Jump to content

endurance

Members
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. 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...
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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...