2015 Is here!!! What would you like to see added to future software?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • SnapOnKid
    Senior Member
    • Jan 2011
    • 870

    2015 Is here!!! What would you like to see added to future software?

    Hoping that some of you have at least tried the 14.4 update if you have not already purchased it on your own equipment.

    I for one, am tired of seeing new scanners and gimmicks every year and prefer to see the money invested in software development. I would also like to see the dealers or the Tech reps be more knowledgeable at trying to sale the updates as well as the scan tools.

    For the most part, I believe alot what has been asked for in new features and software coverage both new and backfill has been added. Although I have found a few bugs and had issues with the hardware...

    1. No offense to the Support groups out there that Snap on sometimes listens to and sometimes doesn't. But what How's your latest updates been treating you???

    2. How do the Gimmicks and new Scan tools make you feel???

    3. What would you like to see added that is not currently in the 14.4 Update???

    4. Is anything missing or possibly got lost since the 14.4 update???


    Let's discuss!!!
  • Witsend
    Banned
    • Nov 2012
    • 2942

    #2
    Verus becomes a Laptop based OE software based Information system

    Snap on could continue to sell the scanners like they have for individuals use, but for large shops with deep pockets, Like buying a John Bean alignment Rack investment , a large shop that can afford to have OE scanners, rather than Snap On paying for bones, bits , and pieces of the OE software and then having the software engineers try to change it ,so it is not plagiarized software , why can't Snap On just offer OE coverage , the customer's Vin is entered and the customer with a car 5 years old or older swipes his credit card for $50 and the Verus becomes a genuine , Tech 2 , DRB3, or whatever the F'n car make OE scanner is and the Verus becomes a bonafied OE factory scanner and shop manual , and Snap On splits each $50 customer charge with the OE manufacturer of the car, because sooner or later I believe any Bi directional will have to go through built in vehicle scanner, maybe the size of a credit card that will be incorporated into a touch screen display head of almost every new vehicle, and other than the dealer servicing the cars . Maybe allowed pulling codes and viewing data , and aftermarket will be locked out of doing bi directional control testing unless owner or shop pays the OE to unlock the vehicle's on board Factory Scanner's Bi directional capabilities.
    Last edited by Witsend; 01-05-2015, 04:02 PM.

    Comment

    • Steve6911
      Moderator
      • Feb 2007
      • 2168

      #3
      James
      I really don't think that would work. Know that the manufacturers don't want us working on their cars or splitting their profits with anyone Look at Chrysler, since the DRB3 they have come out with 4 scan tools and they are dropping support on the older ones. Nissan has never been aftermarket friendly and Euro's are even worse! Also the fact that several makes now offer short term subscriptions that can be used with a J-box or a 3rd party interface. S.O. is not perfect but neither is OE. It took me 2 nights with BMW tech support to get ISTA3 running, then the next time I needed it the Diagnostic portion would not work. After a whole day of going back and forth with tech support it was a software error (Their error!). They wanted me to Delete my version, PAY for another sub, then download the new version and set it all up again. Can you imagine the mess that would make if Snap-on was selling the software and that happened! The forums would be overloaded with Flaming posts. Other considerations some OE software don't play well together, an example would be Hyundai and Kia OE software can not be on the same PC. Some OE software take a lot of Horsepower to run, like BMW, the Verus could not run that software with its present hardware and operating system. Also I have several OE scanners, they all have different interfaces that take time to learn. You must be willing to put the time in or they will be nothing more the a high priced code reader. S.O. scanners have pretty much the same style menu for most makes. It was a good idea "I" just don't think it would work well

      Steve
      Last edited by Steve6911; 01-29-2015, 01:33 PM.

      Comment

      • Witsend
        Banned
        • Nov 2012
        • 2942

        #4
        Thanks Steve , but I still think some ,especially European OE manufacturers are going to have thierOE scanner built right into cars, and central vehicle information display it and only allow the aftermarket to just pull codes and see basic data only from the16pin connector. They are going to argue that because the complicated nerve centers of Ultimate Driving Machine's network s can't be trusted to non trained factory technicians anymore, let alone a Slob that doesn't appreciate a car of such pedegree , no silk fender covers , standing there with an MGD in one hand and a Harbor Freight Chinese scanner in the other resetting their service codes in modules and using $6 a qt aftermarket synthetic lubricants when available instead the Genuine Synthetic stuff for $18-$50
        For a practical suggestion , I guess for now that the Snap On scanners already have improved graphing with faster sampling rates ,that I think the addition of a couple DVOM probe ports on the scanners be nice to have , and an extra long retractable cable , then you could go to front or back of vehicle , view volts or ohms in text , min and max values, and also graph the dvom readings of suspect component right next to the scanner pid of suspect component ,maybe even superimposing the 2 to see if they mirror one another .
        Last edited by Witsend; 01-29-2015, 04:36 PM.

        Comment

        • Crusty
          Senior Member
          • Dec 2007
          • 2450

          #5
          Cadillac has been doing this pretty much for 3 decades. No, it hasn't caught on. A bigger issue is the STANDARDIZATION of data pids, descriptions, test sequences, parameters, and all the other things such as bi-directional commands.
          All of the above are all over the map.
          At least with a SnapOn scanner, things generally tend to be presented in some standard formats so the semantics that could be streamlined to include both the OE-terminology as well as industry accepted terminology would be a step forward and benefit EVERYONE. OBD-II started this and it seems the OE manufacturers keep finding CLEVER WAYS TO CIRCUMVENT the dissemination of information to the hands on the bench, which is ultimately where the vehicle gets fixed.

          SnapOn KId, I really agree with this statement...
          ""I for one, am tired of seeing new scanners and gimmicks every year and prefer to see the money invested in software development.""

          ANOTHER "new" tool with a new name does Jack-Squat for true FUNCTIONALITY of delivering INFORMATION to the tech on the bench.

          Comment

          • Witsend
            Banned
            • Nov 2012
            • 2942

            #6
            At least with a SnapOn scanner, things generally tend to be presented in some standard formats so the semantics that could be streamlined to include both the OE-terminology as well as industry accepted terminology would be a step forward and benefit EVERYONE. OBD-II started this and it seems the OE manufacturers keep finding CLEVER WAYS TO CIRCUMVENT the dissemination of information to the hands on the bench, which is ultimately where the vehicle gets fixed.
            For example you might have to google or refer to the service information for BMW displays on the DS708 if you are not familiar with the module acronyms and code numbers meaning. See the BMW codes in first image related to fuel trim (doesn't say whether the trim issue is too rich or too lean ) and then the same codes displayed in the second image after I exited BMW and then pulled the Engine Codes in OBD2 mode.
            Attached Files
            Last edited by Witsend; 01-29-2015, 10:14 PM.

            Comment

            • Modis500
              Senior Member
              • Sep 2012
              • 358

              #7
              Output Controls/Functional Testing

              This question comes from watching a ScannerDannet video tonight. Paul makes note of the Functional Test in a '12 Cruze 1.8 with ECM controlled t-stat heater. Can someone explain why SnapOn would put a time limit on this test? Some tests make sense why they limit time, but I agree with Paul that it makes no sense to limit the time on this test. It is a PWM heater in the t-stat and goes in 10%increments. It appeared that Paul only had about 15 seconds to run his test, which in many cases may not be enough.
              So my question to SnapOn is: Can the software writers correct some of the output controls and change the time-out limit on some tests to a longer time period so we can do a longer test without cycling the key?
              "If you aim for nothing, you'll hit it every time!"
              Zig Ziglar

              Comment

              • Witsend
                Banned
                • Nov 2012
                • 2942

