atlex

I've been thinking of upgrading my G4+ Fury to a G4X as well, so interested in the answer. From what I read, the majority of the tables you'll need to get your car up & running (e.g., VE/fuel, AFR targets, ignition, etc.) can be exported from your G4+ tune and imported into a new G4X tune directly. You would use the import/export table feature that's in the respective PCLink software for G4+ & G4X to do that. Tedious process, but not terribly difficult. Of course there are a number of new features in G4X and a few changes in how G4X does things as compared to G4+ (e.g., closed loop lambda control) that you'll have to pay attention to and re-tune.

The OBDLINK MX+ uses bluetooth and is well supported in realdash.  Probably the most polished/reliable option:  https://www.obdlink.com/products/obdlink-mxp/
Or the MeatPi WiCAN OBD can do Bluetooth or wifi.  Cheaper but more DIY level, you will probably stumble on a few more bugs etc but seems to be generally good:  https://www.meatpi.com/products/wican

that's MGP not MAP - atmospheric pressure is '0' but still scaled in the KPA... - this is more for display than function. the ECU uses MAP KPA in the background.
You can very easily change the axis to display MAP by just right clicking the axis config and setting it to MAP - it will then automatically convert the existing axis to what you want.. ( where it reads -90 now it will show 10.. where it reads 0 now it will show 100. )
In other settings if the parameter expects MAP in KPA consider 0 as absolute 0 and 100 as atmospheric - I don't think you get the choice there.
When I adapted some ignition/etc maps from another ECU (Kpro) to the G4X it helped to have the MGP but once it was done I switched it to MAP which reads much nicer to me.
re: lambda difference
You can bump 3% more fuel on the leaner bank if you want - check under fuel/individual cylinder fuel correction - this is under the assumption that the sensors are reading correctly. maybe confirm it's reading correctly by swapping them over and seeing if the 0.03% lambda difference remains. I'd start by touching one injector on the lean bank at a time however as it is more likely to be one injector being lean rather than all of them. Conversely it could be the other bank is injecting too much. Or a combination. If it is the whole bank it could be a rail pressure issue. Relatives.
Your closed loop may want to run off Lambda AVG rather than each bank - but it depends on if your closed loop is configured to be aware of the banks or not - you can configure it for two... and assign each bank's lambda sensor.. there's also a two table long term trim option. maybe give that 4% leeway to enrichen and see what it does for the leaner bank over time.
0.03 lambda difference is a bit higher than I'd want - for a street car since most emissions tests have a 3% limit - 0.97-1.03 for a lambda test - and for a turbo for lean condition reasons. probably not an issue for an NA car at WOT unless it's a grenade.

Update: resolved
(1) I was eliminated the reason if vacuum leak, since I THINK I tightened down every hosing and car seems keeping vaccum...
But I actually forgot go connect carbon canister and fuel tank hardline... silly me. Now the car's running rich, which is to be expected since my DIY header was wrecked in a sus incident, I changed back to stock log which should flow worse. 
 
(2) Now I know the lean and weak power was due to another reason, and I did replaced ISCV, now I'm sure hunting idle is purely ISCV issue maybe. Lowered integral to 0.4, 0.35 did me great but I'm scared to set too low, now trying idle position base table, lower bias has no positive effect, so I increased lil now she idled better, still slight hunting now easy to die when low speed turning / braking etc. 
Will try idle base table again. But now she's already OK if I careful and lightfoot with clutch. EDIT: now checked new logs I believe I shouldn't mess with ISCV much further, should instead change fuel map to match worse flow of stock log manifold?
 
(3?) I was confused timing light 'bad', why a reliable xenon flasher could go bad and falsher lamp tested working. Bought new timing light and she's 3deg retard comp to before. But silly me it might be I mistaken the induction clamp direction polarity... rofl
 
These're current first step neighborhood test... Rear rad behaves great yay! Now using G4X+XS expansion I could set DIY fan & pump control darn easy. 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CCY_lYAvZP66GN8Ckzv9H9xtPMQDNPgY/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rxN2fRQvDmFbn3DGj0Y18aAHZ6ZmH1Vu/view?usp=sharing
 
 
[img]https://i.imgs.ovh/2024/04/05/tNCGV.jpeg[/img]
[img]https://i.imgs.ovh/2024/04/05/tGyeI.jpeg[/img]
[img]https://i.imgs.ovh/2024/04/05/tNKpR.jpeg[/img]
[img]https://i.imgs.ovh/2024/04/05/tNsGN.jpeg[/img]
[img]https://i.imgs.ovh/2024/04/05/tNo8T.jpeg[/img]
[img]https://i.imgs.ovh/2024/04/05/tNb7p.jpeg[/img]

