carabuser knows a lot more than me, but this is my take.
I 100% agree using the INA0S PID tables without change is the right approach. I did the same, and it wasnt too hard to get the boost on target. IMHO, messing too much with the PID tables is asking to make this way harder than it should be.
Per V8Bait's guide, having PID upwardly adjusting WGDC is far more preferable than having PID downwardly adjusting it. The latter can lead to overboot, throttle closures, and other DME interventions to try and dial things back. I have had the best luck trying to keep WGDC base 3% or so below WGDC after PID. So in the cells that WGDC is over WGDC after PID (or too close), need to pull back base. If you can get base in the ballpark, the INA0S PID tables will do the rest.
Adder does matter too, as well as some other tables in the boost control section. For adder, what worked best for me was a kind of general pattern where adder increases as MAF increases. You will find that to hit the same boost target at higher MAFs takes more WGDC, and doing it all in the base table doesnt really work great. It is a global adder to WGDC based on MAF.
I look at requested MAF + boost setpoint to find the cell to adjust based on the log. For example, in the below you can see you need to remove some base.
You can get a 'flat' boost target, but there are a lot of different tables that influence the shape of the curve. I wouldnt get fixated on an absolute boost value as that pretty much discards the load logic built into the DME (which strives to keep engine output consistent under different conditions). 18psi at 0*F isnt the same as 18psi at 100*F, and IAT isnt the only factor that affects target.
I 100% agree using the INA0S PID tables without change is the right approach. I did the same, and it wasnt too hard to get the boost on target. IMHO, messing too much with the PID tables is asking to make this way harder than it should be.
Per V8Bait's guide, having PID upwardly adjusting WGDC is far more preferable than having PID downwardly adjusting it. The latter can lead to overboot, throttle closures, and other DME interventions to try and dial things back. I have had the best luck trying to keep WGDC base 3% or so below WGDC after PID. So in the cells that WGDC is over WGDC after PID (or too close), need to pull back base. If you can get base in the ballpark, the INA0S PID tables will do the rest.
Adder does matter too, as well as some other tables in the boost control section. For adder, what worked best for me was a kind of general pattern where adder increases as MAF increases. You will find that to hit the same boost target at higher MAFs takes more WGDC, and doing it all in the base table doesnt really work great. It is a global adder to WGDC based on MAF.
I look at requested MAF + boost setpoint to find the cell to adjust based on the log. For example, in the below you can see you need to remove some base.
You can get a 'flat' boost target, but there are a lot of different tables that influence the shape of the curve. I wouldnt get fixated on an absolute boost value as that pretty much discards the load logic built into the DME (which strives to keep engine output consistent under different conditions). 18psi at 0*F isnt the same as 18psi at 100*F, and IAT isnt the only factor that affects target.