Mathematical problem with the 'conversions' function

Report bugs found in TunerPro. Please be sure to include as much info as possible, including system specs, OS, repro steps and TunerPro version number.

Moderators: Mangus, robertisaar, dex

Post Reply
BrendanSmall
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:57 am

Mathematical problem with the 'conversions' function

Post by BrendanSmall » Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:30 pm

ECU: Bosch Digifant-1 (VW Corrado).
Tunerpro build: 5.00.6356.00

In the xdf, the original equation for converting the raw data to ignition in degrees was (X*-0.351563)+78, and it worked great in build 5.00.5197.00. Now with the new build, it's necessary to remove the parentheses in order to achieve the same results (or change the formula to (X*-0.351563)+0+78 ). It's like it's omitting the data following the parentheses.

User avatar
Mangus
TunerPro Author
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 1:49 pm

Post by Mangus » Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:42 pm

Thanks. I'll look into this.
***************************************
TunerPro Author
1989 Trans Am

User avatar
Mangus
TunerPro Author
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 1:49 pm

Post by Mangus » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:06 pm

Fixed for next version. Good find, thanks!
***************************************
TunerPro Author
1989 Trans Am

BrendanSmall
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:57 am

Post by BrendanSmall » Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:55 am

Cool, thanks! Both for not thinking I'm nuts, and for the wicked bit of software called Tunerpro! .
:D

User avatar
dfddfd2
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:37 pm
Location: Burgaw, NC

Post by dfddfd2 » Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:05 am

You might try 78-(X*0.351563) or 78-(X*351563/1000000) as a work around in the mean time.

Dave

BrendanSmall
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:57 am

Post by BrendanSmall » Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:26 am

For now I've simply added a '+0' after the parentheses, seems to work. It's not a big deal though, since my older laptop is still running a previous V5 build, that doesn't have the same bug.

If only my math teachers could see me now, lol.

starrd
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:12 pm

Post by starrd » Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:11 pm

Brendan, as mentioned above, 78-(X*0.351563) works just fine and you don't need the funky extra 0

Post Reply