|
admin
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: November 15, 2009, 12:48:42 AM » |
|
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
mvaldes
|
|
« Reply #76 on: November 15, 2009, 07:12:50 AM » |
|
Art, that's awful news. My condolences to you and yours.
|
|
|
|
wizard of ahs
|
|
« Reply #77 on: November 16, 2009, 06:18:31 AM » |
|
We are all sorry for your loss.
Take care of family first, we will all be here when you get back in the swing.
|
|
|
|
mvaldes
|
|
« Reply #78 on: November 18, 2009, 06:58:25 PM » |
|
To try and make a very subjective subject as objective and ?scientific? as possible, I did a double blind study to see whether v1 or the modified v2 version was smoother. To make them look identical, I took off the cover of my v1 unit and gave both units to my wife. She was ?blinded? in the sense that she had no idea which unit was which. I was ?blinded? by not knowing which unit I was testing. She gave a unit to try at different times and on different days without telling me if I was getting the same unit I had just tried or the other unit. She kept track of which unit she gave me and I told her about it after each test run. We broke the ?code? of the study today by hooking up the scangauge to determine which unit was which. It turned out that 100% of the time I picked the v1 unit as smoother.
Having said that, if I had never used the v1 unit, I?d probably be satisfied with the modified v2 unit since the difference between them isn?t great. However, having been spoiled by v1, personally, I would give up the pedal maps of v2 in return for the smoother ride of v1. The best way I can describe the feeling of the v2 unit is that it?s sort of like when someone kicks the back of your seat at the theater. That?s obviously hyperbole, but that?s the best analogy I can think of to describe it. It feels sort of feels like you?re getting frequent, albeit gentle, pushes in the back as the cruise does it?s thing to maintain the speed.
Art, clearly there?s no rush, but when you feel up to working again, let me know what settings you?d like me to try to see if you can get v2 as smooth as v1.
|
|
|
|
wizard of ahs
|
|
« Reply #79 on: December 06, 2009, 09:04:00 AM » |
|
Hey guys, What's the latest with you Beta testers?  All done??? Inquiring Minds Want To Know 
|
|
|
|
mvaldes
|
|
« Reply #80 on: December 06, 2009, 04:05:56 PM » |
|
I'm waiting for Art's suggestions on new settings to try to get v2 to the smoothness of the v1 cruise control.
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #81 on: December 06, 2009, 05:27:25 PM » |
|
I'm sorry I haven't been able to provide more updates. I'll try to sum up where I think we're at or where we're heading...
The concensus seemed to be that the main code of V2 wasn't as smooth as V1 and I'm not sure we can get it there because the algorithm is fundamentally different in the way the math is handled.
More than one person said that having 16 different pedal maps was not necessary.
So we may be able to go back to V1 main code and still fit on 2 or 3 (maybe 4) selectable pedal maps.
At some point I mentioned we'd be getting low-cost programmers so people that wanted to update their code could do so themselves quickly and easily without having to ship their units back and forth. Those should be ready by mid-January.
Because the programmers are so close, I figure that the logical way to go is stick with V1 and we'll make available V2 as well as derivatives so that people can have really whatever they want so long as they get a programmer. That way they can test to their hearts desire. We can then also effectively open the "beta" up to as many people that want to get a programmer. More feedback/input means more improvements, which means more versions for people to download and try. Being able to program your own unit should really open up the possibilities.
So from my point of view - with the programmers being this close (and which weren't even on the radar when beta started... otherwise we may not have bothered) - there's really nothing to do until they are ready. Hopefully that is Jan 15 as expected.
Art
|
|
|
|
wizard of ahs
|
|
« Reply #82 on: December 08, 2009, 05:58:38 AM » |
|
Thanks Art!
Programmers are only available from Steve, right?
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #83 on: December 08, 2009, 01:20:06 PM » |
|
Just like the jumpers, it probably makes the most sense to do it that way. This isn't a profit generating product so the margins are going to be very slim (or none or maybe even negative like the jumpers - won't know until they're finished), meaning most retailers are unlikely to be interested. If they want them though, they can certainly partake.
|
|
|
|
intocoasters
|
|
« Reply #84 on: December 08, 2009, 05:12:30 PM » |
|
had a thought tonight:
I know the cruise can detect when the shifter is moved. Doest it look for neutral versus drive or does it just look for a change?
I am wondering if the cruise can tell the difference between reverse and drive(or manual). I was thinking it would be nice to have a normal pedal map for reverse regardless of what the driving pedal map is set to.
not a big deal - just a random thought today....
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #85 on: December 09, 2009, 12:48:06 PM » |
|
That falls into the category of, "why didn't I think of that?"
Very good point. Yes I can do that. The cruise is aware of the exact gear the car is in at any given time (though it has to make some guesses about how long a shift takes because that can vary depending on how worn our clutch is). The only caveat we have to be conscious of is that the rest of the world's smart transmissions work differently than the US/Canada ones. But I'm confident that I can introduce some code that works for both versions and uses the basic 1:1 pedal map if the car is not in a forward gear. There's a chance it might not work if the car is in park... but I don't really see that as being a problem. That just means that if you are in park and rev the engine, it might rev it according to the chosen map and not the 1:1. But Neutral and Reverse will work on the 1:1 basis.
Now, is there anyone that thinks reverse SHOULD adhere to the chosen map? I can't imagine why, and now that its been mentioned it is probably best to have it at 1:1 for the sake of safety. But if there is a demand, I suppose I could make it a programmable option.
Art
|
|
|
|
Coda
|
|
« Reply #86 on: December 09, 2009, 01:28:34 PM » |
|
I think having the Eco type map for reverse would be good. Having to press the peddle further for higher speeds would be a nice addition and possible reduce reversing related accidents due to heavy right foots
|
|
|
|
Brabus007
|
|
« Reply #87 on: December 09, 2009, 01:34:04 PM » |
|
Reverse 1:1 for the sake of safety... That sounds good...
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #88 on: December 09, 2009, 04:00:31 PM » |
|
I think having the Eco type map for reverse would be good. Having to press the peddle further for higher speeds would be a nice addition and possible reduce reversing related accidents due to heavy right foots
That's not a bad idea either - it would theoretically give more control at slow speeds and that's usually when you are in reverse. OK, maybe I can put in some logic such that it uses 1:1 regardless of chosen map unless that map happens to be the economap.
|
|
|
|
wizard of ahs
|
|
« Reply #89 on: December 22, 2009, 01:05:46 PM » |
|
Just like the jumpers, it probably makes the most sense to do it that way. This isn't a profit generating product so the margins are going to be very slim (or none or maybe even negative like the jumpers - won't know until they're finished), meaning most retailers are unlikely to be interested. If they want them though, they can certainly partake.
We don't want anyone in the negetive numbers  Just make them reasonable with a slight profit  Happy Holidays to all !!!
|
|
|
|
