What's the holdup on BSM filter advancement?

Buz

Old School Member
Intermediate User
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
699
Reaction score
1,543
Location
Florida
It seems we've reached 'saturation' on BSM punch-through affecting nearly every single one of us on a daily basis now.
Just curious if anyone technically educated can explain why no major breakthroughs are happening with BSM filtration? (for years it seems)
I'm under the impression that BSM units have a unique pulsing, (or something similar) that sets them apart from the real thing? Why haven't the top manufacturers been able to figure this out yet?
 

dchemist

Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
6,262
Age
41
Location
Benton, AR
Radenso has been diligently working on this.

Probably the biggest limiting factor has been profitability. There is quite a substantial increase in processing power/memory requirements to be able to run the software to filter these out.

I suspect this may be part of the upcoming announcement from Radenso although I'm not privy to any information and am only speculating.

@Jon at Radenso, what's your take on the perceived BSM plateau?

Posted from my Pixel 2 using the RDF Mobile App!
 

HeartDoctor

PSL + 5 never more;)
Advanced User
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
2,913
Reaction score
6,947
Location
SE Florida
It seems we've reached 'saturation' on BSM punch-through affecting nearly every single one of us on a daily basis now.
Just curious if anyone technically educated can explain why no major breakthroughs are happening with BSM filtration? (for years it seems)
I'm under the impression that BSM units have a unique pulsing, (or something similar) that sets them apart from the real thing? Why haven't the top manufacturers been able to figure this out yet?
As we have learned by experience, there is not a single BSM pattern. It might be necessary to have a library of hundreds of difference BSM signatures, updated regularly, to identify each one, if this is even possible. The hardware requirements are likely beyond anything currently in a detector and likely even on the drawing boards. I suspect the manufacturers are trying to attack the problem in another way, looking for some commonality among BSM units or perhaps some commonality among police radar units which could be used to differentiate without a large database lookup for each encounter.
 

Jon at Radenso

Manufacturer
Advanced User
Premium Member
Manufacturer
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
14,227
Age
31
It's a few reasons, and they are different for each manufacturer.

Scenarios:

1. Manufacturer has the hardware capable of filtering, but lacks either:
  • the ability to spend the money to characterize each car's BSM signature
  • the software talent to utilize the data effectively (writing algorithms is hard)
2. Manufacturer doesn't have the hardware capable of utilizing cutting edge filtering mechanisms
  • all the data collection in the world won't help if your hardware can't run the algorithms
3. Manufacturer doesn't care because they generally don't care about their customers and sales haven't flatlined yet

4. Manufacturer doesn't even know BSM is a problem because they don't use radar detectors in the country where the devices are made, and don't have access to American cars
 
Last edited:

Transporter

ModWight Transporter
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
3,763
Reaction score
5,957
Location
In front of you but behind a Rabbit - Hot'Lanta,GA
.
In a word, BSM is on the same frequencies as Police Radar. Making it next to impossible to filter it all out other then turning off K Band on the RD (which of course is not a good idea unless one lives in Hawaii or any other states that no longer use K Band Radar). Also what Radar Detector manufacture has the resources to sample every vehicle that comes off the assembly line to build a database of known LO signatures that can be ignored. Yes the vehicle manufacture have band limits that they are supposed to stay in, but since BSM is probably part 14/15, it doesn't matter if vehicle one is at the lower edge of the band limits, next vehicle is at the very top, and the next 3 are dead on the freq they plan to use. Plus if they are out of spec and above or below where they are supposed to be, no body is checking anyway!
.

Edit: @Jon at Radenso beat me to it!
 

cihkal

WWG1WGA
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
3,844
Reaction score
7,090
As we have learned by experience, there is not a single BSM pattern. It might be necessary to have a library of hundreds of difference BSM signatures, updated regularly, to identify each one, if this is even possible. The hardware requirements are likely beyond anything currently in a detector and likely even on the drawing boards. I suspect the manufacturers are trying to attack the problem in another way, looking for some commonality among BSM units or perhaps some commonality among police radar units which could be used to differentiate without a large database lookup for each encounter.
They don't don't by trying to identify the BSM signal. They do it by saying the detected signal doesn't match a known threat, or that the detected signal is not FMCW. It's much easier to make a database of known that's than that of BSM technology.

