|
|
LI futureproofing?
Now that LI is out in the wild, so to speak, is there any news as to when the update feature over the internet will happen.
Or is that unlikely to happen?
Just that whilst LPP have been outstanding in providing a free update for the 100pps issue, I am uneasy about being without protection, even for a short time.
Any news on this Ivan?
buy one 4 a start m8.
m8
HAHA great response to a LPP loyalistOriginally Posted by interceptor
It's like Escort heads questioning Mike Valentine
that is kind of funney
HAHA great response to a LPP loyalist
It's like Escort heads questioning Mike Valentine
I'm on the floor LMFAO..........Dam Rob that's so funny.
LPP loyalist?
Not quite sure why being an owner of a product marks one out as a "loyalist".
I must be a loyalist of a lot of things then.
I am actually in the process of buying a quad head LI system. Why? Because it is the only system which will allow me to protect the rear of my car from being picked off again by a sneaky LEO. I have only owned an LPP for about 8 months and have been very happy with it. I will fit a quad LI system because it does what I need were as no LPP heads will fit.
As for your attitude Ivan I am surprised. I asked a civil question about whether my 810 euros will be well spent on your system as an updateable system will of course represent much better value for money in the long term. Since this is the only place I can ask that question I had no other option. A simple answer was deserved.
I have also asked questions earlier regarding whether another essential requirement of this new purchase would b satisfied. Namely that I can power a relay from the LI to cut power to my rear lights in th event of an alert.
I have no loyalty to LPP nor any other product save that if it works for me I will tell others that is so.
Some members seem to forget the failed promises of the defender 2 fiasco and only a prudent purchaser would ask simple questions first before shelling out 810 euros.
That simple question surely deserves a simple answer not a smart arse one.
The way you are acting now is making you seem more like an LPPP-head.
Everyone would always say I am ABOUT to make the purchase.... :wink:
If research was done Ivan is working on it being possibly user updated via the computer. He is working on the current base software to run things like turn off the sun interfearance alert, the parking sensor feature, etc.
As for updates I am sure that if Ivan doesn't go the online self update route that you'll be able to send it to him and get and update.
BTWs Ivan is smart and doesn't make promises he can't keep. Or maybe he really doesn't tell people what his jammer can and will do so he won't be held to a certain standard. The practices for the defender2 were completely stupid and no one should of ever believed them. First time laser jammer company is bound to fail. Ivan has been in the business for awhile so I don't think failure is on his mind. Considering that his system does what the DS jammer said they were going to do.
Don't take this so seriously....You already got an LPP you got a jammer to cover you for now. Why not wait until the retail version is tested? :wink:
That's another thing I've never been called.... an LPP Head!
Considering my first post was also critical of having to send my LPP away to be updated and thus leaving me "naked" I fail to see how that makes me an LPP head. You would also know Rob that the fact I had to use 3 heads on my M class leaves me in no doubt of LPP's limitations and I have never posted comments anywhere extolling LPP's virtues nor denigrating any other retail system.
Anyways, whilst I have LPP protection to my front the very real issue for me recently was being nicked at 98mph on a motorway from behind by an LEO using a ****ty old 20/20.
I have seen the same LEO on the same 20 mile stretch of motorway several times since and I have to drive this route 2 days a week. I am therefore in very urgent need of protection to my rear.
At the end of the day my original question was asked for a very good reason. This board has already witnessed posts regarding new LIDAR threats and it would have been reassuring to know how Ivan intended to address these issues. I have no doubt he will, I just wanted to know how that was going to occur.
Some people are too quick to jump to conclusions with regards other peoples motives for posting questions and this apparent paranoia is hardly helpful.
I think that's a *BIG* problem, if not the primary problem, in this community - and I think that it truly erodes this community greatly.
Given the past history of the community and industry, though, it is hard, unfortunately, to also *not* be so defensive.
I'd like to ask for the slate to be wiped clean, especially for the benefit of those who are entering the hobby or who are lurking and only thinking about actively joining (and with all the drama and hysteria, who, when viewing this from the outside, would ever want to join?).
Honestly, as a fellow LPP owner (and someone who is truly "independent" in this community, as a hobbyist) who has tracked charles charlie charles's "evolution," if you will - I would urge everyone here to take a step back and understand where he's coming from, and I would like to say that he is most definitely *NOT* a "LPP loyalist" or "LPP-Head" of any form.
ccc, if recall serves, arrived at the LPP decision due to the ease with which he could "locally" contact its makers - which was what swung him away from AL. He has been vocal and adamant in showing nothing but the true capabilities of the LPP -> the reason why he has three LPP heads up front, with two control-boxes, is because he openly cited that his own testing results showed that two heads were not sufficient to cover the front of his vehicle, and he also openly criticized the delay that LPP has seen in coming forward with the four-head enabled control box, which would have saved him some expense as well as technical worry. At the same time, he has also openly cited that the LPP is totally insufficient for his rear-side protection, short of a fully-devoted quad-head setup (and even then, it would need quite a bit of testing/optimization).
Most telling of all is that ccc openly criticized the LPP while owning this product, and solicited suggestions and voiced concerns on the stateside LPP Support Forum.
It saddens me to see what the state of the community is now.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks