Truelock locked out a LEO today.

I was driving a stretch of road that used to have two K band alerts in less than a mile. Now thanks to trulock, that stretch of road has been quiet for me.

But today it was too quiet. I was almost dead center between the two false alarm locations and noticed my satellite icon was still spinning. (It usually stops for a while in between the two locations.)

I reached up and hit the GPS button to disable GPS features and my ix instantly starts freaking out on K-band. (Very strong signal)

Sure enough, there is a LEO about a block ahead of me waiting to make a u-turn. He made the u-turn and took a side street shortly thereafter. As soon as he turned down the side street the K-band alert stopped and a few seconds after that, the CVS sounded a weak K-band alert as expected.

********As of 1/27/9 My 9500ix has "locked out" 4 LEOs (BAD) and alerted to two K-band LEO's in locked-out locations*************

You were pretty lucky that you trusted your "Spider sense" in that instance. I suppose its a good lesson that technology is not infallible.

Wow there's been alot of threads about the 9500 series RD's truelocking the real K band lately. It makes me wonder if the 9500's are actualy expecting a different signal in the truelocked areas or is it just K band is temporarily off in these areas :confused:

I'm still going to get the 9500ix soon, there's literaly only 2 cops in my area that run K band

Sorry to here about your loss, Z1:(

I can't remember the exact fq, but I made a mental note that the LEO signal was on the low side of K band, like the door opener at the Shell station I locked out.

However I think there should be some fail safe with respect to signal strength. The LEO's signal was way stronger than either of the two falses I had locked out.

The LEO may have been using an older K band gun which operates on the far less common 24.125GHz rather than the US standard of 24.15GHz. I have found a few links to Asian companies which manufacture new K band sensors for automatic doors. Some of them operate on the European 24.125GHz standard. So, that is good news unless you happen to encounter a cop who is using a fairly rare 24.125GHz K band radar gun in the same vicinity as 24.125 door openers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z1NONLY

I can't remember the exact fq, but I made a mental note that the LEO signal was on the low side of K band, like the door opener at the Shell station I locked out.

However I think there should be some fail safe with respect to signal strength. The LEO's signal was way stronger than either of the two falses I had locked out.

---

Hopefully when the LEO is actively checking for speeders your 9500 will alert a bit before you get to that area. Nothing sticks out more than a few beeps from a 9500, always be cautious in a locked out area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z1NONLY

I was driving a stretch of road that used to have two K band alerts in less than a mile. Now thanks to trulock, that stretch of road has been quiet for me.

But today it was too quiet. I was almost dead center between the two false alarm locations and noticed my satellite icon was still spinning. (It usually stops for a while in between the two locations.)

I reached up and hit the GPS button to disable GPS features and my ix instantly starts freaking out on K-band. (Very strong signal)

Sure enough, there is a LEO about a block ahead of me waiting to make a u-turn. He made the u-turn and took a side street shortly thereafter. As soon as he turned down the side street the K-band alert stopped and a few seconds after that, the CVS sounded a weak K-band alert as expected.

---

Do you have the 9500i or ix?

Wait, I was told that the TrueLock function was flawless and that there would be no stories like this on the Escort forum.:confused::rolleyes:

It sounds like the floodgates will be opening shortly.

No matter what people say Truelock is dangerous to use. Use it with caution. I know I do now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focalcivic

Do you have the 9500i or ix?

---

I have the ix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happya$$

No matter what people say Truelock is dangerous to use. Use it with caution. I know I do now

---

Its only dangerous if you don't know how to use it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by <<JAZZY>>

Wait, I was told that the TrueLock function was flawless and that there would be no stories like this on the Escort forum.:confused::rolleyes:

It sounds like the floodgates will be opening shortly.

---

Wow i thought you were dead! funny how you pop up to say something negative, but don't say anything when we prove you wrong. Seems to be happening allot lately.:eek:

Got any of those old outdated V1's better than escort links?

