R Series Beta Testers

TommyT53

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
60
Reaction score
32
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
With all the controversy surrounding the new update and the perceived problems with MRCD not going low enough, K band compromised and BSM alerts in abundance, how could the beta testers have given this upgrade its seal of approval. Is this an example of user mania or did the testers not do enough ?.
 

fitz4321

Running With Scissors
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
1,860
Reaction score
3,015
Location
Bay Area, CA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I am NOT a beta tester. I feel saying the beta testers “gave the seal of approval” is very unfair. They test, give their observations and opinions, then Uniden makes decisions.

The way things are now I think Uniden would be smart to keep all upcoming updates secret and insist on the testers to do the same.

Uniden should read the forum and continue to improve their product based on constructive criticism.

I say the above being one who went back to firmware 1.37 and wrote constructive criticism about the BSM alerts in 1.46 on other threads.

Fitz
 
Last edited:

Heywood

Learning Something New, Still Dying Stupid
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
May 12, 2016
Messages
2,535
Reaction score
3,856
Location
Alberta Canada
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Beta testers do not give approvals. That’s Uniden’s call to make.

I trust the beta testers absolutely seen the issues as they’re not little.

Unless they’re being fanboys, then they shouldn’t be beta testing in the first place.

It’s part of the deal to find the issues and report them before the FW goes public.

I agree. Uniden should’ve never allowed the leak of the new FW being worked on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Jag42

TXCTG RD tester / US TMG a-15 dealer.
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
MFG/Vendor
Newly Registered
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
8,325
Reaction score
14,936
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Uniden makes the final call on the release after our reports and testing.
 

Vortex

Making Videos
Administrator
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
19,785
Reaction score
37,196
Location
Washington State
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
heh, there was a big push to release the firmware and Uniden wanted to keep developing it. Eventually they wanted to release things after it looked sufficiently developed in testing. You’re right that it’s not perfect yet and could use some additional work.

Looking at the issues you mention, the MRCD scanning lower is a hardware limitation. They developed MRCD on the existing platform which is kind of remarkable. Every other detector needed a hardware update to detect it properly at all. Yes it can’t scan as low as some other detectors and so the beta testers shared this and its importance in their results.

The K band delay stuff was a surprise. I don’t have the original R3 firmware on hand to compare, but people were happy with it before and it want a huge deal. Uniden reverted back to an older filter version? Okie dokie. I don’t know if the older firmware had a TSF delay of that long, but it wasn’t something we devoted time to testing since it wasn’t something “new.”

The BSM changes, Uniden didn’t make any changes to the BSM filtering. @Brainstorm69 also did a bunch of testing and found no conclusive difference. Sometimes 1.46 was chattier, sometimes it was quieter.

Now if there is a difference that slowly cropped up at some point unexpectedly, it would be harder for beta testers to tell. The experience is different beta testing many many different variations of the firmware than jumping straight from 1.37 to 1.46. You know that story about how you can boil a frog in water if you slowly turn up the heat? It could be similar to where changes slowly evolved and they were too gradual to notice in testing. So again I’m not sure if there is actually a difference myself, but our experience would be different than yours in this regard. That said, I’m still curious why there would be a difference in the first place based on what Uniden is saying and what testing has shown.

Finally something else to remember is we don’t control firmware update releases, nor do we give them some sort of deal of approval. We test a few different aspects in our free time, whenever it’s MRCD detection or filtering, new bogey alert tones, Ka lockouts, etc. Most of us are pretty busy in our lives and testing every single attribute of a detector every time we get a slightly modified firmware, and for free no less, that’s just not feasible.

Sure we can be one extra layer of testing on top of Uniden’s own testing and it would be nice if everything could be caught out of the gate, but that’s not always the case. I wish it was. :)

Personally I’d like to see more releases and smaller releases. This way if anything comes up, it’s easier to know what change affected the results and would make it easier for Uniden to adjust accordingly.
 

UnidenSupport

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
General User
MFG/Vendor
Newly Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
125
Reaction score
658
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I am NOT a beta tester. I feel saying the beta testers “gave the seal of approval” is very unfair. They test, give their observations and opinions, then Uniden makes decisions.

The way things are now I think Uniden would be smart to keep all upcoming updates secret and insist on the testers to do the same.

Uniden should read the forum and continue to improve their product based on constructive criticism.

I say the above being one who went back to firmware 1.37 and wrote constructive criticism about the BSM alerts in 1.46 on other threads.

Fitz
That's part of why i'm here. thank you for your reasonable stance on this.
 

Noisy boy

Learning to Drive
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Mar 10, 2012
Messages
7
Reaction score
18
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The comments from the beta testers here is absolutely right. Having been in one of the largest software company for over 3 decades, we routinely run beta (either private or public) prior to each release so we can catch defects, and more importantly, collect user feedbacks. But the development manager and product manager makes all the call on the release date, and what would be released, never the beta testers.

