@Brainstorm69 Awesome test as always, enjoyed the video pics all laid out easy to review. 134.141.114 FW....jealous man...
Last edited:
I was wondering if anyone was going to mention that. Yes, it is the current beta.
I believe the Auto Mute Memory beta firmware started at 134.x.x so the Amazon unit is little behind on the beta software
Yep, 1.33 doesn't have auto mute memory though.@001 posted yesterday that he received a new R7 from Amazon and it was loaded with 133.141.113 firmware.
Do you think it's possible that the curve and guardrail kind of make for less separation on this course? I haven't seen a google maps birds eye view of this particular course but watching the video, I wonder if that's the case.
What I'm thinking may be possibly happening is that the signal is relatively strong where the detectors catch it. "Relatively" being good enough to sniff it in pretty much the same place.
It would be neat to see a "lesser" detector go through the same course and compare to see if it bunches in the same area.
I was thinking that too. Armco is a great reflector.Thanks for the testing @Brainstorm69 !
Do you think it's possible that the curve and guardrail kind of make for less separation on this course? I haven't seen a google maps birds eye view of this particular course but watching the video, I wonder if that's the case.
What I'm thinking may be possibly happening is that the signal is relatively strong where the detectors catch it. "Relatively" being good enough to sniff it in pretty much the same place.
It would be neat to see a "lesser" detector go through the same course and compare to see if it bunches in the same area.
My recent testing has me somewhat confused on this issue.I'm starting to wonder if @VariableWave 's R7 might be on the cool side? It didn't seem like it during the times I've run it, it worked great.
It's hard to compare since it's a different antenna and setup. It would be hard to get the exact point of aim and wouldn't take too much difference to change the reflection. About 1.4 degrees in my example. Also, let's face it, we're drawing lines with paint and the snipping tool......LOL....so everything is just speculation.Your picture/theory seems to potentially fit with the 35.5 detections, but the 34.7 and 33.8 detections occurred further back on the course (except for the 2 shorter 33.8, which were pretty close to where the 35.5 detections were).
Still wish I could see electromagnetic waves...lol
View attachment 161793
It's hard to compare since it's a different antenna and setup. It would be hard to get the exact point of aim and wouldn't take too much difference to change the reflection. About 1.4 degrees in my example. Also, let's face it, we're drawing lines with paint and the snipping tool......LOL....so everything is just speculation.
View attachment 161797
I could be completely off my rocker here, I'm just brainstorming.......![]()
In any case, the easiest way to see if it may have been limited is a less sensitive detector. You know?....I think I'm going to start packing a K40 or Whistler or something to test for something similar when scouting in the future.
I looked at that thread earlier to refresh myself but I have to admit it didn't really jump out at me without having the graphs. I like having the screen shots but I really miss the graphs.Agree it's just speculation and that maybe a weak detector could help out with the analysis. But you can go look at my K-band testing in the same spot (https://www.rdforum.org/threads/100372/). Turning up the filtering on the V1G2 and turning down the sensitivity of the R7 did result in shorter detections.
I looked at that thread earlier to refresh myself but I have to admit it didn't really jump out at me without having the graphs. I like having the screen shots but I really miss the graphs.Once again speculation, but that HR certainly may not have been course limited on the same exact course.
I hope I'm not coming off as a PITA here as that's not my intention at all. Some of your other tests, though not off axis, have shown more clear separation, though pretty much on-axis and over a longer distance:
TXCTG – Testing the new V1 Gen 2 – Ka 34.7, 35.5, 33.8 and Low-Powered K - Waco Pioneer Pkwy 03-08-2020
INTRO Well, if you are like everyone else here at RDF (TXCTG included), you’re more than ready to see some testing results for the new V1 Gen 2, unofficially released by Valentine Research last week. Most members have had them in their hands for only a few short days. @Jag42 and I met up in...www.rdforum.org
So I guess I'm thinking that more testing is necessary to see if it's possible to get some better separation in an off-axis test and possibly corroborate the on-axis results. It's tough because it's apple to oranges though in some ways, especially given the anecdotal nature and lack of comparison in real world off-axis detection claims.
Hopefully we will see when I compare my R7 to his R7 and then he will do the same when loading said fw to my R7 and see where a boost could be, or terrain limited on either side.possible that the beta fw got a gain bump?
If that’s true, it is amazing what Uniden has accomplished without using an LNA.possible that the beta fw got a gain bump?
No, I think it's possible that it would show the lack of separation. If it alerts in relatively the same place then there may be a course issue. Conversely, if it alerts at a shorter distance and does show separation, then the course is more useful.I can see your point but do you think this is the case here? Running a lesser detector through the course would show the separation?