Firstly, you must be used to software that repeatedly has issues with stability despite many years of development, such as ms (microsoft, of course...). Secondly, unit testing. Thirdly, even if there is a switch, who is to say that it even uses the configuration value for on/off that is supposed to be passed to it from the config? If you are code debugging (as opposed to debugging your setup and config) then there is a problem. That *might* be a valid excuse now, at the beginning, but it definitely won't be later. Unit testing and integration testing and user testing before each and every release will ensure that there are no regressions, ever. Software should only improve, it shouldn't go backwards...jbelanger wrote:But my statement about having switches for features was for injection and ignition cut. If I want either or none, I want to be able to do so without going through the code that performs the cut because I don't want to have to diagnose the possibility of the code using a wrong value to perform the cut however unlikely it is.
Stranded implies that you got somewhere successfully. What changed. If new code was loaded, and it flat out doesn't work, you've still got the computer, you can put the old one back on (default for dumb users will be to rip first always, smart users will check that box if they don't have a copy of the old stuff). If new code wasn't loaded, the codes behaviour will be the same as the trip to wherever you got to. If you're taking a not-fully-tuned car to a new environment (higher, lower, hotter, colder) then you should take a computer to finish the job. Abe was talking about getting near stranded at the top of a mountain due to backwards "it DOES work this way" baro correction on his system, he just pulled out the pc, richened the whole map up, and drove down again. As for visible in datalogs, of course, that goes without saying, doesn't it?If there is a bug that causes a wrong value I want to see it in a datalog or some other way but not through an unwanted side effect that could actually cripple an engine under the right circumstances and where you could maybe just limp home with switching off some safety measure but get stranded otherwise.
That would be me! It's a perfectly good alternative for those that want a half arsed solution :-)And who was talking about MS? ;)
Fair enough, and I don't want to put too much (or any) idiot proofing on the device. Only where it seems unavoidable or of benefit to the majority. Take the duty cut idea. Abe and I sat and ate some in'n'out in his garage with the door open last night and watched the cars go by, and the parked ones not move. He was giving me an earful about exactly this, just as you are, but in person, and not publicly, and the entire time we sat there, there wasn't a single vehicle in sight that would be affected. It would be almost guaranteed that NO OEM cars would be affected, and any modified cars setup in an intelligent way won't be affected either. Injector sizing and fuel demand/supply engineering (which is what we are really discussing here) is a fundamental part of configuring a new engine build. Only someone cheap/tight or stupid would ever run into this.I'm just concerned that you may end up causing more problems for the intelligent users (and those helping others) to protect just a few idiots.
As for the rev limit stuff, set (part of engine setup and initial tuning) and forget.
I HIGHLY doubt it! :-pBut I may be the idiot here
I don't doubt it at all! :-) No one is exempt from making a few mistakes. I've certainly made my share too!and I certainly have done stupid things and will do more in the future.
Fred.