ecuEdit v2.4 - ECU Tuning & Logging solution

Developer topics relating to software that provides a tuning UI to alter ECU code and data

Moderator: Freon

Postby Tea cups » Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:53 pm

epifan wrote:Enginuity defs mistakes directly converted to ecuEdit XML. Sorry, I can't on-fly correct your mistakes :lol:

I'm not saying the Enginuity defs are bug-free, they are still in beta testing, but I would hardly classify it as having "many mistakes". Xmlwrite's definitions aren't bug-free either (check out injectory latency for 32bit ecus which the Enginuity defs have correct).

epifan wrote:So, you are not refuse that you are using xmlwrite defs for create "enginuity defs" :lol: Ok, this is noble act :wink:
CEL fixes are only primitive involve of users :wink: CEL table is simple accessible for most users with some experience :wink:
Some of ecuEdit users request CEL support for enginuity converter and I made it.

Xmlwrite helps as reference, no doubt, but we are not just copying over its definitions. If we did, you wouldn't see any support for revisions other than that which is included in Xmlwrite, but we have added revisions requested by users that xmlwrite does not support, especially for 32bit roms. Xmlwrite is most likely a dead commodity for the public, because of the source of its defs and the fact that it was primarily released to give the openecu project a head start and not become an evolving resource. This is the same open source project that enabled you to develop your software and for which now you feel you can bash and spread misinformation about. Without this project, your software would be dead in the water, so I suggest that you be more respectful of it, even if users post something negative about Ecuedit.

epifan wrote:About maps that xmlwrite doesn't have: this is only advertising - this maps are not useful or they are not accurate (now).

Not useful? Tables for the 32bit ecus like advance multiplier (initial), timing compensation (intake temp), timing compensation (coolant temp), closed loop delays and the previously mentioned inj. latency, among others aren't useful? CEL fixes on 16bit roms might be easy for the average user to do with the hex editor, but the 32bit roms aren't very intuitive for the average user. Again, what is not accurate? Specifics? There should be many examples by the way you bash the definitions. If they are so inaccurate, then you would do you user base a service by not including a converter for them. :D

epifan wrote:P.S. Please stop fling mud! I don't understand why are you attack me? You have incredible accurate XML defs created by your own, powerful unique FREEWARE software - so rule the world!!! I cannot be your competitor :lol:

Umm, I didn't say anything until you decided to bash Enginuity. If Ecuedit and the great error-free definitions that you created entirely from scratch for paying customers were so great then you wouldn't feel the need to lash out at the other FREE open source projects as well as spread false information (such as Ecuflash charging money in the future) with nothing to back up your claims. You don't see Cobb going around bashing Ecutek about their software, do you? My suggestion to you is to let your software stand on its own merits. If you must point out a flaw in one of the open source projects, then do it in a sane, logical manner with evidence to back up your claims. Otherwise, it just reflects poorly on your company and YOU as well. Cheers.
Tea cups
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:41 am

Postby FrSTi » Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:11 pm

This is the same open source project that enabled you to develop your software and for which now you feel you can bash and spread misinformation about. Without this project, your software would be dead in the water.


I double this...

No doubt that EcuEdit took more than benefit from OpenEcu forum and this community... fine.
Then someone talked about money for software... weird for an open source forum, huh ?
Now it looks like all the "competitors products" (this wording must be a joke here) have flame suit on...

Is it me or is this normal to have a pay-software advertising and marketing on the forum...? :roll:
FrSTi
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:09 am
Location: facing my laptop

Postby m3n0ch3 » Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:33 pm

ok let's put the basics down...

1-is Openecu under the GPL licence?

2-a)If so, Epifan HAS to deliver the code but can still charge if he wants to

b)if not, unless copyrights have not been claimed or can't be prooved to have been used prior to his usage, he can still charge..

Not that I'm defending him.. specially if the GPL is at stake.

As far as I can remember the "open" philosophy is to get opensource. Redhat charges for their product and are still using opensource software. But the source code is available.