The only flood gates i see are the people switching from your old antiquated to the best all around RD out there.

We all love JAZZY. He is so very good at coming up with gut busting one-liners about just about anything!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MEM-TEK

We all love JAZZY. He is so very good at coming up with gut busting one-liners about just about anything!

---

Yes we love him like the occasional out break of herpes. ;)

So far out of about 180+ instances where I have used true lock it has worked flawless. But just last week it started that B.S. where it's locking out officers on the interstate.

I have a theory... But for now it's just a theory and I'm going to stew on it for a month or so. But as I told happya$$ yesterday, usually when I get these thoughts I'm almost never wrong.

Yep, this situation is about as bad as one can get. It sounds like you have two false alerts in the same frequency block spread out a ways and a LEO happened to be sitting right in between the two, also in the same frequency block. This is definitely a scenario where someone could get smoked, since the two spread out false alerts make for one hhuuuuuge lockout radius. Any idea what the frequencies of the two false alerts are?

Any amount of filtering involves some inherent risk. This situation sounds like the mother of all Truelock beating scenarios. Good thing you were paying attention. Living in an area like I do where the LEOs use Ka band almost exclusively is a huge advantage for me and my Truelock enabled RDs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrams80

Any idea what the frequencies of the two false alerts are?

---

I just remember that both the shell and the LEO were on the low side of the K band. (24.11?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CJR238

The only flood gates i see are the people switching from your old antiquated to the best all around RD out there.

---

For the record, I never "switched". We got another car and needed another detector. I decided to give my wife the X50 in my work van and try out an ix.

The SRX is still on my wife's Magnum and the V1 is still in my Z.

I am testing the ix in my work van because I almost never speed in it. Why don't they have signal strength overide? Would it be that hard to not the strength of the signal when it is noting the location and fq?

I could forgive this as an unavoidable side effect, but the LEO had my ix at a solid tone when I disabled GPS. Neither of the lockout locations were ever even half strength. This seems like it was avoidable with a simple software correction.

I am also not feeling the off-axis detection. (it sucks) I want to wait until I am on top of a given door sensor to lock it out, but many times I lose the signal when I get next to the source. (because it is tone deaf from the side.)

I will write a full review soon and there are some strong pluses to this detector. On-axis detection is great, auto mute under 15mph is a awesome, the detector is indeed quiet.

The concept of a quiet detector is a winning one, but people need to understand there is a trade off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z1NONLY

The concept of a quiet detector is a winning one, but people need to understand there is a trade off.

---

^ +1.

And a part of this trade-off is also that the detector cannot be trusted, blindly.

That these advanced features, no matter if it is the Escort's various "intelligent" features or the use of the V1's advanced programming features to make it more liveable for dense-signal city/urban areas.

There's always such risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by <<JAZZY>>

Wait, I was told that the TrueLock function was flawless and that there would be no stories like this on the Escort forum.:confused::rolleyes:

---

^ I believe that although some of us were brave enough and optimistic enough (and foolish enough, IMveryHO) to say that there will be no tickets issued due to TrueLock, all of us were very adamant in noting that both its technical as well as end-usage limits could very well be exceeded, and that this kind of exception would result in just the scenario that Z1NOLNY reported in his OP.

I've myself, repeatedly cited instances where my use of TrueLock in a "high risk" area (per CJR's "Risk Scenarios") managed to either potentially cloak a true enforcement signal or actually cloak a KNOWN signal (i.e. "Your Speed Is"-drone).

It's just the device reaching its technical limit: it's ability to "resove" the separate signals - as well as the usage limit: that a lock-out was performed in an area were the risk was, perhaps, either unfavorable or unavoidable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happya$$

No matter what people say Truelock is dangerous to use. Use it with caution. I know I do now

---

This would be the same as setting the advanced features on the V1 in the wrong manner, and then, due to it, receiving a ticket.

