I thought TrueLock didn't check the strength of the signal.
This guy claims to work for Escort and I was wondering about the validity of his claim that TrueLock also checks the strength of a signal.
[ame="http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115728"]Valentine One Obsolete? - NSX Prime[/ame]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Radar Expert
Hello NSX owners,
Let me first announce that I am from Escort Radar, the manufacturer of Escort and Beltronics detectors. Moderators, I am not here to shamelessly advertise our products, only to authoritatively answer a few loose ends about our products that were mentioned here:
1) the 9500i model uses GPS to block out false radar alerts which has to be done manually by pressing the mute button three times on either the unit or by using the mute button located on the lighter end of the SmartCord power cord. This is usually in a very easy to reach location (depends where your cig lighter is). Alternatively you can use the remote mute button if using the shift+link feature with our laser shifter ZR3 or ZR4 (aka laser jammers).
2) the 9500ix incorporates GPS and the continually updated and verified "Trinity" database of red light cameras, speed cameras, and common speed trap locations by showing exact distance to and direction relative to you of the camera/speed trap. The 9500ix also uses advanced AI to automatically lockout false signals, no need to tap the mute button ever (unless you want to, and you still can). It takes on average 3 passes by a false alert before it is auto-locked out and the unit tells you that it has stored a false alert. It will also unlock false locations if the source of the alert is no longer active. Just plug it in and drive, it does the rest.
3) The Beltronics GX65 is sort of a mesh between these although it does use an entirely different architecture (not just different plastic). The GX65 has the Trinity database installed like the 9500ix but does NOT incorporate the auto-learning feature to block falses. You have to manually block them as with the 9500i model. Think of the GX65 as in-between the 9500i and 9500ix feature-wise.
4) Using these near the visor may work with GPS but I do not recommend it. The tint up there WILL greatly reduce laser sensitivity (mute point if you have a laser jammer) and the GPS signals may take longer to acquire. We offer a 30 day money back guarantee on all of our products if you want to see if the GPS works on the visor or not. I place mine behind the rear view mirror so that the display just peaks out underneath it. You can barely see it when inside the car.
Our GPS false alert lockout technology works by sampling the frequency of the alert received, the strength of this signal, and the location. The next time you enter a certain radius of this area the detector will still detect the signal but will not alert to it. If another signal is detected while blocking a false, the unit alerts as normal. Additionally, the display indicates it is actively blocking the blocked signal in case you use false alerts to ensure the detector is still detecting properly.
Another neat feature using GPS is that the radar sensitivity is auto-adjusted when in "Auto" mode on all of these models (in "Highway" mode it is always full sensitivity), when you get to about 55 MPH it ramps up to full sensitivity. Also your actual speed is shown during alerts or can be programmed on all the time, but please dont try to see how it high it registers ;-)
I hope that answers your questions with Escort and Beltronics GPS enabled detectors.
Happy Holidays!
Escort Inc
The Radar and Laser Experts
Re: I thought TrueLock didn't check the strength of the signal.
I've been manually locking out false alerts with my 9500ci and have discovered that it seems to set a lockout radius of only several hundred feet (equal or less than 800 feet) if the signal never gets fairly strong. Hmm...Its time for me to test my 9500i again with its latest firmware update and see how it behaves in this regard.
The guy is writing like he works for Escort.
Re: I thought TrueLock didn't check the strength of the signal.
That post looks identical to the posting style of forum member RadarExperts in this thread. Has to be the same guy.
http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...tml#post470394
Re: I thought TrueLock didn't check the strength of the signal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
djrams80
It also seems that this was his one and only post. Dang! Nipped in the bud even though he was conscientious, responded with good info, and didn't disclose any proprietary information. That sucks.
When will Bel/Escort shed their paranoia and authorize one or more of their employees to post here? I for one would nominate either Dan, Dave or Aaron from Bel/Escort's CS department. All three of them actually seem to be radar detector fanatics themselves and have been with Bel/Escort for a while. Maybe Bel/Escort will give one/some of them a "trial run" here since now the economy is tighter than a virgin's you know what, and anything which could promote sales should be seen as a benefit.
Heck, we all would love the input from a Bel/Escort rep, and if they did screw up by posting something which they shouldn't, then that is something which the forum's mods can quickly fix. Yet I don't think there would be any problems with any of these reps since they all have strong integrity and are top-notch Bel/Escort CS reps.
