Competition Package Coding

[TN_3]

Some people in the CP retrofit thread are talking about coding options for CP=Yes, resulting in changes in ASD, among other things. Anyone have experience doing this?

[dmnc02]

Originally Posted by TN_3

Some people in the CP retrofit thread are talking about coding options for CP=Yes, resulting in changes in ASD, among other things. Anyone have experience doing this?

It is just a matter of adding 7MA (Competition Package) to the FA and VO coding.

Interestingly, there is also a 7MN (M Competion Package) option code that E-Sys accepts and interprets correctly, but it results in no coding changes.

[pbar]

Originally Posted by dmnc02

It is just a matter of adding 7MA (Competition Package) to the FA and VO coding.

Tried searching but couldn't find a thread about this....

Which settings does 7MA affect? (i.e. which modules need VO coding, and what difference would it make without the physical suspension changes)

[dmnc02]

Originally Posted by pbar

Tried searching but couldn't find a thread about this....

Which settings does 7MA affect? (i.e. which modules need VO coding, and what difference would it make without the physical suspension changes)

I was just looking at this. I have checked the likely candidates so far (ASD, DSC, ICM, VDC) and they all have changes.

[TN_3]

Originally Posted by dmnc02

I was just looking at this. I have checked the likely candidates so far (ASD, DSC, ICM, VDC) and they all have changes.

So, who is going to be the Guinea pig and start trying these things out?

[pbar]

Originally Posted by dmnc02

I was just looking at this. I have checked the likely candidates so far (ASD, DSC, ICM, VDC) and they all have changes.

That's interesting! (I'm secretly hoping this will adjust the damper settings to work better with my Swift Spec-R springs - but tweaks to Active sound might be a nice consolation prize)

Presume this needs an up to date version of ESys too?

[DocWeatherington]

Originally Posted by dmnc02

I was just looking at this. I have checked the likely candidates so far (ASD, DSC, ICM, VDC) and they all have changes.

My feelings

[teefive]

Originally Posted by dmnc02

I was just looking at this. I have checked the likely candidates so far (ASD, DSC, ICM, VDC) and they all have changes.

Exciting!

[dmnc02]

Originally Posted by pbar

That's interesting! (I'm secretly hoping this will adjust the damper settings to work better with my Swift Spec-R springs - but tweaks to Active sound might be a nice consolation prize)

Presume this needs an up to date version of ESys too?

The version of E-Sys does not matter, but the version of PSdZData does matter. I am using 58.0.

[dmnc02]

Interestingly, most of the changes in DSC apply to newer non-CP cars too.

[TN_3]

Originally Posted by dmnc02

Interestingly, most of the changes in DSC apply to newer non-CP cars too.

How new is newer?

[dmnc02]

Originally Posted by TN_3

How new is newer?

Somewhere between the build of my car (January 2015) and current production. I can look at previous CAFDs to determine when the changes occurred.

[TN_3]

Originally Posted by dmnc02

Somewhere between the build of my car (January 2015) and current production. I can look at previous CAFDs to determine when the changes occurred.

Ok, I am taking delivery of a week 4 production M3 in a few weeks, so I'm hoping I have the updated DSC.

[Guleb]

I've tried the ASD coding; I have those options in my 01/2016 F80, I already changed Competition package to Yes (my default is No)



Interesting is also Construction stage, mine LCI is 07/15 by default.

I've checked also VDC in this thread. Didn't check other possibilities yet.

Supposed it would make sense to merge some threads.

[dmnc02]

Originally Posted by Guleb

I've tried the ASD coding; I have those options in my 01/2016 F80, I already changed Competition package to Yes (my default is No)

Interesting is also Construction stage, mine LCI is 07/15 by default.

I've checked also VDC in this thread. Didn't check other possibilities yet.

Supposed it would make sense to merge some threads.

I replied in the other thread, but I fully agree with the point you made there that some of the coding changes reflect hardware differences and will not necessarily represent an improvement with the non-CP hardware.

[aboulfad]

Originally Posted by dmnc02

I was just looking at this. I have checked the likely candidates so far (ASD, DSC, ICM, VDC) and they all have changes.

Hardware and coding put aside, wouldn't swfl/btld probably need to be updated for those ECUs (DSC fw seems unchanged!)? If new configuration is introduced, that can only happen if the existing software already allows for that future configuration... Which I find rare in software/firmware development, unless of course the new "stuff" exposes configuration parameters that were already implemented but weren't available previously through coding/older cafd versions?

[Guleb]

So today I took my friend M-enthusiast with me to test this ASD Competition package feature. And we both can confirm that the ASD noise is different. Default ASD is more engine orientated, so more to the front. And it is more linear, noisier and artificial.

With simple coding ASD Competition package from No to Yes (FA/VO coding was not necessary) the ASD sound changed. It sounds more purposeful, crispier and more to the back of the car. If default sound emphasises the engine note, the competition sound sounds more like louder exhaust. Definitely better sound. I expect that this configuration would work splendid with competition muffler.

[dmnc02]

Originally Posted by aboulfad

Hardware and coding put aside, wouldn't swfl/btld probably need to be updated for those ECUs (DSC fw seems unchanged!)? If new configuration is introduced, that can only happen if the existing software already allows for that future configuration... Which I find rare in software/firmware development, unless of course the new "stuff" exposes configuration parameters that were already implemented but weren't available previously through coding/older cafd versions?

E-Sys is smart enough to know what configurations are supported by the existing ECU firmware (i.e., BTLD and SWFL) and hardware (HWEL): configurations not supported by the existing firmware/hardware are generally simply not present in the coding file (CAFD) associated with the specific firmware/hardware.

As long as there are no hardware difference, the coding changes should be implementable.

[aboulfad]

Originally Posted by dmnc02

E-Sys is smart enough to know what configurations are supported by the existing ECU firmware (i.e., BTLD and SWFL) and hardware (HWEL): configurations not supported by the existing firmware/hardware are generally simply not present in the coding file (CAFD) associated with the specific firmware/hardware.

As long as there are no hardware difference, the coding changes should be implementable.

So if one has an old I level, Esys would not show any new config parameters, so how would one know if a new feature requires or not fw updates! I am trying to imply that new car feature aside from HW changes, not only coding is required but potentially updating those ECUs fw. I would tend to believe that fw updates are not only for bug fixes, no?

[dmnc02]

Originally Posted by aboulfad

I would tend to believe that fw updates are not only for bug fixes, no?

How does this contradict what I said above?

[stranger]

subbed

[aboulfad]

Originally Posted by dmnc02

How does this contradict what I said above?

oh then we are in agreement I read your reply differently!