[holdenh]

     Featured on BIMMERPOST.com

Has anyone coded their M3/M4 equipped with laserlights to return to their intended functionality and not the 70% brightness / "anti-dazzle" as required by the US DOT? Is there an easy way to do this with Bimmercode or is this a more complicated process? Forgive me as I am a new member of these forums and am not adept at vBulletin search queries. As far as I know, no one has discussed whether this is achievable on Bimmercode. Thank you!

[ElHeffe]

I've read that it will eventually be pushed via an OTA update. I think that's still awhile out but if you want wait, we'll all eventually get it for free.

[Nkr15]

https://www.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...php?p=28606017

Here you go, try it out and let me know if it works. I still need to do it myself. hockeygoalie35 confirmed it working.

[jimbethesda]

Originally Posted by holdenh

Has anyone coded their M3/M4 equipped with laserlights to return to their intended functionality and not the 70% brightness / "anti-dazzle" as required by the US DOT? Is there an easy way to do this with Bimmercode or is this a more complicated process? Forgive me as I am a new member of these forums and am not adept at vBulletin search queries. As far as I know, no one has discussed whether this is achievable on Bimmercode. Thank you!

Bimmercode only gets some of the functionality. You need E-Sys. I paid someone to remotely code mine via E-sys.

[snareman]

The frustrating thing is that if you let the car OTA update you lose all of the programming that you have to pay and coordinate with someone to redo. At least Bimmercode is easy enough to redo on your own.

[jailonacs99]

Originally Posted by ElHeffe

I've read that it will eventually be pushed via an OTA update. I think that's still awhile out but if you want wait, we'll all eventually get it for free.

Sources? Very interested in any official news or even well sourced rumors

[Nkr15]

Originally Posted by snareman

The frustrating thing is that if you let the car OTA update you lose all of the programming that you have to pay and coordinate with someone to redo. At least Bimmercode is easy enough to redo on your own.

The link I posted above has all you need to do in ESYS doesnt seem very difficult all the work is already done its just looking something up and deleting it lol. Even if the car gets updated once a week it doesnt seem very difficult if you do the same thing each time.

[Poochie]

Originally Posted by snareman

The frustrating thing is that if you let the car OTA update you lose all of the programming that you have to pay and coordinate with someone to redo. At least Bimmercode is easy enough to redo on your own.

Relax, you are safe from OTA updates possible wiping out your headlight coding for the foreseeable future..

The so-called Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and signed into law on November 16, 2021 - simply titled "Headlamps" states; "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule amending Standard 108."

Meaning, they are proposing and budgeting resources to [COLOR="DarkRed"]possible[/COLOR] allow "Selective Beam/GFHB" feature(s) à la to that of the ROW, here in the US but the specific changes won't be announced until the end of 2023 and possible be ratified by two model years later..

So, expect "Glare Free High Beams" be available in the US sometime around the all-electric H80/82 model is released, thanks to the glacial pace the government moves..

Also, just because they are considering a headlight rule change here in the US doesn't mean it will necessarily be approved to match that exactly what's available in Europe/ROW. They still have to developed their own standard of design parameters and testing procedure for matrix/selective beam lighting, which is still anyone's guess what will be specifically be allowed stateside.

[snareman]

Originally Posted by Poochie

Relax, you are safe from OTA updates possible wiping out your headlight coding for the foreseeable future..

The so-called Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and signed into law on November 16, 2021 - simply titled "Headlamps" states; "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule amending Standard 108."

Meaning, they are proposing and budgeting resources to possible allow "Selective Beam/GFHB" feature(s) à la to that of the ROW, here in the US but the specific changes won't be announced until the end of 2023 and possible be ratified by two model years later..

So, expect "Glare Free High Beams" be available in the US sometime around the all-electric H80/82 model is released, thanks to the glacial pace the government moves..

Also, just because they are considering a headlight rule change here in the US doesn't mean it will necessarily be approved to match that exactly what's available in Europe/ROW. They still have to developed their own standard of design parameters and testing procedure for matrix/selective beam lighting, which is still anyone's guess what will be specifically be allowed stateside.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. The car comes as US cars have forever. You can code the anti-dazzle, but if you let the car OTA update the system software in general as happened in the last few months to include things like the new upshift whomph noise, the lights will revert back to the factory US settings.

I totally agree though that even though that new law is there that who knows when we'll finally start seeing the feature on new cars.

