V1 Custom Sweep Analysis (Deep Dive)

87GN

TXCTG Rollin' Steel Wheels============
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
2,102
Reaction score
3,380
Location
Hub City of Texas
I've been trying the micro 34.7 for four 130 mile trips. Didn't seen a Texas DPS trooper running radar the whole time! This CS is great! It repels cops;)
 

87GN

TXCTG Rollin' Steel Wheels============
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
2,102
Reaction score
3,380
Location
Hub City of Texas
I've been running the 34.7 micro sweep and it seems to do the job very well! It also does well on 35.5 as I'm starting to encounter that frequently a bit more.
 

Buz

Old School Member
Intermediate User
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
454
Reaction score
877
Location
Florida
I've been running the 34.7 micro sweep and it seems to do the job very well! It also does well on 35.5 as I'm starting to encounter that frequently a bit more.
If you remove redundant sweep 5 and widen sweeps 3 & 4 a tad you’ll have a well-balanced and superfast setup.
That’s what I did and I’ve been running with this setup longer than any other I’ve tried. (Wider Micro Sweeps Balanced)

On paper you can’t beat this sweep pattern. Inside the V1, who knows what’s really going on?
 
Last edited:

LouG

Intermediate User
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
2,559
Reaction score
2,631
This could be the reason I get brief alerts from a Police patrol base 600 - 800 metres down a side road on my route to town every morning. The cops leave their Stalkers on while inhaling doughnuts. I'm running 6 interleaved 34.7 sweeps only as we do not have 33 or 35 freq cop radar here. I can easily get 3 to 4km alert range on a heavily trafficked, slightly undulating, straight urban road near here too.
I can't complain about V1 range.
 

cihkal

Pure Energy
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
3,416
Reaction score
6,002
The V1 splits ka into upper and lower Ka sections because it utilizes three oscillators. If I remember correctly one is for X/Ku, one is for Ka Lower/K, and one is Ka Upper/K. As PC mentioned it over sweeps to cover manufacturing variabilities.

All that being said at this point I think it is most likely we have limited say in the order of how the V1 sweeps. It has a specific sweep pattern/sequence to allow the patented interleaved POP function to work. I think we can say though what sweeps it will do, how often it will do them, and how long the frequency range is based on whether we sweep X, Ku, K or K POP, Ka L, or Ka H and how the frequency ranges are defined.

For example we can say don't sweep X/Ku, don't interleave K POP, when sweeping Ka L stick to "this" shortened Ka range, and when sweeping Ka H stick to "this" shortened Ka range. Oh and since I biased for Ka H three times that'll mean you need to run three of those sweeps in your total sweep cycle.

So I think how long your Ka ranges are or what you bias towards can be statistically favorable depending on what threats you see, but other than that the V1 will do its sweep cycle in a sequence programmed by VR IMO.

The biggest performance is through disabling Ka Guard which we know. What you're doing there is telling the V1 to stop looking for harmonic signals from RD oscillators such as 32.6 or 34.5 and pairing them with in-band detected signals to distinguish patterns of a sweeping oscillator of a nearby detector. You basically tell the V1 to stop detecting junk detectors and open up processing power and reduce scan cycle-time.

For an example of how the V1 pairs bands check out the example pic. Really great work btw, I think what you've done is create a really straightforward statistical map or scan overview which can help us all dial in or custom sweeps!

d2a63d9ce9e49084608985d12b608fee.jpg


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Buz

Old School Member
Intermediate User
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
454
Reaction score
877
Location
Florida
...but other than that the V1 will do its sweep cycle in a sequence programmed by VR IMO.
Agreed.
In four years no one has been able to conclusively prove that any one sweep pattern noticibly dominates over any other.


In fact, I'm thinking a factory default V1 out of the box is already scanning the three 200MHz Ka ‘boxes’ much more frequently than the remaining 2000MHz spectrum.

Furthermore, I think the reason there are 6 sweep slots is not for redundancy.I think they are there to give you the option to define zones for 35.2, 34.2 & photo radar.

But I still like my sweeps the way they look best on paper.
 
