Pete_89t2

We are all talking in E-shaft angle.  And both MS3 and Haltech injector timing tables represent degrees BTDC.  The mark you have placed on the diagram in your post is actually 230 AFTER TDC.  
It is easier to look at the TDC at the far right-hand end of the diagram and count backwards just like the "Link" angles I have placed in the top row.  The only difference between Haltech and Link is we roll back to zero at 360 whereas Haltech allows values larger than 360.
So a few marks added to the diagram below to clarify.  The start of injection for rotor face 1 would be 490BTDC using Haltech's convention.  This is 130BTDC using Link's convention (ie just add 360 to get the Haltech value).  Note however if you set Haltech to 130BTDC you would get exactly the same result as 490BTDC since the injector fires at the same point every 360deg anyway.  Your MS3 would be the same, the value will be either 130 or 490 depending whether it allows values larger than 360 or not.  

  

We do supply two different sets of layouts each in two different resolutions with G4X PCLink, if you setup a display to suit a larger screen you will still run into the same issue with putting it on a smaller screen regardless of whether it is continuously variable or several specific options. The best way to have one layout to suit several screen sizes is to make a layout to suit your smallest screen and use that on all screens.

Here's something for the wish list that would apply to the PCLink tuning software, that preferably could be applied to both G4X and G4+ versions. Would it be possible to add a "Layout Display Scaling" function to the software?
What I'm thinking of would take the existing user's layout (i.e., applies globally to all pages/tabs), and proportionally scales the horizontal & vertical size of the original layout on each page/tab up or down by a user defined percentage. The idea here is that if you have an existing layout you like that fills the screen of one laptop, and then switch to a different tuning laptop/tablet, with a different screen size/resolution, you wouldn't have to go thru the tedious process of editing your existing layout to fit/fill the screens on the new device - just play with the new global scaling feature instead.

^Unless you meant to say "less than" in the statement above. that transient filter would explain why you're not getting many cells filled, not your driving technique. Here's a screenshot of the settings I've been using on my G4+ mixture map, so far it's been working pretty good.
Some explanation of my settings - with caveat that I'm a newbie at this too, I'm sure the Link gurus will chime in with possibly better suggestions for us
- On minimum samples, I have 10 in there initially, but to get a better result you really should have more samples. Of course doing so populates fewer cells given the same data log
- For "Active Zone" I've been using 50%; going smaller gets less samples and going larger gets you more samples. Not 100% sure what the trade-off is though; my understanding is that a smaller active zone % gets you closer to the center of the cell thus the accuracy of the fuel correction calculated is better?
- On the conditional filters, I set ECT (coolant temp) to be greater than 180*F, which ensures it ignores any data samples until my engine is at operating temp, and all the warmup enrichment is zeroed out. I also set another conditional filter for Overrun Fuel Cut status <0.5, which ensures that it ignores data collected while the car is in overrun fuel cut (status =1), as it would skew the fuel corrections as well.
- For the transient filters, since my car has a DBW throttle, I use AP (accelerator position) <10 units/second. That way it will only use data collected while I had a steady foot on the throttle - you want to avoid abrupt throttle changes and the resulting accel enrichments during the transients
 

You'll need to post up the tune file in addition to the log posted to get a meaningful look at what's going on there. If you're past your attachment limit, post it to Google drive or similar sharing site with a link to the file(s) here. Also sharing your FD's general specs (i.e., FI's, turbo setup, ignition setup, etc.) would be very helpful too.
From a cursory look at just the log, I doubt that lean spot by the yellow cursor is related to secondary staging. Can't know for sure without the tune file, but since you're still in vacuum there (-2.3psi MGP), you're probably still below the MAP threshold for staging to take effect. Most staged injection tunes need to cross an RPM and MAP threshold to start staging.
That said, elsewhere in the log where you're running it up to 100% throttle and at full boost, the transition into boost where the secondaries should be/are staging on does trend lean until the CL Lambda control MAP delta time-outs expire, and CLL control has a chance to get it close to target.

Other than changing the accel fuel in the staged injector setting to 5, were there any other changes to the tune file you posted before? If so, post that up too.
The reason you're hitting the injector duty cut is because in your log you're pushing >84% on the primaries at the stage-in point, which is what that cut is set at (under fuel main, "injector duty cycle fault value"). You can raise that cut, but since it's already pretty high I wouldn't recommend that. Instead since you're pretty much maxing out the primaries at the MGP you're staging at, I would adjust the secondary staging table so the secondaries stage in earlier, and a bit more abruptly (i.e., a steeper ramp-up to the full 62% you've got). Maybe try setting the 14.5psi MAP cell to about 20~30%, and the the 17.4psi MAP cell to your maximum 62%, and then do an interpolation for the cells in between those two cells.
 

Ok, so it looks like your core problem is you've got your "accel fuel" under the staged fuel settings set to zero. Not being familiar with the G4X, I had to read the help file as they do it a little differently than in the G4+ which needs you to specify an "accel fuel" and "accel time" figure there. AdamW or one of the Link reps can give you better advice, but I'd probably start with a smallish non-zero number like perhaps 5 or 10 for your "accel fuel" under the staged fuel settings, take a drive, and see what it looks like in the logs. If it's still spiking lean at the secondary transition, increase your "accel fuel", if it spikes too rich at the transition, reduce it.
Also, make sure your primary/secondary ratio is set correctly to match your pri/sec injectors.

