Flashhack - New LT1 flash tool

**yoheer** · 05-11-2020

Ur PM if full, steveo :)

**steveo** · 05-11-2020

yeah i cleared it. this flashhack thing is really blowing up my inbox.. luckily none of the emails have said 'your crappy program bricked my ecm you rat bastard'

I'm gonna try to log my commutes a bit this week on my '95, make a few adjustments, and then test Flashhack's flash routine on it. First time I'll be doing something other than reading with it. I'll let ya know how it goes!

right on, i'm pretty sure it wont let you down if you don't lose power. i haven't been able to botch a flash with it despite my best attempts. flash is actually 1000x more tested than read is, i've barely used the flash read thing, maybe 20 tests, but i've looped the flash routine overnight a few times. i was worried it failed once but it was actually just solder breaking loose on the socket.

**NomakeWan** · 05-14-2020

Originally Posted by steveo

right on, i'm pretty sure it wont let you down if you don't lose power. i haven't been able to botch a flash with it despite my best attempts. flash is actually 1000x more tested than read is, i've barely used the flash read thing, maybe 20 tests, but i've looped the flash routine overnight a few times. i was worried it failed once but it was actually just solder breaking loose on the socket.

Okay, I went ahead and flashed a new program. All I did was change some fan-related settings and the VE table. First attempt to flash failed because the program noticed that my E-Side code had patches and thus was incompatible. Something to work on going forward, perhaps, to make sure that community patches from EEHack/TunerPro work with the recovery patch, I guess. So then I disabled just the E-Side recovery patch and flashed. I think leaving the T-Side recovery patch enabled may have caused the complete re-write. Perhaps had I disabled that too, it would've flashed less. Not sure.

Either way, here's the first write to a Corvette using Flashhack, which was a success.

The '94 doesn't use any patches from EEHack since it was unsafe to flash using that program in the past, so I'll make a few minor changes to its BIN as well and try to flash and see what happens. Perhaps tomorrow.

**steveo** · 05-14-2020

Okay, I went ahead and flashed a new program. All I did was change some fan-related settings and the VE table. First attempt to flash failed because the program noticed that my E-Side code had patches and thus was incompatible

can you give me a copy of that bin? i'll find out what's going on there

**NomakeWan** · 05-14-2020

Sure thing. I've attached the before (read_test) and after (read_test_write) BINs to this post.

I'm gonna make a shot in the dark and say it's the E-SIDE comms patch. I was never actually interested in that particular patch for my purposes but it's installed as part of the EEHack package, so.

Thanks for the assistance!

**kur4o** · 05-14-2020

The same thing happen to me, it is the FFs that are filled at the end of the eside. No need to worry I make sure that the minirom patch is compatible with all the other patches that are floating around. It is not compatible only with eeb eside revision bins.

**steveo** · 05-14-2020

i'll work on this tonight, thanks for the example bin. someone else reported this but never sent me their bin

**steveo** · 05-15-2020

Originally Posted by NomakeWan

Sure thing. I've attached the before (read_test) and after (read_test_write) BINs to this post.

I'm gonna make a shot in the dark and say it's the E-SIDE comms patch. I was never actually interested in that particular patch for my purposes but it's installed as part of the EEHack package, so.

Thanks for the assistance!

ok i've had a quick review and i agree that it's totally safe, if you know your bin hasn't been customized by any crazy patches that we don't know about, that you can just unset the 'verify patch regions against reference' parameter. that'll allow the thing to install.

the reason i do a strict compare by default is i'm fearful that someone else will try to upload a bin that has been customized in an unknown way, and our 'recovery' patch will somehow cause that bin to be unbootable or not enter programming mode. for that purpose it compares the comms code against a stock f-body bin.

i'll work on a workaround that allows it to work as designed while still protecting against such things. i thought for sure i had checked against eehack's patches but i guess thinking back, i never got around to doing that properly.....

by the way the new EEX xdf does have those eehack patches in it, so if you want speed logging or whatever in eehack in the future, that's how you get it.

**NomakeWan** · 05-15-2020

Originally Posted by steveo

ok i've had a quick review and i agree that it's totally safe, if you know your bin hasn't been customized by any crazy patches that we don't know about, that you can just unset the 'verify patch regions against reference' parameter. that'll allow the thing to install.

the reason i do a strict compare by default is i'm fearful that someone else will try to upload a bin that has been customized in an unknown way, and our 'recovery' patch will somehow cause that bin to be unbootable or not enter programming mode. for that purpose it compares the comms code against a stock f-body bin.

i'll work on a workaround that allows it to work as designed while still protecting against such things. i thought for sure i had checked against eehack's patches but i guess thinking back, i never got around to doing that properly.....

by the way the new EEX xdf does have those eehack patches in it, so if you want speed logging or whatever in eehack in the future, that's how you get it.

Oh, thanks for the EEX! I forgot it got updated to 4.0. Grabbed that and used it to patch my '94 for flash testing later. I did notice though that there's no "remove patch" in EEX for the EEHack patches. Intentional or oversight?

I'll go ahead and use that workaround for now and test flashing on both cars again over the weekend and let you know how it goes. Thanks!