EASE Diagnostic Software

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

07-03-2002, 02:00 PM

Roger White

Launching!

Thread Starter

Join Date: Dec 2001

Location: Collin County

Posts: 231

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

EASE Diagnostic Software

Anybody have any experience with this software? Wonder if it is better (more versatile than the Autotap?

Reply Like

07-03-2002, 05:42 PM

Vettepartz

Launching!

Join Date: Dec 2001

Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posts: 250

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

I have used both. EASE is not quite as user friendly, but is much, much quicker and has more parameters available.

Reply Like

07-03-2002, 09:51 PM

wizkid

Install Director

iTrader: (3)

Join Date: Nov 2001

Posts: 1,002

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

EFI LiveV5 will work through the auto tap cable and is fast as well.

ERic

Reply Like

07-04-2002, 06:13 PM

Team ZR-1

TECH Resident

Join Date: Jan 2002

Location: USA

Posts: 754

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by wizkid:
EFI LiveV5 will work through the auto tap cable and is fast as well.

ERic<hr /></blockquote>I tested EliLive for almost all of the last 6 months and it is not as fast as Ease nor does it even allow the same amount of functions to be scanned or recorded concurrently as Ease does.

Where I can have Ease scan/record 21 PCM functions at the same time,
efi could only do 14 of them :-(

Not only that efi is still has bugs, being it is touted as a LS1 scanner the last build of software that took it to production,
GM TPS does npt work nor did delivered torque and it locked up on me 4 times in 30 minutes.
Those issues were reported to efi and was ignored to fix as I was told by them that all products go out with bugs in them.

Also some functions has wrong values to what 2 other scanners brands I tested against reported.

Autotap interface is not going to allow any vendors scanner to work much better then what the interface can handle.
You cannot do bi directional with efi and using the existing autotap interface. I suggest you do not try that or it could cause PCM failure.

I have used the bi directional features of the Ease Pro version for several months and have no problems sending commands to the PCM.

Reply Like

07-04-2002, 10:54 PM

EFILive

Restricted User

iTrader: (2)

Join Date: Dec 2001

Location: New Zealand

Posts: 424

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

John I thought you were a little more professional than to air these types of petty grievances in public. I don't believe it is proper to respond in public but I think it is necessary to refute some of your incorrect comments.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />is not as fast as Ease nor does it even allow the same amount of functions to be scanned or recorded concurrently as Ease does<hr /></blockquote>When using GM's proprietary, high-speed data logging feature, the speed and number of parameters are determined by the PCM, not by the scan tool. It is fixed at 10 fps with up to 24 channels of data.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Where I can have Ease scan/record 21 PCM functions at the same time, efi could only do 14 of them :-(<hr /></blockquote>Each PID (PCM function) that you choose to display, uses 1 or 2 channels of 24 available channels in the PCM. Selecting 1-channel PIDs allows more concurrent PIDS, up to 24. Selecting 2-channel PIDs allows less concurrent PIDs. If you were to select exactly the same PIDs you will get exactly the same concurrency and scan rate.
You were asked to provide a list of PID numbers that you selected in Ease but could not or would not.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Not only that efi is still has bugs, being it is touted as a LS1 scanner the last build of software that took it to production, GM TPS does npt work nor did delivered torque and it locked up on me 4 times in 30 minutes.
Those issues were reported to efi and was ignored to fix <hr /></blockquote>Those issues have been fixed

<blockquote>quote:<hr />as I was told by them that all products go out with bugs in them. <hr /></blockquote>You were told they would be fixed in the next weekly release - and they have.
Here is a copy of exactly what you were told:
We have every intention of fixing these issues and they will be fixed. As you are well aware no software product (indeed very few products at all) are ever delivered without a single problem. We intend to offer weekly updates (downloads) of the software to make sure each and every one of these problems is addressed.
I stuggle to see how that is being ignored!!!

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Also some functions has wrong values to what 2 other scanners brands I tested against reported.<hr /></blockquote>You were also asked to provide sample data from the "other" scan tools but you declined.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Autotap interface is not going to allow any vendors scanner to work much better then what the interface can handle.<hr /></blockquote>100% correct but maybe you're forgetting that the AT1 V1.x interface can handle the high speed data logging with ease (no pun intended).