Look at what thestaton did in his video "retorts" to Escort's initial 9500i marketing videos. He even stated, in one reply, that set up as such, to make the V1 as "quiet" as the 9500i, would expose the user to tremendous risk of possibly "missing" a valid, true-threat, alert, outright.

Using TrueLock is no different.

It's not that the device is "dangerous," it's just that one must keep in mind the technical as well as usage limitations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thestaton

So far out of about 180+ instances where I have used true lock it has worked flawless. But just last week it started that B.S. where it's locking out officers on the interstate.

I have a theory... But for now it's just a theory and I'm going to stew on it for a month or so. But as I told happya$$ yesterday, usually when I get these thoughts I'm almost never wrong.

---

:eek::eek:

Now *that* is not good!

What the heck is going on?

Any further details on this?

Ok so there is a special way to use Autolock? Come on now quit making excuses. Truelock/Autolock is flawed and is not perfect. It takes ONE encounter to get a ticket. Do I think Autolock/Truelock are revolutionary? Yes BUT they need further developement. So anyone that says "well you do not know how to use it", I say what is so hard about putting the RD on Autolock? So now an RD user has to have skills on using a feature? Lets get real. Just like the bogey counter on VR's latest V1's is broken and needs work so is Autolock/Truelock. The problem with a lot of members on this forum is this: They let their fan boy mentality get in the way of stepping back and looking at their RD objectively. It is as if they are blinded by fanboyism (sort of like a young guy being blinded by love)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happya$$

Ok so there is a special way to use Autolock? Come on now quit making excuses. Truelock/Autolock is flawed and is not perfect. It takes ONE encounter to get a ticket. Do I think Autolock/Truelock are revolutionary? Yes BUT they need further developement. So anyone that says "well you do not know how to use it", I say what is so hard about putting the RD on Autolock? So now an RD user has to have skills on using a feature? Lets get real. Just like the bogey counter on VR's latest V1's is broken and needs work so is Autolock/Truelock. The problem with a lot of members on this forum is this: They let their fan boy mentality get in the way of stepping back and looking at their RD objectively. It is as if they are blinded by fanboyism (sort of like a young guy being blinded by love)

---

I just see it like this. Truelock is a filtering mechanism. It's the first false alert eliminator that still allows normal unit sensitivity for all other radar signals. That's revolutionary, but not foolproof. GOL proved this.

Truelock is filtering out a whole lot of false alerts, counting of the fact that it will be difficult for a LEO to accidentally match that frequency block, in that location, undetectable outside that lockout radius and thus far they have been proven right. It has to be difficult, or there would be lots of tickets proving this to be false, but at least at this point, there are still no tickets that we know of. But, this being said, a RD user must understand that with any filtering comes risk. That's just the deal. Since I see almost no K band and absolutely no X band, my risk is almost zero. But, whatever that risk is, I have decided to accept said risk and live with the consequences. The months and years of quietness are worth the risk to me. If it costs me a ticket, then it does. I'm OK with that. Like I've said before, having all these countermeasures will never guarantee me anything, but they do allow me to drive how I like and yet still be in no danger of losing my license. I never expect any of these devices to keep me from ever getting a ticket again. Every one of them can be beat under just the right circumstance.

You happya$$, on the other hand, live in area with X, K, Ka and laser. You have to deal with the full gamut. This puts your risk substantially higher, but still can't be that high, or there would be some example of a Truelock victim somewhere. That being said, you, and everyone else for that matter, must decide for themselves if the risk is worth the peace and quiet that Truelock brings. It's that simple. If the user is not willing to accept this risk, then they can either turn off their GPS capabilities, or buy something else. It's a personal choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrams80

I just see it like this. Truelock is a filtering mechanism. It's the first false alert eliminator that still allows normal unit sensitivity for all other radar signals. That's revolutionary, but not foolproof. GOL proved this.

