9500ix Autolock

[Syncro]

Ok. More questions.... I was currious and driving around today so I played, or rather it did while I watched and took notes.

The autolock locks out at the 3rd time past the same signal... right? (I'll assume your nodding your head and muttering "ya stupid, read the forum")

I went off into a newer area adjacent to a infrequent route of mine where I did have a lockout. In an area when I have had no lockouts my detector beeped and flashed stored. This is weird because it wasn't going off at all prior to this, nor was the icon spinning after. I kept my speed up while this was going on. How can this be?

The second thing it did, was second pass by a complete new area with this detector and it stored another lockout.

What is going on? Is this normal? Can somebody help me understand this please! These two areas are good to test with, as I don't have to drive them ever and they have huge long buildings that are mostly brick on both sides of the road.

[swarga]

I went off into a newer area adjacent to a infrequent route of mine where I did have a lockout. In an area when I have had no lockouts my detector beeped and flashed stored. This is weird because it wasn't going off at all prior to this, nor was the icon spinning after. I kept my speed up while this was going on. How can this be?

I have observed the same behavior with my 9500ci. I was driving along at 50 MPH; there was no alert active, but suddenly it beeped and the display said "stored."

I'm thinking it's a firmware bug. There seem to be quite a few of them lurking around in there.

For example, the other day I was stopped in an area where I have a lockout. I hit the "MRK" button and it said "Unmark this location?" I hit it again and it said "Unmarked." I had never marked the location, and the alert lockout remained in effect even after the unmarking (which I confirmed by removing the lockout).

One of these days they'll come out with some firmware that fixes all of these and the ramp-up; until then, I'm sticking with 1.0.

[CJR238]

How close in actuality were you to the original lock out?

I will try to explain the hidden things AutoLock is doing, and in actuality the hole time for any detection.

The I/ix is more sensitive than what any test results show because its analyzing the signal for a split second before it notifies you. It does this for filtering purposes and for Auto/TrueLock.

...................Alert before: .30mi [ ..=======
.........Spinning Icon after: .32mi [ =========

Now during this split second Auto/true-Lock analyses the frequency:
1-designates a 30Mhz block of K band.
2-designates a lock out radius (1/10-1/2mi).
3-locks out depending on the # of times you passed the false.
Not sure what order it does this in or which of 3 passes it does what, if not all.
Now if it analyzed the area and locked out a 2/10mi false but that same false frequency flows to a close and adjacent area (less than 1/2mi) it can add that false and AutoLock it if it sees it as the same signal, or just give spinning icon.

So if you successfully passed a false 3 times and drive down a road/area adjacent to it (within the original 1/10-1/2mi) it will add that lock out if its the same as the original in frequency.

A lock out area consists of a 1/10mi to 1/2mi radius dependent on signal strength.

I'm still testing my ix and will have better detail as more time and tests go on.

[MEM-TEK]

I suspect that the other locations were rather close to another locked out location which was stored after the usual three passes. This sounds similar to the 9500i behavior where if you lock out a specific location and then drive a very short distance and encounter additional door openers, the 9500i would start "learning" about this additional location yet automatically start the GPS icon spinning. It seemed to me that the new nearby lockout location data was saved in a slightly different format when I used Jimbonzzz's 9500i Commander to have a look at the data. The following day I drove by that other nearby location and got the spinning GPS icon again, and later that evening I once again had a look at the stored TrueLock data. This time the data for that nearby location was stored using the same format used for the manual lockouts which I had done.

My 9500ci seems to behave similarly either in AutoLearn or manual lockout modes. This is why I like the idea of letting a 9500ci or 9500ix initially AutoLearn your false alert locations along all of your normal driving routes, and then turning AutoLearn off so that now you have control over any other nearby locations which you may or may not wish to lock out.

[jwardell]

The manual says lockout occurs after "about" three passes, because that may actually vary.

If it is a weak signal and did not pick it up with every single pass, then it may wait for 4 or 5 alerts before it locks it out.

Do you run in AutoNoX mode, or X band off? The mysterious stores-out-of-nowhere I've found were X band transmitters. It still hears them, just doesn't alert to X.

[CJR238]

The manual says lockout occurs after "about" three passes, because that may actually vary.

If it is a weak signal and did not pick it up with every single pass, then it may wait for 4 or 5 alerts before it locks it out.

Do you run in AutoNoX mode, or X band off? The mysterious stores-out-of-nowhere I've found were X band transmitters. It still hears them, just doesn't alert to X.

I only run in Highway mode, its more than sufficient with below 20mph muting and TrueLock. The only time i would run AutoNox is when im in NYC or other very dense city areas. I never turn off any bands, that's really what TrueLock is for.

I think the times we get an immediate lock out is when the frequency of the false is so far away from what LEO uses it locks it out on the first pass.
For example:
Its possible that according to signal it may lock out quicker, like 24.050, 24.260, or something far from the 24.150 that a LEO would/could run.

[MEM-TEK]

I think that the user manuals are being extremely basic in describing how TrueLock works in order to keep it simple. In reality I have reasons to suspect that the TrueLock algorithms are considerably more complicated.