Reaction time for key fob long press.

[swenak]

Hi,

is in VCDS possible to change reaction time, that is needed to accept key fob press as long press? In VCP it is possible by changing adresses 1120, 1121, 1222 (DEC) in BCM.

Thanks.

 

[Uwe]

What car? What BCM?

Please post an Auto-Scan for context!

-Uwe-

 

[swenak]

Hi,

it is general question, but BCM in my car is 1K0937086M, car MK6 Golf GTI. My question is based on this post (it is in Polish language, so translator is needed :-) ):

https://forum.golf6.pl/mk6-retrofitting/skladanie-lusterek-z-poziomu-pilota-t159-82.html

Thanks, Peter

 

[stefdds]

Folding mirrors from the remote control​

Moderator: BRUNO55

Forum rulesRetrofitting the car, replacing it with newer elements / systems, installing assistants (Park Assist, Light Assis, ACC, etc.) - all modifications that improve functionality.

Remember:

1. Put questions, advice and suggestions unrelated to a given topic in a separate topic of the relevant department.
2. In the case of self-solution of the described problem, describe the method of its solution and the cause of its occurrence (if known to you).
3. Before creating a new topic, check (using the Search function ) if there is a thread describing the same problem, and if it does, continue the discussion in it.
4. At the same time, all the rules described in the Forum Regulations apply
5. If you get an answer to your question, give your praise - read here how to grant praise

Reply

169 posts • Page 4 of 7 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

• AUTHOR
• MESSAGE

Arek_VI
VIP

• 1318 posts
• Joined: Jun 26, 2012, 19:54
• Online:10d 16h 14m 40s
• Praise: 61
• Car: Golf VI
• Engine: TSI 122
• Location: Wroclaw

Re: Folding the mirrors from the remote control​

May 31, 2016, 16:52
Another effect that can be obtained when folding the mirrors with the remote control is the change of the reaction time to the remote control signal, which is normally 2 seconds. The reaction time can be changed practically any up or down (up to 6 seconds) and choose it according to your preferences.

We do the following:

In the VCP program we connect to the Central Electricity Module 09 (BCM). We set the engineer mode and enter the conditional access mode by entering the login: 42013
Then in the UP / Download option we read the addresses 1120, 1121, 1222 (DEC) of the controller's memory. The content of these addresses encodes the reaction time to the closing signal from the remote control. Next, write the values and close access to the controller. Ready.
The picture shows the reading of 8 bytes and the changed content of addresses 1120,1121,1122 to 08 (i.e. response time of about 0.8 seconds), which seems to be optimal for me. At the time 05, the reaction of the mirrors is almost instantaneous, which I did not like very much. Memory byte contents for individual reaction times: "FF" or "14" - 2 sec., "05" - 0.5 sec., "08" - 0 , 8 sec., "0A" - 1.5 sec., You can try to adjust the times experimentally.

Hi Peter,

The forum requests a Auto-Scan , I recommend you post one for a accurate analysis.

please note: >New Users, please read < click!

 

[Uwe]

^^^ Based on this, I'm gonna say, "Nope, not with VCDS."

-Uwe-

 

[swenak]

Thanks, this is what I asking for

 

[DV52]

^^^ Based on this, I'm gonna say, "Nope, not with VCDS."

-Uwe-

@Uwe: I'm conscious that I might be entering the territory of heresy (so I tread very-lightly) - but has Ross-Tech considered a version of VCDS that enables firmware changes?

Is the current impediment for such a product a fundamental conflict with the software/electrical design of VCDS - or is it more a philosophical matter (i.e. a desire to retain the scope of VCDS to its traditional functionality)?

Again, I don't mean to question decisions that are correctly those of Ross-Tech - I'm purely asking from a long-time user's perspective (because it seems to be an untouched market sector).

Don

 

[Uwe]

has Ross-Tech considered a version of VCDS that enables firmware changes?

This is not a "firmware change". This is changing arbitrary addresses in memory in a control module. Could we add code to do that? Sure. We actually had it for older, pre-UDS control modules but never gave ordinary users access to it. Why? The ones that wanted it most often wanted it for nefarious purposes that I don't want our tool used for, and then there is also the issue that a making this available to everyone would be like giving everyone a gallon of gasoline and a box of matches; it is very easy to "brick" a module by by making random changes to arbitrary memory locations, and my philosophy from early on was that I'd rather people messed up their control modules with some tool other than ours. That's not to say it's impossible to bugger things up with VCDS, but it's really quite rare that someone manages to do so.