Stop fighting like 4 year old kids If you don't like his work , just ignore him and do your own thing..

Like we say in other forums, Don't Feed the Throll!!!

my 2c
m3n0ch3
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:46 am

Postby Freon » Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:50 pm

m3n0ch3 wrote:1-is Openecu under the GPL licence?

2-a)If so, Epifan HAS to deliver the code but can still charge if he wants to

What is "openecu", where can I download it with a license agreement attached, and what part of it has been integrated into ecuedit?
Freon
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:50 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Postby 05GarnetLGT » Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:05 pm

m3n0ch3 wrote:ok let's put the basics down...

1-is Openecu under the GPL licence?

2-a)If so, Epifan HAS to deliver the code but can still charge if he wants to

b)if not, unless copyrights have not been claimed or can't be prooved to have been used prior to his usage, he can still charge..

Not that I'm defending him.. specially if the GPL is at stake.

As far as I can remember the "open" philosophy is to get opensource. Redhat charges for their product and are still using opensource software. But the source code is available.

Stop fighting like 4 year old kids If you don't like his work , just ignore him and do your own thing..

Like we say in other forums, Don't Feed the Throll!!!

my 2c

I guess you would have to have been around longer than you have in order to appreciate how long we have known it was going to be pay software.
05GarnetLGT
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:12 am

Postby epifan » Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:03 pm

FrSTi wrote:Is it me or is this normal to have a pay-software advertising and marketing on the forum...? :roll:


I'm starting devleoping ecuEdit in december 2005. At that time my program was the only one availible editor in openecu forum (Enginuity was simplest editor with 3-4 maps), I was first who announced on forum XML ECU descriptions, under them was made XMLWrite. So, I thinking that ecuEdit was a part of "openecu" community. I never promises that ecuEdit will be FREE - this is crazy.

On that forum I never posting messages with ecuEdit prices! ecuEdit working well in DEMO mode and many peoples use it.

p.s. Just look what's going on on forum with EvoScan :lol:
epifan
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:23 am

Postby epifan » Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:36 pm

Tea cups wrote:I'm not saying the Enginuity defs are bug-free, they are still in beta testing, but I would hardly classify it as having "many mistakes". Xmlwrite's definitions aren't bug-free either (check out injectory latency for 32bit ecus which the Enginuity defs have correct).

Check out your Checksum fix :lol: This is bs

Tea cups wrote:Xmlwrite is most likely a dead commodity for the public, because of the source of its defs and the fact that it was primarily released to give the openecu project a head start and not become an evolving resource. This is the same open source project that enabled you to develop your software and for which now you feel you can bash and spread misinformation about. Without this project, your software would be dead in the water, so I suggest that you be more respectful of it, even if users post something negative about Ecuedit.

I always respected tinywrex and his xmlwrite. And I never say any negative about it in constract to you (or other Enginuity developers).

Tea cups wrote:
epifan wrote:About maps that xmlwrite doesn't have: this is only advertising - this maps are not useful or they are not accurate (now).

Not useful? Tables for the 32bit ecus like advance multiplier (initial), timing compensation (intake temp), timing compensation (coolant temp), closed loop delays and the previously mentioned inj. latency, among others aren't useful? CEL fixes on 16bit roms might be easy for the average user to do with the hex editor, but the 32bit roms aren't very intuitive for the average user. Again, what is not accurate? Specifics?

Excuse me, I could not think that professional tuners uses Enginuity. Yes, this maps a very useful...

Tea cups wrote:There should be many examples by the way you bash the definitions. If they are so inaccurate, then you would do you user base a service by not including a converter for them. :D

You are everytime and everywhere advertise Enginuity and Enginuity's defs, so I made possible to non-Enginuity users to see is defs good or not :lol:

Tea cups wrote:
epifan wrote:P.S. Please stop fling mud! I don't understand why are you attack me? You have incredible accurate XML defs created by your own, powerful unique FREEWARE software - so rule the world!!! I cannot be your competitor :lol:

Umm, I didn't say anything until you decided to bash Enginuity.