Truelock is filtering out a whole lot of false alerts, counting of the fact that it will be difficult for a LEO to accidentally match that frequency block, in that location, undetectable outside that lockout radius and thus far they have been proven right. It has to be difficult, or there would be lots of tickets proving this to be false, but at least at this point, there are still no tickets that we know of. But, this being said, a RD user must understand that with any filtering comes risk. That's just the deal. Since I see almost no K band and absolutely no X band, my risk is almost zero. But, whatever that risk is, I have decided to accept said risk and live with the consequences. The months and years of quietness are worth the risk to me. If it costs me a ticket, then it does. I'm OK with that. Like I've said before, having all these countermeasures will never guarantee me anything, but they do allow me to drive how I like and yet still be in no danger of losing my license. I never expect any of these devices to keep me from ever getting a ticket again. Every one of them can be beat under just the right circumstance.

You happya$$, on the other hand, live in area with X, K, Ka and laser. You have to deal with the full gamut. This puts your risk substantially higher, but still can't be that high, or there would be some example of a Truelock victim somewhere. That being said, you, and everyone else for that matter, must decide for themselves if the risk is worth the peace and quiet that Truelock brings. It's that simple. If the user is not willing to accept this risk, then they can either turn off their GPS capabilities, or buy something else. It's a personal choice.

---

Fair enough by the way did you watch Mosley vs Mayorga?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happya$$

Ok so there is a special way to use Autolock? Come on now quit making excuses. Truelock/Autolock is flawed and is not perfect. It takes ONE encounter to get a ticket. Do I think Autolock/Truelock are revolutionary? Yes BUT they need further developement. So anyone that says "well you do not know how to use it", I say what is so hard about putting the RD on Autolock? So now an RD user has to have skills on using a feature? Lets get real. Just like the bogey counter on VR's latest V1's is broken and needs work so is Autolock/Truelock. The problem with a lot of members on this forum is this: They let their fan boy mentality get in the way of stepping back and looking at their RD objectively. It is as if they are blinded by fanboyism (sort of like a young guy being blinded by love)

---

Well stated happya$$. As you stated, it only takes one encounter to spoil your day.

If I have one of these(9500is/ci), I'll be very picky with the lockout and use automute/smartmute and disable autolearn lockout. I have tried one for a short time and love the features.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happya$$

Ok so there is a special way to use Autolock? Come on now quit making excuses. Truelock/Autolock is flawed and is not perfect. It takes ONE encounter to get a ticket. Do I think Autolock/Truelock are revolutionary? Yes BUT they need further developement. So anyone that says "well you do not know how to use it", I say what is so hard about putting the RD on Autolock? So now an RD user has to have skills on using a feature? Lets get real. Just like the bogey counter on VR's latest V1's is broken and needs work so is Autolock/Truelock. The problem with a lot of members on this forum is this: They let their fan boy mentality get in the way of stepping back and looking at their RD objectively. It is as if they are blinded by fanboyism (sort of like a young guy being blinded by love)

---

I think that AutoLock should be separated from TrueLock.

The former adds a level of complexity to this examination that cannot be easily controlled for - it essentially takes the end-user out of the equation, and this, I feel, not only can reduce the possible risk of utilizing the GPS-enabled lockout filter, but can also INCREASE risk as well.

I think that, currently, until we fully understand TrueLock and its quirks, AutoLock cannot be properly examined, or should be examined separately. Their synergy brings together too many variables to control, at least for the time being.

With respect to debating the value/utilization of both as a "feature," indeed, I think that it is just that - an advanced feature which MUST be utilized carefully. Certainly, the "set it and forget it" capability of AutoLock does seem to make it, at first glance, a feature best suited to the novice user, but in-truth, I think it makes the device more dangerous, as it essentially eliminates end-user thought/intervention, which I believe is needed for such an advanced programming/filtering feature. To me, its blind use would be akin to getting a V1, and just blindly enabling K-band automute without understanding fully what that meant. It opens up a huge chink in one's armor.