                #8
                output control time limit

                This question comes from watching a ScannerDannet video tonight. Paul makes note of the Functional Test in a '12 Cruze 1.8 with ECM controlled t-stat heater. Can someone explain why SnapOn would put a time limit on this test? Some tests make sense why they limit time, but I agree with Paul that it makes no sense to limit the time on this test. It is a PWM heater in the t-stat and goes in 10%increments. It appeared that Paul only had about 15 seconds to run his test, which in many cases may not be enough.
                So my question to SnapOn is: Can the software writers correct some of the output controls and change the time-out limit on some tests to a longer time period so we can do a longer test without cycling the key?
                __________________
                Simple answer is the less time the circuit is allowed to be turned on by Snap On Scanner, the less likely hood the software engineer will ever have to go to a product liability court deposition in the USA to answer lawyers questions directed at them in a Corporate Liability Witch Hunt . " Could the property damage or burns causing personal injury , personal suffering, and financial loss could have been avoided if the scanner test had a shorter time limit for the test to run?"
                If scanner was made is China , the software would probably be just copied OE stuff , so they would say just take it up with GM so it would be harder to prove culpability on their end for a quick settlement monetary pay out or award.
                "Just how was that poor mechanic to know that the customer put concentrated window washer solvent with a high alcohol content in the cooling system , and when the heater element started to glow red in the low coolant condition in the presence of air and alcohol vapors it caused an explosion and fire that was fed by an engine made mostly out of a lot of combustible plastic **** to burn as fuel. The mechanic tried to floor it out of the shop to do a" Stop, Drop, and Roll" of the POS GM product into the drainage ditch for the insurance money , but the fly by wire throttle wires were already toast, so car didnt move and the shop was toast.
                Last edited by Witsend; 02-03-2015, 08:34 AM.

                Comment

                • Joe Rappa
                  Snap-on DSD
                  • Aug 2007
                  • 2050

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Witsend
                  Simple answer is the less time the circuit is allowed to be turned on by Snap On Scanner, the less likely hood the software engineer will ever have to go to a product liability court deposition in the USA to answer lawyers questions directed at them in a Corporate Liability Witch Hunt . " Could the property damage or burns causing personal injury , personal suffering, and financial loss could have been avoided if the scanner test had a shorter time limit for the test to run?"
                  If scanner was made is China , the software would probably be just copied OE stuff , so they would say just take it up with GM so it would be harder to prove culpability on their end for a quick settlement monetary pay out or award.
                  "Just how was that poor mechanic to know that the customer put concentrated window washer solvent with a high alcohol content in the cooling system , and when the heater element started to glow red in the low coolant condition in the presence of air and alcohol vapors it caused an explosion and fire that was fed by an engine made mostly out of a lot of combustible plastic **** to burn as fuel. The mechanic tried to floor it out of the shop to do a" Stop, Drop, and Roll" of the POS GM product into the drainage ditch for the insurance money , but the fly by wire throttle wires were already toast, so car didnt move and the shop was toast.
                  Good Grief Witsend!!! Do you ever stop with the tin foil hat stuff? Not everything involves black helicopters and conspiracies.

                  The Snap-on scanner mirrors the Tech 2 on the Functional test cutoffs. I didn't believe it myself until I checked. Older GM vehicles let you turn the fuel pump on forever. Now it is just a few seconds. It would actually take additional programming to make a test cut off like that. In this specific case, the tool is merely accessing the test that is resident in the PCM.

                  Joe
                  "You don't build a reputation on what you're going to do"
                  Henry Ford

                  Comment

                  • Witsend
                    Banned
                    • Nov 2012
                    • 2942

                    #10
                    Good Grief Witsend!!! Do you ever stop with the tin foil hat stuff? Not everything involves black helicopters and conspiracies.

                    The Snap-on scanner mirrors the Tech 2 on the Functional test cutoffs. I didn't believe it myself until I checked. Older GM vehicles let you turn the fuel pump on forever. Now it is just a few seconds. It would actually take additional programming to make a test cut off like that. In this specific case, the tool is merely accessing the test that is resident in the PCM.
                    LOL, ok the mechanic's glove don't fit , so the case is dismissed.

                    Comment

                    • Modis500
                      Senior Member
                      • Sep 2012
                      • 358

                      #11
                      Joe,

                      Thanks for the info, and with you in some of Witsends comments! Might wanna lay off the MGD and the Internet stories... Anyways, I've always wondered how SnapOn came up with functional test parameters. Always learning something from the fellas on the forum!

