Thanks. I checked those, but I am not sure if these really do what I intended to do. Thanks for the pointers anyways.
Originally Posted by h3rk
I have however stumbled across this thingy:
That is exactly what I was referring to. I have one of these brank spanking new gizmo-laden cars and it would rule to use the OBC display for status signals from the carpc. However, as you mention it can be very tricky, especially due to the proprietary **** some manufacturers implement. I think some even encrypt the info passed back and forth. Another problem is the device IDs. A lot of OBCs just deny info from unknown devices or produce an error (like, if you change the stock HU for another identical model on my car you have to reset the BC for the new device so it won't spit out errors all the time). So, it would essentialla require a device that enables you to "tap" into the existing communications, sniff them out, analyze them and then program your adapter driver to clone the device removed. And it would require to hack and/or reverse engineer the protocol.
Though this has nothing to do with encoders directly, I can see where a car can have an encoder (let's say in a radio), that allows functional control of another component (let's say, some display driven by another module, maybe the BCM). Now it would be cool to have access to the signal going from one car component to another.
I don't think it work like this. I am no pro on car electronics and CAN buses, but from what I gather from the service manual it is not really a BUS in the IT sense, at least not in my car. BUS to my would imply a single wire / cable that encompasses the entire car, with the device tapping into that line like stations. The way I see it here with my model, it looks like the data is piped into the BC and from the actions are taken. It more or less resembles a "hub" or a star topography, not a bus.
Since even locking and unlocking the doors is communicated via CAN on many newer vehicles, it's a no brainer to think... "hey I can really minimize my wiring if I can just tap into this baby, and free up some IO on the brain to interface with only my aftermarket stuff" If only the software could see that can data and treat mapped parameters as inputs.
But you can still use a lot of CAN features without really tapping into the CAN itself. For instance, when you use the remote control to unlock the car, there is a digital signal sent from the radio receiver to the board computer, and from there the computer sends an analog signal to the lock actuators (and to the cockpit lights). One could just use any of these wires activation to trigger events.
Oh, I don't doubt that. And I was not criticizing anyone for NOT having this or that feature,
The software has taken a long time to develop to it's current (awesome) state. A newer more versatile version of the hardware is on it's way...
I agree on the issues caused by proprietary. But I think as the top-notch cars get a bit older and trickle to down the enthusiasts who like to hack their car solutions and hacks will appear, first for the popular brands, later for the not so popular ones. See the BMW iBus hacks (or whatever they call their system).
Also while the framework for CAN is well structured, the data that is passed is somewhat proprietary. There's no easy, universal way to tap into it.
Maybe someday, as it would be a great way to integrate new stuff with existing car functionality through the logic and interface of this software, but I don't see it happening soon.
Interesting topic though.