Often we hold some features back, because they are not ready for prime time, or users are unhappy with how it is implemented. Thus for the majority of the time, a detail enhancement list is not shared with the public, so we are not dealing with emotions due to unmet expectations.

It is a fine art in release packaging, if you release as a big bundle full of new features, your release schedule could be measured in quarters or sometimes 6-12 months (assuming you are releasing quality software rather than release it half-bake then fix it later, which some companies do).

However, if you release too often, some user would complaint about the constant upgrade hassle, the lack of substantial benefits for each release, and the incident for upgrade failure increases (whether it is truly code related, or user error, or whether their upgrade platform is configured properly).

So, it is all a balance of tradeoffs amongst new features set, stability, release frequency, etc... while keeping your user community happy.

I sincerely appreciate the time and effort each beta tester put into the firmware testing. Let's keep our feedbacks constructive, document your own observations and share that with Uniden, and not play the blame game. Vortex is right, there are so many external variables that affects RF transmission, unless you do testing in a controlled environment, you cannot base your judgement solely by daily commute perceptions.


heh, there was a big push to release the firmware and Uniden wanted to keep developing it. Eventually they wanted to release things after it looked sufficiently developed in testing. You’re right that it’s not perfect yet and could use some additional work.

Looking at the issues you mention, the MRCD scanning lower is a hardware limitation. They developed MRCD on the existing platform which is kind of remarkable. Every other detector needed a hardware update to detect it properly at all. Yes it can’t scan as low as some other detectors and so the beta testers shared this and its importance in their results.

The K band delay stuff was a surprise. I don’t have the original R3 firmware on hand to compare, but people were happy with it before and it want a huge deal. Uniden reverted back to an older filter version? Okie dokie. I don’t know if the older firmware had a TSF delay of that long, but it wasn’t something we devoted time to testing since it wasn’t something “new.”

The BSM changes, Uniden didn’t make any changes to the BSM filtering. @Brainstorm69 also did a bunch of testing and found no conclusive difference. Sometimes 1.46 was chattier, sometimes it was quieter.

Now if there is a difference that slowly cropped up at some point unexpectedly, it would be harder for beta testers to tell. The experience is different beta testing many many different variations of the firmware than jumping straight from 1.37 to 1.46. You know that story about how you can boil a frog in water if you slowly turn up the heat? It could be similar to where changes slowly evolved and they were too gradual to notice in testing. So again I’m not sure if there is actually a difference myself, but our experience would be different than yours in this regard. That said, I’m still curious why there would be a difference in the first place based on what Uniden is saying and what has shown.

Finally something else to remember is we don’t control firmware update releases, nor do we give them some sort of deal of approval. We test a few different aspects in our free time, whenever it’s MRCD detection or filtering, new bogey alert tones, Ka lockouts, etc. Most of us are pretty busy in our lives and testing every single attribute of a detector every time we get a slightly modified firmware, and for free no less, that’s just not feasible.

Sure we can be one extra layer of testing on top of Uniden’s own testing and it would be nice if everything could be caught out of the gate, but that’s not always the case. I wish it was. :)

Personally I’d like to see more releases and smaller releases. This way if anything comes up, it’s easier to know what change affected the results and would make it easier for Uniden to adjust accordingly.
 

CJR238

-CMS Article Admin-
Administrator
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
26,299
Reaction score
16,700
Location
CT. MZDA 3. ALP, V1/RedLine/Waze
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
With all the controversy surrounding the new update and the perceived problems with MRCD not going low enough, K band compromised and BSM alerts in abundance, how could the beta testers have given this upgrade its seal of approval. Is this an example of user mania or did the testers not do enough ?.
Beta testers are simply regular people that get to test out a new RD and review/report about it. They can convey anything they want to the manufacturer but its up to the manufacturer to implement. But they also cant suggest solutions to issues if they don't find any.
 

TurboDriver

PSL + 50, every now and then
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
1,590
Reaction score
1,600
Location
Michigan
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
...
My biggest issue is with the TSF delay, the NR DSP has had IMO the same programming for a few months now and it seemed to be known that it was coming to the Unidens, so no surprise. I have tested both and there is a 2.5 to 6 second delay with TSF On on 1.46...REALLY, many were 4-5 second delay...ridiculous! Don't believe me, grab a K band gun and a timer and prove me otherwise! (not just one fluke shot but multiple). TSF Off was the same as 1.37 but for those that have ran it on to help with the many BSM falses are now putting themselves at risk.

My Bushnell (24.125) was actually the shortest around 2.5 seconds but the Kustom Pro ("real police radar" at 24.175) averaged 4-5 seconds. Both my R3 1.46 and NR DSP are identical.

How could anyone think this was a "good" idea. Nobody tested response time?