-Uwe-

 

[swenak]

Thanks for this too. It is same question as, if gun is killing, or shooter is killing. Is gun manufactutrer responsible for shooter? Is facebook responsible for messages? I dont like your philosophy, but I respect it.

 

[DV52]

This is not a "firmware change". This is changing arbitrary addresses in memory in a control module. Could we add code to do that? Sure. We actually had it for older, pre-UDS control modules but never gave ordinary users access to it. Why? The ones that wanted it most often wanted it for nefarious purposes that I don't want our tool used for, and then there is also the issue that a making this available to everyone would be like giving everyone a gallon of gasoline and a box of matches; it is very easy to "brick" a module by by making random changes to arbitrary memory locations, and my philosophy from early on was that I'd rather people messed up their control modules with some tool other than ours. That's not to say it's impossible to bugger things up with VCDS, but it's really quite rare that someone manages to do so.

-Uwe-

@Uwe: I don't want to labor the point (ultimately it's Ross Tech's decision to make, of course).

However, whilst I can understand Ross-Tech's rationale in acting as a responsible and an ethical business - I wonder whether preempting our motives for using VCDS (nefarious, or otherwise) is entirely appropriate, or accurate (how does Ross Tech determine if this risk is of a sufficient magnitude to warrant the tail waging the dog?)

And yes, I must agree that indeed it is "easy to brick a module" with VCDS - but this can happen in any number of ways regardless of these missing features.

I would have thought that the overwhelming majority of VCDS users were adults and as such, we are capable of making their own decisions regarding how to use the device! And, more importantly we understand that users (and no one else) are accountable for their decisions!!

I recall your protests when others try to implement nanny rules (i.e. COVID, US Government) - I'm surprised when these same attributes appear in Ross-Tech products

I apologize if my response seems rude - it's not my intention - it just rancors when I'm told that I need someone else to decide what's in my best interest and whether I can be trusted with a technology!! And I suspect that ALL VCDS users will have similar views

But again - clearly Ross-Tech's decision and as per @swenak, I don't like it (albeit I too must respect it)!!

Don

 

[skunkworks]

It is quite different if you are the one that could be held liable when someone bricks their car.. Even if you win in a court of law - it was probably such a financial hit that it isn't worth it.

sam

 

[PetrolDave]

I totally understand Ross-Tech standpoint here, remember that in many countries (not just the US) there is now a culture of somebody (not me) must be at fault if I screw something up so I'll sue them. IMHO it simply isn't worth the risk to Ross-Tech.

 

[Bruce]

@DV52, It has been considered and argued many times at Ross-Tech. In the litigious world in which we live, it is far better to disappoint some then to run the risk of not being here for all.

Accept that there are limitations to what we will provide through VCDS. We are not the exclusive answer for all things VAG nor do we try to be. We are one of the best for diagnostic troubleshooting of VAG vehicles. We never intended our product for modifications of those vehicles. That it can be used for that purpose by those in the "know" is a benefit to the tool.

 

[Uwe]

I must agree that indeed it is "easy to brick a module" with VCDS - but this can happen in any number of ways regardless of these missing features.

No, actually it isn't, and in every case where we become aware that it is, we try to put explicit warnings in the software.

I recall your protests when others try to implement nanny rules (i.e. COVID, US Government) - I'm surprised when these same attributes appear in Ross-Tech products

There is a manifold, qualitative difference between "nanny rules" (restrictions) imposed by a government and the decisions of a private business regarding the products they're willing to sell and the features those products contain.

In the former case, the restrictions are universal, applying to everyone within that government's jurisdiction, and they enforced with the threat of violence and loss of other freedoms if you don't comply.

In the latter case, nobody is obligated to purchase a product that doesn't do what they want. I won't try to prevent some other business from offering a tool that has those capabilities. I'm not attempting to prevent people from editing arbitrary memory locations in their control modules, or changing the firmware therein. I will not come after you with a billy club or a gun if you do. I simply don't want the support headaches and liability of people doing those things with the tool we produce, nor would I be able to sleep well at night if VCDS was regularly used for nefarious purposes.

Then there is also the question: How much would adding a particular feature increase our sales, vs. how much of a cost would it incur in terms of support and customer dissatisfaction when they screw something up using that feature?

-Uwe-

 

[stefdds]

Thanks for this too. It is same question as, if gun is killing, or shooter is killing. Is gun manufactutrer responsible for shooter? Is facebook responsible for messages? I dont like your philosophy, but I respect it.

Here is a/the concern!

Jury Orders Ford to Pay $7 Million to Family of Mustang Crash Victim

The 19-year-old driver was allegedly unable to escape her Mustang after being struck by a pickup truck.

www.roadandtrack.com