I want to use OBD to get turn signal status on my car. My car is Toyota Yaris 2008. Is there any OBD products can do this or someone do the thing like this can share your experience for me?
Turn signal status is not covered by any official OBD2 PID. There may exist vendor specific (completely undocumented and secret) PIDs to get that, but I doubt it. If you are lucky, you can put your OBD2 adapter into monitor mode and listen for all signals the ECUs are broadcasting over the bus. Then though you have to reverse engineer what is which.
Related
I have the following problem:
I have a distributed system where I need to reach a consensus in one way or another when choosing a leader.
I have a group of players that communicate with each other via messages. In order for these players to progress from a stage to another someone has to keep track of their progress. Currently, there are 2 types of players:
leader---when he receives N-1 done messages (for N-1 players) he is responsible for broadcasting to all other users state change
follower ---he is responsible for getting the messages of the leader and updating his internal state-machine.
Each player receives messages from 2 pipelines:
-Status pipeline - He receives an array of type
[user1,user2,user3...userN] where each element is the user that is online.
-Message pipeline -Push based notification. Follower users will post here messages that they are ready for the next step. The leader will keep track of the DONE counter and when the threshold is reached he will broadcast ADVANCE to next step.
For a better idea i included a picture:
I do not know how to deal with leader reelection. In case the leader disconnects (this can be implemented with a timeout), how can the other nodes decide who is the next leader and if they pick randomly, should the current leader be stored in the database? I mean they only exchange messages there's nothing on the server, like a global variable or something.
What you basically need is to implement both 2 phase commit and a leader election recipe. Now, either you can implement them on your own (2 phase commit is well documented, and yes, you would need a shared storage), or if you have the flexibility to use a distributed open source co-ordination service, zookeeper would be your best bet. Have a look at the below article on apache zookeeper's page where they discuss both the recipes which you need. Hope this helps.
https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/current/recipes.html#sc_recipes_twoPhasedCommit
I have a scenario where the EMV Contactless card image (American Express) SHOULD decline offline; however, the Ingenico PinPad is going online and approving and the VeriFone is declining offline.
Even though, this scenario SHOULD decline offline - I am convinced this scenario should go ONLINE. I think the VeriFone is a false-positive and the Ingenico is doing the right thing by going ONLINE.
The purpose of this scenario is to ensure that the terminal declines a transaction offline when CDA fails.
The card image has an IAC Denial of "0000000000" and IAC Online of "F470C49800".
The TVR that gets generated during 1AC is '0400008000'.
The TAC Denial is set to "0010000000" and the TAC Online is set to "DE00FC9800".
TVR = "0400008000"
IAC_Denial = "0000000000"
TAC_Denial = "0010000000"
IAC_Online = "F470C49800"
TAC_Online = "DE00FC9800"
When comparing the TVR to the TAC Denial (which should happen first) according to the EMV Book 3 - Terminal Action Analysis - there are NO matching bits. So the next thing that should happen is the TVR should be matched with the TAC Online. When comparing the bits from the TVR to the TAC Online - the bits that match are: "CDA Failed, Exceeds Floor Limit".
This indicates to me that this should go ONLINE; however, as previously stated the scenario is ensuring that it declines OFFLINE.
In a nutshell, the VeriFone PinPad is giving a false-positive by declining OFFLINE without using the Terminal Action Analysis logic.
However, the Ingenico seems to be doing the right thing by going ONLINE.
Is there something that I am missing?
Is there any configurations that can override the Terminal Action Analysis from matching the TVR to TACs to prevent a transaction to go online?
Could this be an issue with the VeriFone kernel?
Thanks.
I often got this error when my POS terminal was not properly configured.
Often, scenarios like this one will have thresholds to configure in your terminal accordingly to its standards. For instance, my terminal was configured accordingly to SEPA-FAST standards.
There was a threshold for the maximum amount value to approve offline. This is useful for merchants that want to approve small amounts offline for effectiveness and speed when they have long lines of customers to process. Think of a cafeteria or a bus line. Of course, this is slightly risky and many merchants won't approve high amounts without an online approval to reduce their loss due to invalid/fraudulent payments.
In my opinion, your offline threshold looks fine. The transaction amount exceeds it and it is refused offline for the obvious reasons I explained to you before.
Perhaps your maximum threshold is badly configured. Most scenarios require you to set a maximum amount threshold over which the transaction is refused offline.
One other thing that could be wrong is your EMV Terminal capabilities 0x9F33 that supports Online PIN authentication and shouldn't. Maybe you aren't using the terminal prescribed by the scenario. What is your CVM? Should it be supported by your terminal? There is also the EMV Terminal Transaction Qualifiers (TTQ) field 0x0F66 for NFC transactions that plays a similar role in defining what a terminal can and cannot do. Maybe your terminal should be offline only in this scenario. This could happen for pizza deliveries or in situations where an internet connexion is not available.
