Fisker Buzz Forums banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,082 Posts
The 540 update was suppose to address the screen issue and a few other faults. I'm not sure we will ever see the 540 update . The software Fab is running has a few bugs in it as memtioned the only problem using that version of software if the car gets updated using the car Config manager you will lose the CIU software the car needs to be updated using flash lite.

[Moderator's note: I moved these posts to a new thread to highlight them and since they departed significantly from the "Look at my new coffee mug" original topic :) ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
The 540 update was suppose to address the screen issue and a few other faults. I'm not sure we will ever see the 540 update . The software Fab is running has a few bugs in it as memtioned the only problem using that version of software if the car gets updated using the car Config manager you will lose the CIU software the car needs to be updated using flash lite.
It would be a shame if a CIU update is dropped for current owners. I can work around the quirks but polishing up the CIU would go a long way to making the car feel complete.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,082 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
It would be a shame if a CIU update is dropped for current owners. I can work around the quirks but polishing up the CIU would go a long way to making the car feel complete.
I suggest you start a thread on the Karma Automotive forum . I haven't heard a thing out of Fisker having to do with 540 .
I heard at one point this wasn't going to happen due to Fisker not owning the rights to the software for the CIU I hope they release something but deep down I just don't see it happening . Maybe 540 was part of the agreement they made during the bankruptcy hearing but I have no idea . Maybe making a new thread on this forum some other members here who followed the bankruptcy can chime in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
I suggest you start a thread on the Karma Automotive forum . I haven't heard a thing out of Fisker having to do with 540 .
I heard at one point this wasn't going to happen due to Fisker not owning the rights to the software for the CIU I hope they release something but deep down I just don't see it happening . Maybe 540 was part of the agreement they made during the bankruptcy hearing but I have no idea . Maybe making a new thread on this forum some other members here who followed the bankruptcy can chime in.
Done. I hope other owners will please post as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
KA's response
Hello all, we haven't given up on trying to find a way to improve the CIU. Some of the former programmers (C, QNX and Windows CE) have been located, some vendors have been identified who helped create this system but unfortunately not all are still in business. Our project is active but moving at a snails pace unfortunately.
Suggestion........ release the code so owners can fix the bugs. If they have to get all the vendors back on board, it is likely there will never be an update to the CIU. This system is antique and really has no value to KA. Owners have a real interest in putting in the sweat equity to improve the system.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
KA's response
Suggestion........ release the code so owners can fix the bugs. If they have to get all the vendors back on board, it is likely there will never be an update to the CIU. This system is antique and really has no value to KA. Owners have a real interest in putting in the sweat equity to improve the system.
The entire problem is that KA does not have ready access or even possibly ownership of the code to release. The subsystems in the original Karma were all created by, and in many cases the IP owned by, various subcontractors. KA inherited this situation when they bought the company ou of bankruptcy and have been endeavoring to identify the original sources and individuals. They've made some progress but have a long way to go. Here's what Joost de Vries, VP at Karma Automotive, said on the topic just today in the official owner's forum:

Hello all, we haven't given up on trying to find a way to improve the CIU. Some of the former programmers (C, QNX and Windows CE) have been located, some vendors have been identified who helped create this system but unfortunately not all are still in business. Our project is active but moving at a snails pace unfortunately.

If you go searching through this board's history you'll find lots of comments on this topic including a lot of technical discussion (as well as speculation and inaccuracies) about the technical stack, development environment, O/S, language and protocols used. Collectively from all accounts it seems to be a mess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts
There are a lot of us with IT skills who would love a crack at it! If only we had a way to load/unload (and most importantly of all restore) the code in the unit ... I'm sure I for one could make a start at de-compiling it. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,082 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Not only do you need a CIU which is easy to get you also need the touch screen. One visit to Fisker I met the engineer who took over the whole CIU mess his desk had a full console on it the CIU and a bunch of test equipment that was at least three years a go . He no longer works for Fisker laid off like everyone else .
I know at one point Fisker was trying to bring him back after they went back into business and they actually came to some agreement but he never went back.
When I spoke to him he really wanted to finish what he started but it never came to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,114 Posts
Part of the issue is that the CIU and TPI are integrated into the body CAN BUS which complicates things as it is streaming data from HVAC, HCU and other nodes with input/output therefore the "ciu" problem is shared by the rest of the Karma systems making it near impossible to reintegrate.
 