That depends, how lean and for how long?
At any rate, it sounds like the transition into the secondaries needs a bit more tuning. Post up your current tune and a log of it transitioning into the secondaries so we can give you better advice.
I'm familiar with the G4+, but I would imagine the G4X is similar. If it's a short duration lean spike just as the secondaries are coming online, it sounds like you'll need to tweak the "accel fuel" and "accel time" settings under the staged injection section (at least that's where it is for the G4+). In this case, "accel fuel" is a fuel enrichment added to the Primary Injectors (separate from the normal accel fuel enrichment) just as the secondaries start staging in, and "accel time" is an amount of time that enrichment via the primaries stays active, which I think is measured in engine cycles. The idea being that secondary injectors are not physically mounted where the primaries are, so there's typically a lag time before fuel flowing from the secondaries can influence the AFR/lambda. The temporary enrichment via the primaries (accel fuel & accel time settings) work together to compensate for that lean dip.

The oscillation is closed loop lambda, mostly the update rate is too high, possibly excessive gain as well, but start with the rate.  Reduce the update rate to 1Hz at 1000RPM, 2Hz at 2000RPM and maybe 5Hz at 3000. 
 
 The overshoot is excessive base position and fan step I think.  If we look at time section 2:25, you are idling close to target RPM with 2 fans running with the throttle open 4.5%.  But you have 4% commanded in E-throttle target, plus 2.0% in base position, and a further 1.5% fan step, so you are telling the ecu to go to 7.5%, when it only needs 4.5%.   You can see the "E-throttle ISC CL trim" is pulling 3% out to achieve the idle target.   The oscillation is initially caused again by CLL, but this does then cause the RPM to drop low enough to hit the anti-stall gain which upsets things further.  Reduce the anti-stall gain to 1.5 or 2.0.  
 
This is the same CLL and anti-stall gain issue as above.  
 
Not really related to idle but something I noticed in your log - the engine fan 2 only has a 1deg hysteresis on it which causes the fan to bounce on and off rapidly when the temp crosses the threshold.  ECT only has a 1 deg resolution so your hysteresis needs to be bigger.  This will be pretty hard on the relay and fan motor.  

Thank you Adam.
Pete - I dont have dual o2 sensors. However, on the oem lim the runner lengths are not equal and the rear rotors are known to run hotter by upto 10%. If you have EGTS on your exhaust manis for front and rear rotors you'll be able to evidence the rear rotor running a bit hotter. What Adam has confirmed is we can simply run a % of fuel trim to get that rear rotor to balance out with the front. 
Thank you for this. 
One last question. With regards to injection timing the base setting for the RX7 13b on the link g4+ is set to 130* BTDC. Any idea if you have an a table for what a starting point should look like?

^Absolutely. Could be a faulty fuel pump, wiring associated with the pump, fuel pressure regulator, clogged fuel filter or anything else applicable to your fuel system that could impact fuel pressure. Your differential fuel pressure should be relatively flat & constant - no crazy swings far from your base fuel pressure setting

I had the similar problem yesterday trying to post a new topic to the G4+ section. Initially I included a Google drive link to my tune file with my post (subject: DBW problems, G4+ Fury), but that attempt to post was blocked. I then edited out the the Google drive link, and it allowed my post to get published on the forum.

Yeah same. I often want to tinker on my desktop which is much higher resolution than my laptop.

But my layout is always evolving on my laptop to suit different tasks and it's sometimes a pain to recreate that on the desktop.

I could also benefit from this.

Would definitely be nice. I have saved layouts for whether I'm on my laptop or looking at logs at my desk with a 27" monitor, but then if I make an update I need to do it to two layouts.

Here's something for the wish list that would apply to the PCLink tuning software, that preferably could be applied to both G4X and G4+ versions. Would it be possible to add a "Layout Display Scaling" function to the software?
What I'm thinking of would take the existing user's layout (i.e., applies globally to all pages/tabs), and proportionally scales the horizontal & vertical size of the original layout on each page/tab up or down by a user defined percentage. The idea here is that if you have an existing layout you like that fills the screen of one laptop, and then switch to a different tuning laptop/tablet, with a different screen size/resolution, you wouldn't have to go thru the tedious process of editing your existing layout to fit/fill the screens on the new device - just play with the new global scaling feature instead.

Here's something for the wish list that would apply to the PCLink tuning software, that preferably could be applied to both G4X and G4+ versions. Would it be possible to add a "Layout Display Scaling" function to the software?
What I'm thinking of would take the existing user's layout (i.e., applies globally to all pages/tabs), and proportionally scales the horizontal & vertical size of the original layout on each page/tab up or down by a user defined percentage. The idea here is that if you have an existing layout you like that fills the screen of one laptop, and then switch to a different tuning laptop/tablet, with a different screen size/resolution, you wouldn't have to go thru the tedious process of editing your existing layout to fit/fill the screens on the new device - just play with the new global scaling feature instead.

