All,
Further to a recent question on here, about using either a 160K or 192K ECU image when reflashing, it got me thinking that people using the new ecuFlash (me) have 160K images and people using the command line version might be using the 192K variant.
ecuEdit allows you to convert the 160K images to 192K images. My first question is this, should we all standardise on the images sizes we are using? If, yes I'd recommend the 192K size as that matches the ECUs address space.
The rational being that it makes sharing ECU offset information easier. I've just published my ecuEdit XML config file for Euro MY03 WRX's and it only works for 160K image sizes. If I convert my image to 192K then ecuEdit fails to show my maps. As stated in the ecuFlash command line release notes, the "192K image contains a blank area from 0x20000 to 0x27FFF which is represents the area normally occupied by RAM."
This leads me on to my second question; can I simply add 0x07FFF to all my offsets to quickly get all my ecuEdit maps working again?
Third and final question (I promise!); can the new version of ecuFlash be configured to output 192K images?
Thanks in advance for any help,
-Steve.