Suggestions for label improvements

Hi Ross-Tech Crew,

I encountered a few interesting things regarding coding labels over the past months that I would like to share.
Propably some of this information could be incorporated in any next release...

Audi A6/A7 4G, door units


This is a long lasting struggle that there are still no coding labels.
A possible solution could be to take the experimental labels from an Audi B9 chassis. These do fit! At least up to byte 4 or so from what I can judge.
Besides the coding labels from Audi A4/A5 8K/8T chassis do also fit, at least for the most basic things like retrofitting some illumination or mirror stuff.



Audi A4/A5/A6/A7 4G/8K/8T non-FL or FL, wiper subsystem


That is wrong.

I see people struggling for example with the deactivation of the so called tear wiping that is documented to be in Byte 1 Bit 3.
The truth is, that the label file 5QX-955-119-V1.CLB which is used for example in Audi A3 8V subsystems does fit better as the tear wiping does reside in Byte 2 Bit 5.
Maybe you could re-investigate that.



All VAG cars with non-UDS Seat memory module (MEM-FS)


These modules were put in Audis or even VW T6 Transporters without any label file and no experimental information as they speak only CAN.
A possible solution is available.
The experimental coding labels from the very new UDS Seat Memory modules in MLBevo cars like Touareg 3 do fit!

It seems that VAG just put the UDS layer over the existing modules without having the coding changed.
There are more bits in the new modules. But putting the new coding label over the old module actually did help me with some coding already...

This does not apply to MQB Seat memory modules.



--------------

There might be some more glitches in the VAG coding universe but these are the ones that came to my attention again and again...
I do not have any proof that really every bit does fit according to my assumptions above, but it seems to be legit.

Cheers

I like the ideas, but I struggle to find a way to how reliably detect stuff like the seat memory module. Going by the reported part name might be a solution, but not a very reliable one, as even an additional space in the end could make the logic fail. However this could be trim()'d...

In the end I have no idea how to approach this except for the obviously wrong label file for the wiper subsystem...
Taking the experimental labels from the UDS modules and putting them into a "normal" label file for their former CAN derivates does make them semi-experimental as long as there is no car for extended testing...

I'd like to say that the wiper subsystem for Audi is still associated with the wrong label file.

Moving this to VCDS Support from the more generic Product Support.

@Dana.. @Sebastian ...

-Uwe-

hadez16 said:

I'd like to say that the wiper subsystem for Audi is still associated with the wrong label file.

Click to expand...

Sorry about that! I missed this entirely when it was a current thread. I have used this method (comparing newer MLBevo EXP coding to old undocumented CAN MLB modules) in the past and it is usually accurate, or at the least a great sanity check when looking for something simple like ACC door latch coding.

I'll make sure this wiper subsystem is on the radar for our next label file meeting and verify that we got all of those 4G door modules redirected.

Thanks for the input and your suggestions. The door control modules have been a work in progress due to several different variants being available which has an influence on coding, meas. values etc. The incorrect assignment of the RLS coding data is also based on different variants with similar part numbers. I'll review the situation and will implement a fix. As far as the seat memory modules go, yes these have been around for a while, yet we had ZERO inquiries for this as far as I can tell and I simply put that at the end of the queue. Also, based on the documentation available to me - while similar, the coding is NOT identical to the newer UDS modules.