And why is that? E-Sys and the car don't care about the names/descriptions. It's the memory address and values that matters and is what is sent to the car, not the descriptive text. You said you created an NCD tool so you should know this better than any of us.

Same goes true to the person claiming that failure to read coding data is caused by this trimmed CAFD file. That is pure BS. "Negative Response" is your car not replying to an invalid parameters/requests.

All of you claiming that BMW is doing this in response to proliferation of E-Sys, PSdZdata and every other tools need to clam up. You are giving BMW less credit than they deserve. Trimming CAFD is a very weak action and does not align with their security strategy. In the grand scheme of things, none of these matters. None of these is a threat to them. You do realize that F-series is way over the cusps at this point. It's too late to do anything if they feel threatened, which they are not. It is very easy for BMW to curb or even completely limit the use of E-Sys/PSdZdata outside of the BMW Organization right from the get go, yet, they did nothing. I could be more specific but I'd rather not.

So, stop speculating if you don't want to help, if you don't know how to help, or if you know nothing.

My friend, I know enough.
So do not tell me about process of coding.

What will you do when the new release control units?
Or will be upgraded old, with different addresses, encoding parameters?

You already everyone helped, and now try remedy the situation - maybe invent something, you're smart guy.

p.s. Maybe in the future, FAFP will also be trimmed.

The future is already here:

VadimAA said:

...
p.s. Maybe in the future, FAFP will also be trimmed.

Click to expand...

what psdzdata are you using?

That FAFP is from 54.3.

is it just an example file, or did you actually read it out?

It is not an example.

It is FP Generated from 54.3.

Oh yeah. I did not pay attention. Just assumed logically.

fafp_00000270.fap.001_001_119.xml http://f-bit.ru/561849

shawnsheridan said:

The future is already here:

View attachment 483114

Click to expand...

i haven't got the 54.3 psdzdata yet, but as soon as i get it i will take a look at it. i still hope they released a version which contains errors and is fixed with the next update.

No, it is not mistake. It is war.

CODING... :violent:

VadimAA said:

No, it is not mistake. It is war.

Click to expand...

dead coding ((((

Tested now a downgrade flash from 54.3 to 52.x
Result was, although i had now old cafd in NBT, CAFD were not readable
Only older psdzdata helped to make the same old CAFD readable.

Of course, because cafd-files on newest psdzdata are trimmed versions.

hanselino said:

Tested now a downgrade flash from 54.3 to 52.x
Result was, although i had now old cafd in NBT, CAFD were not readable
Only older psdzdata helped to make the same old CAFD readable.

Click to expand...

i took a look at the 54.3 data and compared it to the 54.2 data. it seems that the older versions are trimmed. some files with newer numbers have the same size like the 54.2 files. has someone tried a car with the 54.3 data programmed and then read it out? it could be that the older files are trimmed and only the newest are ok. i need to compare the files next week.

or we need to copy the old files over the newer files and replace them.

I will flash my car to 54.3 as soon as I get the psdzdata.

Look, and you will see first few CAFD that are 425 kb in 54.0 and 54.1 are trimmed to 12 kb in 54.2 and 54.3:

TSTE1982 said:

i took a look at the 54.3 data and compared it to the 54.2 data. it seems that the older versions are trimmed. some files with newer numbers have the same size like the 54.2 files. has someone tried a car with the 54.3 data programmed and then read it out? it could be that the older files are trimmed and only the newest are ok. i need to compare the files next week.

Click to expand...

but it seems that only the older versions are affected.

It was not so clear, because logical was that with 54.3 all new cafd s up from 54.3 have trimmed files, nobody said that also older cafd which normaly related to older psdzdata are affected in 54.3
Now i know it and its good to see in shawns comparison.

But not all cafd are affected, in my case older cafd from fem was not trimmed as NBT

ap90500 said:

Of course, because cafd-files on newest psdzdata are trimmed versions.

Click to expand...

Correct. Not every thing is trimmed, at least not yet...

hanselino said:

It was not so clear, because logical was that with 54.3 all new cafd s up from 54.3 have trimmed files, nobody said that also older cafd which normaly related to older psdzdata are affected in 54.3
Now i know it and its good to see in shawns comparison.

But not all cafd are affected, in my case older cafd from fem was not trimmed as NBT

Click to expand...