[sJohnny]

Originally Posted by Poochie

Relax, you are safe from OTA updates possible wiping out your headlight coding for the foreseeable future..

The so-called Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and signed into law on November 16, 2021 - simply titled "Headlamps" states; "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule amending Standard 108."

Meaning, they are proposing and budgeting resources to [COLOR="DarkRed"]possible[/COLOR] allow "Selective Beam/GFHB" feature(s) à la to that of the ROW, here in the US but the specific changes won't be announced until the end of 2023 and possible be ratified by two model years later..

So, expect "Glare Free High Beams" be available in the US sometime around the all-electric H80/82 model is released, thanks to the glacial pace the government moves..

Also, just because they are considering a headlight rule change here in the US doesn't mean it will necessarily be approved to match that exactly what's available in Europe/ROW. They still have to developed their own standard of design parameters and testing procedure for matrix/selective beam lighting, which is still anyone's guess what will be specifically be allowed stateside.

FYI, DOT & NHTSA already issued a final ruling allowing for the use of Adaptive Beams last month. As of now, it's just a matter of manufacturers going through the process to be able to take advantage of the updated standard

The specific verbiage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act stipulated that the Secretary of Transportation must issue a ruling within 2 years, not 2 years exactly. Although I will concede, it's very atypical for a government agency to act this quickly given how long they were legally allowed to drag their feet

It wouldn't surprise me if we start seeing this feature being deployed stateside by the end of the year. (Disclaimer: Purely speculation of my end. I have no idea when Adaptive Beams will become available to the public or if existing cars can be retroactively enabled to support it)

https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases...safety-drivers

[Poochie]

Originally Posted by snareman

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. The car comes as US cars have forever. You can code the anti-dazzle, but if you let the car OTA update the system software in general as happened in the last few months to include things like the new upshift whomph noise, the lights will revert back to the factory US settings.

I totally agree though that even though that new law is there that who knows when we'll finally start seeing the feature on new cars.

The way I read it is they are proposing to mesh and update the US lighting laws to conform with that of the rest of the world i.e. specifically European and Japan and allow this anti-dazzle feature that you're recoded but there is no field testing approved by the US regulatory bodies, which is required by the new proposal. Currently, European testing only provided by laboratory data.

Until a field test is approved that satisfies US glare and measurement requirement, only then you'll be seeing this feature on newer vehicles.

Since current market vehicles like the G80/82 still contain technology that was never field tested to ensure conformity to this requirement, they won't just flip a switch and allow this tomorrow via a software update. So, the current setting will remain the same as the day came out the factory. I can't speak on other possible OTA update changes expect those that pertain to the specific head lights proposal.

Moving forward, automakers will try to work with the US regulators to ensure that new vehicles are tested to possible meet their requirement. Which more than likely will be on the next generation of vehicles.

[snareman]

Originally Posted by Poochie

The way I read it is they are proposing to mesh and update the US lighting laws to conform with that of the rest of the world i.e. specifically European and Japan and allow this anti-dazzle feature that you're recoded but there is no field testing approved by the US regulatory bodies, which is required by the new proposal. Currently, European testing only provided by laboratory data.

Until a field test is approved that satisfies US glare and measurement requirement, only then you'll be seeing this feature on newer vehicles.

Since current market vehicles like the G80/82 still contain technology that was never field tested to ensure conformity to this requirement, they won't just flip a switch and allow this tomorrow via a software update. So, the current setting will remain the same as the day came out the factory. I can't speak on other possible OTA update changes expect those that pertain to head lights.

Moving forward, automakers will try to work with the US regulators to ensure that new vehicles are tested to possible meet their requirement. Which more than likely will be on the next generation of vehicle.

Right. What I'm saying though is that if you code it with eSys and then you do an OTA update it will erase all the coding you did and revert back to the factory setting.

[Poochie]

Originally Posted by snareman

Right. What I'm saying though is that if you code it with eSys and then you do an OTA update it will erase all the coding you did and revert back to the factory setting.

I get you, I deal with the same nonsense for years after taking my vehicle in for repairs, where the dealer had to update the software to sync a new part, reverting all my current coding. Some older coded features were even deleted after this required update.

But that's just how the game goes when you modify your vehicle via FDL coding that doesn't match the original vehicle order, regardless if it's a OTA or a direct dealer update.

The only remedy to avoid this is by taking drastic measures like disabling the telematics communication unit and not ever take your car to dealer for any reason, which is virtually impossible on newer vehicles.

