Vcds 11.11.3 Activated Torrent
Joann Heavilin
I picked up a well specced brand new MAN TGE van a few weeks ago, i selected a comfort plus package which if picked in europe comes with adaptive cruise, but unfortunately doesnt in the uk, however i beleive i have the cameras and radar on the van for it, and even when i start the van up it brings up an adaptive cruise symbol but then disapears once it cant find it.
It's going to be impossible to be precise about your "van" because all we know about it is that it's a "van"!! However, if the "van" was built on a MQB platform (as is the Golf mk7) - here's what could happen:
So, if you aren't familiar with the term "long-code" - this is a feature that every module has; it's basically a number that's attached to the module and VCDS reports this number in hexadecimal (hex) nomenclature. As you may be aware, hex numbers can be translated into binary numbers in which each digit is expressed as either one, or zero. These one/zero states are like a string of software switches which are either ON, or OFF. Each of these software switches has a specific purpose related to the various available options on the car (like ACC)
This is a long winded way of explaining that the long-code value tells the control module what peripherals are installed in the car and therefore what functions to operate (and which function to not-operate). On your van, it sounds like some of the software switches for ACC are enabled at the factory, but some are not.
So, the first task is to look at the long-code strings that are reported by the auto-scan report related to the ACC function and to ascertain which software switches have not been enabled at the factory. Fortunately, VCDS helps in this task by describing the function of lots (but not all) of the software switches in their "Long Code Helper" screens - so this is where you should start the investigation!
The general long-code instructions for enabling ACC for MQB platform cars (not necessarily your "van") are as follows (note-some of these software switches will already be set in your "van" from the factory):
After this, it's then a matter of reviewing what (if any) errors appear and possibly changing the values of adaptation channels in various modules. Adaptation channels are a different feature of control modules - once a software switch in long-code is turned-on to enable a particular function, adaptation channels then tell the module how to operate that function.
Thanks for taking the time to explain it properly, so ill have to grab a vcds and find out i guess. The vans exactly the same as the crafter but idk what its built on, it uses the same screen and steering wheel as my golf so a fair bit of its familiar, except the auto box which is an 8 speed zf rather than dsg.(crafter also uses zf)
Sorry to bump an older thread... But, were you able to get ACC to work simply by following this coding? I have a Jetta GLI with front assist and I am hoping it is as easy as a few coding changes through VCDS to get ACC to work. As well as the wheel buttons of course. If you could let me know,
2) Control modules using Long Coding are activated in the Coding. Due to different Control Modules Vehicle Equipment, the actual Coding Table is not shown here but will automatically be used by the Long Coding Helper with VCDS.
The CCS (Cruise Control System) on DBC (Drive By Cable) throttle systems may or may Not be controlled by the Engine Control Module. Refer to the factory repair manual for additional details on these older systems.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has established itself as a safe and efficient treatment option in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis, regardless of the underlying surgical risk. Widespread adoption of transfemoral procedures led to more patients than ever being eligible for TAVR. This increase in procedural volumes has also stimulated the use of vascular closure devices (VCDs) for improved access site management. In a single-center examination, we investigated 871 patients that underwent transfemoral TAVR from 2010 to 2020 and assessed vascular complications according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) III recommendations. Patients were grouped by the VCD and both, vascular closure success and need for intervention were analyzed. In case of a vascular complication, the type of intervention was investigated for all VCDs. The Proglide VCD was the most frequently used device (n = 670), followed by the Prostar device (n = 112). Patients were old (median age 83 years) and patients suffered from high comorbidity burden (60% coronary artery disease, 30% type II diabetes, 40% atrial fibrillation). The overall rate of major complications amounted to 4.6%, it was highest in the Prostar group (9.6%) and lowest in the Manta VCD group (1.1% p = 0.019). The most frequent vascular complications were bleeding and hematoma (n = 110, 13%). In case a complication occurred, 72% of patients did not need any further intervention other than manual compression or pressure bandages. The rate of surgical intervention after complication was highest in the Prostar group (n = 15, 29%, p = 0.001). Temporal trends in VCD usage highlight the rapid adoption of the Proglide system after introduction at our institution. In recent years VCD alternatives, utilizing other closure techniques, such as the Manta device emerged and increased vascular access site management options. This 10-year single-center experience demonstrates high success rates for all VCDs. Despite successful closure, a significant number of patients does experience minor vascular complications, in particular bleeding and hematoma. However, most complications do not require surgical or endovascular intervention. Temporal trends display a marked increase in TAVR procedures and highlight the need for more refined vascular access management strategies.
Since its first description in 2002 (1), transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been established as a safe and efficient treatment for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and high surgical risk (2). Recent studies emphasize the efficacy of TAVR in patients with low and intermediate surgical risk (3, 4).
While percutaneous vascular closure devices (VCD) have been used regularly for peripheral vascular, percutaneous coronary and rhythmological interventions (9), application of VCDs to large bore arteriotomies as in the setting of TAVR is more challenging. However, percutaneous closure was shown to be associated with a decrease in access- site infections, lower bleeding complications and shorter hospital stays in comparison to surgical cut-down techniques (10). Several VCDs utilizing various closure techniques have been developed to improve access site management and to decrease vascular complications (11, 12).
The aim for the present analysis was to investigate the utilization of VCDs in every day clinical practice, assess temporal trends in VCD usage and to provide real-world experience of VCDs and vascular complications.
We included patients with severe aortic stenosis that were referred to TAVR or valve-in-valve procedures by our local Heart Team at the Medical University of Vienna, a tertiary care center. The evaluation of vascular complications was performed retrospectively including baseline procedural, clinical characteristics, procedural protocols, discharge letters and femoral ultrasound reports. All patients received a femoral ultrasound after transfemoral access for TAVR according to standard operating procedures. To assess temporal trends, we choose our study period to be from 2010 to 2020. This study was approved by the institutional review board of the Medical University of Vienna.
All patients underwent computed tomography before implantation and were evaluated for femoral access. Choice of femoral access site was based on arterial diameter and qualitative interpretation of vessel tortuosity and calcium and plaque burden by the operator. Patients in which transfemoral access was not feasible were excluded from this study. After arterial puncture, stepwise dilatation of the access site was performed until the delivery system was inserted. The standard secondary access site at our institution is the contralateral femoral vein (5Fr sheath) and the contralateral femoral artery with a 6Fr sheath. Vascular closure devices were deployed according to the manufacturer's recommendations and successful closure was confirmed by angiogram and assessment of hemostasis by the operator. Anticoagulation during the procedure was achieved using weight adapted unfractionated heparin and guided by the activated clotting time. Every patient received a postprocedural femoral ultrasound before discharge.
Every complication was classified according to VARC III recommendations, additionally the number of complications for each patient was recorded. Successful vascular closure was defined as achievement of hemostasis, using vascular closure devices and manual compression and or planned adjunctive endovascular balloon dilatation after retraction of TAVR delivery systems. Hemostasis was assessed by the operator. Patients that experienced vascular complications were evaluated whether any intervention was necessary or possible according to the recommendations of angiologists, interventional radiologists and vascular surgeons. The type of intervention was categorized into surgical, endovascular (stents or angioplasty) or other type of interventions, encompassing thrombin instillation, ultrasound-guided compression and coilembolization and no intervention at all, other than regular follow up in an outpatient setting, manual compression or pressure bandages.
b1e95dc632