Finally, in terms of technical development and refinement, that's certainly the case - that these items can and should undergo further progression of each. We've already seen the initial "chunking" of the bands, via TrueLock, improve in "resolution" between the first 9500i and the now 9500ix and ci - I think that both the technical resolution as well as logical interpretation necessary for the filtering must both improve, in order for this feature to truly realize its fullest potentials.

And FWIW, I think that very few of us are "fanboys."

CJR's own write up of the 9500i's usage "Tricks and Tips," I think, is very much a concession that the product is NOT perfect, and gives new end-users the necessary tools by which to compensate for such. Similarly, I think that djrams - as well as many others here, myself included - have been very forthcoming in reporting our own findings of these new offerings in an accurate manner, and without rose-tinted glasses: sure, occasionally, someone may burst with joy about "excellent sensitivity, but we're not in denial, either, about the speed-drones or even reall enforcers that we've seen our TrueLock actually filter out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

I think that AutoLock should be separated from TrueLock.

The former adds a level of complexity to this examination that cannot be easily controlled for - it essentially takes the end-user out of the equation, and this, I feel, not only can reduce the possible risk of utilizing the GPS-enabled lockout filter, but can also INCREASE risk as well.

I think that, currently, until we fully understand TrueLock and its quirks, AutoLock cannot be properly examined, or should be examined separately. Their synergy brings together too many variables to control, at least for the time being.

With respect to debating the value/utilization of both as a "feature," indeed, I think that it is just that - an advanced feature which MUST be utilized carefully. Certainly, the "set it and forget it" capability of AutoLock does seem to make it, at first glance, a feature best suited to the novice user, but in-truth, I think it makes the device more dangerous, as it essentially eliminates end-user thought/intervention, which I believe is needed for such an advanced programming/filtering feature. To me, its blind use would be akin to getting a V1, and just blindly enabling K-band automute without understanding fully what that meant. It opens up a huge chink in one's armor.

Finally, in terms of technical development and refinement, that's certainly the case - that these items can and should undergo further progression of each. We've already seen the initial "chunking" of the bands, via TrueLock, improve in "resolution" between the first 9500i and the now 9500ix and ci - I think that both the technical resolution as well as logical interpretation necessary for the filtering must both improve, in order for this feature to truly realize its fullest potentials.

And FWIW, I think that very few of us are "fanboys."

CJR's own write up of the 9500i's usage "Tricks and Tips," I think, is very much a concession that the product is NOT perfect, and gives new end-users the necessary tools by which to compensate for such. Similarly, I think that djrams - as well as many others here, myself included - have been very forthcoming in reporting our own findings of these new offerings in an accurate manner, and without rose-tinted glasses: sure, occasionally, someone may burst with joy about "excellent sensitivity, but we're not in denial, either, about the speed-drones or even reall enforcers that we've seen our TrueLock actually filter out.

---

Ok lets talk about Autolock. I turn this feature on. What am I doing wrong? Lets talk about Truelock. There is a 35mph road (about a mile in length) that has a Super K mart, and some gas stations. There are X band and K band falses on this strip and it is a spot that Truelock was designed for. I lock these signals out. A few days later a cop is down this road running instant on K band that my 9500CI is not picking up the IO K band shots. Well let me rephrase that it is picking it up by it is locking it out. What is not broken about this? For the record there are fan boys AND sellers defending these features. It is blatantly obvious to me and others that this is the case. Manuals and 50 page documents can be written on "how to properly use Truelock" but at the end of the day these features need much further work. Why is Escort not writing these documents and including them in their manual? Hell look at the official Escort manual on the CI and 9500IX. This is not rocket science. Lets all keep it real and call spades spades and aces aces

Also here is the difference between Truelock and Autolock. Truelock lets the user lock out the falses. Autolock is Escort doing it for you. In other words it is designed so the user can not "f it up" but they are the SAME THING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happya$$

Also here is the difference between Truelock and Autolock. Truelock lets the user lock out the falses. Autolock is Escort doing it for you. In other words it is designed so the user can not "f it up".

