What to capture

Post by **linuxkidd** » 2005 Aug 10 13:05

Ok.. I think we need to come up with a series of capture requests.

Event specific.

Matter of fact, I'll put together a form that has details to be filled in for the request.

Just thought of this, give me a few..

05MagnumRT · Post by **05MagnumRT** » 2005 Aug 10 19:54

I think that this is a great idea. We should have a plan of events to capture that will narrow down the device to ID mapping. Once we have that, we'll be able to come up with a plan to generate crap-loads of messages for a particular device (or set of devices) and try to map what they mean.

One dumb question: In the logs that you guys have made so far, are those only CAN-B devices included? Or are we seeing traffic from CAN-C as well?

Post by **linuxkidd** » 2005 Aug 10 21:09

05MagnumRT wrote:One dumb question: In the logs that you guys have made so far, are those only CAN-B devices included? Or are we seeing traffic from CAN-C as well?

CAN-B only... I'm tapping into the Sirius lines, I'm thinking that Codekey's capture is the same. (These are the only two captures I've seen?? Am I missing some? )

CAN-C data doesn't flow over CAN-B at all. The data we're seeing that corresponds to Speed and Tach... I'm thinking that this is probably converted by the FCM ( Front Control module ) and placed on the bus for those devices that care... There could be other data translated by the FCM as well, not sure yet.

I know for certain that CAN-B and CAN-C run at different speeds... ( Which makes sense... You'd want your critical systems running at a much higher speed ).

CAN-C is on the agenda, but it's down the road just a bit at this point. I think some of the work MadMax is doing with his demo board ( with Microcontroller ) will help us be able to capture this higher speed data.

05MagnumRT · Post by **05MagnumRT** » 2005 Aug 11 10:55

OK, that's what I thought, but I realized while writing that previous post that I was making that assumption and that perhaps I shouldn't.

RadarmagneT · Post by **RadarmagneT** » 2005 Aug 12 00:42

I think some of the basic car components would be easiest to map. From signal switches to EVIC operations, document these events.

If for nothing else, having these can eliminate lots of unneeded information when specifically looking for less "common" devices or custom devices.

BTW, I would love to see display on the EVIC because it's more common than the LCD panel... and I don't have the display

05MagnumRT · Post by **05MagnumRT** » 2005 Aug 15 12:01

RadarmagneT wrote:I think some of the basic car components would be easiest to map. From signal switches to EVIC operations, document these events.

If for nothing else, having these can eliminate lots of unneeded information when specifically looking for less "common" devices or custom devices.

BTW, I would love to see display on the EVIC because it's more common than the LCD panel... and I don't have the display

I agree 100% with this. (Right down to "I'd like to mess with the EVIC display because I don't have a NAV radio"

)

BrilliantBlackHemi · Post by **BrilliantBlackHemi** » 2005 Aug 15 22:35

I'd like to see us able to add more diagnostic screens to the EVIC or figure out how the stupid TempRAW and TempAVG works so we can recalibrate our temp readouts that always seem 5 deg high or more.