R3 With 1.48 & MRCD

DrHow

Premium Member
Premium Member
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,176
Reaction score
1,419
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
No. It was alluded that it could cause some sort of interference in the detection, and it is possible. It was someone else looking for a reason, or possible explanation, of why. That’s all.

Where my RC-M antenna is located, has never falsed the Uniden, but that’s not really the jist of the discussion.

After I took a quick look, others have done a little more in-depth look at what 1.48 is doing.

I just heard of and then found something very odd with the behavior than what I was use to. Had I not had the RC-M, as a comparison, I could’ve missed it and chalked up the experience on all sorts of other factors, like weather, traffic etc.

It’s not something I do for a test, but I’ve done enough running around on quick trip to the store that I’ll occasionally run a windshield mount detector along with the RC-M, which is mounted behind the grill of my truck, to see if there’s any irregularities. These could include finding a MRCD rig that’s transmitting below the floor of the R3.

Unfortunately, the RC-M does not show me the actual 2 frequencies of the MRCD trap like the R-Ex does.

Knowing that, just running the R3 by itself, doesn’t tell me anything about what the MRCD operator is doing, or if the MRCD trap is even active at the time I approach it or pass it if there’s no signal.

If I have the time, and I find something off, I’ll usually go back at it independently. That’s if I have time.

I can’t stress enough that this wasn’t a test on my part. I just picked up the irregularities that others had brought up and confirmed that I agreed that there was something way off from my experience and time with the R3 on 1.46.

The others looked into it further and confirmed what I couldn’t and didn’t have the time for.

@DrHow understandings what I’m usually up to, and if he had some questions, he’s pretty good at reaching out to me to ask. I don’t think I’ve let him down yet. I try to be as transparent as I can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, you are amazing. I appreciate what you do, ams the time it takes. Plus taking time to share it with us. I was speaking to the vibrant complaints your observations using your methods you just repeated above were tilted. As I read the post further, the discussion from the person became less agitated. No more comments like “commercial for Radenso”. I also learned nuances dealing with R series priority settings as a result of more constructive dialogue later. The conversation could have started out that way.

I do have a view (accurate or not), if a RCM mounted the way yours is in your type of vehicle was causing performance hurting interference with the R3, any vehicle surrounding a R3 user that had another detector (remote or windshield), would also affect the R3 performance. This assumes the R3 had a ragged edge sensitivity exposure to radar detectors well beyond the typical dual mounting on a windshield. If this was so, I would not want to use my R series anymore. Too many folks where I travel that have RDs, which odds of one being close enough to hurt the R performance would be too great. I don’t believe at this time the R3 is affected by this phenomenon.
 

DrHow

Premium Member
Premium Member
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,176
Reaction score
1,419
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Well, I am still learning as I had no idea that the RCM would be in the equation at all. I simply thought Dr How misunderstood.
I was saying the RCM in my opinion was Not a performance factor degrading the R3 at all in the video. Another person initially thought it was.
 
Last edited:

DrHow

Premium Member
Premium Member
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,176
Reaction score
1,419
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
You should have read the whole thread before quoting that early post of mine. Specifically, please read THIS POST, which explains what I am claiming. Yes, I initially said, "it might been impacted by interference" but then when Heywood posted his detector settings it became obvious that his chosen settings killed that alert distance. He had his detector set to Signal Priority instead of KA Priority. So the strongest K signal was being presented, and the weaker MRCD alert was silent because that's what Signal Priority does. Had he set KA Priority, the order of alert would have been Laser, MRCD, Ka band, K, X. So we would have heard the MRCD alert first. It's as simple as that.
You set the tone with the Radenso commercial claim against @Heywood right up front. Went on to deal with the interference. I disagreed with that. I did learn from you reminding us of the nuances of signal priority. The back and forth relating to Uniden beta testing, working with Kuni in this was very helpful with the evolution of how signal property currently works. Thank you both. Looking back now, had it started with that, I would not have said anything. As you say, in the end, it is as simple as that.

I have observed a trend from testing MRxx with the R3. In common settings (urban, where BSM surrounding traffic, fixed k transmitters, +more), the R3 does seem to hold back a MRxx alert until too late. This is based on assumption of the heart beat changing around showing heavy processing with MRxx signal (and possible other items also being filtered). Also, testing against Chicago MRCT, this heartbeat observation confirms it could be seeing the MRCT, but not alerting for some reason. Let’s hope so. Otherwise the 200ft and under alert range is not usable, with no hope of firmware tweaks.

To me this is not exclusive to MRxx. I look at this as broader challenge for Uniden. I hear from some saying the CPU is too slow, not enough memory and such. Maybe... However I saw others remind me of how fast the CPU is compared to others (400mhz). This should not be an issue. There could be good hope as the code is worked, performance of filtering will go up which will have longer range k freq displayed real alerts (verses CPU crunching code), and improve things such as BSM. Who knows. I listed a bunch of assumptions, starting with the assumption based on the tiny heartbeat display, the R3 sees the MRxx farther out than it displays.

The frequency range limits are another thing to me. We have seen real observations where the MRxx drifting too low as it does it’s frequency modulated sweeps to lower end of the band the the R3 loses the MRxx completely. This, I think, is noted by all including Uniden as a hardware issue in the antenna/sensor path to the board. This will hurt its reaction and it’s current ability to get past the filter code and keep or announce a alert? @Heywood, or someone else showed that happening. Very low frequency right at edge of R3 ability on display, then based on audio, the FM sweep goes below that threshold, the alert stops. Then comes back again as the FM sweep gets back in range of the R3. I find this part very interesting (interesting in raw form, not meaning negative). Assuming true, how to use the CPU to see this pattern, and keep alerts coming fast if it can. Who knows on this? Not I.
 