Last edited:

cihkal

Pure Energy
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
3,416
Reaction score
6,002
Agreed.
In four years no one has been able to conclusively prove that any one sweep pattern noticibly dominates over any other.


In fact, I'm thinking a factory default V1 out of the box is already scanning the three 200MHz Ka ‘boxes’ much more frequently than the remaining 2000MHz spectrum.

Furthermore, I think the reason there are 6 sweep slots is not for redundancy.I think they are there to give you the option to define zones for 35.2, 34.2 & photo radar.

But I still like my sweeps the way they look best on paper.
I think you're onto something with the other vacant slots, that never crossed my mind until you mentioned it!

I agree, something about nice sweeps on paper sit well with me too.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

Brainstorm69

TXCTG 2016 MOTY
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
9,157
Reaction score
19,364
Location
Lone Star State
So when is someone with a V1 and some radar guns going to test some of [MENTION=11083]Buz[/MENTION]'s sweeps to see if they make a difference?
 

Tallyho

Premium RDF Member
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,946
Reaction score
5,242
So when is someone with a V1 and some radar guns going to test some of @Buz's sweeps to see if they make a difference?
Thanks for the reminder. That's on my summer testing project list. Wouldn't mind meeting up with Midwest members who are interested testing these sweeps either.

Anyone want to lend a spare 35.5/33.8 gun?
 
Last edited:

Buz

Old School Member
Intermediate User
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
454
Reaction score
877
Location
Florida
Its so minuscule of a difference the only way to test is response time IMO.
Agreed 100%.
The thinking behind micro-sweeps is that the benefit would be realized in detecting distant, weak "chirps".
Unfortunately there is no way to reliably test this without a laboratory.
 
Last edited:

Tallyho

Premium RDF Member
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,946
Reaction score
5,242
Agreed 100%.
The thinking behind micro-sweeps is that the benefit would be realized in detecting distant, weak "chirps".
Unfortunately there is no way to reliably test this without a laboratory.
There are other objectives to establish however. From what I have seen in my own testing not all sweeps are created equal and there are measurable detection distances between them. That means there is value in establishing a baseline, not just looking to squeeze out random detection of weak chirps.
 

87GN

TXCTG Rollin' Steel Wheels============
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
2,102
Reaction score
3,380
Location
Hub City of Texas
Recently I've wanted to share my pursuit of the 'perfect sweep' set and take it to a deeper level by analyzing different sweep scenarios and looking for how many 'checks per second' each frequency is receiving in both the 'sweet spots' and the 'fringe areas' of the custom sweep. Sweet spots would be a tighter area within the legal 200MHz boxes where over 90% of real radar resides. Fringe areas would be anything beyond the sweet spots. Fringe areas are places where rarely a real threat is found, but still important for insurance.



My focus lately is on the idea that an unfiltered,custom swept RD is mostly helpful for weak, fast signals. VR has already done the heavy lifting for us in discovering the '5 sweep per scan' premise to detect POP. So we know for a fact that 'hyper-scanning' a focused area will allow a detector to respond to brief glimpses of a specified microwave frequency(s).

So it is on this line of thinking that I'm wondering if perhaps a distant weak 34.7 or 35.5 signal may, through multi-pathing, appear and disappear on a similar level as a POP transmission. If this is anywhere close to being true, then wouldn't we be best served to have our RD's looking for 34.7 & 35.5 with a POP type mentality?
For the record, assuming the full 2.6GHz sweep rate is 350ms, a successful POP sweep will check those frequencies 15 times per second. (1000ms / 15 = 67ms)


Please realize the data I'm about to share is extremely unscientific. It's based off pure logic. I have no idea how the processor in the V1 actually works. Also, for the purpose of this analysis I'm completely negating POP and whatever the processor is doing with POP algorithms during a scan. I'm also assuming the processor seamlessly switches between sweeps with no time loss.


This entire analysis is based on the idea that a V1 can scan 2.6GHz in approximately 350ms which I think is pretty accurate.
But please take everything here with a grain of salt since this is all just theory.


Below are four custom sweep scenarios. You'll notice I interleave my sweeps(except for the standard sweep).