<blockquote>quote:<hr />You cannot do bi directional with efi and using the existing autotap interface.<hr /></blockquote>Correct. We only provide bi-directional controls with the V2 hardware.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I suggest you do not try that or it could cause PCM failure.<hr /></blockquote>EFILiveV5 will not allow bi-directional controls with the AT1 interface so you cannot "try it".

Regards
Paul

Reply Like

07-05-2002, 12:38 AM

Blackbird

TECH Addict

Join Date: Nov 2001

Location: Bellevue, Wa

Posts: 2,656

Likes: 0

Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

Go Paul!

<img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

Reply Like

07-05-2002, 05:13 PM

EFILive

Restricted User

iTrader: (2)

Join Date: Dec 2001

Location: New Zealand

Posts: 424

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Touted as a LS1 PCM scanner and GM parameters such as TPS and deliivered torque do not work, petty right.
Within 30 minutes of use, locked up 4 times, petty right.<hr /></blockquote>As I stated earlier those problems have been fixed.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Scanner claims there is only 2 O2s and labels them 02 1 and 5, petty right.<hr /></blockquote>Scanner uses the SAE defined test to determine the number and location of O2's fitted to a vehicle.
The 8 possible O2's are numbered AND labelled correctly as bank-x, sensor-y.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Dicates the max amount of parameters that can be concurrently scanned, petty right.<hr /></blockquote>You just don't get it - the PCM dictates PID size and DPID size and the DPID count limit NOT the scan tool.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />On random basis parameters show zero values while the car was in motion, petty right.<hr /></blockquote>You have yet to tell me which parameters, I have asked many times...
The only PID (MAF gm/s) that looked remotely out of range was while the ignition was switched off, the RPM signal was zero and the VSS signal was zero. I hardly think that indicates a car in motion.
You also claimed that the LTFTs were zero - you were looking at LTFT-average instead of LTFT-current.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Over a 2 days of my time last week I did several tests and send you 3 zipped files of not only your only recordings but also csv and excel sheets, so do not tell me I did not give you the information, for I have saved every e-mail to and from you since I started the FREE testing. <hr /></blockquote>The excel spread sheets contained errors (divide by zero) and the log files did not support what you claimed.
What I said was you claim that the figures are different from different scan tools - but have NEVER ONCE sent me any comparison data that includes which PID numbers you used.
I don't know if you are aware but you were comparing LTFT-avarage with LTFT-current - I don't know why you expect them to be the same!!!
Just for interest did you know there are over 20 different PIDs all reporting some variation of throttle position? Some read from 0-100%, some read from 100%-0, some read from 0-5V and some read from 5V-0.
As for free testing - you were provided with a free registration for EFILive, I also personally offered to provide you with a V2 interface free, after you complained that the testing was costing you time/fuel and equipment. I asked if you expected to be paid and you said no - so why complain like this on a public forum?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />since there in Aussie land you did not even have C5s<hr /></blockquote>I am not in Australia, I am in New Zealand, I have tested the product on a C5 here.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Frame Time RPM KNOCK_RET TP FUEL_TRIM_CELL SPARKADV LONGFT1 IAT HO2B1S1 AVGBPWB1 LONGFT2 MAF lb VSS MAP AVGBPWB2 ECT HO2B2S1 DELTORQ TOTALMISFIRE LOAD MAFRAWINP MAF grms
That blows away your statement that GM dicates a maximum of 24 PIDs when if configuring efi for the same parameters only allows 14. If you deem one parameter uses 2 PIDs, well that is your design.
<hr /></blockquote>Let's count them, Frame and time are not PIDs.
RPM (2-bytes dictated by PCM)
KNOCK-RET (1-byte dictated by PCM)
TP (1-byte dictated by RPM)
FUEL_TRIM_CELL (1 byte dictated by PCM)
SPARKADV (1-byte dictated by PCM)
LONGFT1 (1-byte dictated by PCM)
IAT (1-byte dictated by PCM)
HO2B1S1 (1-byte dictated by PCM)
AVGBPWB1 (1-byte dictated by PCM)
LONGTFT2 (1-byte dictated by PCM)
MAF lb (1-byte dictated by PCM)
VSS (1-byte dictated by PCM)
MAP (1-byte dictated by PCM)
AVBPWB2 (1-byte dictated by PCM)
ECT (1-byte dictated by PCM)
HO2B2S1 (1-byte dictated by PCM)
DELTORQ (1-byte dictated by PCM)
TOTALMISFIRE (1-byte dictated by PCM)
LOAD (1-byte dictated by PCM)
MAFRAW (2-byte dictated by PCM)
MAFgms (2-byte dictated by PCM)