I think some of the signals have components that look very much like a legit signal, say the Chrysler Pacifica's if you look at the FCCID post.

Anyway, this is why the Valentine One hasn't had an update on it's filter since it was released four years ago and the companies such as Uniden and Escort don't filter any better. In fact, it took Escort about four years to Max series be as good as the V1.

Radenso does a better job filtering some of the tougher vehicles, but at a cost of basically putting you in the kill zone on the low power falcon K gun. This is why I believe the other manufacturers such as Uniden, Valentine Research, and Escort don't filter these vehicles, it comes at a significant price.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 

westwind77

Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2016
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
4,883
Just curious if anyone technically educated can explain why no major breakthroughs are happening with BSM filtration? (for years it seems)
I would have to disagree with the above statement. Escorts BSM filtering was poor, then the R3 came out and it was a significant improvement over what was currently available, then Escort released their 'big' firmware update for the Max series which took the BSM alerts bascially down to 0 - I consider that a huge improvement. I am sure Uniden is working on improving theirs (which in my opinion is still good), and from what I hear Radenso has great filtering as well. As for a 'breakthrough', not that we as consumers know about. However, when I can take a 2 hours road trip and not have a single BSM alert I am not sure that a 'breakthrough' is required. As with any product I am sure they could create a RD that could filter everything out, but it would come at a significant cost and may be a lot larger in size. The companies have to make them profitable yet functional as best they can, and all in a package that us consumers want to hang from our WS.
 

Jon at Radenso

Manufacturer
Advanced User
Premium Member
Manufacturer
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
14,227
Age
31
It doesn't have to come at a price, I will go on the record saying it's technically capable of being done "virtually" penalty free given the correct hardware and software talent. But it ain't cheap. I also don't think anything on the market really qualifies as being the correct hardware yet.
 
Last edited:

cihkal

WWG1WGA
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
3,844
Reaction score
7,090
It's a few reasons, and they are different for each manufacturer.

Scenarios:

1. Manufacturer has the hardware capable of filtering, but lacks either:
  • the ability to spend the money to characterize each car's BSM signature
  • the software talent to utilize the data effectively (writing algorithms is hard)
2. Manufacturer doesn't have the hardware capable of utilizing cutting edge filtering mechanisms
  • all the data collection in the world won't help if your hardware can't run the algorithms
3. Manufacturer doesn't care because they generally don't care about their customers and sales haven't flatlined yet

4. Manufacturer doesn't even know BSM is a problem because they don't use radar detectors in the country where the devices are made, and don't have access to American cars
Why do you need to characterize each BSM signature?

That's an incredibly inefficient use of resources when you can characterize (make a model) of known actual threats and use a correlation method for detected signals.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 

Jon at Radenso

Manufacturer
Advanced User
Premium Member
Manufacturer
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
14,227
Age
31
Why do you need to characterize each BSM signature?

That's an incredibly inefficient use of resources when you can characterize (make a model) of known actual threats and use a correlation method for detected signals.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
If you are talking just about old fashioned CW police radar, sure. But it gets more tricky when you are trying to identify modulated threats.

Every car is not using a unique transmitter....there are probably less BSM modules shared across manufacturers than there are modulated police radar camera types. And cars are easier to get than those. An ideal scenario would be a blend of several types of characterization both positive and negative.
 

cihkal

WWG1WGA
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
3,844
Reaction score
7,090
Every car is not using a unique transmitter....there are probably less BSM modules shared across manufacturers than there are modulated police radar camera types. And cars are easier to get than those. An ideal scenario would be a blend of several types of characterization both positive and negative.
But I'm not talking about modulated radar types, when talking about multaradar that would be a different story, I agree.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 

Jon at Radenso

Manufacturer
Advanced User
Premium Member
Manufacturer
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
14,227
Age
31
But I'm not talking about modulated radar types, when talking about multaradar that would be a different story, I agree.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
There is no point for us to ever make a product that doesn't detect modulated radar again, so that's the reality I live in now.


Anyway, I will take a step back from this discussion since if I get any more in-depth I would probably have to start talking about some ideas we may implement in the future that I'd rather keep to myself.
 
