Printable View
i can certainly relate to the whole family,work, and kids thing. i realize that it has pretty much been dtermined to not work but i was hoping that finally someone would put it to rest considering how some try to explain away its issues and say that its working properly and we just dont understand it.
how about just posting the test procedures and results and leave the videos for later. i know itll start a neverending response session but it would still go a long way in putting it to rest.
speeding is dangerous, distractions like arrows and beeping while driving is dangerous, ignoring false alerts that a LEO could be one of is dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by thestaton
Why must we beat up on TrueLock all the time??? It took some big balls to even attempt to do anything like this.
The thing that pisses me off the most is comments like "it doesn't work" it does, and exactly as advertised!!! Just not in the magical way people perceve it should.
If you use your brain and use it the way it ultamatley should be used it will be fine. That’s why I choose to help 9500I owners and not beat them to death with one sided videos.
Yes you can lock out a LEO's radar, but why would you want to do that???
As a side note:
KA is becoming more and more popular Radar to be used and the TrueLock doesn’t lock this out at all. So in this case the 9500I is not dangerous at all so you can’t blanket a statement like "TrueLock is dangerous" you could say TrueLock can potentially be dangerous on any other band outher than KA.
I completely agree... We should be helping people understand how to use true lock wisely if they choose to or at least make a video on how to use the TrueLock feature and how not too. If someone is going to take the time to make a video it should be to help users.Quote:
Originally Posted by happya$$
The problem is anyone on RD.NET understands the so called problems with TrueLock and can wisely use it if they wish, it’s the non RD.NET users that will have a problem with TrueLock.
pass the work off to me lazyA$$. I've got a bum knee and set around all day, don't make excuses.Quote:
Originally Posted by happya$$
GoL doesn't make excuses. we have solutions.
as per the truelock videos they tell a different story then what's been said before. I'm just pissed I passed the work off to this n00b and he can't do some simple editing in 40 days. rubbish.
First of all:
Great job once again GOL!
You have outdone yourselves.
I like the addition of the curve test, instant-on test and the previously-included-and-kept forward facing test.
The experimenting with settings' results should prove very useful to us when deciding whether to use a setting or not.
I prefer the around the curve test to the August off-axis test with the foam, since IMHO the former is more of a real world scenario.
Wow!
The 9500i indeed did great on EVERY test, much to the surprise of most no doubt, not that it did badly in March.
It came in second to the V1 in essentially every test (in a number of those literally within a few feet where it even beat one of the V1 units that were tested).
The V1 and 9500i were often way ahead of the rest, other than the STI which was close behind the 9500i a couple of the Ka tests.
The 9500i (X50 and V1) also didn't miss any instant-on busts on 35.5 like some of its competitors (RX65, STI, 995).
If Escort fixes the ramp-up, IMO they will have a winner on their hands with the 9500i, thanks to the detection performance combined with excellent filtering (i.e. low falsing), the Expert and Spec Meters and all the new 9500i-only features (not including Truelock, which has been the focus of debate).
Keep up the great work guys (of LIDAR)!
You have had TWO great tests since March and I haven't seen any major publications come out with any tests of the 9500i (yet)!
Regarding the work on the 9500i:Quote:
Originally Posted by MEM-TEK
Yes, that is very possible, Michael.
I give their enginers a lot of credit if that is the case.
Too bad they apparently forgot about the audio ramp-up, unless they're working on that now. :)
The poor ramp-up is the ONE thing (other than Truelock performance perhaps which I haven't needed anyway) that IMO is still keeping this from being a truly great all-round detector - i.e. excellent all-around detection performance while minimizing falses due to its filtering algorithms, topped off by Spec Meter, Expert Meter, Voice ("multiple signals detected"), Auto (vehicle speed-based) Sensitivity.
GOL:
Did you by any chance run any (i.e. unofficial) tests of the 9500i in Auto mode to compare it to Highway mode at highway speeds?
tell me again why was i told not to buy the 9500i when i bought my new x50 ?
As for rear detection (forward facing test), i doubt the 9500i will ever equal the v1 since it lacks a rear antenna. The v1 is still the king on laser also (not that it makes much difference though). However, the 9500i did come up quite a bit. I'm assuming this is a new software version since the last tests?Quote:
Originally Posted by CJR238
As a side note: Its also noteworthy that the GOL previously mentioned the eco foam tests do not simulate real world conditions. However, they did not mention it this time. Look back at some of their older tests.
Wow I'm very impressed with the 9500i. The only thing stopping me from getting it is the ramp up. I kind of like being able to judge how far away the LEO is. Also I wish they'd make it out of magnesium (or whatever the V1 and STi are), but I've heard the GPS feature might not work if it were?
Anyway, as someone mentioned earlier... the truelock is fine... you just have to know how to use it.
I think the next detector I get (probably for the gf) will be the 9500i. I'm very impressed.
I don't know the details of what you were told and by whom, but if it was due to the poor ramp-up, that argument still stands and is why I would imagine most of those who have been holding off will continue to do so until the issue is fixed before jumping on the bandwagon.Quote:
Originally Posted by bearcat
Many people make this mistake. But a "Forward-Facing" test is not the same as rear detection, and V1's rear antenna does not come into play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip559
A Forward-Facing test simulates an officer sitting on a highway on-ramp, operating in constant-on mode. The radar is basically set up facing the same direction that the vehicle with the detector is travelling. The detectors have to alert to weak reflections which might be reflected back to the detector's front antenna, since at all times the detector is behind the radar. The results of the test indicate how much warning was received before reaching the officer's location. Hope I described it OK :)