That gives a total of 21 PIDs using - wait for it, 24 bytes (or channels as EILive refers to them).
Do you understand it yet?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Just because your understanding of F/ps is used within your product does not mean there is not other ways to move more data then how your doing it.<hr /></blockquote>Actually it's an understanding of how they are used by the PCM - how many scan tools have you developed - how many protocols have you reverse engineered? Do you even understand how Dynamic packet IDs and Parameter IDs and high-speed data work?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />You market as being faster but limit how many parameters can be recorded for I know if you allowed the parameter set above the scanner would be even slower. You market that speed, but then default back to the limited speed of the GM protocol but if one vendor can achieve more concurrent parameters per second then so should yours.<hr /></blockquote>That's just plain wrong.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />As to the danger of using bi directional with your product, do not forget all the free testing that was done to show it was dangerous to use bi directional and the fact the testers and who ever they give the software away to could use that BETA versions and do bi-directional commands and pay the price for doing so. <hr /></blockquote>If you cared to read the license agreement, you'd know that the registrations are non-transferable.
I do not recall any testing of bi-directional controls performed by you that showed the bi-directional controls to be dangerous. There is a disclaimer in EFILive that using bi-directional controls can be dangerous, simply because overriding the PCM can be dangerous.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Quit claiming performance as the main marketing hype<hr /></blockquote>The performance that we are claiming is to be able to monitor/log up to 24 PIDs at 10 fps. I have never used Ease but I am 100% certain that you will not be able to get Ease to log MORE than 24 PIDs at 10 fps on a GM LS1 PCM. I have never claimed that EFILive is faster than Ease.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />for it is interesting you find the need to use the public forums to tell people to not buy autotap but buy your product but at the same time make a deal with the same vendor to sell your product, yet complain that the common end user should not use the same public forum to inform his follow LS1 owners the other side, esp when they spend several months of giving you free labor, car use, while we paid for all those tests and then say "OK there are bugs but we'll still sell the product knowing the bugs are there and use the excuse all vendors do the same thing"<hr /></blockquote>John, that's the really sad, petty part.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />You should have been up front and told the testers your real goal was teaming up with the autotap product, esp when they donated all your testbeds at their costs and then went to market where we the testers learned about the autotap deal and going to market, not by you but by via forums.<hr /></blockquote>As you yourself said John, commercial arrangements are usually confidential until they are announced. You did not sign a non-disclosure agreement with us and we are under no obligation to disclose confidential business arrangements to you.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />with hooking your scanner up to my C5 to be forced into reduced engine power mode.<hr /></blockquote>You have been told before John, that is an issue with the GM PCM not following the SAE standard, it was also fixed many months ago.

I do find it interesting John, that you were quite happy to be involved with testing this new product and you did provide some good suggestions on how to make the product better for the LS1 community - for that I thank-you. I am extremely disappointed that you feel the need to try and destroy EFILive with your half truths and flawed comparisons with Ease. It is ironic, you being an Ease dealer and all, that you decided to turn against EFILive as soon as we announced a partnership with B&B Electronics.

My future non-response to this thread should not be taken as an agreement to any further posts on this thread.

Regards
Paul

Reply Like

Trending Topics

Epic SRK B/S thread of 2019

8.7k

388.7k
Proform brushless cooling fans?

146

5.9k
Just venting

12

220
Lnc 2000 and no lift shifting?

9

173
98 T/A PROS / CONS of switch fuel tanks

7

147

07-05-2002, 09:05 PM

wizkid

Install Director

iTrader: (3)

Join Date: Nov 2001

Posts: 1,002

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

John, don't you think that is a little harsh? Especially if you are beta testing? You got to give people leeway when testing out software.

My stuff runs flawlessly and fast. Everything is labled correctly and I have not got one complaint about the stuff. I love EFILiveV5 and so far has impressed me a great deal. The fact it works with my current auto tap hardware is a plus too. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

Eric <img border="0" alt="[pimp]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_pimp.gif" />

Reply Like

07-05-2002, 09:32 PM

John@PACE

On The Tree

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 111

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

John (TeamZR1) - Your attacks on B&B's AutoTap are almost like clock work! In fact, I find it a shame that you "HAVE" to attack AutoTap when asked about EASE! If EASE is as great of a product as you constantly say it is, while trying to degrade the competition, then let EASE stand on it's own two feet!