Last edited:

riseboi

The Martian
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
1,037
Reaction score
2,795
Location
South Florida
I recall seeing @Vortex's video on the transition to high frequencies and eventual disuse of K band for new cars. @Jon at Radenso, has that curbed yours or possibly other companies' investment in time/money in BSM filtering until the automotive industry actually implements new frequencies?
 

dchemist

Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
6,262
Age
41
Location
Benton, AR
There is no point for us to ever make a product that doesn't detect modulated radar again, so that's the reality I live in now.


Anyway, I will take a step back from this discussion since if I get any more in-depth I would probably have to start talking about some ideas we may implement in the future that I'd rather keep to myself.
You've said plenty and vocalized what I couldn't. It's not that it can't be done but rather that the cost to do it may be prohibitive ATM.

Posted from my Pixel 2 using the RDF Mobile App!
 

synistyr

I need more coffee
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
2,148
They don't don't by trying to identify the BSM signal. They do it by saying the detected signal doesn't match a known threat, or that the detected signal is not FMCW. It's much easier to make a database of known that's than that of BSM technology.

I think some of the signals have components that look very much like a legit signal, say the Chrysler Pacifica's if you look at the FCCID post.

Anyway, this is why the Valentine One hasn't had an update on it's filter since it was released four years ago and the companies such as Uniden and Escort don't filter any better. In fact, it took Escort about four years to Max series be as good as the V1.

Radenso does a better job filtering some of the tougher vehicles, but at a cost of basically putting you in the kill zone on the low power falcon K gun. This is why I believe the other manufacturers such as Uniden, Valentine Research, and Escort don't filter these vehicles, it comes at a significant price.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Radenso puts you into the Killzone of low powered K guns? What?

I don't get that impression at all. @Heywood tested with a low powered K guns and didn't look like that.

Also for the record, no falsing against Pacificas with the RPM.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

cihkal

WWG1WGA
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
3,844
Reaction score
7,090
Radenso puts you into the Killzone of low powered K guns? What?

I don't get that impression at all. @Heywood tested with a low powered K guns and didn't look like that.

Also for the record, no falsing against Pacificas with the RPM.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Search for some recent (sorta) testing against the low power K falcon gun. With max filtering settings on it was bad.

I actually don't think this is anything new so I'm not sure why you're acting surprised. This general topic has been talked about before by multiple members.

This is one that comes to mind, where you're definitely at a huge risk of running TSRej on high and actually speeding:


Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

DrHow

Going “Plaid” ASAP (Tesla S) RDT refugee
Banned User
General User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
3,221
Reaction score
5,361
Search for some recent (sorta) testing against the low power K falcon gun. With max filtering settings on it was bad.

I actually don't think this is anything new so I'm not sure why you're acting surprised. This general topic has been talked about before by multiple members.

This is one that comes to mind, where you're definitely at a huge risk of running TSRej on high and actually speeding:


Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
That is one reason why I bought one of those Falcon guns. Have not gotten “roundtoit” yet. For now, waiting on @Jon at Radenso to push the patch for the GPS lockout. Then test both at same time.
Post automatically merged:

It's a few reasons, and they are different for each manufacturer.

Scenarios:

1. Manufacturer has the hardware capable of filtering, but lacks either:
  • the ability to spend the money to characterize each car's BSM signature
  • the software talent to utilize the data effectively (writing algorithms is hard)
2. Manufacturer doesn't have the hardware capable of utilizing cutting edge filtering mechanisms
  • all the data collection in the world won't help if your hardware can't run the algorithms
3. Manufacturer doesn't care because they generally don't care about their customers and sales haven't flatlined yet

4. Manufacturer doesn't even know BSM is a problem because they don't use radar detectors in the country where the devices are made, and don't have access to American cars
Love this response.

Do you put Radenso in category 1, tackling both sub points under number 1.?

Also, does move to 77ghz for BSM make any difference? I would think not because even to this day we have to have firmware that blocks out leaky old Cobras and cover X band Radar. For years to come millions of cars will be on road with k BSM.