[hockeygoalie35]

Originally Posted by BMWTEJAS

I ran high beams......have yet to be flashed. Perhaps I am coded?

Probably not....you'd notice it. You can see the lights constanly turning on and off in different "sectors" of your beam pattern as cars enter and leave those sectors. When driving behind a car, you can see your high beams activate and split around the car in front of you...it's damn cool!

[danallxt]

There has been some speculations about the new US regs regarding Adaptive Driving Beams. I have an in depth posting under the G20 subforum (General Discussions) titled "Adaptive Driving Beams for US 2022" that was made a number of days ago. That was the result of studying the 111 page Federal Register Document.

My biggest disappointment in reading the new regs (02/22/2022) that allows Adaptive Driving Beams (ADBs) for US cars is the resistance by NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) to improve/increase the limitation on high beam illumination (Upper beam photometric maxima). The Euro/Asia (ECE) specs allow high beams to have an illumination of 430,000 cd (215,000 per headlamp), the US is holding to its antiquated 150,000 cd (75,000 cd per headlamp), even in the new regs. That is 1/3 of Euro/Asia limit. I can't help but wonder if the safety nannies of NHTSA are direct genetic descendants of those folks in the early 1800's that feared the high speed of steam trains (50mph) would melt human bodies.

There were a number of comments to NHTSA that advocated no upper limit (SAE proposal) or adopting the ECE (Economic Commission for Europe) standards for the maximum illumination. It is apparent that NHTSA drew a line in the sand and was not going to budge on that. They acknowledged the potential safety benefits but refused even to test any increased illumination from the current standard. Their rationale for not adopting such upper limits (pages 9985,9986, pdf pages 70,71) clearly states they were not going to change their test protocols to even test the safety and effectiveness of such an increase, or any increase whatsoever. It simply was not considered. I suspect some of the NHTSA members feel that night driving at any speeds above 40 mph is dangerous and no way were they going to increase/improve illumination that would potentially “encourage” such reckless behavior. It is interesting that rest of the world (Euro/Asia) can benefit from such advances in increased illumination but not the US. The entire focus of the regs allowing ADB headlamps was on reducing and controlling glare from oncoming headlamps, better maxima illumination in excess of the current US limits was simply off limits.

One thing I can't help but wonder is if there has to be a hardware difference to achieve those differences in the regs (upper beam maxima is not the only difference with ECE regs), or if it solely a coding/programming difference. If it is hardware difference then at least by adopting standards not in line with current ECE specs the cost of ADBs in the US is likely to be significantly higher than need be due to this specialization for US market.

I do have a copy of the 111 page document if anyone wants to read it. PM me with an email address. Also you can check out the other post i referenced at the beginning of this post, it is a rather lengthy post.

[Nkr15]

Originally Posted by danallxt

There has been some speculations about the new US regs regarding Adaptive Driving Beams. I have an in depth posting under the G20 subforum (General Discussions) titled "Adaptive Driving Beams for US 2022" that was made a number of days ago. That was the result of studying the 111 page Federal Register Document.

My biggest disappointment in reading the new regs (02/22/2022) that allows Adaptive Driving Beams (ADBs) for US cars is the resistance by NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) to improve/increase the limitation on high beam illumination (Upper beam photometric maxima). The Euro/Asia (ECE) specs allow high beams to have an illumination of 430,000 cd (215,000 per headlamp), the US is holding to its antiquated 150,000 cd (75,000 cd per headlamp), even in the new regs. That is 1/3 of Euro/Asia limit. I can't help but wonder if the safety nannies of NHTSA are direct genetic descendants of those folks in the early 1800's that feared the high speed of steam trains (50mph) would melt human bodies.

There were a number of comments to NHTSA that advocated no upper limit (SAE proposal) or adopting the ECE (Economic Commission for Europe) standards for the maximum illumination. It is apparent that NHTSA drew a line in the sand and was not going to budge on that. They acknowledged the potential safety benefits but refused even to test any increased illumination from the current standard. Their rationale for not adopting such upper limits (pages 9985,9986, pdf pages 70,71) clearly states they were not going to change their test protocols to even test the safety and effectiveness of such an increase, or any increase whatsoever. It simply was not considered. I suspect some of the NHTSA members feel that night driving at any speeds above 40 mph is dangerous and no way were they going to increase/improve illumination that would potentially “encourage” such reckless behavior. It is interesting that rest of the world (Euro/Asia) can benefit from such advances in increased illumination but not the US. The entire focus of the regs allowing ADB headlamps was on reducing and controlling glare from oncoming headlamps, better maxima illumination in excess of the current US limits was simply off limits.