After all, a truly great product should have no problems, what's so ever, taking out the competition based on factual information. By you CONSTANTLY attacking AutoTap, all it does is turn off people to EASE.

John, PLEASE use some of this "ill" engery you have against B&B's Autotap to actually PROMOTE EASE without embarassing EASE's manufacturer and yourself.

Just some friendly advice...
John

Reply Like

07-05-2002, 09:40 PM

#10

John@PACE

On The Tree

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 111

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

<blockquote>quote:<hr />'99 C5: @ flywheel = 520/440 HP/Tq<hr /></blockquote>BTW, John, these are EASE numbers right? Can you please explain to me what the formula is that the PCM uses to derive these numbers? Hint: The MAF is involved. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

Reply Like

07-05-2002, 10:18 PM

#11

horist

TECH Senior Member

Join Date: Nov 2001

Location: Lake Zurich, IL

Posts: 7,036

Likes: 0

Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

This TeamZR1 guy seems to like complaining...

Alot of the issues you sited were software issues... which like Paul said have been corrected (part of any normal software release, it is simply impossible to catch all bugs in a big application during testing....)

Paul's given pretty good explanations regarding the number of items that can be logged is limited by the PCM... perhaps some other scanners (i dont have access to them all) allow more than 24 items... but if the PCM limits the number to 24 my guess would be it switches items back and forth... so it logs the first 24, then the next 24 (first one isignored) then 3rd set of 24 (first 2 are ignored) and so forth until it reaches the end and then loops....

I'm all for giving ones opinions on a product... but if the problems you state have been fixed or are limitations of our PCMs at least state that instead of trying to rip on another company and in the end sounding like an ***

Reply Like

07-05-2002, 10:48 PM

#12

Team ZR-1

TECH Resident

Join Date: Jan 2002

Location: USA

Posts: 754

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by John@PACE:
John (TeamZR1) - Your attacks on B&B's AutoTap are almost like clock work! In fact, I find it a shame that you "HAVE" to attack AutoTap when asked about EASE! If EASE is as great of a product as you constantly say it is, while trying to degrade the competition, then let EASE stand on it's own two feet!

After all, a truly great product should have no problems, what's so ever, taking out the competition based on factual information. By you CONSTANTLY attacking AutoTap, all it does is turn off people to EASE.

John, PLEASE use some of this "ill" engery you have against B&B's Autotap to actually PROMOTE EASE without embarassing EASE's manufacturer and yourself.

Just some friendly advice...
John<hr /></blockquote>There is not one post by me that claims Ease is great, what I have done is over 1,500 PCM scans on as many Corvettes and have the same right as you vendors to have a view and spending over 6 months of testing of both autotap and elilive gave both products more then a slight look at thm to give my viewpoint as an end user.

On the other hand for a reseller you make no product, get between 25 and 30% profit for doing nothing but reselling and are biased only for the fact it is all profit for you to defend a product not on it merit but the profit margin.

Anyone who is serious about getting valid scanner information knows the autotap scanners are not doing what EPA mandates and the proof is the fact that they are now touting a so called better interface but if that does not help sell their product they then market another scanner where that vendor themselves say buy theirs and not autotap to confuse the customer even more.

Your marketing methods is just as well like clockwork for your intent is to just profit from products you co-sell and thus have a reason to be biased, yet I am a end user but one with over 2 decades of testing tools like this and will offset the marketing hype but first hand experience with tools I use and if its to warn other end users of faults in those products I rather get flames like yours with zero valid content as long as the end users see another side other then those selling anything just for a profit.
Ask yourself why atap is not a recmmended EPA I/M 240 test tool ?

It's just too bad that I have used at least 6 scanners and at this time have a chosen one that does the best job I require and if I found one that is even better I would not blink to change to that vendor just as I did when I used atap for 6 months and since I paid for autotap I do have a right to have a viewpoint and any vendor knowing atap crashes, corrupts its own recording, drops ADLC link, does not auto relink, will not work most time is MSwindows, will not record DTCs to be seen in playback, well it shows the profit margin is dang good and the heck with quality.

