Hiya Jope & Nsxxtreme,
Yea, As i have posted up on our own tech support Forums, there is quite patently something currently wrong with the pre 2005 Sat Nav software module. I can only apologise, even although i do not yet know the root cause of the problem.
I can however tell you a bit more about the sort of thing it could be and why we cant just fix it straight away which i can but hope helps.
The annoying thing about Software is that even a simple typo, that can be so easy to do, normally would not matter if a human were reading it, but computers are so pedantic it has to be absolutely and totally 100% correct.
Take as example your own Signature Jope, do you really have an L3222 TD6 !!!!
The human eye passes that almost without notice, probably sub conciously rectifying it as no doubt it did when you proof read what you wrote before hitting the submit button. But if a computer were refencing it, that's a different story.
For example if you did a search for L322 on this website, sorry but an L3222 would likely not be found. For those with an extra active sub concious there is an extra 2
In computer software its even worse, L322 is not equal to L322. because the latter has a full stop.
But i am not making excuses for me and my staff simply being human, a simple Typo like that would have shown up when the module was first written and tested, but there are far more complex and difficult to notice problems that can cause unforseen trouble when out in the field. A common one that i recall was with regard to VINS. A module that reads a VIN was developed on a car with a VIN of say 123456, when writing back you obviosly have 6 digits written back, that were handled one at a time in a loop that ran six times. It worked just fine when we developed and tested it and so it made it into the field. However later when someone used that module with a VIN of something like 012345, the Computer was stipping the leading zero, giving only 5 back to be written. This meant the first 5 were being offset by one and when the program got to the 6th loop, it naturally crashed because there was no 6th digit in the supplied data.
Perhaps we could or should have anticipated this, but would you have?
For sure however we already anticipate vast scenareos, but we are certainly not so arrogant as to believe one can not improve.
Of course the more vehicles we have at our disposal to test on the better it gets, but sadly therein lies the problem. The Nav ECU is only fitted to some higher spec cars, My own HSE certainly does not have one and if it did it would be useless, as maps don't yet cover my country.
So although testing for the problem, finding it and fixing it is undoubtedly going to be only a 10 minute job, we have to first find and arrange the lend of a suitibly equipped 02 to 05 L322 Range Rover.
Those philosiphers amongs you will of course fully appreciate that sods law means they are all around when you are not desperate to get your hands on one, and never when you are, but i am very well connected and am most respected in my own community, and i know for sure that one will come our way eventually with but a little patience. So i really am sorry i can't have that fixed for you by tomorrow, but i really am trying my best.
In respect of noting any such occurring problems like this, i would also like to take this opportunity to point out to anyone interested that we are as open and honest about such unfortunate things as anyone can possibly be. Although Nsxxtreme has posted his question here on RR.net in an attempt to get more input, which we also welcome and appreciate, He and Jope have also had and used the ability to freely discuss and ask for feedback directly on our own owners forum. By providing such a collaberative forum for our owners to co converse about any possible or suspected problems, we are clearly providing an environment that demonstartes that we as a company simply do not attempt to hide or cover up any such problems with our system from it's owners.
While on the subject, and i do apoligise for diverting your thread a moment Nsxxtreme;
Jope, i noted your IHK5 hevac query on the engine type info displayed, here and on the BBS forum. There is already a full and informative response on the thread you posted in the BBS owners forum for you, as you would expect, if you have not already read it.
In essence the IHK5 Hevac was simply a re used ECU from the BMW stock pile, The firmware (ECU's operating Software) was tweaked by them especially to suit the L322 and no doubt hard coded to dis regard the engine type setting in the EEPROM block. Likely this is used only in BMW vehicles. Therefore it does not affect the ECU at all, regardless of however that particular setting is. The default value of Diesel etc is therefore programmed in from the factory regardless of engine type and i of course double checked our softwares correct decoding of the settings when i first noted that on my own Petrol L322 many years ago.
Now we could have left that setting out, but then where exactly do we draw the line? for sure we would have to know what values were used and not, which we don't.
Unlike just about every other piece of kit out there, that does not appear to suffer this, mainly because their "settings" typically comprise of only a handful of read only data such as serial numbers etc, our mission and objective is to provide the most ultimate available capability for all owners of our equipment. Therefore for an EEPROM that provides 100 bytes of information, we prefer to decode every byte and bit of all 100 bytes to it's ultimate meaning and usage and then provide that information no matter how stupid or wrong it looks and seems.
So please try to appreciate that the real reason that you see an apparantly wrong looking setting on our equipment and not any other equipment, is just becausue thats how it really is set and other equipment just does not show you that setting at all.
I am truly sorry if i have bored anyone with my lengthy post, or if you feel reading it was a waste of your time, but i know a good number do like to have the opportunity to read something other than tit for tat banter, and i am also sorry if there is too much pro BBS comment, All i can say is that for better or worse i really do believe in our products, which is probably not really any bad thing these days
Warmest regards to all
Colin
Rrzain · updated 
rmtucker · updated 
standardmoose · updated 
