[AGONXF30]

Originally Posted by TurtleBoy

No, not at all. The issue is that you can't enable the full feature Anti-Dazzle using bimmercode since VO needs to be used and there are ECUs that Bimmercode does not have access to. You were insisting that you did but finally after overwhelming evidence and various people telling you that you were wrong did you give up.

You are comical.

I never insisted that BC had access to KAFAS, what I insisted was that you can get all the features as seen in the videos with no light bleed (as you kept insisting).

Such is life. The posts are evidence of your foolishness.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by AGONXF30

You are comical.

I never insisted that BC had access to KAFAS, what I insisted was that you can get all the features as seen in the videos with no light bleed (as you kept insisting).

Such is life. The posts are evidence of your foolishness.

LOL. Whatever makes you feels better. Just to refresh your memory:

"Bimmercode can be used to program anti-dazzle. I did it and I works perfectly. I drive on plenty backroads and highways and it works as intended. You can see the tunneling perfectly specially behind cars."

https://g05.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...9&postcount=78

"Which code do you speak about, because it NOT a simple change of one setting. It takes times and it involves multiple areas/settings that need change. So I am NOT sure which code you are doing by the one I did works very well. I drive a lot on dark rural roads and you can SEE it working in as advertised. "

https://g05.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=82

"Also once again you can access the items in BimmerCode, one just has to know where to look. So once again. It's is possible."

https://g05.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...7&postcount=87

Then finally after numerous posting show you were not correct you tried to save a little face:

"Now, if you had said that the KAFAS modules, cannot be coded with BimmerCode, I can agree with, that is for the camera and it's ability to keep the high beams longer in the presence of street light among a few other things."

But of course everyone saw that one of my first posts to you said that and is what everyone was discussing:

"I'm talking about the code that was posted awhile in this forum and others concerning enabling anti-dazzle with Bimmercode. It may or may not be the same as you used but it wouldn't matter, it is not possible to fully enable anti-dazzle with Bimmercode because it needs to have both VO and FDL coding and access ECUs (FLM and KAFAS) not available in Bimmercode. The coding that can be done with Bimmercode only partially enables them, the lights will be more active but there will also be light leakage with a higher chance of light going where it shouldn't. Almaretto, one of the best coders around, and others have posted concerning this."

https://g05.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...6&postcount=83


And interestingly today you posted:

"I strongly recommend you go the BU route and NOT the BC. The BC, while will perform like the full code (or close enough where its indiscernible), it will give you DTC errors (Will not cause any issues, but are present such as “Wrong steering column………….”) while doing the BU with the proper VO changes will not have any DTC errors."

https://g05.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...&postcount=163

Have a good one.

[AGONXF30]

So easy to trigger. Once again, you can do the lines needed to make it work with BC.

I strongly recommend doing it with BU so the VO can be accessed. Without the VO a DTC error will appear and cannot be erased.

If one can live with the error (no indications other than during a scan) BC can absolutely do the anti dazzle wihtou accessing the KAFAS, no FLM coding needed in the G05.

The BC coding gives you a 99% solution with no light bleed, which was your concern, and you were adamant and pedantic about it yet you had never done the code.

Now that you have done the code, I invite you to buy BU and do the full code and you can see they are nearly identical in behavior.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by AGONXF30

So easy to trigger. Once again, you can do the lines needed to make it work with BC.

I strongly recommend doing it with BU so the VO can be accessed. Without the VO a DTC error will appear and cannot be erased.

If one can live with the error (no indications other than during a scan) BC can absolutely do the anti dazzle wihtou accessing the KAFAS, no FLM coding needed in the G05.

The BC coding gives you a 99% solution with no light bleed, which was your concern, and you were adamant and pedantic about it yet you had never done the code.

Now that you have done the code, I invite you to buy BU and do the full code and you can see they are nearly identical in behavior.

Revisionist history is your strongpoint. Just like in the past, you are free to respond but I will consider my part of this fruitless conversation done.

[samvora]

Originally Posted by TurtleBoy

This coding here is fairly widely used and seems to work pretty well. It should get you the tunneling and allow the HB's to remain on and not get flashed buy other drivers for blinding them.

You may want to try G05_Laser_ECE for LUT_AFS_DRV_HOR since the code below is from someone coding the G20. Obviously you want to use the ECE values and not the US.

So from these two images which lines am I exactly changing using BC to get this and get the 99% functionality of this feature? If I go this route through BC then will it throw a DTC error?

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by samvora

So from these two images which lines am I exactly changing using BC to get this and get the 99% functionality of this feature? If I go this route through BC then will it throw a DTC error?

