Jump to content

endurance

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. Note: not able to reproduce on a different machine ... in case someone else has the same issue please let me know to compare setup. Meanwhile I will use Chrome only on the affected machine.
  2. Might more a FF bug maybe worth to look into. As soon as I try to use ABRP on the latest FF 70.0 (note: it worked perfectly before) the browser hangs after a while (not immediately takes some minutes). Not extremly high CPU but simply not responsive any more. Per standard I have ~20+ TABs opened (als Startup) as soon as i close ABRP right after start no issue, if I close all others and just keep ABRP same unresponsiveness issue pops up (browser can only be killed). So it seems the combination of both. TO avoid sideeffects I deactivated all FF extensions. Note: Chrome on same machine still works without issues. Olaf
  3. Look good now thx - yes you can be proud of - works great. Just came back from 5500km tour across Germany, Norway, Sweden I used ABRP for this as well. Here the last day (in German): http://okedv.dyndns.org/wbb/blog/index.php?entry/121-norwegen-schweden-daenemark-tag-8/
  4. Another example is the Levi Center 78% in 29min. In some cases like Skaidi Hotel it works as wanted. Maybe it is an issue with unkown charging speed of some chargers? In those cases for the Tesla M3 11kW might be assumed as max.
  5. Just calculated a route https://abetterrouteplanner.com/?plan_uuid=b120b09b-09f0-461f-84ff-e8d2fb8d52a3 and it looks like many Type or CEE stops are calculated like Superchargers. Take the Amfi center as example 56% SOC increase in 15 minutes on Type2 11kW looks strange.
  6. Yes manually adding chargers is the workaround but obviously makes the automatic routing less flexible and the list of waypoints is difficult to handle (at least on low res display like the car). Typically only add those to force a specific route e.g. if planned to stop there anyway. At least I understand your technical implementation now which already helps. Maybe routing critieras like, based on speed, costs or economical could help further prioritization. Or instead of Bonus you add avoid xyz too. Question is then obviously is should it be hard avoid or only soft via charging power "penalty". If SuC would get +50 and Ionity -50 it will work but this might change soon again if charing limits are changed...
  7. This is the full route - it take a while to calc: https://abetterrouteplanner.com//?plan_uuid=3a13564b-2dd3-452f-a201-3fc6e7f60dff Most likely the selected chargers (350kW) a simply faster than the SuC (120kW) but as said looking for an option to still use SuC if available - that's what I hoped can be done with the favourite mark.
  8. No one with an idea what the problem is and how to avoid taking costly 3pp Fastcharger even if a Tesla SuC is close by?
  9. Hi, I am trying to plan bigger routes across "SuC Land" and areas of no SuC available, but SuC should be preferred if they are available (due to less costs and more stable network). But looks like ABRP is still using "best" choice and not preferred. Attached a planned route via Denmark where Ionity instead of close by SuCs are used. Any Idea how to get the result I am looking for (use SuC whereever possible even if a bit slower)?

Contact Us

Bo - Lead Developer and Tesla owner: bo@abetterrouteplanner.com

Jason - New Car Models, Developer and Bolt owner : jason@abetterrouteplanner.com

Idreams - Forums Administrator, Forums Developer and Tesla owner : idreams@abetterrouteplanner.com

×
×
  • Create New...