EQ <> VE Version 3.5

[Scourage]

Hello. I have trouble VE Equation VE Table Generator-V3.5 & HPtuners with Copy Equations from HPtuner operation ( either Win 7, Win XP) see please screenshot
Now i have Beta 2.23.743. Is it compatible with Generator?
I havn't had open VCM Scanner with AFR Error log that time. Could it be main cause of trouble?

I was going to try out the tool and found I get the same error. I read the small help file, but I don't see any tables in Engine/Airflow/Dynamic Airflow, only fields to change High RPM disable and re-enable. I also don't see a VE LoAltd table under Engine/Airflow/General. I did have the six tables open under Speed Density.

[kewl_blades]

Anyone have this current version of the program that they can email or host somewhere? I cannot connect to the IP http://209.218.144.226 for the file EQ_ve3.zip

Thanks!

[RocketRod]

Anyone have this current version of the program that they can email or host somewhere? I cannot connect to the IP http://209.218.144.226 for the file EQ_ve3.zip

Thanks!

I am having the same issue. Any help getting a copy of the program would be greatly appreciated.

[wbear]

MY link to the latest EQ <> VE Version 3.5 Program:

https://rapidshare.com/files/116772128/EQ_VE3.zip

[kewl_blades]

Thanks!!!

[ivmotorsports]

I've got a blown 2010 camaro that im trying to tune the vve on and I can't find a way to turn off the stft. no matter what I try it still does what it wants, does anybody have a way of turning them off? also is there a specific set of histogram parameters I am supposed to use for the EG VE program?

[DSteck]

Set O2 readiness to max temp as well as closed loop enable.

[mourat]

Agreed with Dave, and you can also force closed loop off in the scanner in VCM controls, might slow scanning down a tad depending on your comp.

[La RPM]

Where is everyone downloading this tool from? The link posted above does not work

[La RPM]

anyone have a file of it that i can have?

[BigDaddyCool]

Is there a version 4 coming that is more accurate?.....

[Bluecat]

I plan on slowing down next month and setting a few days aside for updating this...

[SSUte01]

Put a price on it. You did a bloody good job of it. I've used it many times, your efforts should be remunerated IMO. I'd happily pay a reasonable price for it. I found out what being too generous gets you. BTW, what's wrong with it's accuracy?

[DSteck]

Put a price on it. You did a bloody good job of it. I've used it many times, your efforts should be remunerated IMO. I'd happily pay a reasonable price for it. I found out what being too generous gets you. BTW, what's wrong with it's accuracy?

+1 to all of this.

Not to be picky, but it would be nice to be able to define a table size from within the software. Not that it matters for me anymore, because all of my tables are already defined, but others struggle with the formatting from what I've seen.

[BigDaddyCool]

Put a price on it. You did a bloody good job of it. I've used it many times, your efforts should be remunerated IMO. I'd happily pay a reasonable price for it. I found out what being too generous gets you. BTW, what's wrong with it's accuracy?

Are you serious? Hmmm how to explain.

Step 1. Generate your VE table using this software, save the VE table, generate the equation and import into HP Tuners.
Step 2. Get data that you 'just' imported into HP tuners.... compare against your VE table you 'just generated' and look how far out it is.

Hence the error % when generating the new data for HP tuners.

It drives me totally crazy ...... If the software's error % was within a percent i wouldn't care but it's nowhere near accurate enough to be used mainstream in my opinion other then 'knowing' how to work around the issue and or work with it.

I dont discredit the software, there i no other for us to use.... So it's as the saying goes 'better then nothing' and i appreciate the effort for what time and thought was put into it. All I would like to see is some refinement to it, getting it to solve it's accuracy issue.

Personally I had hoped HP Tuners would of just 'bought' the software off Bluecat and implemented it into there software and refined it but that hasn't happened.

Anyway.... So in response, do your homework and you'll see what i'm talking about.

It just drives me nuts making a nice VE table only to generate the equation for it to be out a couple of % in important spots....

arg I'll shut up

[MikeOD]

Are you serious? Hmmm how to explain.

Step 1. Generate your VE table using this software, save the VE table, generate the equation and import into HP Tuners.
Step 2. Get data that you 'just' imported into HP tuners.... compare against your VE table you 'just generated' and look how far out it is.

Hence the error % when generating the new data for HP tuners.

It drives me totally crazy ...... If the software's error % was within a percent i wouldn't care but it's nowhere near accurate enough to be used mainstream in my opinion other then 'knowing' how to work around the issue and or work with it.

