ZCP DME flash Semi-Successful on Non-ZCP F8X

[packetpilot]

Things I tried that didn't work:
Altering FA for 7MN alone, for 7MA alone, and for 7MA/N together, then (in each scenario) seeing if a swfl would 'take'.
Unsuccessful.

I then altered the some innocuous but security-related XML binary header values for the swfl_000038ac with values from swfl_0000260c--specifically, the 'SD' value itself (9E6927D6 => AC2226FB) and 'SW_TYPE_NUMBER (00000000 => 00001D4F). Surprised the swfl took after replacing the file, but unfortunately, no dice with regard to hopes of turning of an FSC requirement flag, which I thought /might/ just be in the binary header.

diff swfl_0000260c.xml.029_010_234_orig swfl_000038ac.xml.029_010_234_orig 
5c5
<     <SHORT-NAME>swfl_0000260c</SHORT-NAME>
---
>     <SHORT-NAME>swfl_000038ac</SHORT-NAME>
15c15
<         <br>$DIF_Entwickler_Kommentar: 6MC9ECAB#501_S55_BG2_US_234</br>
---
>         <br>$DIF_Entwickler_Kommentar: 6MC9ECAB#501_S55_Comp_US_234</br>
32c32
<         <SD SI="Identifier">0000260c</SD>
---
>         <SD SI="Identifier">000038ac</SD>
92c92
<         <SD>AC2226FB</SD>
---
>         <SD>9E6927D6</SD>
98c98
<         <SD SI="SWE_TYPE_NUMBER">00001D4F</SD>
---
>         <SD SI="SWE_TYPE_NUMBER">00000000</SD>
103c103
<         <SHORT-NAME>swfl_0000260c_80180000</SHORT-NAME>
---
>         <SHORT-NAME>swfl_000038ac_80180000</SHORT-NAME>
109c109
<         <CHECKSUM>8C0E</CHECKSUM>
---
>         <CHECKSUM>9F0D</CHECKSUM>
112c112
<         <SHORT-NAME>swfl_0000260c_801FFD00</SHORT-NAME>
---
>         <SHORT-NAME>swfl_000038ac_801FFD00</SHORT-NAME>
118c118
<         <CHECKSUM>4433</CHECKSUM>
---
>         <CHECKSUM>699B</CHECKSUM>

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally Posted by thisisdave

The last couple frames above show the "civic m4" seatback, in case there's any question as to authenticity. Also, not my car.

1) I updated my ECUs with E-SYS and the latest psdzdata (58.3). Still have some issues to work out now that I finally have ISTA-D (e.g. front indicators on LED headlights not working).

2) I edited my FA to include 7MA.

3) Ran swfl on the DME afterwards

4) Successfully obtained burble, BUT

5) Drivetrain malfunction: boost is practically gone, throttle command is significantly limited beyond initial acceleration from standstill.

Trying to find the wrinkle that's needed for ironing; hopeful that ISTA-D will help, but hoping to get some help from those more knowledgeable than me.

Lessons learned:
- Burble tunes that cost money may be unnecessary.
- ECU updates aren't that hurrd, don't be scurrd. (but do be if you don't have a power supply.)
- ISTA-D is a prerequisite IMHO since "Transmitter" doesn't unlock the airbag (at least for me) as it should nor can it reprogram the LED headlights.

Who else wants to take the risk (on someone else's car, of course) and flash their DME and help me track this down? (...or help me track it down via slack?)

edit: godda*n U2B tag, why is it still here if it doesn't work?

I know jack about coding so please indulge me here - I have a 2015 M4 that I don't think has ever had a software update. If I get 58.3, should I expect to get "burbles" based upon your findings so far? Thanks for the effort.

[packetpilot]

Originally Posted by NiceGuyEddie

I know jack about coding so please indulge me here - I have a 2015 M4 that I don't think has ever had a software update. If I get 58.3, should I expect to get "burbles" based upon your findings so far? Thanks for the effort.

Expect to get them just from the outset, after an update? There are some very slight noticeable differences in burble, but very slight. But you should get the software update done regardless of exhaust changes; improvements abound as posted elsewhere.

[aboulfad]

Originally Posted by thisisdave

Still trying to get my hands on ISTA/P, but I'm wondering if I already have the "ingredients" with a full psdzdata directory and ISTA/D...

You have the link for ISTA/P but note that you need an ICOM ($200-400) to use it for programming similarity if you want to use ISTA/D for F8x programming.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally Posted by thisisdave

Expect to get them just from the outset, after an update? There are some very slight noticeable differences in burble, but very slight. But you should get the software update done regardless of exhaust changes; improvements abound as posted elsewhere.

I guess what I am asking is: if I get the software update from my dealer, can I expect similar exhaust note to your vid? Put another way, do the modifications you made as referenced in this thread differ from what would be encompassed in a dealer software update? Thanks for bearing with me.

[packetpilot]

Originally Posted by NiceGuyEddie

I guess what I am asking is: if I get the software update from my dealer, can I expect similar exhaust note to your vid? Put another way, do the modifications you made as referenced in this thread differ from what would be encompassed in a dealer software update? Thanks for bearing with me.