·
Liked, but not well liked
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Issue is also that you would need the low level drivers in order to compile whatever modified UI was created. It is possible without the source to create a compatible development environment with open source tools but would take a lot of time. I am also sure there are be-spoke proprietary drivers that would have to be written.

It is possible to just flash the pieces that need to be changed- or even have a day night mode (i.e. same graphics but a white and black background like the roadshow cars). Someone would have to take the ROM file off an existing CIU, de-compile it and then modify the hex files that control these modes. We know that "day mode"is still in there (masked) because sometimes the maps go white as a glitch.

Anyway, it is probably possible but it also depends what the goal is. Just white background for day and black background for night or a more significant UI rehaul?

Then you have the issue of validation, which would take a ton of time because you could potentially introduce a buffer overflow which could corrupt some of the other vehicle modules.

The easier play IMO, would be to get them to release the buggy beta software with the caveat that you are using it at your own peril. Why re-invent the wheel when the software exists? Very unlikely a more stable CIU SW can be created with limited tools. Still don't understand why this software cannot be improved to make it more stable. A much better place to start than from essentially scratch, with 510. YMMV
 

·
Liked, but not well liked
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Still no one has yet to say why a FY2017 update cannot be retrofitted into the FY2012?
From hardware perspective you could probably install it (heavy modification to harnesses) but from a software perspective if they are going the "Tier-1" route it is unlikely that they own the underlying software that communicates with the subsystems of the vehicle and a supplier is the one actually doing the work. Thus it will be required to go to the supplier and negotiate with them to do the integration for MY2012 cars. That supplier will likely charge the customer million(s) for this type of work.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,662 Posts
From hardware perspective you could probably install it (heavy modification to harnesses) but from a software perspective if they are going the "Tier-1" route it is unlikely that they own the underlying software that communicates with the subsystems of the vehicle and a supplier is the one actually doing the work. Thus it will be required to go to the supplier and negotiate with them to do the integration for MY2012 cars. That supplier will likely charge the customer million(s) for this type of work.
Any merit in running a Kickstarter campaign to purchase the beta CIU software from Karma Automotive? I will pitch in the first $500.
If I read @PowerSource answer correctly, FA does not own that software and cannot sell it, eve if they wanted to.
 

·
Early Adopter
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
From hardware perspective you could probably install it (heavy modification to harnesses) but from a software perspective if they are going the "Tier-1" route it is unlikely that they own the underlying software that communicates with the subsystems of the vehicle and a supplier is the one actually doing the work. Thus it will be required to go to the supplier and negotiate with them to do the integration for MY2012 cars. That supplier will likely charge the customer million(s) for this type of work.
Has anyone seen the the new hardware? I assume if would have to fit within the tolerances of the current system - why do you think(or know) it to be a problem? Is there any indication that it won't retro fit correctly?

just curious ...
 

·
Liked, but not well liked
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Has anyone seen the the new hardware? I assume if would have to fit within the tolerances of the current system - why do you think(or know) it to be a problem? Is there any indication that it won't retro fit correctly?

just curious ...
Highly skeptical they designed the new system to be backwards compatible. 2012 cars are based on a vehicle architecture from 2008, so very limiting in what a new unit can do if the requirement was to make it backwards compatible. The auto world has moved leaps and bounds since then. If the car had been in uninterrupted serial production, then it is likely a retrofit would be the solution since the OEM would have been hamstrung by the existing architecture of the vehicle.

With all that being said a retrofit is physically possible and if you could get the right messages to the new hardware it would likely work- but that integration work would have to be done by someone (likely the supplier of the infotainment unit itself). Essentially they would be building two variants of the infotainment system that would have to be validated on two different platforms. Can't see business case for 2012 cars, consolation prize is lighted steering wheel controls.

That being said, I may put the new infotainment center in my car, if it is any good :)
 

·
Liked, but not well liked
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
If I read @PowerSource answer correctly, FA does not own that software and cannot sell it, eve if they wanted to.
This was in reference to the future unit that Ninja was referring to; based on the "Tier-1" assumption, which is norm in this industry. I think only Tesla develops their infotainment in-house. Every other OEM uses a Tier-1 integrator which I assume is the case for Karma vehicles.

With regards to the current beta SW, I am not sure who owns that. If their goal was to release a 540 UI upgrade then it is likely that Karma has the rights to it. From reading the earlier comment from Karmanews, it seems as if the main hurdle is technical knowledge not a licensing/ownership issue.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top