I dont discredit the software, there i no other for us to use.... So it's as the saying goes 'better then nothing' and i appreciate the effort for what time and thought was put into it. All I would like to see is some refinement to it, getting it to solve it's accuracy issue.

Personally I had hoped HP Tuners would of just 'bought' the software off Bluecat and implemented it into there software and refined it but that hasn't happened.

Anyway.... So in response, do your homework and you'll see what i'm talking about.

It just drives me nuts making a nice VE table only to generate the equation for it to be out a couple of % in important spots....

arg I'll shut up

I don't think you understand how math works. Because we're using equations to define 3D surfaces, you can't avoid exactly what you just described. In fact, I'd argue it's the same, or strikingly similar, with the software GM uses.

[DSteck]

Are you serious? Hmmm how to explain.

Step 1. Generate your VE table using this software, save the VE table, generate the equation and import into HP Tuners.
Step 2. Get data that you 'just' imported into HP tuners.... compare against your VE table you 'just generated' and look how far out it is.

Hence the error % when generating the new data for HP tuners.

It drives me totally crazy ...... If the software's error % was within a percent i wouldn't care but it's nowhere near accurate enough to be used mainstream in my opinion other then 'knowing' how to work around the issue and or work with it.

I dont discredit the software, there i no other for us to use.... So it's as the saying goes 'better then nothing' and i appreciate the effort for what time and thought was put into it. All I would like to see is some refinement to it, getting it to solve it's accuracy issue.

Personally I had hoped HP Tuners would of just 'bought' the software off Bluecat and implemented it into there software and refined it but that hasn't happened.

Anyway.... So in response, do your homework and you'll see what i'm talking about.

It just drives me nuts making a nice VE table only to generate the equation for it to be out a couple of % in important spots....

arg I'll shut up

It is quite obvious that you don't understand the limitations of polynomial curve (and surface) fitting.

[SSUte01]

+1 to all of this.

Not to be picky, but it would be nice to be able to define a table size from within the software. Not that it matters for me anymore, because all of my tables are already defined, but others struggle with the formatting from what I've seen.

Initially it took a bit to get the syntax right for customised tables that I use in the Scanner, but valid point.

Are you serious? Hmmm how to explain.

Step 1. Generate your VE table using this software, save the VE table, generate the equation and import into HP Tuners.
Step 2. Get data that you 'just' imported into HP tuners.... compare against your VE table you 'just generated' and look how far out it is.

Hence the error % when generating the new data for HP tuners.

It drives me totally crazy ...... If the software's error % was within a percent i wouldn't care but it's nowhere near accurate enough to be used mainstream in my opinion other then 'knowing' how to work around the issue and or work with it.

I dont discredit the software, there i no other for us to use.... So it's as the saying goes 'better then nothing' and i appreciate the effort for what time and thought was put into it. All I would like to see is some refinement to it, getting it to solve it's accuracy issue.

Personally I had hoped HP Tuners would of just 'bought' the software off Bluecat and implemented it into there software and refined it but that hasn't happened.

Anyway.... So in response, do your homework and you'll see what i'm talking about.

It just drives me nuts making a nice VE table only to generate the equation for it to be out a couple of % in important spots....

arg I'll shut up

Yes, I'm quite serious. I am fully aware and understanding of the error and limitations of GM's equation for GMVE. Do you not think these errors don't exist on a conventional VE table of 'normal' resolution when you aren't dead on the defined RPM and MAP for the table. If you are that worried, why don't you use the custom OS with a definable 33 x 33 VE table with non-linear axes if you want. That should provide shitloads of resolution where you need it. That is my preference for SD only (although have utilised both).

If you are still using GM's intended blend of MAF/SD, I still stand by the fact it is the best way to model airflow/airmass and gives the best results when time is taken to get it right (within a couple of %).

I don't really appreciate the "do your homework" comment. I do my homework, far more than you perhaps realise I very inclined to help people, especially fellow Aussies, but somewhat misguided comments won't lend itself to help.

Yes, I agree that evolution and refinement of a product is a good thing and always room for improvement, but knocking the accuracy of a product that someone has put considerable effort into and handed out on a platter for free, when the accuracy is limited by the mathematics not the producer makes you seem ungrateful.

[MikeOD]

I plan on slowing down next month and setting a few days aside for updating this...

I'd be happy to Pay Pal you some money in return for your time spent programming and debugging too.

[edcmat-l1]

I'd be happy to Pay Pal you some money in return for your time spent programming and debugging too.

I'm in on that.