^That is correct, the FD's secondary throttle plates are mechanically linked to the primary throttle plate, but they should not start to open until the car is revving well past a high idle speed on a cold starts (about >1500 RPMs).

Here's something for the wish list that would apply to the PCLink tuning software, that preferably could be applied to both G4X and G4+ versions. Would it be possible to add a "Layout Display Scaling" function to the software?
What I'm thinking of would take the existing user's layout (i.e., applies globally to all pages/tabs), and proportionally scales the horizontal & vertical size of the original layout on each page/tab up or down by a user defined percentage. The idea here is that if you have an existing layout you like that fills the screen of one laptop, and then switch to a different tuning laptop/tablet, with a different screen size/resolution, you wouldn't have to go thru the tedious process of editing your existing layout to fit/fill the screens on the new device - just play with the new global scaling feature instead.

Looking at the circled part of the log, I would agree that a plumbing leak is a plausible cause for the boost suddenly dropping rapidly from about 18ish psi MGP down to about baro pressure while the throttle was still floored. May have popped a hose/coupler or had a BOV failure. Start inspecting all the joints/connections & plumbing between the turbo compressor output and throttle body. Should be an easy fix for that; I'd be more concerned with the weird fuel pressure fluctuations elsewhere in the log though.

This free video from Evans Performance Academy gives a good rundown comparing the G4+ and G4X, should help inform your decision.
 
I'm also running a single turbo modified S6 FD on a G4+, and personally if I didn't have so many other things I needed to spend cash on to finish my FD, upgrading the G4+ to a G4X would be a no brainer. As you'll see in the Evans video, the additional processing speed basically improves everything the ECU does when compared to the G4+. G4X brings in a number of new features such as long term trims and custom programming flexibility with math channels too. As far as input/output support, I'm pretty sure they are the same between G4+ and G4X within the same model family, i.e., a G4+ Fury and G4X Fury will have the same number and types of I/O and use the same connectors/pin-outs. Which is great because it means you won't have to rewire your car to upgrade to a G4X.

Given the kind of boost you've got in that log screenshot, I'd assume you have a very robust aftermarket fuel pump in there that is pulling a lot more current than the OEM pump did. So my first question would be how do you have the fuel pump wired - was the wiring upgraded to handle the additional current draw of the new pump? If there are any tank bulkhead connectors in the fuel pump circuit/wiring, first thing I'd do is take a close look at them and any other connection points in your fuel pump circuit - look for signs of melting and/or burned contact terminals. If you see any of that, you'll need to upgrade the wiring on your fuel pump circuit. If not, take voltage measurements at the pump while doing another pull as Adam suggested to rule out voltage drops as the root cause. If pump voltage is good, next thing I'd look into is the fuel pressure regulator.

Howard,
If you're buying a Microsoft Surface Pro, they normally come with & run Windows 11 (or with Windows 10 if it's an older model) as the native operating system, not Android. If that's the case, you can just install Link's PCLink software on that and use it to log/display as-is. I've got a Surface Pro 8 from my work that I loaded PCLink on, it works great for tuning/logging as a passenger seat dash display. No extra computer geekery required!
Pete

You can usually tell just from the lambda trend if it is an "amount of enrichment" Vs "length of enrichment".  I only have a couple of old logs from our FD on my laptop that arent real good examples but may help explain...
In the time plot below you can see the secondary injectors kick in where I have put the pink arrow (sec PW jumps up from zero).  For a short time after that you can see the primary PW sits above the sec PW for the length of the yellow arrow before it steps down to match the sec PW - this yellow arrow area is the staged accel enrichment.  In Staged injection settings, the "accel fuel" affects how high that step in pri PW is and the "Accel time" affects the length of the yellow arrow.  
You can see in this example the lambda dips rich right around where the accel fuel is.  

 
Now if we zoom in on that same time plot to have a closer look at this area...  Where I have placed the yellow cursor line on the plot you can see the lambda is bang on target, and also to the left of that cursor the lambda is reasonably close to target.  To the right of the cursor the lambda dips rich for a while and doesnt recover until a little while after the accel fuel finishes.  So my interpretation of this plot is I had something close to the right amount of extra fuel initially as the lambda stayed close to target for a while after secondaries where enabled ("accel fuel" setting is about right).  But that accel fuel is being added for way too long - we could have removed that extra fuel where the curosr is - or even a little earlier. So the setting "accel time" is too long - by proportions I would say the accel time wants to be about 1/4 to 1/3 of whatever it was set to when I done this log.

Adam,
Related to the OP's questions, is there a recommended approach for adjusting the staged injection Accel Fuel & Accel time parameters? I too have been struggling to get my FD to stage the injectors in as smoothly as I'd like - mine typically trend way too rich at the initial staging point, which I figure means I should be reducing the accel fuel and/or time, but is there a preferred approach as to which parameter to tweak first? What should I be looking for in the logs to inform me which change (in accel fuel or time) would be more appropriate? I don't have the luxury of a dyno to work on, so I'm trying to make my road tuning iterations as productive as possible.
Thanks,
Pete