One thing I can't help but wonder is if there has to be a hardware difference to achieve those differences in the regs (upper beam maxima is not the only difference with ECE regs), or if it solely a coding/programming difference. If it is hardware difference then at least by adopting standards not in line with current ECE specs the cost of ADBs in the US is likely to be significantly higher than need be due to this specialization for US market.

I do have a copy of the 111 page document if anyone wants to read it. PM me with an email address. Also you can check out the other post i referenced at the beginning of this post, it is a rather lengthy post.

That's sad but I am not surprised. They already make two different tail lights for the 3 series because of the annoying American laws so they could make different hardware for us soon too. Those dinosaurs at these government agencies take 20 years to decide on a minor change and even then they don't decide on the right outcome.

[Poochie]

Originally Posted by Nkr15

That's sad but I am not surprised. They already make two different tail lights for the 3 series because of the annoying American laws so they could make different hardware for us soon too. Those dinosaurs at these government agencies take 20 years to decide on a minor change and even then they don't decide on the right outcome.

The number one consumer complain to the NHTSA since 1990 is headlight glare, so I can understand why they are reluctant on allowing the US to become the Wild Wild West of bright, eye-piercing headlights and take a more conservative approach in allowing the technology.



.

[Nkr15]

Originally Posted by Poochie

The number one consumer complain to the NHTSA since 1990 is headlight glare, so I can understand why they are reluctant on allowing the US to become the Wild Wild West of bright, eye-piercing headlights and take a more conservative approach in allowing the technology.



.

Yeah but isn't the whole point of this being non glare led that is adaptive? Like if you understood that why be opposed? It is solving the problem. The people ruining this are the ones putting 12K HIDs in halogen housing in their lifted ram trucks.

[Poochie]

Originally Posted by Nkr15

Yeah but isn't the whole point of this being non glare led that is adaptive? Like if you understood that why be opposed? It is solving the problem. The people ruining this are the ones putting 12K HIDs in halogen housing in their lifted ram trucks.

First of all, I'm not oppose to anything.. I, myself, is a renegade that coded the Euro Anti-Dazzle feature back on all my stateside vehicles and I'm all for forward moving technology. Not to mention over they years, I've help dozens of folks here code this feature on their vehicle.

However, my point was after reading their reasoning for being cautious in approving this technology on a broad spectrum, I get why they are hesitant. The technology is not perfect and can create glare and discomfort to oncoming drivers and its efficiency is totally depended on actual technology and vehicle size that's used, which can vary from each manufacture.

I'm capable of disclaiming support for something (like rules) but still understand why they are necessary in a functioning society.


https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-34878016.html


https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/31079

[danallxt]

First of all i hate the BNW "anti-dazzle" term as its a BMW term that is next to meaningless as it can mean whatever BMW wants it to. It can simply reference automatic high/low beam activation which can be considered 'anti dazzle". There is a specific industry wide term of "Adaptive Driving Beams" that means something very specific in terms of headlamp technology.
ADBs have been in existence for a number of years in Asia and Euro with a much greater allowable maximum intensity (up to 3x US). Dunno if (glare) it has been a problem. Supposedly the matrix of leds and the technology that allows these to be adaptive is supposed to address the glare problem. Somehow it works worldwide but not in US?

The US glare complaints that were noted above were with headlamp intensity 1/3 the allowable levels of Euro/Asia and have to do with drivers failing to change from high beam to low, when meeting a car simple as that.

I was addressing a previous comment in this thread that thought we would get the higher intensity that is allowed in Euro/Asia and i wanted to correct that. I was dismayed that US did not even bother to test anything greater than the old standard.

[NightWriter]

Originally Posted by BMWTEJAS

SPEC SHEET ABOVE - DECODE. A dissertation is nice if you have the time. Modulation is occuring. Running high beams all over town. Not one flash back. 1st car I have driven in over 50 years that you can run high beams with no oncoming traffic complaints.

N/C, NO CHARGE. DECODE.

"Decode" in this context means "disabled." It's encoded (enabled) only in certain markets (like Europe).

[djpapeleta]

I coded my car this weekend using Esys. Wasn't hard once I got the car connected.