If you do the coding that I posted earlier in the thread, that you quoted that line from, you will get the tunneling and so far no one has reported getting flashed due to the high beams. Can't say it is 99% of the full feature but you will not get DTC errors.

[samvora]

Originally Posted by TurtleBoy

If you do the coding that I posted earlier in the thread, that you quoted that line from, you will get the tunneling and so far no one has reported getting flashed due to the high beams. Can't say it is 99% of the full feature but you will not get DTC errors.

Ok so the only line I change is the one you wrote in the verbiage of that post? Nothing else, correct? Where in BDU would this be?

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by samvora

Ok so the only line I change is the one you wrote in the verbiage of that post? Nothing else, correct? Where in BDU would this be?

Your question isn't clear/can be interpreted two ways so I will answer this way, you need to code all of the lines that are in those images and the one in my verbiage replaces the value that is in the image. Does that make sense? Use the search function to get them rather than scrolling to find.

[samvora]

Originally Posted by TurtleBoy

Your question isn't clear/can be interpreted two ways so I will answer this way, you need to code all of the lines that are in those images and the one in my verbiage replaces the value that is in the image. Does that make sense? Use the search function to get them rather than scrolling to find.

Understood. Thank you. I will basically make sure that all the values at my end are the exact same as the values in the images including the line you have given for the coding.

[starlights]

Originally Posted by samvora

Understood. Thank you. I will basically make sure that all the values at my end are the exact same as the values in the images including the line you have given for the coding.

Please share your experience once you code successfully!

[halfbent]

Originally Posted by samvora

Understood. Thank you. I will basically make sure that all the values at my end are the exact same as the values in the images including the line you have given for the coding.

Any luck with this?

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by halfbent

Any luck with this?

I have since used the coding on my M340i and it seems to be working well. Plan on doing the X5 shortly. I would imagine having it VO coded provides a better overall product but this shortcut provides better lighting than standard.

[Almaretto]

Originally Posted by TurtleBoy

I have since used the coding on my M340i and it seems to be working well. Plan on doing the X5 shortly. I would imagine having it VO coded provides a better overall product but this shortcut provides better lighting than standard.

Make sure you are not using the same coding for different vehicle types as you will have bad, glaring results.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by Almaretto

Make sure you are not using the same coding for different vehicle types as you will have bad, glaring results.

Yes, I would make sure I'm using the one for the X5 should I do it. I have been thinking about getting it coded properly instead so I can see the difference between these faux implementations and the proper one.

[pdxpeter]

Originally Posted by sparksk

Has anyone been to code this correctly on a 2019 X5 (I have a Canadian Excellence Package)?
I have been unsuccessful on a couple of attempts. The high beam indicator (blue light) shows that it is on and the lights move with oncoming traffic but as soon as it detects a car approaching from far away it turns off the high beams (but continues to tunnel the low beams for the approaching car).

This is what mine does with the VO coding updated "correctly". It was kind of spastic until I updated these options mentioned by TurtleBoy in another thread. I also enabled the option to handle multiple reflectors. Before the additional FDL coding, the car detected oncoming traffic well but had trouble with taillights in front of me. It would occasionally flash the high beams at the car I was following.


FDL Code the following in Kafas 40F9:
COUNTRY_VARIATION Europe_RC [01]
C_FLA_BS_ENTER_THRESH Rest of world [03]
C_FLA_BS_EXIT_THRESH: Rest of world [02]

Also code the following in 40F9:
C_FLA_CC_MESSAGE_3:
CC_message_active to no_CC_message [00]
C_FLA_US_SENSITIVITY_MODE:
US to Normal [00]

[Eclimax13]

How exactly should this be working? I had my car coded to full euro spec. Went for a drive and the high beams don't stay on with oncoming vehicles. It would go to low beam and every once in a while I'd see the left light separate and come back to normal. Not sure what I should be seeing.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by Eclimax13

How exactly should this be working? I had my car coded to full euro spec. Went for a drive and the high beams don't stay on with oncoming vehicles. It would go to low beam and every once in a while I'd see the left light separate and come back to normal. Not sure what I should be seeing.

Sounds like it is not coded correctly. When it is, the the high beams should stay on and tunnel around the oncoming vehicle or the vehicle you are approaching.

[Eclimax13]

Originally Posted by TurtleBoy

Sounds like it is not coded correctly. When it is, the the high beams should stay on and tunnel around the oncoming vehicle or the vehicle you are approaching.

Are the lights moving physically? Seems like something that will cause failure prematurely.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by Eclimax13

Are the lights moving physically? Seems like something that will cause failure prematurely.

I'm not following, in general, why would something designed to move fail prematurely by doing what it is designed to do? The adaptive lights move with the steering wheel, I don't know if anti-dazzle has physical movement or not. Probably for spotlighting.