It may surprise you but us car owners do have a right to also give their views, esp when they make no money for doing it.

The facts stand, when I requested from Paul to send me the interface he says would resolve the failures I saw ( since he blamed failures on autotap interface) and to retest bi directional he found an excuse not to supply the interface, thus I gave him the chance to show speed and bi directional in fact did work and in the end I could have another view on the outcome of 6 months of free testing ( thus if I was biased as you claim to Ease, I would not have even donated all that time) by removing the autotap interface from the testcases.

Beng that your a co-seller of any product you could profit off of, you'd also be selling other brands of scanners, unless the profit margin is not enough for you as it is with autotap ( I do know the profit margin they give)

Next time if you want to really discuss rhe testing and results, let me know but the personal attacks do not bother me in the least.

Lastly go read the content of the first post, it clearly asked about Ease and it requested info as a compare to autotap so all your looking at is a way to personal attack and sorry but us car owners also have views that do not agree with products you market.

Reply Like

07-05-2002, 11:17 PM

#13

Team ZR-1

TECH Resident

Join Date: Jan 2002

Location: USA

Posts: 754

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by horist:
This TeamZR1 guy seems to like complaining...

Alot of the issues you sited were software issues... which like Paul said have been corrected (part of any normal software release, it is simply impossible to catch all bugs in a big application during testing....)

Paul's given pretty good explanations regarding the number of items that can be logged is limited by the PCM... perhaps some other scanners (i dont have access to them all) allow more than 24 items... but if the PCM limits the number to 24 my guess would be it switches items back and forth... so it logs the first 24, then the next 24 (first one isignored) then 3rd set of 24 (first 2 are ignored) and so forth until it reaches the end and then loops....

I'm all for giving ones opinions on a product... but if the problems you state have been fixed or are limitations of our PCMs at least state that instead of trying to rip on another company and in the end sounding like an ***<hr /></blockquote>If the PCM was the issue then all scanners should have the same issue correct ?

Then how come elilive could not allow the parameters I use all the time on two other scanner brands ?

People can play with the words but in the end if I take the very same PCM parameters and 2 scanners not only allow them to be concurrently scanned and recorded and one does not, then it is not a PCM restriction is it ?

As for fixes, I spent 2 days of my time last week when built 350 was sent to me just to help the guy out to later find out Autotap was already selling and allowing downloads off their website ( unknown to us doing the testing) and thus the bugs were not fixed ( esp since they now claim they are not bugs) told me just 5 days ago in a e-mail
Quote "Unfotunately this latest round of information is a little late, our product begins shipping on
Monday. Don't get me wrong I appreciate the information but any updates as a result of your work will have to wait until the next release"
end quote,
Thus those of us who are in the test business, next release of a product that is already on the market does not mean a new release tomorrow or even a month from now.

As to software being the fix, I never said that, for the vendors own words says they themselves see the autotap interface as a problem ( and why bi directional at last moment was taken out) so
until the fixes are done you cannot say for sure work arounds can be done via software.

They have a problem, they feel the interface is an issue but at the same time have a business deal where autotap could still profit by selling this scanner but with V1 interface.

So where you think it is complaining, you do not test someones product for months and not have a viewpoint and in my case number one in my books is the car owner, they deserve the best test tools they can buy and if a test tool I use fails I surely will bring it to light so others have other input then what the cosellers or vendors have to say, it is called freedom of speech.

So the *** bit says you guide your view by personal views rather then the techie content, but admit you never even used multi scanner brands but knows what my *** says.

Reply Like

07-05-2002, 11:31 PM

#14

Team ZR-1

TECH Resident

Join Date: Jan 2002

Location: USA

Posts: 754

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by John@PACE:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />'99 C5: @ flywheel = 520/440 HP/Tq<hr /></blockquote>BTW, John, these are EASE numbers right? Can you please explain to me what the formula is that the PCM uses to derive these numbers? Hint: The MAF is involved. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>it is clear that you cannot argue the content from a tech position so your only way to come into a thread of a product you dislike or do not make a profit on and take it to a personal level.

being your attempting to tech me,
tell us all how it can be done and then explain why you promote autotap when it cannot abide by EPA requirements in maintaining and auto re-linking to PCM.

If you like to learn more read the IEEE or ANSI standards I am published in, I really can count past my toes.

