[Nezil]

Originally Posted by ZPrime

So on the flip-side of this, if I remove 8S4 by just doing FDL coding... shouldn't I also alter the VO/FA on the car to reflect that it isn't there anymore? If the FDL codes to remove/revert 8S4 are set, but the FA still includes the 8S4 option, doesn't that make the coding on the car "wrong" or "invalid" if BMW techs were to need to scan it for some reason?

I know there is an analogue to this in VW/Audi world; when you add or remove a module in a car, you have to update the CAN Gateway to reflect the addition or removal. If you don't, everything will generally still work, but the CAN Gateway will throw an error when scanned that it is "coded incorrectly."

@Almaretto is the authority on this, and pretty much everything I've learnt has come from him.

The way I look at it is this...

If you only FDL coded the function, or VO coded by loading a modified FA in E-Sys (as opposed to loading the modified FA into the vehicle) then the worst that could happen is someone else, i.e. the service department at a dealer, would VO code the module as part of an update / repair etc., and you'd need to FDL / VO code again.

If you were to modify the FA in the car itself, then future VO coding would look at the vehicle FA and code the function on for you, but it would also probably throw a flag that something is wrong about the fact that you've got a modified FA, particularly something that's modified because of DOT legal requirements in the US.

I believe another way of looking at it is that the vehicle FA tells E-Sys what the default settings should be for each module. The car modules themselves couldn't care less what the FA is, they just care about the coding. Since you can load a modified FA into E-Sys without loading it to the vehicle, there is no need to load it to the vehicle, and no significant reason to do so either.

The incredibly minor possible benefit gained by modifying the FA in the vehicle is outweighed by the potential issues it could cause.

I personally VO coded every module back to factory before I took my car in for a service. I know that ISTA would probably through up errors that would be a pretty clear indication that someone had coded my car, but some of the other evidence wouldn't be there. It probably wasn't necessary, but it was 2 minutes work with a laptop, so why not! I might even clear errors with ISTA in future if I can spare the time to work out how to get that working...

[ZPrime]

Ah, so when people are talking about "VO Coding" a car, they are not actually loading the modified FA/VO back to the car? They are just modifying the VO in E-sys, and then having it re-code the various ECUs "automagically," but are not altering the actual state of the car's embedded FA (if that is even something that e-sys is capable of doing)?

That was something that I completely misunderstood; I thought the whole point of doing a VO/FA coding was to write it back to the car, which would then (theoretically) keep your changes even if the dealership ran a full firmware update on it (which would then cause them to re-code all modules as well).

[Almaretto]

Originally Posted by ZPrime

Ah, so when people are talking about "VO Coding" a car, they are not actually loading the modified FA/VO back to the car? They are just modifying the VO in E-sys, and then having it re-code the various ECUs "automagically," but are not altering the actual state of the car's embedded FA (if that is even something that e-sys is capable of doing)?

That was something that I completely misunderstood; I thought the whole point of doing a VO/FA coding was to write it back to the car, which would then (theoretically) keep your changes even if the dealership ran a full firmware update on it (which would then cause them to re-code all modules as well).

Older VO coding instructions, floating around, instruct to write FA changes to VCM. However, I, and others, recommend simply leaving original intact and using loaded modified FA to VO code ECU's.

Something like EBT or VLD can be applied with VO coding alone. But, in my opinion, it is better to leaves things factory as well as NGHB require additional FDL coding before actual functionality achieved.

[tazam2]

So for the new US LCI executive package cars...is the no dazzle feature possible?
Or just stick with the VLD only?

[Almaretto]

Originally Posted by tazam2

So for the new US LCI executive package cars...is the no dazzle feature possible?
Or just stick with the VLD only?

US cars have different hardware and NGHB not possible. Unsure about VLD.

[Dirtboy]

Originally Posted by Almaretto

US cars have different hardware and NGHB not possible. Unsure about VLD.

VLD works in US LCI cars. I have it coded in mine. Got the info from this thread. http://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1459620

[Nezil]

Originally Posted by tazam2

So for the new US LCI executive package cars...is the no dazzle feature possible?
Or just stick with the VLD only?

I did a fair amount of testing of this, and I'd agree that I don't think NGHB is working correctly. I even posted a couple of videos on page 3 of this thread, which show the issue as I see it.

It is VERY cool to see the high beams move around vehicles and dip on one side etc. What it doesn't appear to do though, is the central tunnel around cars in front, and potentially coming the other way.

The most common need for the tunnel is for cars in front of you, and if their rear view mirror is dimming, you could just say 'F*** them', but that's not really the correct attitude. If there is an oncoming vehicle central to the headlight view, then the tunnel might be necessary there, and in that case, it could be downright dangerous.

I'm not confident that the US LCI headlights have the required hardware, but there are others, like jonahk, who think there are no issues; see his post here: http://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...56559&page=172

[tazam2]

Thanks for the help guys

[AndrewC1989]

I have a Pre-Lci and did all my coding for VLD/NGHB within bimmercode.