I hope your 5 or more ideas are in the transformational/new methods.
Post automatically merged:

I would have to disagree with the above statement. Escorts BSM filtering was poor, then the R3 came out and it was a significant improvement over what was currently available, then Escort released their 'big' firmware update for the Max series which took the BSM alerts bascially down to 0 - I consider that a huge improvement. I am sure Uniden is working on improving theirs (which in my opinion is still good), and from what I hear Radenso has great filtering as well. As for a 'breakthrough', not that we as consumers know about. However, when I can take a 2 hours road trip and not have a single BSM alert I am not sure that a 'breakthrough' is required. As with any product I am sure they could create a RD that could filter everything out, but it would come at a significant cost and may be a lot larger in size. The companies have to make them profitable yet functional as best they can, and all in a package that us consumers want to hang from our WS.
I agree with you. All ER based 360 products, right now are amazing (as a admitted whipped false BSM puppy) with BSM. RL EX sucks. And acceptable for radar detection. Radenso Pro M same. I have run both platforms for hours at a time with no BSM. Best chance of no BSM falses with ER Max platforms. Slight edge over Pro M.

Yes, folks, we both know about the downsides, and way too often lock up problems with other users on 360 platform.
 
Last edited:

Heywood

Learning Something New, Still Dying Stupid
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
May 12, 2016
Messages
4,499
Reaction score
8,702
Location
Alberta Canada
Radenso puts you into the Killzone of low powered K guns? What?

I don't get that impression at all. @Heywood tested with a low powered K guns and didn't look like that.

Also for the record, no falsing against Pacificas with the RPM.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
September 3rd test.

I didn’t test the effects of TSR/TSF settings for any of the detectors this day.

IMG_0050.jpg
IMG_0051.jpg


These were in City mode and we have an idea where that puts each in the sensitivity scale.

Now with this bug that JohnBoy00 found in the K band, could you miss a K band alert from any alert while filtering out a BSM? Well, it would have to be able to see it. How do you know if it sees it if it never alerts to it in the first place?

@DrHow.

Just go ahead and take some shots. See if there’s a difference before and after the patch.

I might have to do the same. Try and see what the effects TSRej has on the Falcon.

I know there was an issue from Vortex a long time ago with the Falcon, but I think that was rectified.

My test results are what they are that day. They were off axis measurements to the kill zone in city mode with TSR off and city mode on all of them.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

DrHow

Going “Plaid” ASAP (Tesla S) RDT refugee
Banned User
General User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
3,221
Reaction score
5,361
September 3rd test.

I didn’t test the effects of TSR/TSF settings for any of the detectors this day.

View attachment 97169View attachment 97170

These were in City mode and we have an idea where that puts each in the sensitivity scale.

Now with this bug that JohnBoy00 found in the K band, could you miss a K band alert from any alert while filtering out a BSM? Well, it would have to be able to see it. How do you know if it sees it if it never alerts to it in the first place?

@DrHow.

Just go ahead and take some shots. See if there’s a difference before and after the patch.

I might have to do the same. Try and see what the effects TSRej has on the Falcon.

I know there was an issue from Vortex a long time ago with the Falcon, but I think that was rectified.

My test results are what they are that day. They were off axis measurements to the kill zone in city mode with TSR off and city mode on all of them.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow, thanks! Every time I see stuff on the RCM, it keeps coming up roses. I really want to buy the Radenso Platinum package. I think I have a car I might keep for many years that the RCM should have long life cycle.

When I do the test, I need to keep the Falcon absolute vertical? I would imagine so to keep the polarization advantage?
 

dchemist

Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
6,262
Age
41
Location
Benton, AR
Wow, thanks! Every time I see stuff on the RCM, it keeps coming up roses. I really want to buy the Radenso Platinum package. I think I have a car I might keep for many years that the RCM should have long life cycle.

When I do the test, I need to keep the Falcon absolute vertical? I would imagine so to keep the polarization advantage?
If you could/have time, I'd love to see how vertical vs horizontal vs 45° affects reception. I suspect (with zero evidence to back it up) that angle would make a difference in reception on linearly polarized sources.

Posted from my Pixel 2 using the RDF Mobile App!
 

Discord Server

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
83,529
Messages
1,269,186
Members
21,078
Latest member
Quochungvy
Top