gaps in log file from lm1 recordings, at different rates

[jason4656]

i just looked back after realising my lm1 is not recording all rpm points, and its differing but has been missing blocks since i started using it.

i have attached 2 logs, one from first time i used it and one from yesterday, as you can see there are differing gaps in teh way the lm1 records the data

any suggestions as to this? have been told maybe my ecu has the wrong definition, but im quite sure its the right one?

thanks

[TunerTools]

Hi Jason,
You have an Innovate Motorsports LC-1 (not an LM-1) right?

The rpm that you're logging is the rpm coming in from the OBD port via the Tactrix OpenPort cable and using EvoScan software right?

Is the LC-1connected during this logging or is this entirely with the Tactrix cable and EvoScan?

Thanks,
Lloyd
www.TunerTools.com

[TunerTools]

Jason, I need to ask how the hardware is connected here, i.e. what's the source of the data in these columns?

Is it ALL coming through the OBD port via the Tactrix cable or is the data in the column "WideBandAF" coming from the LC-1?

And if it's coming from the LC-1, is EvoScan compatible with the MTS data stream that Innovate Motorsports uses? Have you tried the same data logging experiment using Logworks, the software that Innovate Motorsports provides for mixing OBD & LC-1 AFR data?

Just trying to get a complete picture of what we're looking at here

Thanks
Lloyd
www.TunerTools.com

[TunerTools]

******
Lloyd I'm using the LM-1, Evoscan and Tactrix cable combination but do not have this problem. The WB02 data would be coming in separately to Evoscan through a serial connection from the LM-1 to a usb adapter connected to the laptop and that might be the problem...maybe some adapters aren't as good or maybe the laptop itself is the problem?

I have one other customer having the same problem and he's using the LC-1, we tried mitsulogger instead of evoscan and had the same problem so maybe it's something specific to the LC-1 if that's what Jason has, I thought he had a LM-1 but maybe I'm wrong.

My logs don't miss a single cell but I do have a fast new laptop.

Just throwing out some ideas.
******

I've looked at the logs and it looks like a simple issue of the data streams coming in at different sample rates
Could be the serial to USB converter, could be a matter of USB 1.0 vs USB 2.0 (speeds are different) or it could be a set up problem with the software.

Three points come to mind
1: I don't see a problem in the skipped cells regarding datalogging, i.e. I don't see that it causes any problem. You can still chart and graph the data and it's only small slices missing where the RPM data is obviously being sampled at faster rates than the AFR data. Where you have data in both columns, they're in sync. Where you have data in the RPM column but the AFR is blank, you simly have no AFR data for that slice of time and can either ignore those rows charting only the rows where you have both columns or force Excel to just fill the cells with the average of the cell before and the cell after. Either way provides accurate charting with the AFR & RPM data synchronized and the slice of time is so small that there's not any doubt regarding the value of that missing cell as it's definitely going to be somewhere between the cell before and the cell afterwards.

2: I'd still like to see a data log taken using Logworks since that's the software designed specifically for the Innovate data stream.

3: I'd like to see the data run directly into a real serial port or through one of the usb to serial converters tested and approved for use with the MTS datastream. I believe the Prolific converters will do or you could get the actual usb to serial converter that Innovate Motorsports recommends, Innovate p/n 3733
Bottom line is I don't see any indication of a bad LC-1. I see two data streams coming from two different sources which have different sampling rates. We can either focus on speeding up the sample rate of the LC-1, slowing the sample rate of the OBD connection, averaging the LC-1 sample rate to 'virtualize' the data, or ignore the gaps altogether as there is really no question what the values are for the missing cells.

[jason4656]

thanks for the replies, i dont know, thought it was lm1 but maybe its lc1 whats the difference? anyway, i have just looked and yes it is the lc1, sorry about that

anyway, the cable goes directly into the laptop, no converter, straight into the serial port, its a clean install of xp and its a high spec laptop with little else running, im not even running ecuflash at time of logging.

i wonder if it will work better if you just log afr and rpm only?

and yes you were correct lloyd, obd data and lc1 is the source

thanks

[TunerTools]

Hi Jason,
I checked the receipts and you have the LC-1: Lambda Cable + 02 Sensor (Standalone Wideband Controller).The LM-1 includes a handheld meter, sells for $349 and the LC-1 goes straight to your laptop (or other device if in use) via a serial cable.

So, how do you have the LC-1 connected to the laptop? you have that going clean into an open serial port?

If yes, I would hunt around in the EvoScan software and look for a setting on the sample rate or switch to the ECUflash & Logworks combo softwareto see what you get. Or skip it altogether as it's really not an issue for tuning, just looks odd in the logs.

Cheers,
Lloyd
www.TunerTools.com

[jason4656]

afr not really an issue for tuning? or you mean the skipping a beat?

i will try to do the things you suggest and also use logworks to make some logs to compare, thanks for your support

[TunerTools]

afr not really an issue for tuning? or you mean the skipping a beat?

Yes, it's only the 'skipping a beat' that you're safe to ignore. AFR is critical, but the fact is you have good AFR data and it's only missing the occasional frame when compared with the RPM data rows. One is giving you x frames per second and the other only y frames per second. Overall still plenty of frames to tune

Cheers,
Lloyd
www.TunerTools.com