VLD seems to be working properly. Still haven't gone out and tested NGHB, but from what I'm reading, people are saying it seems to be working just fine. Whether or not it's functioning safely is a different story all together.

I'm going to attempt to test it out this weekend, weather permitting. I'm curious about the tunneling etc.

[Almaretto]

Originally Posted by Dirtboy

VLD works in US LCI cars. I have it coded in mine. Got the info from this thread. http://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1459620

It just may not work as originally intended by BMW as hardware is definitely different.

[akkando]

Originally Posted by andrewc89

I have a Pre-Lci and did all my coding for VLD/NGHB within bimmercode.

VLD seems to be working properly. Still haven't gone out and tested NGHB, but from what I'm reading, people are saying it seems to be working just fine. Whether or not it's functioning safely is a different story all together.

I'm going to attempt to test it out this weekend, weather permitting. I'm curious about the tunneling etc.

Reading in that same thread you been posting to http://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...03&page=11 it seems that anti dazzle is only possible with bi xenon if you get the European headlight as the US headlight doesn't include the hardware shutter to shape the beam properly, however I'm not sure anyone has taken apart the 2 series or m2 bi xenon to make sure, but they did on an f30. however the LED adaptive headlights don't use a hardware shutter to shape the beam and instead just turn on and off LED lights, so in theory the adaptive LED lights on the LCI could be coded for anti dazzle. that's what I found with my limited research.

those with bi xenon who want this feature should probably just buy LCI headlights and code it rather than get Euro bi xenon headlight assembly.

[AndrewC1989]

Originally Posted by akkando

those with bi xenon who want this feature should probably just buy LCI headlights and code it rather than get Euro bi xenon headlight assembly.

Yeah, right.

Required parts for the LCI adaptive LEDs retrofit:

LCI LED Adaptive Headlights (w / o Control Units)

63 11 7 469 783 LED AHL High - left
63 11 7 469 784 LED AHL High - right

Control units

63 11 7 457 875 Control unit front light electronics (x2)
63 11 7 494 851 LED daytime running light module - left
63 11 7 494 852 LED daytime running light module - right
63 11 7 955 318 fan (x2)

Total cost not including install and coding = $5157.95

[akkando]

Originally Posted by andrewc89

Yeah, right.

Required parts for the LCI adaptive LEDs retrofit:

LCI LED Adaptive Headlights (w / o Control Units)

63 11 7 469 783 LED AHL High - left
63 11 7 469 784 LED AHL High - right

Control units

63 11 7 457 875 Control unit front light electronics (x2)
63 11 7 494 851 LED daytime running light module - left
63 11 7 494 852 LED daytime running light module - right
63 11 7 955 318 fan (x2)

Total cost not including install and coding = $5157.95

sell m2 buy lci m2?

[AndrewC1989]

Originally Posted by akkando

sell m2 buy lci m2?

The euro adaptive xenon assemblies are $850 each. They are plug and play.

Probably easier/cheaper than buying a new car.

[ZPrime]

Originally Posted by akkando

Reading in that same thread you been posting to http://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...884103&page=11 it seems that anti dazzle is only possible with bi xenon if you get the European headlight as the US headlight doesn't include the hardware shutter to shape the beam properly, however I'm not sure anyone has taken apart the 2 series or m2 bi xenon to make sure, but they did on an f30.

however the LED adaptive headlights don't use a hardware shutter to shape the beam and instead just turn on and off LED lights, so in theory the adaptive LED lights on the LCI could be coded for anti dazzle. that's what I found with my limited research.

Actually, the bolded part may be incorrect. We are not 100% sure that there isn't supposed to be some sort of micro-shutter in there, which would be present on ROW lights and may be missing from NAR. Nezil and Almaretto and I have been going around on this for a while.

Speaking solely of LCI LED headlights at this point - the NAR headlights are different part numbers from ROW. It's not yet confirmed what exactly is different between them (other than the NAR lights have the amber sidemarker light that I suspect is missing entirely from the Euro/ROW assemblies).

[Almaretto]

Originally Posted by ZPrime

Speaking solely of LCI LED headlights at this point - the NAR headlights are different part numbers from ROW. It's not yet confirmed what exactly is different between them (other than the NAR lights have the amber sidemarker light that I suspect is missing entirely from the Euro/ROW assemblies).

It is more than just that. The arrays are different.

[biggripper]

I shall look forward to experimenting with this in my soon-to-arrive M2C. I can tell you that I coded it into my soon-to-be-traded '16 M4 with Adaptive LED's and it worked perfectly and was an absolute must-have on the shitty English roads I drove when I was stationed in the UK.

What I can tell you is that the feature doesn't always work great in town as it can be confused by street lights and also by the reflections from some road signs. On dark two-lane roads (i.e. b-roads, state roads) the correct light tunneling and other beam shaping is QUITE OBVIOUS. I'll report back once I've had the chance to try it out. Since the correct patterning was so obvious I'm guessing that the folks in the "NGHB won't work for US models" camp are probably correct. I absolutely loved having the feature coded into my M4 though, so I hope this is not the case.