No, unless you bought a ZCP DME retrofit, which apparently BMW must plan to offer as a retrofittable performance upgrade, which is what I'd gather by the FSC requirement.

[edwinm3]

nice

[aboulfad]

Guys, obvious suggestion, did any of you that got the DME fault, do this:
"Following programming, the DME fault memory and adaptations should be cleared. Then cycle the key off and back on, and recheck the DME fault memory again."

[packetpilot]

Originally Posted by aboulfad

Guys, obvious suggestion, did any of you that got the DME fault, do this:
"Following programming, the DME fault memory and adaptations should be cleared. Then cycle the key off and back on, and recheck the DME fault memory again."

Good thought. Will try. Just successfully impregnated ISTA/D with programming capabilities based on some breadcrumb train you partook in way back when... :-)

[packetpilot]

Originally Posted by thisisdave

Good thought. Will try. Just successfully impregnated ISTA/D with programming capabilities based on some breadcrumb train you partook in way back when... :-)

I did delete the codes via ISTA/D before and it'd reappear as soon as it was cleared, but will give it a shot again for sure.

[aboulfad]

Originally Posted by thisisdave

...Good thought. Will try. Just successfully impregnated ISTA/D with programming capabilities based on some breadcrumb train you partook in way back when... :-)

FYI, you need an ICOM to get ISTA/D programming working, it doesn't work with ENET, do you have one ? ISTA/d v3.55.11 has programming enabled by default.

[aboulfad]

Originally Posted by thisisdave

...I did delete the codes via ISTA/D before and it'd reappear as soon as it was cleared, but will give it a shot again for sure.

It was worth a try but if it came back then it's there until the root cause is known or fixed. Sorry!

[ferrarif1]

Originally Posted by aboulfad

You have the link for ISTA/P but note that you need an ICOM ($200-400) to use it for programming similarity if you want to use ISTA/D for F8x programming.

There are tools to emulate an ICOM in software and allow programming via ISTA/P WITHOUT a hardware ICOM.

[z335is]

Originally Posted by thisisdave

No, unless you bought a ZCP DME retrofit, which apparently BMW must plan to offer as a retrofittable performance upgrade, which is what I'd gather by the FSC requirement.

So if I understand correctly, the presence of an FSC code here increases the likelihood that a true retrofit might be in the works from BMW?

[terahertz]

Originally Posted by z335is

So if I understand correctly, the presence of an FSC code here increases the likelihood that a true retrofit might be in the works from BMW?

Not necessarily. It could just be to prevent everyone with civic M3's from flashing their ECUs and getting something for free like was tried. If it was that easy, they wouldn't have much of a selling point for the CP.

[packetpilot]

Originally Posted by terahertz

Not necessarily. It could just be to prevent everyone with civic M3's from flashing their ECUs and getting something for free like was tried. If it was that easy, they wouldn't have much of a selling point for the CP.

The ZCP map truly does make a civic m3 true to its name, since a civic could probably beat it in a straight line.

About to go try a couple more things soon... :-)

[aboulfad]

Originally Posted by ferrarif1

There are tools to emulate an ICOM in software and allow programming via ISTA/P WITHOUT a hardware ICOM.

I and many others over at cartech couldn't get it to work with ICOM emulator and ENET cable, but if you know how, I'd greatly appreciate the details by PM so not to derail the discussion here ! TIA.

[aboulfad]

Originally Posted by terahertz

Fault description The diagnosis monitors enabling of a data status via SWT enabling code.

Malfunction monitoring conditions

The fault is detected when a data status to be enabled has been programmed...

Hi, can I ask how you got the detailed "Fault description" if you haven't done the same as thisisdave ? The info displayed is usually from the fault memory list for a specific fault. I read above that you haven't built your PSU so I assume you got this either from the Internet, or you were you able to browse Faults in Rheingold offline???

[z335is]

Originally Posted by terahertz

Not necessarily. It could just be to prevent everyone with civic M3's from flashing their ECUs and getting something for free like was tried. If it was that easy, they wouldn't have much of a selling point for the CP.

Sorry I should have phrased that differently. So at the very least it lends some credence to the rumors that BMW may offer a retrofit at a cost.

[packetpilot]

Originally Posted by aboulfad

Hi, can I ask how you got the detailed "Fault description" if you haven't done the same as thisisdave ? The info displayed is usually from the fault memory list for a specific fault. I read above that you haven't built your PSU so I assume you got this either from the Internet, or you were you able to browse Faults in Rheingold offline???

It's in the db.

[packetpilot]

I have unsuccessfully tried further header XML tweaks isolating either of the two flash banks, leaving the other non-zcp. Both attempts were unsuccessful. Also tried seeing if it was just a very dumb swfl name check out of desperation. It isn't.

[aboulfad]

Originally Posted by thisisdave

It's in the db.

Ok thanks, then is the default description he showed corresponds to your DME fault 1F2102? I don't like to assume things when it's unclear! I'll get a SQLite browser and check too. What I've been doing is reading up on DME retrofits, and interestingly your same error code appears. There's a 50/50 chance Id say wether it's related to an FSC code or not... Unfortunatly that all I can do now is read and correlate data