MSS6x Flasher - Now released!

[omhl]

I also want to mention that I lifted the temperature RPM limiter as well to 8600. So thats not the issue.

I'm doing a full bin pull and see what addresses are actually being written by the Tune button. Maybe its something else.

On the mapping side of things:
I see a few tables with 8300 8300 8300.

And also some like 8300 7800 7600 7400 7200 7000. I'm suspecting that its coming from a standing limiter when front wheel speed sensor shows 0.

Probably looking for a 8x1 table similar to the 8x1 RPM PER Gear Table. Since N+7 gears for DCT.

UPDATE: yeah all the calibrations got written correctly. wonder if im missing something for dyno limiter.

[dpaul]

So I went to the dyno today but it seems like the RPM is redlines at 8300. Even though I modified it to 8600. I checked with ECUWorx tool to see if I did it correctly in tunerpro and it shows up as 8600rpm.

Is this because the RPM limiter is outside of the tune parameters and lives in the Program portion of it?

No, RPM limit tables are within the calibration (0da) data. There must be some other problem. Maybe Martyn can comment

[terra]

So I went to the dyno today but it seems like the RPM is redlines at 8300. Even though I modified it to 8600. I checked with ECUWorx tool to see if I did it correctly in tunerpro and it shows up as 8600rpm.

Is this because the RPM limiter is outside of the tune parameters and lives in the Program portion of it?

I did see a few places where there seemed to be a hard coded rpm limit, but it also seemed like said limit was at 9k RPM

[omhl]

So I went to the dyno today but it seems like the RPM is redlines at 8300. Even though I modified it to 8600. I checked with ECUWorx tool to see if I did it correctly in tunerpro and it shows up as 8600rpm.

Is this because the RPM limiter is outside of the tune parameters and lives in the Program portion of it?

[terra]

ALL OF THE ABOVE SAID, casual inspection of the flasher code does not reveal a reason why 200E program version should not be acceptable, although I could have missed it.

If you were able to get a full read, what step did you try that failed? What error message do you get?

The only thing I could think of is if he is not actually on 200E, which would mean that using the ZIF to determine the current program version isn't reliable (I figured it would be since WinKFP uses that for the check).

[alfalfa]

Would you mind uploading your 200E read? I'd like to compare it to the 240E reads I have.

Same here. :-)

[Martyn]

Sorry, not trying to clog up the forum post, is there a method to upgrade the dme program version myself or does the dealership have to do?

Was able to still get a full read. But Cannot proceed beyond this step with 200e.

Would you mind uploading your 200E read? I'd like to compare it to the 240E reads I have.

[dpaul]

ALL OF THE ABOVE SAID, casual inspection of the flasher code does not reveal a reason why 200E program version should not be acceptable, although I could have missed it.

If you were able to get a full read, what step did you try that failed? What error message do you get?

[dpaul]

Sorry, not trying to clog up the forum post, is there a method to upgrade the dme program version myself or does the dealership have to do?

Was able to still get a full read. But Cannot proceed beyond this step with 200e.

You have quite a bit of learning to do but it is a well trodden path and it is not difficult. There are many threads on multiple forums describing how to set up and use the software you will need.

1) You should start by installing BMW Standard Tools, which will include a program called WinKFP that can be used to flash the upgrade from 200E to 241E. You can get a link to Standard Tools at bimmergeeks.net/downloads.

2) You will also need to download a reasonably current SP-daten, which contains the program and calibration files that WinKFP will flash - again, links available at the bimmergeeks site. You'll only need to download the E89 daten, which needs to be installed using "BMW Coding Tool" - Bimmergeeks includes it in the BMW Standard Tools download in the EC-APPS->CodingTool directory.

3) You MUST have the proper cable or you will brick your DME - Terra has described this at length. You can either buy the cable from Bimmergeeks or modify one that you get from ebay or some other source. Likely far easier for you to just buy it - $45.

If you've gotten that far, do not start with WinKFP- first verify your installation is correct using INPA to read some information from your vehicle. Again, there are many threads describing how to set up Standard Tools and use INPA, NCSExpert and WinKFP. Ask for help if you need it but try searching first.

[Bdeberrye92]

Because your DME probably is on 200E, 240/241E is the latest.

Sorry, not trying to clog up the forum post, is there a method to upgrade the dme program version myself or does the dealership have to do?

Was able to still get a full read. But Cannot proceed beyond this step with 200e.

[Martyn]

Why do I get a 200E program version when I load up the flasher and click identify dme?

Because your DME probably is on 200E, 240/241E is the latest.

[Bdeberrye92]

Why do I get a 200E program version when I load up the flasher and click identify dme?

[omhl]

awesome thanks terra!

[MSSAddict]

terra Thank you

[terra]

You have to read your full binary then load the same full binary you just read then press RSA BYPASS SLOW. What it does is that it takes your FULL BIN you just read and changes some values for checksum. I actually compared the read before and after RSA bypass so I know the full binary gets changed after the bypass. From what I read from past, the way the algo tricking works is that checksums runs for x amount of time on a section of the program space - all the rsa bypass does is it tricks it into calculating it correctly until time runs out?

RSA Bypass Fast is fine too. End result should be the same. I might remove the slow option, but there are a couple rare scenarios where it's helpful

If you are going to be writing full programs in future , you will need to do another full read to get the full binary with RSA bypass intact in your read. Your original full read will not have the RSA bypass.
I would do it just to have a backup anyways.

Actually no, the program will check for evidence of an RSA bypass before flashing a full file, and if there already is one, it will patch the binary in memory before flashing it. The only reason I have to have a separate RSA patch function at all is because I have to deliberately use an incorrect checksum for the program section to get the RSA bypass to be accepted on a stock DME. I could patch out that checksum check I suppose (which would make the RSA bypass super fast), but I don't like the idea of doing that.

Otherwise, you can work off your partial binary and flash tunes. cuz your not working in the program space anymore.

At least this is from what I understand.

Yeah if you're not messing with fulls, you shouldn't have to touch it again.