Confused

Xtreme understatement.

If well tuned, a wideband isn't necessary, however having one allows a few extra safety features to be enabled, such as Closed Loop Lambda, limiters if it goes too rich or lean.
The Link CAN Lambda module is one of the best in my opinion, so I'd invest in that over a different brand.
You don't need any kind of display, but again, it's a nice to have, especially a CAN based one that can show you warnings etc when the ECU detects them.
You could use an old phone/tablet with RealDash but it's not quite as "nice" as a dedicated gauge, there's the potential that the battery has gone flat between uses of the car, and you need to wait for it to power up etc before you have your display output.
 
But, basically, yes, you can "just" plug it in and tune it with a laptop and require nothing else ongoing.

Westerners often refer to this coil as the "R8 Coil".  
For a naturally aspirated engine use this:

 
For a boosted engine something like this:

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.

The outputs have a weak "pull-up" to 12v (so this is what your meter will be seeing) and when turned on (they show as "Active" in the software) they will be switched to ground.
 
So - your fan relay should have an ignition switched 12v feed to one side of the coil (if using a typical automotive relay, the one labelled 86), and the other side of the coil (pin labelled 85) goes to your Aux output.
The same ignition switched power supply goes to pin labelled 30, and your fan's positive lead to pin labelled 87, with the other side of the fan to ground.
 
I will say though, that there is already an Engine Fan function built into the ECU, which will be better to be used - it supports more features than your attempt using a GP Output, such as hysteresis (which will prevent the fan turning on and off as the ECT goes either side of your set-point), and this can be used to modify the idle settings when enabled, due to the extra power drain on the electrical system, which the GP Output function won't do.

Just sharing something I've come up with to solve a particular condition I've seen.
 
I've had a scenario where I get quite a lot of heatsoak and my injectors seem to open too slowly(or something, but I did see some data on this condition on another forum) to fuel correctly so I see a lean condition for up to a minute as fuel flow cools them down again. My IAT sensor is close to the injectors so we can use that number as a factor..
 
I recognise a suitable closed loop solves this after the wideband is sending real data but I didn't want to run adhoc fuel corrections for IAT since those are permanent and where I live the air can actually be quite hot. And a wideband can't give adequate fuel info until it finishes warming up.. this leads us to the post-start configuration..
 
I've ended up with a 3d table for post-start where it's X ect and Y iat - similar to a regular post-start 2d table but with the higher IAT area seeing up to 35% more fuel put in - say 30c IAT 10% more fuel, 40c IAT 20% more fuel, 50c IAT 30% more, up to 35% at 60 IAT
 
Closed loop set to come on after 25 seconds, post start hold time 25 seconds with a 5 second decay.
 

I agree compelely with @koracing - sell that AEM gauge off to some other unsuspecting person who won't ever be hooking it up to an ECU, and get a Link CAN Lambda module ASAP.
 
I honestly spent days fiddling around, tuning and retuning the same areas of the table over and over as it would be totally different day-to-day with no other changes. (I'm just doing road tuning with log files/mixture map mostly). Once I switched to the Link module, I wasn't changing the same cells over and over each time, each drive had fewer and fewer changes to incorporate, and it ran much much better.
If you're paying for dyno time and expecting the ECU to work well, it's a waste of money not just buying the right bit of kit ASAP and trying to "make the most" of the rubbish you've currently got.

I agree compelely with @koracing - sell that AEM gauge off to some other unsuspecting person who won't ever be hooking it up to an ECU, and get a Link CAN Lambda module ASAP.
 
I honestly spent days fiddling around, tuning and retuning the same areas of the table over and over as it would be totally different day-to-day with no other changes. (I'm just doing road tuning with log files/mixture map mostly). Once I switched to the Link module, I wasn't changing the same cells over and over each time, each drive had fewer and fewer changes to incorporate, and it ran much much better.
If you're paying for dyno time and expecting the ECU to work well, it's a waste of money not just buying the right bit of kit ASAP and trying to "make the most" of the rubbish you've currently got.

Personally I wouldn't let a 7 year old wideband put your 2023 tuning efforts at risk.

I think its a great feature being able to compare two tune files and having the differences highlighted to easily scan over everything.
But one area I find it lacking is in the tables such as fuel and ignition. Currently you're just presented with black/yellow numbers within red cells (or whatever colour you change your "highlight" theme to) and it's very difficult to quickly (and comfortably) read the values that have changed, and by how much.
It would be nice to have a "heat map" style similar to the mixture map sceen where the colours change based on how different the new value is from the old value and relative to other changes.

It's also likely to change every time you drive the car, too...  I spent days chasing my tail with it, until I ripped it out and replaced it with a Link CAN Lambda.

You can use any brand of wideband controller, so long as it outputs an analogue signal, or via CANBUS and the protocol is known.
However, the Link one is one of the best in my opinion. It talks bi-directionally to the ECU, doesn't heat the sensor until the car is running (prolonging sensor life), informs the ECU if it detects any failures, is a fully digital signal, so no conversion inaccuracies, very quick (I think I read here it transmits 100 updates per second, it certainly updates the values very quickly).
 

You're going to have to give us some more info then.
How is the module powered?
How are the CAN wires connected to the ECU?
Share a copy of your .pclx configuration as it is currently.
 
They're very simple devices, that only require 4 wires connecting, and a pretty simple configuration if you follow the well-written instructions. There's got to be something obvious that's being missed somewhere.

On one hand I agree the base maps as provided by Link are far from the best base calibrations I've used.  On the other hand, I've worked to develop my own base maps that gives customers a reason to choose me as their dealer and tuner.  If the base calibrations were good to go without much adjustment, people would tend to buy the ecus and possibly never seek out professional tuning help.  This could lead to very bad results and ultimately Link would be the likely target of any blame for a poor result.  By providing "startup only" tunes they force the end user to find a competent tuner - or to find these forums and seek help here - so that someone with more experience can get involved and help them go through all the necessary parameters.  This seems like the more conservative strategy and should - in the end - provide a better result.  Link gives out tuning aid free of charge here if you have specific questions to ask which is far more than most ecu manufacturers do.

Add to that, if the value the ECU is thinking it's seeing from the rubbish old AEM sensor is different to what is on its own display, then the engine isn't actually running at the lambda it thinks it is.
I've just swapped one of these out on a car here for the exact same reason - the Link CAN Lambda was a breeze to install (I added the 22uF capacitor as per the alternative wiring diagram) and it's all substantially better now! I'm no longer fighting the readings on a daily basis!

Both can work very well and can acheive smooth and fast arrest of wheel slip. 
The G4+ was a lot more basic, it could only apply retard and cut proportionally with each other at the same time for torque reduction.  G4X torque reduction is more sophisticated with a dedicated torque management function.  So the ecu can estimate how much torque the engine is making and achieve the required reduction using a mixture of retard, cuts, e-throttle & closed loop boost control.  It will initially use retard, then cut to arrest slip since these have immediate effect on torque, but also initiate reduction of throttle and boost at the same time, when these slower moving torque reduction methods catch up the cuts and retard will be removed or reduced.  This allows less reliance on cuts and retard which can be quite hard on the engine especially in cases such as a wet endurance race where your TC may be working hard for hours. 
G4+ only had 2 slip tables, G4X has 2 slip tables and an overlay table, and you can also add a GP PWM to one axis of one of the tables if you want to add further control dimensions.  
G4X has further improvements to the slip sources also - for example it can be set up to use the "outside wheel" (uses the on board acclerometers to determine which way the car is cornering) for the driving wheel speed source which works better for some types of diffs.  It can also switch between two different wheel speed calibrations if for example you have different sized wet and dry tyres or drag/road tyres etc.
 

Yep, an existing Traditional mode fuelling table won't be much help.
You could however look at one of the existing base maps, from memory the Atom base map is in Modelled Mode, this should get you a rough starting point to get you up and going.

You can use the current one via analogue input, but expect unreliable results.
The newer X-Series is better with the CANBUS connection, but a Link CAN Lambda module would be much better overall.
Then you can consider a CANBUS gauge if you still feel the need to see data, but you'll get more than just the lambda output.

because the throttles are linked in pairs, there's not much i can really do about it. I did get it within 1/4th of a point by carefully scraping away the factory throttle sealing paste. 

Hi Vaugan 
Basicly i should allow everything you mentioned. 
Export.DBC file with channel names, unot etc. So it can imported in another software. A typical application is a custom dash stream. Setup all channels on ecu > export .DBC > import on AIM Racestudio > select new stream in Race studio in config > Done ✔️
Import: 
Again with the Dash example
Setup the CAN output stream on Race Studio > Export .DBC in Race Studio > Import to PC link > PC Link opens a Mapping Window to map the AIM naming to a PC LINK Can Input channel. Naming should taken over from the .DBC (e.g. CAN Input - AIM name). This would make it much easier to setup custom streams between CAN devices. It's in fact for what .DBC files habe been invented. It works really good between different Mfg. Devices. With Enumerations plane text can be assigned to channel numbers. So for example for fault code count, the enumeration text is shown on the dash when a fault is active instead of just a number. Makes it 300% more user friendly. 
Where I also see very big potential is syncing everything between LINK ECU and PDM whith DBC. In- and export. So the naming is right in the datalog. Means it shows something like "PDM HP 1  - Fuel Pump". ATMO we only see PDM HP 1 in PC link and need to check the calibration on the pdm to know whats connected there. 
On a a later stage idealy Link is aible to generate new channels and can take over 1:1 everything from the .dbc. File. ( think thats what you meant by Dash style). I usually define all my reverse engineering findings in a DBC editor. Once done I import the .DBC into the can device. An in theory everything should work straight forrward. 
It would be very useful if there is a CAN sniffer function on PC link and PDM Link So signals can be spot, defined in the .dbc and ploted in PC Link. Thats whats needed for reverse engineering. And is the feature. Or I should sayn it's now, because everything works with CAN nowadays.  In a perfect world there is a test transmit function also, to send byte streams to the bus (usually to test if something is activated trough the oem bus) 
I will send you much more ideas and feedback as usual via mail.
BR Adrian, Maptec

I've recently picked up a G4X, as well as having my existing G4+.
I was wondering if I could make use of the some of the advanced features of the G4X, such as long-term Closed Loop Lambda, to improve my G4+'s tune.
If I were to use Modelled Mode, enter the same injector data, target lambda, charge temp approximation etc, could I run the G4X in the vehicle, flesh out the fuelling table, then apply this to the G4+ and have a reasonable result?
I appreciate things like warmup, throttle transients, wall wetting etc may not translate, but the raw fuelling table - would that be close enough?
Or, does the G4X calculate fuelling fundamentially differently to the G4+, and I'd be wasting my time, and it'd be better to just stick with doing it the "normal way" in the G4+ with logs + Mixture Map?

Yes I would expect the VE tables would be reasonably interchangeable.    

You should use CANBUS/AEMNET for your X-Series AFR gauge, this will give you substantially more accurate fuelling data - the analog outputs on AEM wideband devices are notoriously terrible and inaccurate - the newer ones less so, but as the one you have supports CANBUS, you should totally do this - which also frees up an analog input for other purposes.
Your Flex Fuel sensor (assuming it's the actual sensor itself, and not via some dodgy 3rd party gauge/controller) only requires a single Digital Input into the ECU - plus power, of course.
Your boost solenoid requires an output, this can be a spare Injector or Ignition output, or a generic Aux output. The other side of the solenoid should be powered by a switched power source, such as a relay triggered by the ignition switch or main relay)
Your fuel pump(s), if you want to run them staged, will require an output similar to the boost solenoid - again, these switch ground, into a suitable relay where the other side of the coil is powered from a switched power source.

For anyone following here, I've been talking to Wheelspk on Facebook, where he also posted the same questions.
From that log, I've suggested the following:

If I remove my thought of having two separate output styles for under temperature and over temperature, then I've found a way to make it work kind of as expected, in that I can have a solid output if I have a Pressure issue, and a pulsing output if I have a Temperature issue.

 
Obviously, the actual values will vary and these are just examples - these haven't been used on a vehicle yet.
 
I had to shuffle some Virtual Aux around as only 1-3 are available for use as an axes parameter for a table. I guess there's no chance we'll ever get an update to allow the use of VA4-8 for this purpose?
 
Is there a way to get a Timer to constantly repeat without doing what I'm doing with Virtual Aux 5? I found this concept in another thread here on the forum.