I did a quick compare against my original file and I also did a full read with PCM hammer and they both were successful although the quick compare did show one difference the logs are posted in the other forum

 

Thank you sir, and a Happy Thanksgiving to you and everyone else. I just hope I can remember how I did everything.

Stampede.

 

So it turns out that the v8 (and earlier) does have the Intel flash chip info... The reason it wouldn't read earlier is just that it didn't recognize the operating system ID. It still doesn't, but in v8 it determines the read size based on the chip info rather than on the OS info.

 

Query...

I'd mentioned before I got an MX+...but I had no luck with PCMHammer in downloading on my PC

I tried the LS Droid with my phone, and it seemed to work on downloading the ecu, 12216125, P01, 512K

So I guess this does prove the MX+ is capable ?

But still no luck with PCMHammer ( now on laptop )

Closest I got was an error message as per below. TBH...it's taken me ages to even get this, usually it just doesnt appear to recognise the device, and if I select an incorrect COM port, the Hammer just hangs. Also, in drivers etc, it seems to have one COM port assigned to send, and another receive ? When the software is hung up it just says thanks for using PCMHammer, but all the menu options on the left are greyed out so I cant actually do anything. Probably have to restart the computer.

[02:31:10:746] PCM Hammer 008
[02:31:10:748] ElmDevice initialization starting.
[02:31:11:803] TX:
[02:31:11:810] TX: AT Z
[02:31:12:691] AT Z ELM327 v1.3a
[02:31:12:691] TX: AT E0
[02:31:12:706] AT E0 OK
[02:31:12:706] TX: AT S0
[02:31:12:706] OK
[02:31:12:706] TX: AT RV
[02:31:12:722] Voltage: 11.8V
[02:31:12:722] TX: AT I
[02:31:12:722] Elm ID: ELM327 v1.3a
[02:31:12:722] Initializing PcmHacking.AllProDeviceImplementation
[02:31:12:722] TX: AT #1
[02:31:12:738] This is not an AllPro device.
[02:31:12:738] Determining whether PcmHacking.ScanToolDeviceImplementation is connected.
[02:31:12:738] TX: ST I
[02:31:12:753] ScanTool device ID: STN2255 v5.1.3
[02:31:12:753] This ScanTool device is not supported.
[02:31:12:753] Please check pcmhammer.org to ensure that you have the latest release.
[02:31:12:753] We're going to default to very small packet sizes, which will make everything slow, but at least it'll probably work.
[02:31:12:753] TX: AT AL
[02:31:12:753] OK
[02:31:12:753] TX: AT SP2
[02:31:12:769] OK
[02:31:12:769] TX: AT DP
[02:31:12:784] SAE J1850 VPW
[02:31:12:784] TX: AT AR
[02:31:12:784] OK
[02:31:12:784] TX: AT AT0
[02:31:12:800] OK
[02:31:12:800] TX: AT SR F0
[02:31:12:800] OK
[02:31:12:800] TX: AT H1
[02:31:12:816] OK
[02:31:12:816] TX: AT ST 20
[02:31:12:816] OK

 

scrub that, disabling some of the COM ports it created seems to get it working, although it does still say the device is unsupported. It is doing something now

Seems to be downloading


edit...45mins to read lol

 

Wow, the vcx nano with pcm hammer does the full read process of a p59 1mb, which is twice as large file as yours, in about 5 minutes and 15 seconds according to my log. I think my all pro USB was about 13 minutes. Should be about half the time for a p01. I'll have to try and see how long they take.

 

I think it says it's because it doesnt support the device, it says it will use small packets which may take a while, but will work.

One query though...it is a 512k ecu, and the file is 512k.

But other .bin ( or .ctz ) files say from a similar age vehicle I downloaded from a friends car with EFILive, and are also online are only around 480k and I assume are the same ecu.....what's the difference ?

 

It should work fine, it'll just be slow.

I've added the MX+ device ID, so the next release will treat it like the other MX devices, and it'll be much faster.

 

The files produced by PCM Hammer are just byte-for-byte copies of what's on the PCM's flash chip. The other apps might be skipping some regions. Or maybe they're compressing address ranges that contain the same byte value repeated hundreds of times. I can only speculate.

 

So although they are different numbers, and different OS's, is there a way to clone one ecu to another ? Or would there be some minor hardware differences that get in the way ?

 

I have no idea how to convert files from other apps into the raw format that PCM Hammer needs. But if you use PCM Hammer to read from one PCM and do a full write to another PCM (OS, Calibration, and Parameters) that second PCM should be a perfect clone of the first. You do have to be sure the second PCM has the same hardware as the first - in particular some similar-looking PCMs have IAC drivers and some don't, and I'm not sure what other differences might exist.

I'd also recommend not switching from an AMD chip to an Intel chip or vice-versa - or if you do, be aware that you're doing an experiment.

I'm pretty confident that cloning to identical hardware will create a clone that can't be distinguished from the original PCM, but I have to admit that I don't know what I don't know. We're not really going to know until we try.

 

The .bin file Hammer took off the ecu I have on the floor, did open mostly ok in EFILive, although it seemed to lack a VIN number.
That said, it's an ecu I bought along with some other stuff, so I know nothing about its history at all.

just thought it could be handy to clone the ecu from my friends car, in case anything ever happens his if I start messing with it ( have had EFILive for around 12 years for it lol....and still never used it )

Either way, happy that this side of things has worked to some degree.

 

Correction - 8 still depends on the OS ID to get the read size, but after reading it uses the chip info for the comparison process. So it still won't be able to read from operating systems that it doesn't know about. The next release will use the chip info to get the read size, so it won't be so critical to maintain a list of known operating systems.

 

does this work with obdlink lx?

 

This is a copy paste from post #1 in this thread

The SX is the only officially supported device but the Lx and Mx have been tested and work as well​​​​​​

 

...and I've done a lot of testing with an LX since writing that. It counts as a supported device now.

 

​​​I am trying to use obdlink lx with a Bluetooth adapter on my desktop but it won't connect through com4

 

It took me ages to get my MX+ to connect and download the ecu. It seemed to generate a few COM ports for the device and often was happy with none. Eventually got it connected using the laptop rather than the desktop though....no idea really what I did different, as I'd tried the laptop before too.

 

The LX created four COM ports when I set it up... In my case the lowest-numbered port is the one that works, but I don't know if that will always be true.

 

this is what i get
[12:55:30:400] PCM Hammer 008
[12:55:30:401] ElmDevice initialization starting.
[12:55:30:402] Unable to initalize ObdLink or AllPro on COM4
[12:55:30:402] System.UnauthorizedAccessException: Access to the port 'COM4' is denied.
at System.IO.Ports.InternalResources.WinIOError(Int32 errorCode, String str)
at System.IO.Ports.SerialStream..ctor(String portName, Int32 baudRate, Parity parity, Int32 dataBits, StopBits stopBits, Int32 readTimeout, Int32 writeTimeout, Handshake handshake, Boolean dtrEnable, Boolean rtsEnable, Boolean discardNull, Byte parityReplace)
at System.IO.Ports.SerialPort.Open()
at PcmHacking.StandardPort.PcmHacking.IPort.OpenAsync (PortConfiguration configuration) in C:\GitHub\PcmHacks\Apps\PcmLibraryWindowsForms\Por ts\StandardPort.cs:line 67
at PcmHacking.ElmDevice.<Initialize>d__5.MoveNext()
[12:55:30:403] Unable to initialize ObdLink or AllPro on COM4