We've got Mike B who represents Whistler with complete and honest integrity in all respects. Why can't we also have a rep from Bel/Escort who exhibits the same ideology as well? After all, anything which drives radar detector newbies towards significantly higher performance North American designed or manufactured products versus ultra cheaply manufactured and patent limited import products should be a huge "plus" for the North American based radar detector manufacturers who hold virtually all of the important electronics radar detector design patents.
Well, for what its worth...
:)
Re: I thought TrueLock didn't check the strength of the signal.
I believe him. I see nothing in his post to call BS over.
Re: I thought TrueLock didn't check the strength of the signal.
guys keep in mind that we keep it real on this forum with no BS and this turns off companies. They like to be stroked, pampered, kissed to, loved on, etc. and that is not what this forum is about. Keeping it real is a major repellant for these companies. They do not like to hear the truth. It is what it is who cares if they come here and post. There is nothing they can bring to the table that we do not already have. THEY NEED US not we need them.
Re: I thought TrueLock didn't check the strength of the signal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
happya$$
guys keep in mind that we keep it real on this forum with no BS and this turns off companies. They like to be stroked, pampered, kissed to, loved on, etc. and that is not what this forum is about. Keeping it real is a major repellant for these companies. They do not like to hear the truth. It is what it is who cares if they come here and post. There is nothing they can bring to the table that we do not already have. THEY NEED US not we need them.
heh. actually if they could have there way this place would go dark along with GoL. what they are really afraid of is a forum not owned by radar roy.
Re: I thought TrueLock didn't check the strength of the signal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
thestaton
heh. actually if they could have there way this place would go dark along with GoL. what they are really afraid of is a forum not owned by radar roy.
I'm sure they've tried to buy the domain a few times over again.
And to answer your question Jazzy...(from a current Escort 9500i owner)..as I mentioned in the other thread. He's either completely full of BS, or extremely ill informed about his product. TrueLock may take note of the actual strength being locked out, but doesnt use it for strength over-ride (like it should)...nor does it use it to cut down on lockout radius like CJ claims. I've followed his directions to a T to cut down on radius, as well as Escorts recommendations, and have seen LEO lockouts 1/2 mile from the false I locked out.
1/2 mile is a little deceiving.
Drive by a regular false that you have in your area, then watch your odometer as you drive 1/2 mile away.
Its RIDICULOUS to realize 1/2 mile away you can still be locking out LEO's. You'll crap yourself when you realize how many spots within that lockout block LEO's can be hiding.
And again, my max lockout of an LEO was a 1/2 mile....who knows how much further it could go.
And calling Escort CS you'll get the answer (even from Michael Kennedy himself) stating theres no cut and dry lockout radius. Therefore...EVEN THEY will not claim there's any cutoff point on how far a lockout area can block out.
Dangerous....Dangerous....Dangerous
Re: I thought TrueLock didn't check the strength of the signal.
Now look what he is claiming over at that forum. Denial is not just a river in Egypt Escort. This guy needs to join Craig Peterson and they can sit on a mountain and cover themselves with camouflaged BS.
[ame="http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115728"]Valentine One Obsolete? - NSX Prime[/ame]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Radar Expert
As for the GPS Truelock capability, do you really think that a premier radar detector manufacturer would release not just one but several high-end radar detectors with Truelock that would actively block police radar and expect to stay in business long? I can tell you from personal experience that Truelock works brilliantly as advertised.
My answer is YES. Do I think that a premier radar detector manufacturer would lie about all of their past products being upgradeable to the latest threat. My answer is YES. Do I think that a premier radar detector manufacturer would hire Craig Peterson to be a shill for their products. My answer is YES.
Re: I thought TrueLock didn't check the strength of the signal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
<<JAZZY>>
Now look what he is claiming over at that forum. Denial is not just a river in Egypt Escort. This guy needs to join Craig Peterson and they can sit on a mountain and cover themselves with camouflaged BS.
Valentine One Obsolete? - NSX Prime
My answer is YES. Do I think that a premier radar detector manufacturer would lie about all of their past products being upgradeable to the latest threat. My answer is YES. Do I think that a premier radar detector manufacturer would hire Craig Peterson to be a shill for their products. My answer is YES.
the title is a laugh in itself
:rolleyes:
