Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

AP1 ONLY Please -- life after 2018.50.6

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I think they know of it, or some other bug related to 2022.24.5 because I had it available to install and I didn't install it but then it went away and gave me the option to install 2022.20.8 instead.

I'm still holding strong in my 2021.44.6 since I haven't heard of a solid release since then yet. 2022.24 finally got defroster on the main bar, 2022.20.8 seems to have completely removed the energy graph even by voice command. I think at this rate I'll be holding out till v12.

The Energy Graph is only missing on Palladium S and X'. All "Legacy" vehicles still have the Energy Graph on all firmware versions, just as @Huachipato mentioned.

The problem was that it was first ported from the vertical screen firmware versions to the very early software versions for the horizontal screens in the Palladium builds, and it was always hidden and inaccessible though an app icon or menu. Someone figured out that you could launch it with a voice command, and Tesla didn´t like it as it was still not optimized for the horizonal screens, so they removed it from the code altogether.
I'm pretty sure it will make a comeback soon in its new optimized form for all the Palladium Teslas in a future software update.
 
Last edited:
The Energy Graph is only missing on Palladium S and X'. All "Legacy" vehicles still have the Energy Graph on all firmware versions, just as @Huachipato mentioned.
Thank you for the clarification, it's hard to tell what model/year people are talking about sometimes when they dont list them in their signature. I had assumed it was all vehicles, but that makes sense with the vertical screens.
 
The Energy Graph is only missing on Palladium S and X'. All "Legacy" vehicles still have the Energy Graph on all firmware versions, just as @Huachipato mentioned. The problem was that ...

The problem is that there are lots of owners who post with no car signature and no mention of what model cars they have, etc.

Thanks for clarifying. I still have my Energy app and was wondering if I should update next time.
 
This thread is about AP1 cars. There really should be no confusion.
Agreed, but this thread isn't as active as other thread especially when it comes to new firmware releases so you need to gather information from other threads and then bring that information here to see what other AP1 users have experienced.

I am still waiting to upgrade from 2021.x.x build once it was been well received by the AP1 community but relying only on posts in this thread leaves a large gap in data since people don't report their findings very often.
 
Release notes look the exact same as 2022.8.10.1, as expected.
 

Attachments

  • 6C2FBC07-227E-4300-9A55-03D846CDE290.jpeg
    6C2FBC07-227E-4300-9A55-03D846CDE290.jpeg
    477.7 KB · Views: 169
Question to "nerfed" SuC 85 owners (most of 85 owners, I guess): I noticed that charge duration estimates in the Nav seem adapted to the slower SuC speed.
For a long time, and definitely during our last road trip in February, it would still estimate charge stops time, as if the car was still able to charge before the infamous nerfing. So always way too optimistic.
Now, I see very long charge time announced (50' & 1h10'), when planning a long trip. Not sure though if it is close to reality, but looks like it is.

Anyone here also noticed this?
 
Question to "nerfed" SuC 85 owners (most of 85 owners, I guess): I noticed that charge duration estimates in the Nav seem adapted to the slower SuC speed.
For a long time, and definitely during our last road trip in February, it would still estimate charge stops time, as if the car was still able to charge before the infamous nerfing. So always way too optimistic.
Now, I see very long charge time announced (50' & 1h10'), when planning a long trip. Not sure though if it is close to reality, but looks like it is.

Anyone here also noticed this?
Yes, the estimates are MUCH closer to reality on my 85. Fairly spot on unless the battery is cold.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AustinP
Anyone on MCU2 see a glitch after updating to 2022.24.5 where the top window can’t be dragged and set further up on the screen to expand out music options on the bottom of the screen? When I let go of it the bottom immediately collapses. I have to close the top window to access the playlist.
Anyone still getting this? Even after updating to 2022.24.8 and rebooting, I have to close the backup camera window in order to look at songs in the playlists or else it will collapse back down automatically and immediately.
 
Anyone still getting this? Even after updating to 2022.24.8 and rebooting, I have to close the backup camera window in order to look at songs in the playlists or else it will collapse back down automatically and immediately.
I have updated to 2022.24.8 (unfortunately). If I have the backup camera open I can view the music in the small window (about 2 inches tall), and the medium window (about 5 inches tall) but if I try to make it the largest size it will close the rear camera. Pushing the button to resize the window it toggles between the small and medium sizes and never enables the largest size music window with the camera up.

(The entire v11 interface on the vertical screen is just crammed in there to make it work, such a step backwards from v10.)
 
Question to "nerfed" SuC 85 owners (most of 85 owners, I guess): I noticed that charge duration estimates in the Nav seem adapted to the slower SuC speed.
For a long time, and definitely during our last road trip in February, it would still estimate charge stops time, as if the car was still able to charge before the infamous nerfing. So always way too optimistic.
Now, I see very long charge time announced (50' & 1h10'), when planning a long trip. Not sure though if it is close to reality, but looks like it is.

Anyone here also noticed this?
Last month, 6k road trip. SuC charge time estimate way off as usual.

Updated to 2020.8.10.5 last night.

Navigate to a 250kw SuC, pulled in as soon as SMT showed pack heater off at a cell temp of about 102 deg F.

Charging rate higher a bit than BMS limit shown on SMT. Saw 96Kw at 30% SoC.

Charging rate + SoC seemed a bit higher, 116 at 30%, to 112 at 70% SoC.

Charge time shown has greater precision, showing second digit as other than zero or 5, such as 18, 12, 8 minutes remaining.

Set timer when it said 20min to completion. Timer said 26 min when car said calculating, 26.5 min to complete...
 
Last month, 6k road trip. SuC charge time estimate way off as usual.

Updated to 2020.8.10.5 last night.

Navigate to a 250kw SuC, pulled in as soon as SMT showed pack heater off at a cell temp of about 102 deg F.

Charging rate higher a bit than BMS limit shown on SMT. Saw 96Kw at 30% SoC.

Charging rate + SoC seemed a bit higher, 116 at 30%, to 112 at 70% SoC.

Charge time shown has greater precision, showing second digit as other than zero or 5, such as 18, 12, 8 minutes remaining.

Set timer when it said 20min to completion. Timer said 26 min when car said calculating, 26.5 min to complete...
Thanks for the detailed report.
I'm on 2022.24.6, on MCU2.
Last Saturday took a short road trip, but needing to charge at one SuC.
Unfortunately, I saw the usual: estimated 15' charge when driving, jumping to 20' on the nav when plugged, and not decreasing in time as charge progressed. (meaning, after 5', estimate was still 20').
I did not see greater precision as you mention.
Speed as usual %SoC+kW = 110 when at 20%, then slowly decreasing toward 100.

So my previous message was too optimistic