Truelock locked out a LEO today.

[chris3g]

That could certainly help, the more things they add the lower the chances are.

The best and only option as I see it is a speed limit true lock release. It sets the lock out like normal, however if you go above the speed limit you choose, the locked out area would be bypassed and full sensitivity and alerts would be herd.

i have to say, i dont like that one at all, It defeats the whole purpose of truelock. If i want my detector to be quiet when i'm not speeding, i'll just turn the volume off. The whole idea behind truelock being so great is that (In theory) when you need the detector the most (which obviously is when you are speeding) it only notifies you of the alerts that matter.

In fact you dont even need gps positional lockouts to do a speed lockout like that, the v1 or any other detector with the cheetah interface can provide the same function.

Unfortunately every possible solution for making truelock better has these flaws...i guess if it was easy escort would have done it already.

locking out only a small portion of the k band - good but the most popular k band opener out there now is spec'ed to operate at 24.150 (and escort already does this one of course)

# of signals override - not reliable enough, if a store has 4 openers a detector cannot always pick up 4 and only 4 signals, it varies too much for this to work

speed override - like i was saying, defeats the purpose

signal strength override - this might be the best addition, if it can remember the strength of the signal in the position it was locked out, then it can automatically unlock the signal if it detects a more powerful signal in the area. I just wonder if this can be done reliably. I'm sure they are hesitant to add something that could result in "truelock falses" where it mistakenly unlocks a false signal.

[CJR238]

signal strength override - this might be the best addition, if it can remember the strength of the signal in the position it was locked out, then it can automatically unlock the signal if it detects a more powerful signal in the area. I just wonder if this can be done reliably. I'm sure they are hesitant to add something that could result in "truelock falses" where it mistakenly unlocks a false signal.

This also has a problem when you drive close to the false you locked out the signal gets stronger and you'll get blasted with an alert. There isn't really any more that can be done for TrueLock other than what Escort did.

[chris3g]

This also has a problem when you drive close to the false you locked out the signal gets stronger and you'll get blasted with an alert. There isn't really any more that can be done for TrueLock other than what Escort did.

yup i thought of that also, what it would have to do is record the strength right at the start of the lockout and only compare the recorded signal strength to the current at the time you enter the lockout zone. The more i think about it the more i think it would be impossible to implement this in a reliable way.

[RadarKid]

This also has a problem when you drive close to the false you locked out the signal gets stronger and you'll get blasted with an alert. There isn't really any more that can be done for TrueLock other than what Escort did.

not if your speed alert keeps it supressed. if youre speeding in a parking lot by those falses its your own fault

[nascar]

No more postings here? I guess the TrueLock issue (real or perceived) has been solved.

Darn... This was one of the most entertaining threads I have read in a long time.

[happya$$]

The V1's bogey counter started acting up from firmware 3.851 and up. As far as a lockout fix, remember guys this is a public company who has ONE main goal in mind, and that is to maximize shareholder's wealth. A fix will not happen on any issue (ramp up, lockout, etc) unless it makes financial sense. I guess this is why I have so much respect for VR. Mike V. is in it to make money BUT more importantly to be the best. He is already very rich, and since he is privately owned, has to answer to himself only, not a bunch of money hungry executives who only worry about their deep pockets

[FoolishOne]

That's a good point you make there, happyass.

[CJR238]

Very true happyass. However those same money hungry executives are the ones that push a company to make something new, different and more advanced to make more $$$.
I work for a private company and there are huge advantages and allot more stability, however we don't have the endless funds like a public company has.

[crazyVOLVOrob]

The V1's bogey counter started acting up from firmware 3.851 and up. As far as a lockout fix, remember guys this is a public company who has ONE main goal in mind, and that is to maximize shareholder's wealth. A fix will not happen on any issue (ramp up, lockout, etc) unless it makes financial sense. I guess this is why I have so much respect for VR. Mike V. is in it to make money BUT more importantly to be the best. He is already very rich, and since he is privately owned, has to answer to himself only, not a bunch of money hungry executives who only worry about their deep pockets

And that is why I think these issues need to be brought to the public attention! Bringing the issue to public attention is the only way to get Escort/Beltronics to change!

It took awhile but they finally fixed the ramp-up with the BEL STi and STi-R.

We bring enough attention to the BELscort issues they will try to fix it.

Why do you think Escort "fixed" the original 9500i. GOL and this forum brought this problem to light and Escort did their best to fix it.

Funny at the V1 forum there is no attempt to hide the issues of the V1 but this forum is huge with hiding the Escort issues

Seriously there are ways to fixed the issues but we need to bring it to public attention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to but if it can get Escort to improve their detectors then its worth it for all consumers