I'm developing an Android app that uses an ELM327 device for OBD-II communications, and I'd like to be able to get the status of the headlights. Specifically, I would like to know if the driver has turned them on or not, but it would also be moderately useful to be able to tell what lights are on (mains vs brights vs DRLs and so on) and whether or not any of the bulbs are out. I was under the impression that there were ways of figuring out whether the headlights were on over OBD-II, but I can't find anything to confirm that, and the API I'm using (the pires obd-java-api on Github) doesn't have anything in it either. Can I actually do any of this?
All the standardized OBD PIDs are within ISO 15031-5 standard. Some part of it can be found in Wikipedia and here as well. All the other PIDs are vehicle specific PIDs which you cannot generalized (or even find) them.
The PIDs that you are searching for might not be standard or supported by every vehicle.
I've been fiddeling around with a bluetooth elm327 device I bought a few months ago and am able to get standard obd infos like vin, rpm, speed etc.
But as I just read about recently obd2 and can are not the same. I've tried to sniff on my can bus with th AT MA command, but I get no response, so I guess the can network is decoupled from the obd2 interface. Is there any chance to get access to the can network? Or might I need a different device to do so?
Maybe this info helps: I have a 2011 Skoda.
On many modern vehicles there are actually multiple CAN buses controlling the numerous functions needed by the car. Some of these CAN buses are high-speed for important systems like engine control, and some are low-speed for less critical functions such as climate control (or in your case, diagnostics through the OBD2 port). These multiple CAN buses are usually interconnected through a gateway device in the car that arbitrates which CAN messages can be sent between buses. This is a safety net that prevents lower priority CAN buses from interfering with the more critical CAN buses.
In an example case, the CAN bus used for engine control may be able to communicate with the radio CAN bus so that the radio volume gets increased when the engine is revving to higher RPMs for comfort reasons. This would likely be a one-way connection though the gateway though, as it would be in the interest of safety to not allow the radio's CAN bus to send signals back to the engine (this could lead to potential problems if using aftermarket radios for example).
As a result of everything mentioned above, a connection to the OBD2 port's CAN lines most likely will not have full access to the complete CAN network on your car. One way to confirm this would be to look for the Factory Service Manual for your particular vehicle to see how the CAN bus(es) are setup for your car (there are actually quite a few cars that operate on only a single CAN bus in order to cut costs).
Keep in mind that as an alternative to using the OBD2 port, you can always tap directly into the CAN bus that you are interested in. For example, if you remove the radio from your car to expose the radio harness, you can usually tap directly into the CAN lines for the radio bus with the correct equipment.
Hope this helps!
If your vehicle uses the CAN protocol then you shold be able to issue atma from the elm327 device.
Here are the conditions I met to get an ATMA dump:
my vehicle supports protocol 6 -- iso 15765-4 can-11 (500 kbaud)
ATSP6 // I am using protocol 6, not auto mode
ATSH7E0 // now I am talking to the engine ECU
ATMA // returned a page full of data before getting a buffer full message
I made a Chat mainly inspired by the Cirrus Sample
Chat works fine, but on some cases, the "NetStream.Connect.Success" doesn't get triggered.
Both connections pass the ports check
Before switching to a NetGroup architecture and presuming that these problems are related to the connection process, I'd like to know :
- Would NetGroup act differently on NetStream connection process over a NetStream Direct Connection ?
- What are the limitations of NetGroup ? I read there was more latency when using it.
ok, so first and foremost, NetStream.Connect.Success fires on the NetConnection and not the NetStream. That is the biggest misconception and frustration for people trying to get this all set up. Adobe did this for legacy (historical) reasons. So check that first to make sure you are listening in the proper spot.
if you are sure you have the listener in the right spot, you may have NAT or firewall comms issues that prevent one peer from seeing the other in certain circumstances.
Now regarding groups:
NetGroup does not introduce latency (necessarily). In groups with less than 14 members, you have a full mesh (all members have a direct peer connection to all others). using a less than 14 member group will still net you a blazingly fast p2p connection provided you use sendToAllNeighbors(). Where you hear about latency is regarding post(). post runs a bunch of stuff that introduces new latency since it tries to contact my 3 descending, 3 ascending, my fractional connections, my 6 least latent and my 1 random every 10 seconds... and then tries to forward the message on to be distributed to the rest of the group. Even in small groups this can take a second or two.
Here is a link to a video from MAX that goes through all the nitty gritty (so to speak) on rtmfp and its ring based architecture Cool In-Depth Video About RTMFP