---

^ Exactly.

And I think that's why we should take AutoLock out of this equation - to first examine TrueLock, or, alternatively, examine AutoLock in a parallel manner, in order to sort out what's truly the concern with EACH.

To put both together to examine is, in my mind, just tackling too many variables at the same time, and likely to more confuse the issue, rather to get anywhere with solutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happya$$

Lets talk about Truelock. There is a 35mph road (about a mile in length) that has a Super K mart, and some gas stations. There are X band and K band falses on this strip and it is a spot that Truelock was designed for. I lock these signals out. A few days later a cop is down this road running instant on K band that my 9500CI is not picking up the IO K band shots. Well let me rephrase that it is picking it up by it is locking it out. What is not broken about this? For the record there are fan boys AND sellers defending these features. It is blatantly obvious to me and others that this is the case. Manuals and 50 page documents can be written on "how to properly use Truelock" but at the end of the day these features need much further work. Why is Escort not writing these documents and including them in their manual? Hell look at the official Escort manual on the CI and 9500IX. This is not rocket science. Lets all keep it real and call spades spades and aces aces

---

I am calling the cards as I see them.

I have repeatedly said that CJR's "Tricks and Tips" - in particular, his "Threat Scenarios," simply needs to be incorporated into the Escort product literature.

Does TrueLock need work, technologically?

Undoubtedly so - by our complete usage statistics just on these Forums alone, we've seen that its "resolution" of the band segments is not sufficient. We've seen that it's ability to discriminate/select point-signals - it's effective radius - may be too large for true dense-city use. We've seen that it does need some sort of discrimination either by signal strength or, alternatively, should this already be in the programming, needs to be further refined.

In your scenario painted above, it's any one of these three technical concerns that - to the extent of Escort's CURRENT technical capability - that has been exceeded.

TrueLock isn't "broken," it's just that it's reached - and exceeded, in that very example - it's technical capabilities.

Let me try to give you a good example of this. :)

Go the the library - or search online - and examine a few optical illusions.

Are your eyes (or is your brain) "broken," because you can't see the illusion for what it REALLY is?

No.

It's just that these illusions have come to illustrate to you the fact that your eye/brain biological axis has a limit to what it can resolve.

The same thing is what's happening to the 9500i/ix/ci, in this very sense, in your example above.

I know very well what you're seeing, happya$$. I've seen it more than a half-dozen times myself, over the course of the last 9 months, with my 9500i. Yet I've also seen more than two-dozen cases where the 9500i's TrueLock worked as Escort's promotionals/ads idealistically - and most optimistically - show.

TrueLock is far from perfect, but it is not "broken," either.

It has both technical limitations - one of "resolution" - as well as end-user limitations - one of understanding.

Either of the two is, by themselves, a risk. But combined, it's what makes this feature outright dangerous.

But then again, no advanced feature is without its dangers.

Ah! you ninja-edited! :p

I disagree about TrueLock and AutoLock being one and the same.

The latter inherently brings more A/I into the mix.

The former requires that the end-user take active steps.

The latter, when enabled, can take the end-user entirely out of the equation.

To me, that's one more level of filtering, complete with its dangers.

X2, TSi+WRX.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happya$$

Also here is the difference between Truelock and Autolock. Truelock lets the user lock out the falses. Autolock is Escort doing it for you. In other words it is designed so the user can not "f it up" but they are the SAME THING

---

TrueLock is user defined for the more selective RD user like our selves. Autolearn is for the guy that just doesn't care, he just wants no falses but knows he can always turn GPS off if hes speeding.

No one, Escort, V1, or anyone else can make magic, if that's what people are expecting they will be disappointed. Its a very good tool and does pity darn well for what its trying to do.

Autolock uses the same technology as TrueLock but that's where it ends. One is user defined and the other is based on simple programed logic. Its the users choice on weather the #1 priority is to be quiet at all costs (Autolock) or a combo (manual TrueLock) or don't turn the darn GPS on at all.