Really??? Oh, I'm so sorry :lol:

Tea cups wrote:...as well as spread false information (such as Ecuflash charging money in the future)

This is my opinion based on some Colby's utterances. Let's see... Would be not bad if I wrong :wink:
epifan
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:23 am

Postby JRSCCivic98 » Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:37 am

epifan wrote:No, I have another defs source :wink:


If it's not a secret and if it's not illegal, what is this source then? Please do elaborate.

Also, this discussion has lead me to believe that if you pay for the product you also get xml defs for all known ROMs.... is this true? If it's not, then I ask again... what am I paying for then when/if I buy your product?

Also, if you do include a complete package with xml defs for all known ROMs that are 100% correct and complete what sort of guarantee do people have that buy your product that you will continue to develop the software as well as keep it's xml defs up to date?

You're going to need to come clean on some stuff here and make some guarantees if you want people to actually shell out the money for this... I don't think that's too much to ask for.
JRSCCivic98
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:45 am

Postby Tea cups » Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:43 am

epifan wrote:Check out your Checksum fix :lol: This is bs

Lol. This shows how much you know. You don't have recalculate the checksum every time you edit the rom. The method we use has the ecu check over a range of 0x0 to 0x0 to calculate the checksum (which is valid), so it doesn't matter what you edit in the rom, it will still pass. Take a peek at other checksum areas in a rom and you'll see how Subaru bypasses the process. :roll: Our fix only needs to be done once and not recalculated every time you change something.

epifan wrote:This is my opinion based on some Colby's utterances. Let's see... Would be not bad if I wrong :wink:

Yeah, except you stated it as if it were fact. Anyway, good luck with your venture. I'm done with this conversation as you've pretty much proved all my original points. You might want to tone down your propaganda a bit, though. Biting the hand that feeds you (openecu) is probably a bad idea for the future of your company. :o
Tea cups
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:41 am

Postby Freon » Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:15 am

Guys, you're not going to guilt him into making ecuedit free. He is under no obligation to give it away for free or open the sourcecode. All of your claims that he is are ludicrous. Can this be dropped? There is no reason to continue this discussion.

None of you are in any position to speak on behalf of the authors or contributors of various information and programs. If colby doesn't want ecuedit to be "advertised" here, let him deal with it! If xswrex doesn't want xmlwrite used in conjunction with commercial products, let him deal with it. They can deal with their own problems. We don't need users coming in and filling the forums with complaints about other people's problems.
Freon
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:50 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Postby 05GarnetLGT » Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:13 pm

I think this has more to do with the ecu defs XML converter at this point; honestly.
05GarnetLGT
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:12 am

Postby xswrex » Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:18 am

Tea cups wrote:Lol. This shows how much you know. You don't have recalculate the checksum every time you edit the rom. The method we use has the ecu check over a range of 0x0 to 0x0 to calculate the checksum (which is valid), so it doesn't matter what you edit in the rom, it will still pass. Take a peek at other checksum areas in a rom and you'll see how Subaru bypasses the process.


well...epifan is such a lame programmer that he made the checksum fix the "hard" way.... Can you be more lame than that?

Tea cups wrote:Our fix only needs to be done once and not recalculated every time you change something.


From when the checksum fix became YOURS??? I guess this is your overall spirit

JRSCCivic98 wrote:From various posts by people (even tinywrx who made xmlwrite) he's led everyone to think that there will be further development on xmlwrite, but he will not be releasing this to the public... well, this can only mean a few things... either he's tired of not getting paid for his work/he doesn't want to get in trouble for his work/he never planned on continuing to help develop those defs beyond his own personal needs.


It means one thing: It is none of your business and it will never be

JRSCCivic98 wrote:I can say this though... with all the BS that this has turned to, I'm seriously staying with the commercial products available to the public now. In the end it's just not worth the headache. At least with that I know that my money is going to a COMPLETE product... regardless of what it costs.