Reply Like

07-05-2002, 11:35 PM

#15

horist

TECH Senior Member

Join Date: Nov 2001

Location: Lake Zurich, IL

Posts: 7,036

Likes: 0

Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If the PCM was the issue then all scanners should have the same issue correct ?<hr /></blockquote>

I'm going off what Paul said... he's the one that's written a scanner... as i stated in my post, if 24 is bytes is the max the channel can send there are ways of making it look like it's more than 24... rotate through the settings... wether it's random or sequential... If I had enough info to write a scanner and wanted to make it report 100 readings at 10fps I could... how? deceit... round robin through them using random choices to skip... those that are random duplicate the previous readings in logs.... it would be easy to do

<blockquote>quote:<hr />People can play with the words but in the end if I take the very same PCM parameters and 2 scanners not only allow them to be concurrently scanned and recorded and one does not, then it is not a PCM restriction is it ?/quote]

see above

[quote]As for fixes, I spent 2 days of my time last week when built 350 was sent to me just to help the guy out to later find out Autotap was already selling and allowing downloads off their website ( unknown to us doing the testing) and thus the bugs were not fixed ( esp since they now claim they are not bugs) told me just 5 days ago in a e-mail
Quote "Unfotunately this latest round of information is a little late, our product begins shipping on
Monday. Don't get me wrong I appreciate the information but any updates as a result of your work will have to wait until the next release"
end quote, <hr /></blockquote>

Um... this is normal for software control... I work at a fortune 500 company developing software and we can only release patches once every 2 weeks. A patch can not be released as soon as it's thought to be fixed... it has to be tested

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Thus those of us who are in the test business, next release of a product that is already on the market does not mean a new release tomorrow or even a month from now. <hr /></blockquote>

See above

<blockquote>quote:<hr />As to software being the fix, I never said that, for the vendors own words says they themselves see the autotap interface as a problem ( and why bi directional at last moment was taken out) so
until the fixes are done you cannot say for sure work arounds can be done via software.
<hr /></blockquote>

ok... I can see this... the hardware didn't seem fast enough to log everything (but I dont know how the PCM operates... I only know there's 2 buses... 1 for programming the PCM and 1 for reading from it....)

<blockquote>quote:<hr />They have a problem, they feel the interface is an issue but at the same time have a business deal where autotap could still profit by selling this scanner but with V1 interface.

So where you think it is complaining, you do not test someones product for months and not have a viewpoint and in my case number one in my books is the car owner, they deserve the best test tools they can buy and if a test tool I use fails I surely will bring it to light so others have other input then what the cosellers or vendors have to say, it is called freedom of speech.
<hr /></blockquote>

I'm speaking as a software developer... I know what's involved w/ releasing software, alpha testing, beta testing, final release, patches, etc...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />So the *** bit says you guide your view by personal views rather then the techie content, but admit you never even used multi scanner brands but knows what my *** says. <hr /></blockquote>

the *** statement was based on what I've heard hear... you provide information and Paul provided facts... Paul and his programmers (if there are others, not sure) have the technical information for reading the PCM... you do not

Thus paul is a better reference point than you are (unless you prove your knowledge of the GM PCM for LS1s) and the various bus's used for communicationg with the PCM.

However... I will say that calling you an *** (though indirectly) was rather immature and I do apologize. I dont mean to burn any bridges, simply stating my opinions on the matter being discussed...

Reply Like

07-06-2002, 12:35 AM

#16

Team ZR-1

TECH Resident

Join Date: Jan 2002

Location: USA

Posts: 754

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

Petty grievances, right.

Touted as a LS1 PCM scanner and GM parameters such as TPS and deliivered torque do not work, petty right.

Within 30 minutes of use, locked up 4 times, petty right.

Scanner claims there is only 2 O2s and labels them 02 1 and 5, petty right.

Dicates the max amount of parameters that can be concurrently scanned, petty right.

On random basis parameters show zero values while the car was in motion, petty right.

Over a 2 days of my time last week I did several tests and send you 3 zipped files of not only your only recordings but also csv and excel sheets, so do not tell me I did not give you the information, for I have saved every e-mail to and from you since I started the FREE testing.

It is interesting you came to me for testing since there in Aussie land you did not even have C5s to use as a testbed and are telling us here in the USA how our C5s are to function with a scanner but the facts are these parameters which I gave you before function correctly concurrently with other scanner brands:

Frame Time RPM KNOCK_RET TP FUEL_TRIM_CELL SPARKADV LONGFT1 IAT HO2B1S1 AVGBPWB1 LONGFT2 MAF lb VSS MAP AVGBPWB2 ECT HO2B2S1 DELTORQ TOTALMISFIRE LOAD MAFRAWINP MAF grms
2277 343.74 6649 0 99.6 15 25.5 0 73 0.89 16.6 0 47.26 126.8 28.6 16.6 176 0.9 371.7 0 100 10496 357.29

That blows away your statement that GM dicates a maximum of 24 PIDs when if configuring efi for the same parameters only allows 14. If you deem one parameter uses 2 PIDs, well that is your design.

Just because your understanding of F/ps is used within your product does not mean there is not other ways to move more data then how your doing it.

You market as being faster but limit how many parameters can be recorded for I know if you allowed the parameter set above the scanner would be even slower. You market that speed, but then default back to the limited speed of the GM protocol but if one vendor can achieve more concurrent parameters per second then so should yours.

As to the danger of using bi directional with your product, do not forget all the free testing that was done to show it was dangerous to use bi directional and the fact the testers and who ever they give the software away to could use that BETA versions and do bi-directional commands and pay the price for doing so.

Quit claiming performance as the main marketing hype, for it is interesting you find the need to use the public forums to tell people to not buy autotap but buy your product but at the same time make a deal with the same vendor to sell your product, yet complain that the common end user should not use the same public forum to inform his follow LS1 owners the other side, esp when they spend several months of giving you free labor, car use, while we paid for all those tests and then say "OK there are bugs but we'll still sell the product knowing the bugs are there and use the excuse all vendors do the same thing"

You should have been up front and told the testers your real goal was teaming up with the autotap product, esp when they donated all your testbeds at their costs and then went to market where we the testers learned about the autotap deal and going to market, not by you but by via forums.

What works with a Holden, or a F-body does not mean the C5 Corvette functions the same way and you know that with the months I went through with hooking your scanner up to my C5 to be forced into reduced engine power mode.

Reply Like

07-06-2002, 12:38 AM

#17

Team ZR-1

TECH Resident

Join Date: Jan 2002

Location: USA

Posts: 754

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

Paul you can bend it all you like but the fact still is if I load 2 other scanners as shown below, even at 130 MPH this scanner had no problems with this test run today :

<img src="http://teamzr1.com/temp/pid.gif" alt=" - " />

as seen all parameters are functional and F/ps were fine.

Now I go to PIDs of EfiLive and if I attempt to load the same parameters it cannot be done for the scanner dictates the parameter total amount end user can select and in fact is much less then the total parameters of the above test :

<img src="http://teamzr1.com/temp/efipids.gif" alt=" - " />

The content in RED is the scanner itself showing how many PIDs are used and how many more PIDs would be allowed as in this case 1 free, thus it cannot not even meet the same concurrent parameters as this one testcase and of the ones that were selected GM TPS and delivered torque do not work. So for like 14 parameters selected, 7 of them alone consume 14 PIDa of the 24 maximum this scanner allows.

Now let me understand this with two other scanners I used in this testing would even allow 50 parameters to be used but yours will not, not even if the engine was at idle or even KOEO where there is almost zero buss traffic and your saying a serial requests are limited by a GM rule....

And as to other vendors data, I told you more then once I do not give other vendors data that I have tested to another vendor.
That is called ethics and if you want that type of indormation I suggest instead of using free labor test people to make money you have to spend money and thus build a Q/A lab, hire some Americans to be Q/A test engineers and buy a few American cars to test the products you want to profit from.

Not once did you send out a e-mail to the test people and say " hey all testing stops at this date and we're going GOLD at this date, so here is build 350 and you have XX time to test and report any bugs. Instead by the time we got build 350 the product was already on autotap website being marketed and being 350 build ceases to function where other builds did not, it was IMHO a mistake to go gold without asking the people who donated months of their time to help you,
what they thought rather then being surprised to just come across a coseller doing a marketing glossy on a forum.

You were given by me just last week 3 different zip files with all the data including your own efi files to replay, examine and export to analyze.

Reply Like

07-06-2002, 01:12 AM

#18

Team ZR-1

TECH Resident

Join Date: Jan 2002

Location: USA

Posts: 754

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by horist:

[QUOTE]
I'm speaking as a software developer... I know what's involved w/ releasing software, alpha testing, beta testing, final release, patches, etc...
<hr /></blockquote>

Then you should understand where I am coming from since I have been testing dot zero ( 1st gen) products for over 20 years.
If a .0 fails, yank down the shingle and go home, games over for a new small vendor.
It is important the product works as claims right off the bat and class A bugs should not be in first version, esp if marketing pitch in this case is it a scanner for GM LS1 based cars when if you look at the pids, some to even work I could not choose LS1 PIDs but generic ones.
Also a .0 should not cease to function and in this case it did 4 times in 30 minutes

So my whole point was they used us to test for 6 months I ( and called it BETA) but for whatever reason did not want us to test their interface or the new decision to yank bi directional out with autotap cable but function with theirs,
thus if I could have tested those then I would maybe have different test results and they would have had clear cross testing of both interfaces and in the end maybe then I could have recommended their product if their interface was used, in this case I cannot recommend it at all with the results using the V1 autotap interface, if in fact it is the root of the failures so as it stands if people can get the product for free fine, but buying it, my test results ( and others I had also use and comment on) say no it has no merits of other scanners out there with years of success of working.

Reply Like

07-06-2002, 01:17 AM

#19

EFILive

Restricted User

iTrader: (2)

Join Date: Dec 2001

Location: New Zealand

Posts: 424

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

A picture is worth a thousand words - in this case it's worth 21 PIDs. It's the same set described in the post above. Except, I don't believe it is necessary to select both MAF lb/min and MAF gm/s so I replaced one with the Flag05 PID which provides the following information:

1. Fuel mode open/closed loop
2. HO2B1S1 ready/not ready
3. HO2B1S2 ready/not ready
4. HO2B2S1 ready/not ready
5. HO2B2S2 ready/not ready
6. Fuel trim learning/not learning

<img src="http://www.blacky.co.nz/images/efilivex21.gif" alt=" - " />

Reply Like

07-06-2002, 02:08 AM

#20

Team ZR-1

TECH Resident

Join Date: Jan 2002

Location: USA

Posts: 754

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Re: EASE Diagnostic Software

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by EFIliveV5:
A picture is worth a thousand words - in this case it's worth 21 PIDs. It's the same set described in the post above. Except, I don't believe it is necessary to select both MAF lb/min and MAF gm/s so I replaced one with the Flag05 PID which provides the following information:

1. Fuel mode open/closed loop
2. HO2B1S1 ready/not ready
3. HO2B1S2 ready/not ready
4. HO2B2S1 ready/not ready
5. HO2B2S2 ready/not ready
6. Fuel trim learning/not learning

<hr /></blockquote>Funny Paul, the last release as you stated it 4 days ago was 5.13 and your example is using two builds above just a few days ago.

You cut the image not to show PID counts, because half the parameters you selected are not GM PIDs which would be a count of 2 per parameters instead used generic ones which only take 1 pid count. Just because you see no merit in the pods selected does not mean the end user does not have them for their purpose and nothing in a scanner dictates which parameters they choose as long as they are ones that PCM supports.

If I wanted generic parameters I could use a cheapo OBD-II PDA for that and you still could not meet the count so you changed one parameter which would be a 2 pid count for a 1 pid count.
Now go do my 2nd testcase of 50 parameters or do I have to show a scan image to proof that also can be done without some channel issue.
You fail to see that my whole point is you cannot test as you the programmer are but what the end user wants and will do and testcases are valid unless some rule says it is illegal if you want to solve a MAF issue that you cannot call up multi parameters related to MAF functionality cause you cannot think why they would do that.
Look at a PCM tuning and see how many ways a MAF is used using different MAF values and then importing 6,000 PCM recorded cycles in a spread sheet, would you rather have the correct multi values or do the math to convert each one.

Don't go about saying I am a Dealer for Ease for I am not there is a difference and the personal attack about half truths is not welcome for its clear what the bugs I stated were true and your busy doing new releases to overcome them so my so called complaining is working and that is what a test engineer os forced to do to get the bugs fixed, let the customers know and bingo new releases come much sooner, now solve the issue with scanner ceasing to function so often and in the end you and your customers win.

Reply Like

Reply Share

First
Prev
1 / 2
Next
Last