DrHow

Premium Member
Premium Member
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,176
Reaction score
1,419
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Additionally, @DrHow, if you think another nearby detector can't interfere with a detector, even put it to sleep, then you need to do a bit more study on the subject because you're flat out wrong on that. I've posted several interference videos over the years showing that it can and does happen. It's just one of those things. Running two detectors together is risky business, even when one is a remote.
I am not debating interference. I was questioning the distance interference can happen. The RCM antenna are down low, far out, pointing another direction. Not on the windshield. I was saying if the RCM (or any other remote for that matter) caused performance problem on k band for the R3, so too could any RD of any design inside/outside another car beside, in front (especially with 360 horns), or behind the car using the R3. I was saying that would be a problem for me, making a R3 useless for me because too many folks around here in traffic have RDs. And, I do not believe this to be the case, or we would know about it by now. Are you saying there is testing where the R3 performed poorly like in the original video above because of other RDs located next to it in another car?
 

DrHow

Premium Member
Premium Member
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,176
Reaction score
1,419
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I don't believe that the RCM was being accused "of killing the R3". @Heywood would likely confirm that this was not meant and you might have been just misunderstanding the statement.
Wrong euphemism saying “kill”. Meant affected, degraded, hurt, something like that. That is what hidden initially was saying as fact. I was stating opposite thought. Should not have used kill which alludes to no alert.
 

hiddencam

Premium Member
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
10,930
Reaction score
21,651
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
@DrHow vibrant comments or criticisms do tend follow unfair or flawed testing posts/videos/commentary around here. In this case, the victim was the R3. The spoils of the plunder went to the Radenso unit. It was an innocent mistake by the OP, but it's true that his Signal Priority setting was the likely culprit, although none of us can completely rule out interference either, plus whatever negative impact FW 1.48 has given us. I believe the comment was justified, and hopefully it sparked a learning moment, despite ruffling some feathers initially. Heywood is a pal of mine though, so I'm sure he doesn't hold a grudge.
 

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
I have no ill will.

It’s a learning moment. I’m just glad that Dukes, Mystic360, and 420smoke were able to demonstrate the issue since I’m unavailable to follow it up to this point.

I still have some of my own testing to add to the mix when I can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

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
You set the tone with the Radenso commercial claim against @Heywood right up front. Went on to deal with the interference. I disagreed with that. I did learn from you reminding us of the nuances of signal priority. The back and forth relating to Uniden beta testing, working with Kuni in this was very helpful with the evolution of how signal property currently works. Thank you both. Looking back now, had it started with that, I would not have said anything. As you say, in the end, it is as simple as that.
To be fair, not everyone knows what I’m working on except for myself.

Sometimes I’m brought into things through a surrogate and unknown to most.

I’m pretty sure this was the case with hiddencam. He wasn’t aware that I was involved with the project.

That’s all. No harm no fowl.
 

crabu2

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
463
Reaction score
223
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thats a great comparo Dukes! At least I get a little bit of advanced warning even if the detector can't figure out exactly what it is with my cams - You get NOTHING until it's too late with 1.48!!
-- Double Post Merged: --
Here's a comparo at a 2nd location. Same settings:
Ka wide
Ka filter off
K wide
K filter on
TSF on
MRCD on
Ka priority on

This one shows reduced range as well as the same signal strength yo-yo effect on 1.48

Today, I changed my fw to 1.48 from 1.37 and found there's MRCD in Bel Ai, MD.. On the RLC. 1st time I went through, I had TSF ON. It didn't alert me to it till I was sitting at the light. When I came back later in the day, I turned TSF OFF. This time, I got about 100ft of notice before I was at the light. It 1st picked it up as K band 24.119, then it bounced back and for between K band and MRCD. While at the light, stopped, I lost the signal, then it popped back up.
 

OBeerWANKenobi

This is not the car you're looking for.....
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
2,572
Reaction score
5,739
Location
Right Behind You! (Wisconsin)
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
That’s all. No harm no fowl.
Yeah! We don't want no damn chickens or ducks around here. And pheasants don't even get me started on pheasants.

;):p
 

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
Yeah! We don't want no damn chickens or ducks around here. And pheasants don't even get me started on pheasants.

;):p
I know. Wrong foul. Spell check is my excuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Mystic330

Learning to Drive
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
27
Reaction score
37
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Today, I changed my fw to 1.48 from 1.37 and found there's MRCD in Bel Ai, MD.. On the RLC. 1st time I went through, I had TSF ON. It didn't alert me to it till I was sitting at the light. When I came back later in the day, I turned TSF OFF. This time, I got about 100ft of notice before I was at the light. It 1st picked it up as K band 24.119, then it bounced back and for between K band and MRCD. While at the light, stopped, I lost the signal, then it popped back up.
Yep - that’s the same behavior i got with my cams (see my earlier videos) and 1.48.
K band and MRCD yoyo-ing and the signal strength going from zero to full blast back to zero when right on top of the transmitter.
 

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
78,301
Messages
1,164,718
Members
18,005
Latest member
Aviator92
Top