PID Timeout

keninger

Specialist
Sep 11, 2018
59
10
0
Ride
335i E92 N54
I was under the impression that PID timeout occurs based on Boost mean since the PID calculations are based on boost mean, but even though I have boost mean a bit above boost target, PID times out anyways. Only boost is under target slightly, so I assume timeout is based on boost and not boost mean. Is there a way to disable PID timeout? Or have a workaround it? If I remember correctly the upcoming xdf update will contain PID timeout-related parameters.

Datazap Log
 

keninger

Specialist
Sep 11, 2018
59
10
0
Ride
335i E92 N54
How Did you set your wgdc base adder and ceiling ?
This is how it looks

wgdc.jpg
 

mj6234

Private
Nov 25, 2020
33
3
0
It looks to me like your base isn't nearly high enough. PID is adding a lot of WGDC. Looks like 10%+ for most of the pull. I think the PID times out when after some period of time it can't adjust upward as much as it wants to - although I dont know exactly how much time and how far off. I would do another log and log p factor and post it. I guarantee your it is extremely positive.

I had the best luck trying to keep base the lowest and have some upward adjustment with PID, but no more than maybe 5-7%. I believe the adder is being added after the PID is applied. You can see even after PID times out, the bank 1 WGDC is the base + the adder at that point. Anyway, it may seem like it doesnt make sense if you are hitting target, but the PID timeout isnt really about hitting target (at least directly).
 

mj6234

Private
Nov 25, 2020
33
3
0
Is there a reason to reduce the ceiling? I’m genuinely curious as I keep my ceiling at 25-30
Based on your adder tables, I assume that will make 0 difference. I thought all the WGDC Ceiling (Adder) tables did was limit how much adder was applied based on the adder table. That sure seemed to be how they worked from my testing. I see my adder is greater than my ceiling in the 250 cell, so that probably doesnt make sense, but a trivial difference.

These are my tables that work well at a range of loads up to 21psi (tested so far). I redid pretty much everything and hit most all cells in there. No driveability issues or throttle closures on my setup.

1618188524677.png
 
Last edited:

KClemente

Corporal
Nov 26, 2019
124
69
0
Ride
E90 335i
Based on your adder tables, I assume that will make 0 difference. I thought all the WGDC Ceiling (Adder) tables did was limit how much adder was applied based on the adder table. That sure seemed to be how they worked from my testing. I see my adder is greater than my ceiling in the 250 cell, so that probably doesnt make sense, but a trivial difference.

These are my tables that work well at a range of loads up to 21psi (tested so far). I redid pretty much everything and hit most all cells in there. No driveability issues or throttle closures on my setup.

View attachment 51500
What’s your boost request offset looking like? I always have high MAF REQ wgdc % in my logs (500+)
 

mj6234

Private
Nov 25, 2020
33
3
0
What’s your boost request offset looking like? I always have high MAF REQ wgdc % in my logs (500+)

I would expect at 22psi I would get somewhere around 460. This is my BRO. I had to mess with this one a lot to change the target, especially around 3000 - 3500 RPM. It also greatly affects the fueling calculations and I had to go back and revise the scalar quite a bit (via trial and error). Lower = higher target but the fuel calculation asks for less fuel.

1618190574882.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: KClemente

impuls

Specialist
Jan 28, 2018
92
60
0
Ride
'07 335i
Is there a reason to reduce the ceiling? I’m genuinely curious as I keep my ceiling at 25-30
According to the function description the WGDC Adder (Ceiling) is limiting the amount of WGDC that can be added by PID and other corrections.
It makes a lot of sense to keep WGDC Adder (Ceiling) low to avoid that PID will raise your WGDC to the moon in case of a boost leak or some other issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KClemente