My "threat risk scenarios" are a simple and easy to understand guide to use. It simplifys the risks that are out there and allows the user to decide what risk scenario they are in. Its there to help, not justify some absurd blind obsession.

I personally would only use Manual TrueLock, i prefer some control and selectivity, no suprises. KA is only used in my area so i lock the c$@# out of X & K. But i have an area i drive that would be a "High risk" area so i choose to not lock that area out.

We seem to forget that True/Autolock is used to make the technology silence a noisy ride, especially with clients/family in the car. If your speeding by your self you always have the option to turn it off, that's why the have a button to specifically turn GPS off.

True/Autolock is not magic and never will be.

The problem is that in my area K band and X band are HEAVILY used. So maybe for an area like mine I need to not use Truelock/Autolearn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happya$$

The problem is that in my area K band and X band are HEAVILY used. So maybe for an area like mine I need to not use Truelock/Autolearn

---

That may be the case if Truelock/Autolearn doesn't have enough benefit for you. If TrueLock/Autolearn is chosen to be used in a "High Risk" area its really a choice of:

1-not preferring quiet over doing the speed limit in those small lock out radius's all the time. (there is still a good chance it will still alert you)
2-Preferring the quiet but not choosing to turn off GPS when speeding in thoes areas.

“The Scenarios”
"High Risk" area:
4) In areas where police K/X band is used and they do sit in that area it would be considered a High Risk lock out point (You may not want to lock this point out).

If you decide to lockout a false in a High Risk area to mute the alert you should still drive through the area with caution if you suspect any chance you could have locked out police radar. The same rules would apply if you were using any non GPS capable detector and instead pressed your mute button in false area. Simply treat the spinning satellite icon in your display as a silent alert and proceed with your own discretion and best judgment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

I think that AutoLock should be separated from TrueLock.

---

To the extent possible, since AutoLock cannot exist without TrueLock.

Perhaps a better way to think of them is Manual TrueLock vs. Automatic TrueLock: one requires the user to manually perform the lockout, whereas the other does the lockout without user intervention.

The real problem with AutoLock, AFACT, is that AutoLock does not always wait for you to pass a "false" signal three times before automatically locking it out. This is most definitely a bug in the firmware and should be correctable.

The other issue, as demonstrated in the GOL video, has nothing to do with AutoLock: a real threat signal that just happens to fall within the same "bin" (frequency and location) as a locked-out signal will be ignored. Not sure what can be done about this one, other than to perhaps add a bogey count to each lockout record. If your Shell station falsie normally shows a bogey count of 1, and you drive by and see 2 bogeys, you should get an alert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swarga

Not sure what can be done about this one, other than to perhaps add a bogey count to each lockout record. If your Shell station falsie normally shows a bogey count of 1, and you drive by and see 2 bogeys, you should get an alert.

---

Ya that's a tough one. Manley because the way TrueLock & Spec mode works it wouldn't show 2 boogies in the same 30MHz block. I think actual signal strength coupled with the exact distance the false goes for would make it better than it is now. Evry time i pass most of my falses they are the same signal strength and same distance. A false radius is much smaller than a real one.

Maybe in addition to and how Expert mode notifies you of "Multiple frequencies detected" when the false is larger than normal it should announce or make a tone of the larger signal instead of blocking it.
It already makes a lock out radius dependent on the initial lock outs signal strength, so this should be possible to do.

It happened again today!!!

I was in Bonita this time and a LEO comes flying by me and got on another cars @$$ up ahead of me. He then turns on his radar and BAM full alert K band.

BUT, as we approach one of mt true lock locations..... silence, and the spinning sat.

Did he turn off his radar? (I turn of GPS....) BAM! full K band alert!

Nope, his radar was still on. This time I wrote down the fq's in question.

Leo was running at 24.129. I made a U-turn and came back to the false location, with GPS still off...

Shell station door opener is at 24.130.

