Cooter
Well-known member
"In the end, using the dynamic maps lead to faster results than anything else and tuning could be done in (halfways) real life rides. "
You're right, I assumed the first (WB, OL tuning) was faster because you would know how much to adjust the map at each data point, at least the process the way I've learned it so far. Your experience (knowing dynamic maps are the faster way), means I'll have to learn to do it that way instead:black_eyed: Get the OL map to the point where theres only the smallest (or no) EGO corrections. Thank You for sharing
All hail the king! Haha.
"Well, it depends, IMO."
Dang, I didn't consider the timing of the data frequency:upset: Or even consider the ECM would ask for an input, get two or more, and have to choose some to ignore (not average). My brain sees the graph and automatically fills in the gaps by averaging them. I assumedthe ECM was the same, but in hindsight... why would it? 1's and 0's....
Wow, thats a can of worms I don't think I want to open.
Thanks again Gunter, thats a lot of brain food to chew on.
You're right, I assumed the first (WB, OL tuning) was faster because you would know how much to adjust the map at each data point, at least the process the way I've learned it so far. Your experience (knowing dynamic maps are the faster way), means I'll have to learn to do it that way instead:black_eyed: Get the OL map to the point where theres only the smallest (or no) EGO corrections. Thank You for sharing
All hail the king! Haha."Well, it depends, IMO."
Dang, I didn't consider the timing of the data frequency:upset: Or even consider the ECM would ask for an input, get two or more, and have to choose some to ignore (not average). My brain sees the graph and automatically fills in the gaps by averaging them. I assumedthe ECM was the same, but in hindsight... why would it? 1's and 0's....
Wow, thats a can of worms I don't think I want to open.
Thanks again Gunter, thats a lot of brain food to chew on.