The reason I interleave is not to annoy PointerCone :), but to level-load the time between each frequency. After all, this analysis is all about crunching milliseconds.



The charts are focusing only on 34.7 & 35.5 since POP already takes care of 33.8.

Orange is used for 34.7 and Green is used for 35.5 to distinguish to two.
Notice the 'checks per second' for each scenario. I personally like anything near 15-17 checks per second, which is roughly POP speed. Anything beyond that is probably overkill and might even hinder performance.

Also, each chart is based on a 4GHz sweep. Don't ask me why but thats the sweep I used. So we are comparing exactly the same time frame for each scenario which is 4GHz (a little over a half second to scan)

View attachment 44475

'Standard Sweep' covers all swept frequencies evenly with no favoritism to any particular area. I don't like a standard sweep because the fringes are being checked way too much while the sweet spots are not getting checked enough. I think if you run sweeps as tight as the detector will allow, then you may get optimum performance with just a standard sweep set. But I like to run wide sweeps for 'insurance'. So because I prefer wider sweeps, I need the added benefit of 'micro sweeps' to catch up in the sweet zones.

View attachment 44476

'Micro Sweeps Balanced' is a great setup, however I prefer slightly wider sweet spot coverage than this setup.

View attachment 44477

'WIDER Micro Sweeps Balanced' is my personal favorite and what I'm using right now since it offers a wider sweet zone at POP speeds while still offering good protection outside the sweet spots.

View attachment 44478

'Micro Sweeps 34.7' looks blisteringly fast on 34.7, but probably overkill. I ran this sweep a while back and remember excellent 34.7 performance but wanted to even things out since I experience everything.(not just 34.7)




And that's my 5[SUP]th[/SUP] grade analysis of custom sweeps. Probably 90% of everything I just posted is wrong, but I wanted to share anyway.


Anyone who doesn't buy into the theory of 34.7 & 35.5 sometimes arriving at the horn in POP type bursts can just use a simple standard sweep which is plenty, plenty fast. There would be no reason to add additional micro sweeps. Again please take all this with a grain of salt.

Thanks for reading,
Buz[/QUO

---------- Post added at 08:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------

I've been running Micro Sweeps 34.7 since early May. I have been impressed because it has kept up well with my Redline. I only run Ka on the Redline and K and Ka on the V1C. They are mounted high on the WS as far apart as possible. The Redline occasionally shows off its prowess, but most of the time they are too close to call. The V1 has even won a few. No complaints, but more false alerts from V1.


I went through all my YaV1 logs to see how many false alerts from the wider sweeps. Here are the frequencies of the false alerts.


34.534
34.539
34.548
34.557
34.563 (2)
34.593
34.840
34.843
34.847 (4)
34.850


There were no confirmed Leos on these alerts. I'm going to tighten up the edges and see how that works

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

I've been running Micro Sweeps 34.7 since early May. I have been impressed because it has kept up well with my Redline. I only run Ka on the Redline and K and Ka on the V1C. They are mounted high on the WS as far apart as possible. The Redline occasionally shows off its prowess, but most of the time they are too close to call. The V1 has even won a few. No complaints, but more false alerts from V1.


I went through all my YaV1 logs to see how many false alerts from the wider sweeps. Here are the frequencies of the false alerts.


34.534
34.539
34.548
34.557
34.563 (2)
34.593
34.840
34.843
34.847 (4)
34.850


There were no confirmed Leos on these alerts. I'm going to tighten up the edges and see how that works
 
Last edited:

rut

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
1,190
Reaction score
593
Location
texas
Unfortunately the v1 dumbs down the rl..I Know from experience. A remote m3 will give you better readings
 

Windstrings

Premium RDF Member
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
8,401
Reaction score
4,050
Location
Central Texas
Wow, your getting serious!

I've always surmised that brief weak reflections and intermittent signals through trees etc can simulate a very quick pop like experience.... So extra sweeps is an advantage IMO.

But the catch is if your analyzing those type of signals either the sender or reciever or "both" need to be moving which makes it very difficult to test definitively.
 