                      Tom
                      "If you aim for nothing, you'll hit it every time!"
                      Zig Ziglar

                      Comment

                      • Crusty
                        Senior Member
                        • Dec 2007
                        • 2450

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Modis500
                        This question comes from watching a ScannerDannet video tonight. Paul makes note of the Functional Test in a '12 Cruze 1.8 with ECM controlled t-stat heater. Can someone explain why SnapOn would put a time limit on this test? Some tests make sense why they limit time, but I agree with Paul that it makes no sense to limit the time on this test. It is a PWM heater in the t-stat and goes in 10%increments. It appeared that Paul only had about 15 seconds to run his test, which in many cases may not be enough.
                        So my question to SnapOn is: Can the software writers correct some of the output controls and change the time-out limit on some tests to a longer time period so we can do a longer test without cycling the key?
                        There are some self protection limitations designed into the vehicles themselves. One example is limiting spark advance or vehicle speed or engine rpm when things go awry such as coolant overheat or oil pressure drops.
                        Which ones are built in and which ones are written by the scan tool test designers is probably a whole different ball game than what we see.
                        Fuel pump on time commanded by the ECM used to be almost unlimited as Joe says, but there could certainly be an undesirable condition burning out the pump if it was left to run without some control.

                        There ARE times when a skeptic wearing tin-foil-hats is bang on the money though. I'm a skeptic too usually. I've been lied to so many times over 40-plus years that I only believe half (or less) of what the Ivory Tower Corporations choose to tell us.
                        The "neck ties" as Dr-jake calls then have created skeptics by their own behavior. Is it any wonder that we NEED tin-foil hats-?? ROFLMAO
                        Lack of honesty and lack of practicing full disclosure is why the Lawyers in the USA probably make more money than all of us combined.

                        Comment

                        • Steve6911
                          Moderator
                          • Feb 2007
                          • 2168

                          #13
                          REALLY Joe?????

                          I just got my Foil Hat in the mail yesterday so I could understand what Witsend was saying. And now I don't need to watch out for the Black Helicopters either????

                          Just when I thought things were gonna get easier!!!

                          Comment

                          • Joe Rappa
                            Snap-on DSD
                            • Aug 2007
                            • 2050

                            #14
                            Sorry to wreck it for you Steve. We definitely have an interesting cast of characters here. I'm glad witsend never takes it personally when we beat him over some of his crazy posts. I suppose we all get our turn in that barrel anyway.

                            Joe
                            "You don't build a reputation on what you're going to do"
                            Henry Ford

                            Comment

                            • DKelly
                              Senior Member
                              • May 2008
                              • 118

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Modis500
                              So my question to SnapOn is: Can the software writers correct some of the output controls and change the time-out limit on some tests to a longer time period so we can do a longer test without cycling the key?
                              Hi Modis500, Crusty and Joe tried to explain this but perhaps I should jump in here since I am involved in the development of these tests. I watched the video and I am very familiar with this. During the test we send binary messages to the controller requesting the control of the device, in this case it was the ECM controlled thermostat. The ECM replies and allows us control. Sometimes during the test the conditions change and the ECM sends us a message disallowing the test. It has nothing to do with our request, it have everything to do with what is programmed into the ECM. When the ECM (or any other controller) sends us the message to disallow the test, this is called a device control limit message, it sends along with that message a reason code. Each reason code is clearly defined. We simply intercept the reason code, interpret the code and put the corresponding message up on the screen so that the user can understand why the ECM has just stopped allowing you control. Think of this one, you take control of the coolant fan and turn it off and the engine is still running. If the engine runs long enough it may overheat so GM programmed in device control logic to disallow control so you don't overheat the engine. This sends us a reason code that maps to the message "engine coolant too high". This actually makes our job simpler, we don't have to monitor engine conditions and script these tests accordingly. You can bet GM and other OEMs do this to limit warranty costs. I hope this explains to you that when you see these device control limit messages that it is coming from the ECM and not from us.

                              Comment

                              Working...