BSM filter may at one time been good but in today's traffic...not so great at all.
 

Brainstorm69

TXCTG 2016 MOTY
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
7,688
Reaction score
14,261
Location
Lone Star State
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
...
My biggest issue is with the TSF delay, the NR DSP has had IMO the same programming for a few months now and it seemed to be known that it was coming to the Unidens, so no surprise. I have tested both and there is a 2.5 to 6 second delay with TSF On on 1.46...REALLY, many were 4-5 second delay...ridiculous! Don't believe me, grab a K band gun and a timer and prove me otherwise! (not just one fluke shot but multiple). TSF Off was the same as 1.37 but for those that have ran it on to help with the many BSM falses are now putting themselves at risk.

My Bushnell (24.125) was actually the shortest around 2.5 seconds but the Kustom Pro ("real police radar" at 24.175) averaged 4-5 seconds. Both my R3 1.46 and NR DSP are identical.

How could anyone think this was a "good" idea. Nobody tested response time?

BSM filter may at one time been good but in today's traffic...not so great at all.
@TurboDriver - Have you tested with MRCD on vs. MRCD off and do you see any difference in the delay? Especially with your Kustom Pro?
 
Last edited:

TurboDriver

PSL + 50, every now and then
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
1,590
Reaction score
1,600
Location
Michigan
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@TurboDriver - Have you tested with MRCD on vs. MRCD off and do you see any difference in the delay? Especially with your Kustom Pro?
No, sorry I have not. I don't need the MRCD feature so haven't, but I will try to do it to see what I find. I have not done range tests either, I would like to but finding the time is the issue.

As far as 1.37 and 1.46 goes with TSF Off - I have honestly not seen a noticeable difference with BSM falsing like many here have reported. I have a few thousand miles with both versions in city (Detroit areas) and the "sticks" of Northern Michigan. Now if you add TSF On with 1.37 it is definitely quieter than Off and I will not use 1.46 TSF On in it's current state as an option.

--- DOUBLEPOST MERGED ---

No, sorry I have not. I don't need the MRCD feature so haven't, but I will try to do it to see what I find. I have not done range tests either, I would like to but finding the time is the issue.

As far as 1.37 and 1.46 goes with TSF Off - I have honestly not seen a noticeable difference with BSM falsing like many here have reported. I have a few thousand miles with both versions in city (Detroit areas) and the "sticks" of Northern Michigan. Now if you add TSF On with 1.37 it is definitely quieter than Off and I will not use 1.46 TSF On in it's current state as an option.
-------- Edit -------------------------------------------------------------------

In a quick test it seems that the delay is a sometimes a little less with MRCD On but still way too long IMO, pushing 3 seconds. I did video it but not it's not very good I am not sure if I have the tools to edit to make it tolerable to watch.
 

dmajikmyke

Learning to Drive
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
14
Reaction score
16
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I drive a 2017 CRV and can tell everyone that 100% 1.46 and same settings as 1.37 (on my unit, not yours) is much chattier. I went back to 1.37 because it hardly ever falses even inside my own car...hardly ever = a couple times a week. 1.46 alerted every 2 or 3 minutes. Settings are vortex's recommended.
 
Last edited:

Up All Night

Premium Member
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,731
Reaction score
2,542
Location
Cleveland, OH
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Let’s be realistic, there will always be room for improvements. Break throughs and innovations will pop up every now and then but, at some point if we keep asking for more and more, either that little heart ️ beat will be so arithmetic that it the R3 will start missing things. Or Uniden will say we’ve taken this baby as far as we can and it time for a faster processor / more Ram... They’ve been Great but as I was driving around S.D. for the last two weeks, I noticed in the city the R3 looked like it needed a defibrillator and out in the country it was fairly smooth and quiet. (Although I still think when cows lift their tails, they emit X Band)
Posted from my iPhone using the RDF Mobile App!
 
Last edited:

Brainstorm69

TXCTG 2016 MOTY
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
7,688
Reaction score
14,261
Location
Lone Star State
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
In a quick test it seems that the delay is a sometimes a little less with MRCD On but still way too long IMO, pushing 3 seconds. I did video it but not it's not very good I am not sure if I have the tools to edit to make it tolerable to watch.
Thanks for checking. I just wanted an independent check on what I thought I was seeing. Which seems to be what you are seeing. MRCD on actually seems to lessen the delay just a little. Not to what I would consider acceptable levels. But less. Which is somewhat counter-intuitive to me.
 

Donation drives

RDF Server & License Fees (Jan/Feb 2019)

This donation drive covers the server and licensing fees for RDF for the months of January and February 2019...
Goal
$795.00
Earned
$800.00
This donation drive ends in

Latest threads

Social Group Activity

Forum statistics

Threads
78,300
Messages
1,164,711
Members
18,005
Latest member
Aviator92
Top