Yeah something very wrong here.  TPS delta would usually be less than 1%/100ms with the engine running steady state.  Your MAP delta doesnt look too out of the ordinary for an ITB engine, so I would say that is probably ok and wont cause you any tuning issues.   
A couple of thoughts for the TPS:
Unplug the MAP sensor and unplug/completely disconnect the lambda controller (including its 12V & gnd) and run the engine like that with just the TPS connected.  See if TPS noise improves with those two taken out of the equation.  My thought here is possibly if the MAP was wired wrong you could have MAP noise superimposed on the TPS signal - or if it is some "fake" sensor it could be doing anything to the 5V or Gnd.  I've had a fake denso coil sending 400V back into the ecu output every time there was a spark before so I wouldnt rule out anything...  The reason for disconnecting the lambda controller is the Innovate lambda controllers are a complete POS - there is no isolation between the high current PWM heater control and the analog output so the ground connection can add noise to all analog sensors if grounded to a point that has a path back to sensor ground.   Backlash in TPS coupling - Check the TPS is a tight fit on the "D" shaft, this is especially important if the TPS is one that doesnt have the internal spring to soak up the lash.  If there is any doubt then put some RTV in the D before assembly and let it dry before running again.  I have "fixed" a couple of Nissan sensors this way that had noise due to a loose fit on the shaft.  Vibration in the cable/linkage system - Im not familiar with the RHD kit, although from what I have seen Rama does make some nice throttles.  But assuming this is a 911 we are talking about then I imagine the linkage is a complicated contraption and I vaguely remember they have that horrible cable or rod down the the centre of the car that I think is pulling from a chassis mounted bracket instead of an engine mounted bracket like a more conventional cable system?  So potentially some vibration could be introduced into the throttle shafts via the linkages or any movement between engine and chassis?  Can you feel any vibration in the throttle shafts with the engine idling?  I have fitted a "bolt-on" Jenvey kit on a 911 before and I had to cut up most of the linkage, shift arms around, extend levers etc just to get full and equal movement on both sides so I know the linkage can be a bit of a challenge on these. Alternator - disconnect the alternator and give it a short run, possibly AC from a bad diode or something could cause some noise in the electrical system somehow.      The TPS itself - I have had trouble with noise from a generic-looking BMW sensor before - although it was a used sensor of unknown miles, and I have also seen large voltage drift with temperature and regular failures from the cheap looking vishay/colvern ones that many aftermarket throttles use.  So I always use the contactless ones on ITB race engines now.  I think in this case it is unlikely a sensor issue since you have tried 2 already, but if there is any doubt about either of the ones you have tried and all of the above suggestions dont lead anywhere, then I would try swapping to a variohm contactless one to rule that out.

I've found the problem! It was a sparkplug that had cracked. Thanks for the help @Vaughan and @dx4picco much appreciated!

Mostly just looks too lean to me, when it started oscillating at the beginning of the log the idle valve was still in decay mode so air flow would have be relatively stable.  The 18 deg jump in ign advance between 1000 & 1500RPM is probably contributing also.  
Confirm base timing, make idle region richer, smooth out Ign table.  

I had a brief look. I'd start with the following steps (but test in order.. don't just apply them all at once!)
drop the integral gain to a minimal value (from 0.50 to 0.01)
map lockout to 60kpa (currently 50kpa)
lockout above target a few 100 rpm higher, like 700rpm
 
also the fueling as it nears 50kpa at when idling is super lean - you're seeing 18:1 afr when it shouldn't really even go over 16:1 afr.
as air is let in by the cycling overreacting idle valve (see integral gain?) it's going into cells that don't seem to be right, that may be affecting the way the idle fails to settle properly.

you don't need any of these to run modeled equation. only one of my cars have FP sensor.
Leave the traditional fueling alone, and get into the last century with modeled one.

Traditional does this too when Load Source is set to MAP.
If using charge temp (always on in modelled, can be turned on or off in traditional) then don't use the IAT trim or warmup enrichment.

No, you don't. The ECU talks directly to the sensors, and does everything you need it to.
If you think you need to set a calibration, you've set something up incorrectly, and haven't followed the instructions/Help.
In the configuration tree, you do go to Analog Inputs -> Lambda 1/2, but from the "Lambda Sensor Control" option you simply choose "Internal", and that's it, everything done.
 

Alright mate. I'll leave it here informal like..  and await the next release <B

Through Tech support would be the other way, I have had this tab (along with a bunch of others) sitting open for a while now but haven't gotten around to looking through it properly as there is always a lot to do.

Since your engine is on ITBs, it needs to be tuned fully in Alpha-N  --- main fuel table & ignition table have to use the Y-axis on TPS (instead of MGP & MAP).
How unstable is the MAP reading? Can you also post a PC log (idle and playing with the throttle to show MAP stability)? This is where the fuel equation load source would depend on if Load=BAP or Load=MAP must be used.

As for IAT heat soaking I have found using a 4D table like this has helped cure lots of my personal RB engines for restarts with heat soaked IAT and fuel rail, where the engine would run very lean momentary until the heat soaking would cool off. I didn't like just increasing the values too much in the post start enrichment table at operating temps because I only get heat soaking after 10+ mins of being turned off. No need for rich restarts if I just have the car off for a short period of time. The post start decay time table at operating temps is a little longer, around 10 seconds. It worked for my applications but I'm sure it could have been finessed but gives you some ideas.

 

 

Currently the LTT options in the new G5 flavour firmware is a bit binary..
 
Off, On, or Disable Input
 
I've been using the LTT Disable Input with a math block like IAT>50,ECT<80,Engine Runtime>60
the Disable Input covers both updates and application - with it disabled, the LTT doesn't apply trim but doesn't update the table either.
 
I'd like to get the best of both worlds... I'd like a feature to have LTT updates disabled but the trim constantly applied - my intuition (system sperg intuition) tells me that combined with general CLL this would give a better effect.
 
In other words, I think I could trust the LTT to give better general results in most conditions especially when the table is filled out, but I'd rather not have it constantly updating the table when outside of normal running conditions. I.e. Hot restart or stop start traffic or similar edge-cases.

Yeah being able to select how the Disable Input functions would be great.
I had also initially hoped the Disable Input would just disable the updating of the table until that condition is met, rather than disabling the table being applied to the fuel calcuation also.

Currently the LTT options in the new G5 flavour firmware is a bit binary..
 
Off, On, or Disable Input
 
I've been using the LTT Disable Input with a math block like IAT>50,ECT<80,Engine Runtime>60
the Disable Input covers both updates and application - with it disabled, the LTT doesn't apply trim but doesn't update the table either.
 
I'd like to get the best of both worlds... I'd like a feature to have LTT updates disabled but the trim constantly applied - my intuition (system sperg intuition) tells me that combined with general CLL this would give a better effect.
 
In other words, I think I could trust the LTT to give better general results in most conditions especially when the table is filled out, but I'd rather not have it constantly updating the table when outside of normal running conditions. I.e. Hot restart or stop start traffic or similar edge-cases.

My recommendation would be a single vacuum manifold fed from all 6 runners post throttle plates, use TPS on the Fuel table axis and use MAP connected to the vacuum manifold as the load source so that it acts a multiplier. Also don't forget to balance all of your throttle plates properly.
The G4X doesn't have a way to deal with two separate manifold pressures or Mass air flow values other than treating one as the primary and applying the difference between the two to the ind cyl injector trim. This would work better with dual MAF than dual MAP as MAF should be a linear relationship between increase in value needing increase in fuel mass where MAP is non linear and to be done properly would require things like the Fuel table being interpolated twice, once for each MAP value.

You will need to adjust the charge temp table after zeroing the warmup enrichment to account for that extra fuel no longer being present.

Check your messages, I've sent you an example ITB map for the same ITBs but different motor. It has the knock and decent fuel/ignition tables to make a good starting point.

Check your messages, I've sent you an example ITB map for the same ITBs but different motor. It has the knock and decent fuel/ignition tables to make a good starting point.

This is the case for a 20v head. But when using the ITBs on a 16v head you can't use the standard 20v "manifold" that has the vac ports, brake booster port and vacuum chamber.
So you have to put vacuum ports in each of the runners and collect that in an external vacuum manifold to feed to the booster, map sensor and fpr.

Megalogviewer HD is probably the most widely used (You need the paid version about USD$50), I dont like it much visually and lacks many functions, but the histograms do work really nice in it.  The biggest thing in its favour is plenty of support on facebook etc.  https://www.efianalytics.com/register/viewProduct.jsp?productCode=MegaLogViewerHD
Baldur Gislason has a pretty good free one built into his calibrator software, I have never been able to get the histograms to work correctly in it but otherwise it is quite good.  Fairly basic, so wont cover all tasks.  There is a decent manual on his site. https://controls.is/calibrator/ 
I mostly use Lifeview from Liferacing since I got quite familiar with it at my last job.  Very powerful once you know your way around but piss poor documentation and for some stuff you can waste hours trying to figure something out by trial and error.   https://www.liferacing.com/uploads/files/PC Software/LifeSetup-Generic-EcuOnly-2023-03-16.zip

Yeah, if the scope is still showing 0.9V with A5 & A7 shorted then there is some internal issue with the ecu I think.  Let me talk to the hardware team for some thoughts.