Fred wrote:My take on AFR/Lambda, and it's not a target, it's integral, is that...
Ben, a table serves a purpose in code. You serve a purpose tuning that table. The table is integral because if you touch it, the fuel output changes immediately. It is not targetted, hunted down, searched out, or in any other way moved towards, it is just done. This, unlike various other systems, is an open loop table. If and when we add closed loop fuel control, this table will serve a dual purpose as an integral lambda table AND a lambda target table. That is currently NOT the case, and even when it is, the target aspect will be implicit and by definition secondary anyway. I'm sorry if this terminology is new to you, and doesn't fit well with your ideals of YOU targetting a specific lambda while tuning, but that is how it is and that is how it is going to stay. Calling me "head in the sand stupid" because I disagree with you about this is fundamentally unacceptable too. If you were anyone else, your post would have got edited and locked. But you're you, so it got edited, linked and moved here. Do not post in this thread until we have spoken on the phone. PM, IM or email me your number so we can have this severely shed coloured discussion offline.BenFenner wrote:And you can call lambda integral all you want. It is still a target. You simply can't tune the VE table correctly blind. And then head to the lambda table and get your desired AFRs. You have to (by virtue of how this all works) go to the lambda table an input a target and then tune the VE table accordingly. Refusing to call it a target is just head-in-the-sand stupid.
Fred.