LouG

Intermediate User
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
2,559
Reaction score
2,631
For what it's worth, and I'm no techy, I'm running a 6 sweep set on 34.7 with 4 of those sweeps being 34.652 - 34.755,as we do not have any other freq in use here.
Sometimes the alert range in urban running is supernatural, like 300 metres from an intersection with the patrol car another 300 -400 metres down the intersecting road at 90 degrees to my direction of travel. And recently 2 km's rear warning with a fairly high rise between me and the cop, the alert faded in the dip but didn't disappear.
Or 3 -4 km's along an undulating road with moderate to heavy traffic.
I've not had this sort of urban range in the 15 odd years I've used V1's. Something is working right.
 

G37X Jockey

Premium RDF Member
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
1,259
Reaction score
1,059
Location
Behind my Steering Wheel
87GN I'm going to try your my "Micro Sweeps Balanced". Unfortunately I don't have access to any Ka guns to perform objective testing, so I'll have to rely on my seat-of-the-pants impressions. Your theory sounds good, and since your sweeps are wide enough that out of tune guns should be covered I don't see a downside in trying it out.

Thanks
 

aocsgil

"Peace Through Superior Firepower"
Intermediate User
Premium Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2016
Messages
231
Reaction score
306
Location
West Tennessee
At one time I ran 6-sweeps based off Veil Guys sweeps and research (Great Info). I then experimented with 5-different variants of these sweeps... I started to get overload and fatigue and wasn't sure what was working better then what... I then sat down and drew a line-graph for 34.7 (+/-100) and for 35.5 (+/-100)... I figured that I would not see any RD Guns any further out of tune than that (Just M.O.). I also thought the quicker and fewer the sweeps the better(M.O.)... In my world/area I see mainly 33.8, 34.7 and rarely 35.5. Additionally K-band is used a whole lot here. To make a long story short I settled on the following:

S-1 and 2 = 34.593 - 34.819 (34.593-34.770 & 34.774-34.819)
S-3 = 35.378 - 35.615
S-4 = 34.652 - 34.755 (an extra/tighter 34.7 sweep as it's most prevalent in my area)

The response times for me, seem to be pretty quick, plus it seems to give adequate warning for photo-vehicles. It should be noted that I have 3 more variants of the above sweeps each slightly wider (not by much)... I wonder how my sweeps would fit on Buz (Deep Drive) charts/graphs??... Thanks to Vortex, Veil Guy and Buz (Deep Drive) for their time,contribution and research! ;)
 
Last edited:

LouG

Intermediate User
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
2,559
Reaction score
2,631
For what it's worth, I have just done a very unscientific comparison of settings on a Redflex van using 24.020.
I've used a 6 sweep set and a 3 sweep set, tried two different settings on each - K pop on, no filters and TMF on, no K pop. Detection range was around 125 metres on average, with the 6 sweep set and K Pop giving only 20 metres more range.
 

Deacon

TXCTG
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
10,052
Reaction score
12,251
Location
Hill Country, TX
If you remove redundant sweep 5 and widen sweeps 3 & 4 a tad you’ll have a well-balanced and superfast setup.
That’s what I did and I’ve been running with this setup longer than any other I’ve tried. (Wider Micro Sweeps Balanced)
I apologize if this is a dumb question. I've read up on Vortex's guide to what segmentation even is, and I understand the concept. And his guide to implementing them in the V1Connection, which helps make the learning curve a whole lot more shallow. But I'm trying to make sure I understand what your Wider Micro Sweeps Balanced actually means based on your spreadsheet. Would I literally provide the following 5 sweeps, with the first two being identical?

34.534 34.863
34.534 34.863
35.423 35.585
34.623 34.770
35.335 35.659

My last V1 was lifted by a sticky fingered rental car employee, and it's been probably a good 7 or 8 years before I'm just now getting back into it. But it's a very different world this time around, with ESP and Bluetooth and all kinds of goodies. So I'm trying to make sure I really understand what I'm doing.
 
Last edited:

Discord Server

Latest threads

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
77,521
Messages
1,181,213
Members
19,830
Latest member
NoAl
Top