So there was no way for the ix to alert due to fq. (too close to each other)

However, the signal strength of the LEO was way higher than the false ever was. (again)

Escort needs to mark falses by location, signal, and strength.

It can't be that hard..

The best sugestion ever made for TrueLock navalert made. Its a speed limit true lock release. You set 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.

most areas people lock out they are not going over speed limit anyhow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CJR238

The best sugestion ever made for TrueLock navalert made. Its a speed limit true lock release. You set 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.

most areas people lock out they are not going over speed limit anyhow.

---

That and autolock but you have to confirm it, because when traveling I would love the fact that it will automatically lock out falses in other areas/states i've never traveled in because of the data from other 9500 users.

And the signal strength one too, that could be very useful. Because driving actually on the road (not in the shopping center) i get 2, to max 3 bars on my sti from falses. So past 6 I would say it should cancel the lockout and alert you.

swarga, that's a very nice analysis. Thank you! :) Indeed, that's very well thought-out.

----

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CJR238

Maybe in addition to and how Expert mode notifies you of "Multiple frequencies detected" when the false is larger than normal it should announce or make a tone of the larger signal instead of blocking it.
It already makes a lock out radius dependent on the initial lock outs signal strength, so this should be possible to do.

---

and

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z1NONLY

Escort needs to mark falses by location, signal, and strength.

---

+1, to both.

----

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CJR238

The best sugestion ever made for TrueLock navalert made. Its a speed limit true lock release. You set 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.

most areas people lock out they are not going over speed limit anyhow.

---

Very good suggestion from navalert....

----

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happya$$

The problem is that in my area K band and X band are HEAVILY used. So maybe for an area like mine I need to not use Truelock/Autolearn

---

^ That's true for me as well.

But that's also the reason why I ordered the 9500i - I know that I don't speed through those areas, anyway, and that I wanted a quieter commute, so despite my lock-outs for K-band all being in "High-Risk" areas, for me, it's not "high risk," it's my personal preference.

For those times when I do speed, I simply turn off the GPS filter.

This is my compromise, for wanting a quiet commute.

It appears as though Truelock may have been improved in software 1.1 for the 9500ix:

About 9500ix Software Update Version 1.1
1. Improved the marked location feature when other radar signals are present.
2. K-band and SWS are not independant selectable bands.
3. Removed 255 KMH limitation.

I haven't had this situation arise, but if anyone can comment once they upgrade their unit and get back to us, it would be greatly appreciated... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WK446

It appears as though Truelock may have been improved in software 1.1 for the 9500ix:

About 9500ix Software Update Version 1.1
1. Improved the marked location feature when other radar signals are present.
2. K-band and SWS are not independant selectable bands.
3. Removed 255 KMH limitation.

I haven't had this situation arise, but if anyone can comment once they upgrade their unit and get back to us, it would be greatly appreciated... :)

---

My ix is only a couple weeks old and I downloaded the latest software when I got it. (Just to make sure the download feature worked.)

This update came out only yesterday :dontknow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z1NONLY

My ix is only a couple weeks old and I downloaded the latest software when I got it. (Just to make sure the download feature worked.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WK446

It appears as though Truelock may have been improved in software 1.1 for the 9500ix:

About 9500ix Software Update Version 1.1
1. Improved the marked location feature when other radar signals are present.
2. K-band and SWS are not independant selectable bands.
3. Removed 255 KMH limitation.

I haven't had this situation arise, but if anyone can comment once they upgrade their unit and get back to us, it would be greatly appreciated... :)

---

I took this to mean they've changed how you're alerted to a RLC, for example, when receiving a radar signal (which I don't think I've ever had happen, or can't remember if so). "Other radar signals"? Who knows, I hope you're right. For a company that so loves marketing slogans (TrueLock, Shiftlink, Speed and Location Intelligence, etc.) you'd think they would have mentioned True/Auto Lock if that's what they're talking about.

The only of the three updates I fully understand is number 3...