MAF tables flow way more air than I think anyone will see for a long while.
MAP sensor calibration is in there.
Spark and fuel tables are also scalable.
Not sure why you would want to downgrade the viper to a speed density setup when it has a great dual MAF configuration.
Speed Density does not mean boost, and MAF does not mean no boost. They're just different forms of registering airflow, MAF being the better of the two.
Glad to hear that some of parameters are scalable.
I would have to SEVERELY disagree with you on MAP vs MAF. They both have their advantages and disadvantages, but to say MAF is "better" is just not reality... it really depends on the specific application. While there are far more parameters to properly set up with MAP compared to MAF, and it is more difficult to tune, when properly configured MAP will absolutely do a far better job at quickly responding to load changes. However, YES, there are ABSOLUTELY applications better suited to MAF; such as big-cam applications where total airflow/load cannot be correctly gauged by speed density due to manifold conditions. As the MAF system calculates airflow directly rather than indirectly, it is more "accurate", but cannot deal with rapid changes/and pulsations by design. MAF also will lag behind actual engine loading, and it looks at total flow, not necessarily what the engine is consuming, which changes considerations in system design. I can understand why you, coming from the GM background, would prefer MAF... I do not however. An engine is a very transient device, and MAP in my opinion, while slightly less accurate overall and more difficult to implement, is far better suited to a transient application. The *idea* of MAF is ideal, but the actual implementation really is not. The Gen-4/5 of course utilize both MAF and MAP for that reason. However, I believe the use of MAF in that particular application largely clouds the issue.
That said I did not say that MAF/MAP are a direct correlation to NA or FI, to the contrary I specifically stated that they are not an actual prevention. However, from my experience, Speed Density does produce a FAR better running forced induction platform. Mass Airflow tends to be quite laggy on working point determination, and considerations need to be made on MAF location and system design to prevent false load changes. I personally would not be running that application in primarily MAF. Not to say it cannot be done however.
On the other side, the Cam Control *IS* a problem. Without the ability to alter the camshaft position, ultimate efficiencies and build types are limited.
What I am getting at is that YES, it is absolutely possible, and doable. However, it is not an "FI Specific" solution [****, even SCT tuning for Gen-2/3 is in the same boat]. As a result, it will have limitations on what the builders/customers can do with it. That is not to take away from your product, it still has a market niche that most people will fit into.
I guess I just look at things differently. I am not the average 5 pound Blower customer... I am the high-boost turbo builder who uses motorsports level electronics. The features/layout that I would want may not be a consideration to most. Its symantics at best here.