Really? Then why did you start a "poll" for an update of xmlwrite?

some people simply don't know when to shut their big mouths up.
xswrex
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:50 am

Postby JRSCCivic98 » Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:01 am

xswrex wrote:It means one thing: It is none of your business and it will never be


Well, that just proves my point. All these allegations about xmlwrite's defs coming from blatant copies of ****** defs must be right then huh? The allegations also follow suit to ecuEdit as well. It just came as a surprise to me when a professional tuner stated that they were blatant copies and that ****** was going to act on it in one way or another. If you can't be original in your work maybe you shouldn't release it to the public then.... or is this why you won't update xmlwrite with newer defs?

xswrex wrote:Really? Then why did you start a "poll" for an update of xmlwrite?

some people simply don't know when to shut their big mouths up.


I didn't start a poll. Do you see a poll post anywhere? Does it have a poll graph on it? I didn't think so. I simply updated the thread to get you to notice it and maybe do something about it if you saw more and more people interested in it. Then again, I expected nothing more then you posting that it wasn't going to be updated anymore, just like your other posts have stated on other forums. Go ahead, prove me wrong and release an update with every single def known to man up to today's date... I'm sure people would be happy to have it.

Bottom line again... if your programs are legit, then why are you all so scared to release bundled software (editor with defs) or to update the defs libraries alone? If it's simply a money issue, then post that it is, appologize for wasting everyone's time on a FREE/OPEN software forum, and be done with it. At least then we'll all have a better understanding of the grand scheme of things instead of all this black opps shit that's evident now.
JRSCCivic98
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:45 am

Postby xswrex » Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:54 am

JRSCCivic98 wrote:Well, that just proves my point. All these allegations about xmlwrite's defs coming from blatant copies of ****** defs must be right then huh? The allegations also follow suit to ecuEdit as well. It just came as a surprise to me when a professional tuner stated that they were blatant copies and that ****** was going to act on it in one way or another. If you can't be original in your work maybe you shouldn't release it to the public then.... or is this why you won't update xmlwrite with newer defs?


They are a blatant copy, yes? So they are made by someone professional and i just happend to run across them. Why don't you trust them then? A professional tuner told you that! What more could you ask for???

JRSCCivic98 wrote:I didn't start a poll. Do you see a poll post anywhere? Does it have a poll graph on it? I didn't think so. I simply updated the thread to get you to notice it and maybe do something about it if you saw more and more people interested in it.

Grow up....

JRSCCivic98 wrote:Bottom line again... if your programs are legit, then why are you all so scared to release bundled software (editor with defs) or to update the defs libraries alone? If it's simply a money issue, then post that it is, appologize for wasting everyone's time on a FREE/OPEN software forum, and be done with it. At least then we'll all have a better understanding of the grand scheme of things instead of all this black opps shit that's evident now.


There is no legality issue for me, i sell nothing and i really don't care. Noone has or can act on this.
I made this xml building app for FREE to support ALL the map editors and you are accusing me? Are you fuking serious or just plain braindead?

The black OPS (if you don't know about it don't write it) exist only in your head.
xswrex
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:50 am

Postby Tea cups » Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:39 am

xswrex wrote:well...epifan is such a lame programmer that he made the checksum fix the "hard" way.... Can you be more lame than that?

My response was after Epifan said that the method Enginuity uses was BS and doesn't work. Both ways work. I wasn't randomly making a comment about the fix in Ecuedit.

Tea cups wrote:From when the checksum fix became YOURS??? I guess this is your overall spirit

"Our fix" as to differentiate it in the conversation between Enginuity's and Ecuedit's not take ownership of the fix. :D I guess I should have written that to be more clear.

I think Ecuedit is a great piece of software. I'm not here to argue that, but to clear up some stuff that was mentioned about Enginuity. As far as the other comments (rumors?) directed towards the openecu software, I'll stay out of that and let those associated with those projects respond if they want to. Why don't we drop this whole discussion as it has become pointless?
Tea cups
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Tuning Software

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests