[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by radz28

You could just use the COMPARE feature, too, and copy a lot of stuff over. I've found that having a second window for VVE/VTT is helpful, but for what it seems like he had before, it's probably not necessary to change those much, if any. I think using the COMPARE feature would make it a lot easier to see the exact changes, too. It will also show differences in scaling. E.G. I've changed the SPARK tables by lowering the RPMs from 8000 (I think that was stock) to about 7000, because I don't rev/shift much past around 6500. So - the lowering to 7000, that left a few open columns to which I interpolated where there were bigger jumps, like after peak torque (i.e. where the gaps in RPMs were larger, like around 5400-6200 RPMs). So - those larger jumps were split-up a little more.

Quick question, radz28: if there are fewer rpm columns (aka lower resolution) in a table, doesn't the ECM already do linear interpolation? Say, if you only have a 1000 rpm and a 3000 rpm column, the values at 2000 rpm would be computed and fall right between the 1k and 3k column values, right?

If yes, what other smoothing can you by achieve by inserting more columns (increasing the resolution)? Do you do bilinear or bicubic manually, or something else? I thought these extra columns were to allow the injection of necessary nonlinearity to begin with, otherwise you could have one value at 0 rpm and another one at 7500 rpm and you'd be done.