VCM Suite 3.0 Is Finally Here!!!

[jtrosky]

HPTuners has stated that they now use the manufacturer-specified timing when writing calibrations - which is obviously slower than the writing method used in 2.24. However, since I'm not aware of people having issues with the write speed in 2.24, it would be nice to at least have an option ("fast write" or "mfg write") - or something along those lines...

With 2.24, I can write my ECM and TCM in about 1 minute! :-)

[68Camaro]

I have been dragging my feet to upgrade to 3.0 until these bugs are worked out - but it looks like it may be slow. I think I am going to buy a separate computer and load 3.0 onto it - I am glad I haven't upgraded after reading all the trouble everybody is having!

[mbray01]

Honestly, There are glitches, But I wouldn't go back, I keep 2.24,2.25,3.0,3.1, but 3.0 is leaps and bounds above 2.24.
most of the issues I have are dealing with ford, otherwise Everything is operating pretty smooth
save 2.24, but I would recommend getting 3.0, much better interface!!!!!!

[jtrosky]

It's funny - I'm actually still using 2.24 becuase I like it's interface better than 3.0! I can just have more information on the screen at the same time with 2.24. Just shows how different people like different things, I guess! I just prefer the true windowing interface over the non-windowing interface that 3.0 uses. I've really put the effort into trying 3.0, but for my needs, 2.24 just works better for me (I'm completely fine with the scanning speed of 2.24, so the extra speed in 3.0 really isn't that important to me). I'm also afriad that sooner or later, 3.0 is going to update the MPVI firmware and then I won't be able to use 2.24 at all. Hopefully, that doesn't happen, but I have a feeling that it eventually will, so I'm VERY cautious about upgrading 3.0 - don't want it to "slip" a firmware update in there and "break" the 2.24 functionality! :-)

[schpenxel]

I have been dragging my feet to upgrade to 3.0 until these bugs are worked out - but it looks like it may be slow. I think I am going to buy a separate computer and load 3.0 onto it - I am glad I haven't upgraded after reading all the trouble everybody is having!

Rename your 2.24 install directory (program files x86-->HP Tuners) to something like "HP Tuners 2.24" and then you can install V3 and have both to get used to V3. If you spend the time to learn V3 I highly doubt you want to go back.

I do prefer the "windows" in 2.24 vs. the layout in V3.. that's about the only thing I miss.

[GHuggins]

I miss the window layout and most importantly, the reliability of the scanner actually working. I'm not the snapping kinda person. You can ask those who know me, but today I actually had to get up and walk out of the room before I threw my laptop through the passenger window of the car I was working on. Frigging scanner works once in a blue moon on the Ford platforms... nothing like being rushed and not having anything that actually works to use for tuning.

[schpenxel]

That would be infuriating for sure

[Road]

I miss the window layout and most importantly, the reliability of the scanner actually working. I'm not the snapping kinda person. You can ask those who know me, but today I actually had to get up and walk out of the room before I threw my laptop through the passenger window of the car I was working on. Frigging scanner works once in a blue moon on the Ford platforms... nothing like being rushed and not having anything that actually works to use for tuning.

Normally that happens to me when the customer is looking over my shoulder.

[Keith@HPTuners]

I miss the window layout and most importantly, the reliability of the scanner actually working. I'm not the snapping kinda person. You can ask those who know me, but today I actually had to get up and walk out of the room before I threw my laptop through the passenger window of the car I was working on. Frigging scanner works once in a blue moon on the Ford platforms... nothing like being rushed and not having anything that actually works to use for tuning.

If you don't contact support, we won't be able to fix this for you.

[GHuggins]

If you don't contact support, we won't be able to fix this for you.

Sounds like you have a support issue Keith. Contacted them days ago!!!!!!! Haven't heard anything back as of yet...

Will say one thing though. I deleted out every single channel, re-polled and repopulated all of the channels going down through the separate list. Data actually displayed correctly - when it would show - no more thousands numbers being displayed and all of the O2's were actually reading. Think there's a bug in something to where possibly one channel that's not supposed to be there is killing or rather skewing all of the rest of the data received...

Just a thought

[chaas]

I'll be looking at the DoD Active bit in the next couple of days.

Anyone at HPT know when we will get the DoD status flags in the scanner? It has been over a month since Keith posted the message above. If it helps, I'm attaching a screenshot of the bits as seen in 2.4.

DoD bits.JPG

[Bill@HPTuners]

Sounds like you have a support issue Keith. Contacted them days ago!!!!!!! Haven't heard anything back as of yet...

Will say one thing though. I deleted out every single channel, re-polled and repopulated all of the channels going down through the separate list. Data actually displayed correctly - when it would show - no more thousands numbers being displayed and all of the O2's were actually reading. Think there's a bug in something to where possibly one channel that's not supposed to be there is killing or rather skewing all of the rest of the data received...

Just a thought

I was on vacation this past week but will be back in tomorrow, currently backlogged by about 450 or so emails from the looks if it so it'll take a week or so just to get caught up.

[xtremesilvy]

sorry to add to the back log but i got no gear/tire wizard support (all it has is scale for manual trans)for my 99 gmc jimmy or my 2002 impala, im swapping to summer rims and need to re calibrate and i cant, thanks for any info.

[GHuggins]

I was on vacation this past week but will be back in tomorrow, currently backlogged by about 450 or so emails from the looks if it so it'll take a week or so just to get caught up.

I thought it might be something like that Bill. You always typically contact me back withen a few hours...

Thank You,
Greg

[10_SS]

Is this the "choppy" TPS or other sensor data some people are seeing? I see it on my Accel Pedal channel for 2010 Camaro LS3 E38. The channel value doesnt show it.. just the chart. I haven't tried it with today's, or the last update.

SawTooth.PNG

[2therock]

I think I am going to buy a separate computer and load 3.0 onto it - I am glad I haven't upgraded after reading all the trouble everybody is having!

That can be tricky. When you connect your cable with 3.0 it will perform a firmware upgrade. According to the 2.4.** version you have you may no be able to run on it.

[schpenxel]

Mine looks like that often, but if I really pay attention to the TPS values and my right foot while driving and logging, the TPS chart and my right foot are actually lining up.. it's just picking up tiny changes in throttle position at a high rate.. so it ends up looking less smooth than I'm used to.

Not saying that's what it is for everyone, but that's how it is on mine

[chaas]

Is this the "choppy" TPS or other sensor data some people are seeing? I see it on my Accel Pedal channel for 2010 Camaro LS3 E38. The channel value doesnt show it.. just the chart. I haven't tried it with today's, or the last update.

SawTooth.PNG

Not sure if this is what you are seeing, but a possibility is that the chart is trying to plot a "sensor" as opposed to a "channel". Plotting a "sensor" seems to cause the chart to bounce between available inputs of that sensor type, whereas I think clicking the "I know what I'm doing" button when you add a parameter to the chart will allow you to plot the true channel without the strange bouncing.

[Chris@HPTuners]

Not sure if this is what you are seeing, but a possibility is that the chart is trying to plot a "sensor" as opposed to a "channel". Plotting a "sensor" seems to cause the chart to bounce between available inputs of that sensor type, whereas I think clicking the "I know what I'm doing" button when you add a parameter to the chart will allow you to plot the true channel without the strange bouncing.

yes if you chart using a sensor when logging multiple channels of that type it will plot all the points drawing a line between them. If you have one channel that is reading a lot different than the other you will see this choppy result (worst if one channel is 0). I think 2.24 averaged the values since we had a frame based structure then.

[schpenxel]

Interesting