 12.42 15.14 15.07 14.88 14.94 13.17 11.47 8.89 5.11 0.23 2.74 5.25 7.77 9.02 10.28 12.79 15.30 15.27 14.91 14.94 13.34 11.47 8.89 5.11 0.25 2.84 5.44 8.04 9.34 10.64 13.24 15.84 15.81 15.45 15.40 14.04 12.47 10.33 7.31 0.26 2.95 5.63 8.32 9.66 11.00 13.69 16.37 16.36 15.99 15.86 14.75 13.47 11.77 9.51 0.28 3.05 5.82 8.59 9.98 11.37 14.14 16.91 16.90 16.53 16.31 15.45 14.47 13.22 11.70 0.29 3.15 6.01 8.87 10.30 11.73 14.59 17.45 17.44 17.07 16.77 16.15 15.48 14.66 13.90 0.29 3.24 6.92 10.61 12.45 14.29 17.98 17.98 17.98 17.61 17.23 16.85 16.48 16.10 16.10 1.54 4.28 7.70 11.13 12.84 14.55 17.98 17.98 17.98 17.61 17.23 16.85 16.48 16.10 16.10

I wanted to try this, but the Stg1+ SF 93 1.03r beta map that I'm basing my testing on has more aggressive boost targets for the bottom 5 lines and it's not linear, so I think I'll have to take your values and transplant them accordingly, column by column. I'm at work rigjht now, but I'll post my 1.03r Boost Targets table for you to review later on.