RomRaider

I forgot to update the title text, so it's hard to say... Here's a version that says v10 in the title.

That one looks different. And thanks for the enhancement it does the trick!
Dale

I'm glad you like it.

I've updated the first post with version 10.

Thank you so much for the update! Now no longer have to go and mess around with a bunch of copy-paste into Excel and back into RomRaider then back into the timing editor to do stuff with my 16-bit 02 ECU.

Hi, nice utility! Can someone post a picture of what the resulting timing curves should look like?

Also my advance table has 1 more column than the base timing table...how do I even them up?

The shape you end up with will depend very much on the car and the modifications, there is no 'one size fits all' timing shape.

I didn't realize there were any ROMs that had an advance table larger than the base table, so the editor can't cope with that. I may add it later, but I can't/won't promise when.

Ok - thanks.

Just wanted to point out a bug. This is the "sequence" of events that I go through to replicate it.

1. Setup the typical initial base timing and initial advance (I am using a 16-bit 02 WRX map, so the 3 load columns are left blank)
2. I then insert a modified base timing and advance table (comparing the two before uploading to my map, same load values, same RPM)
3. The modified advance table is 10.20 all across, so in the three columns where the zeros are inserted, I add in 10.20

This is where the bug occurs. It seems that when I add in the 10.20 in the advance column, it subtracts that number from the modified base timing, so I have to go back and re-copy the modified base timing. Unless this is how it is supposed to be?

When you modify the advance table, it makes equal-and-opposite changes to the base table so that the total timing will be unchanged. Works great when both tables are the same size. It means you can tweak the DA without changing the way the car runs. But maybe that needs to be changed now.

Why are you entering 10's into the added columns? I had assumed that 16-bit users would just leave those columns untouched. If there's a need to tweak them then I need to understand this better.

From what I understand, is that the ECU assumes all load values for the same RPM below that minimum load (usually 0.70 for me) it just uses whatever is in that 0.70 load column. The stock 02 ECU has a TA table where the lowest load column is pretty much zero, it doesn't start adding TA until around 1.0 load. However a lot of people ditch the funky TA map and just put a constant value in all the load/RPM cells, such as the TA advance map in mine, which is all 10.20. So basically now anytime the IAM is all happy at 16, it's adding 10.20 degrees throughout the entire RPM/Load range.

I may have details incorrect (still new to the tuning game) but the total timing in my datalogs seem to correspond with the fact that 10.20 TA is added all over the load/rpm range, so I try to fill up the blank 3 columns with 10.20 to ensure that I can make a nice smooth base map by changing the total timing map.

You're right, and I need to fix this.
Gimme a day or three...

I made a mistake the advance table has 2 less rows than the base table. Any chance of something soon?

"A day or three" turned into a couple weeks, but Version 11 is here now, see first post.

I am starting to think it was a bad idea to overwrite the 'modified' tables every time new 'initial' tables are pasted in. Version 12 will probably update the modified tables only if they're empty, and will not overwrite them if they already contain data. Anyone have opinions about this idea?

Hi:
Any chance you can add hot-keys or buttons with the typical 1.05 & 0.35 change increments to make cell changes easier to do than having to calculate the value manually?
Thanks.

One more item.
I noticed you can select a row by clicking on the row header (RPM), but the same does not apply when you click on the load column header.