I simply mean that if you have all the processing power,variables, I/Os, ... in place to do COP/sequential for 8+ cylinders then doing dizzy/TBI should be easy because you'll only use a small part of the aforementioned resources.Admin wrote:Can you explain that a little more please?As I've said before, I think that if you can do more, you can do less.
If you structure things accordingly, you can do any number of injectors regardless of the number of cylinders by just using the number of injectors as the basis of the fuel computations and timing. If you can do wasted spark and COP then you can multiplex 2 cylinders on one output so why limit this to 2 cylinders and not generalize it to all cylinders?
And who's to say that what you desire is what is best for everyone? You want to get away from one system to create something better but you start by putting your own desires as system limitations. If they are justified by performance, cost, complexity, or other major issues then fine but don't put things aside based on your own idea of what should be considered a good setup.Admin wrote:I agree that it isn't complex to implement, but why even allow an option that gives substandard performance when there are lots of ways to get substandard performance. I tend to think that people will do what they need to to use a good product. For example until James and Ken were kind enough to release the first alpha ms2e 2.0 code I was going to use EDIS (YUCK!!!) because I couldn't have a dizzy in my application (and because dizzys are no good at 11:1AFR and 27psi with good flow anyway). There is no way I'd choose to use EDIS, but I went out of my way to obtain those parts from the other side of the world for the ability to use MS2 in my application. Therefore I think if you say "no dizzy support" though people may grumble, once they install dual post coils and stop changing points, caps and have shorter leads, in the long term the ones that grumbled will be thanking you for making them do it "right".While the single spark/injection output are special cases, they are really not complex to implement. The difference between a 4-cylinder engine with four spark outputs and a 4-cylinder engine with a single spark output is that in the latter case, you toggle the same output instead of 4 different outputs. The same is true for injection. If you want to check if you have overlapping dwell, in one case you divide the available time by 4. I don't think this is a lot and it allows more flexibility with little cost (in my mind).
It's not a need, but rather a desire.I am well aware that little cost items when in a large number become too much but I don't think this is one item where there is a need to cut.
There might be very good reasons to go with a dizzy/TBI setup on a specific engine for whatever reason (e.g., parts availability/cost) and going with a future FreeEMS because of the nature of this EMS and the fact that someone might have many project cars and they don't want to have X,Y,Z (more costly) EMS but keep the same EMS for all. I don't think they should be prevented from doing it because someone judged that their setup is not worthy of FreeEMS. I know that this is not what you're saying but even if you don't want FreeEMS to cater to every possible engine setup, it would be good to keep limitations to something other than "desires".
Reading again what I just wrote, I may be putting too much emphasis on the word "desire" and I think I understand what you meant which is a bit different than what I wrote. However, I hope you see my point about what could be seen as arbitrary (that word again ) decisions and the desire ( ) to steer clear of those.
And having said that, you can just ignore me because you're the one doing the work while I just smile looking at your videos and see how you've used the JimStim in a truly original way.
Cheers,
Jean