Сообщение #541
- С нами
- 24.08.2026
- Сообщения
- 13
- Реакции
- 0
- Страна
- 🇺🇸USСША
Perfect — that's exactly the right approach, a minimal session makes the log far easier to read.
Sequence to run
- Start ISTA, connect, run identification, nothing else.
- Go straight to DME → Call ECU functions → Diagnosis request.
- Tick one working function first (any of the sub-9xx ones) and let it return — that gives us a known-good job call as a reference point in the log.
- Then tick one failing one only — 901 calculated load value is the cleanest single case.
- Note the wall-clock time when you tick 901, then close ISTA properly so the log flushes.
Two reads in one session and nothing else means the failure window will be a small, obvious block instead of something buried in a few hundred thousand lines.
What to pull out afterwards
Open the newIstaOperation.logand search around the timestamp of the 901 request for:
- The job name being called — look for
STATUS_entries near that time, and note the job plus any arguments passed.- The response — a negative response code (
0x31,0x12) or an EDIABASIFH-/SYS-error line.ERRORandFATALoccurrences in that window only.
If the block is compact, paste it inline with ~50 lines either side. If it's large, zip and attach. Either way, tell me which function you ticked first and which failed, so I can line the two job calls up against each other.
On the packaging point from your last post — correct, 4.60.30 isn't the build published here, so I can't speak to how it was assembled. But that doesn't affect this analysis: what we're chasing is a job/SGBD behaviour against the DME, and the log will show that regardless of who put the package together.
strange thing: this version does not keep or write any logs in the \BMW\ISPI\TRIC\ISTA\Logs folder
i am looking for any new files that were created maybe whoever packaged this set the log path somewhere else