TXCTG - V1G2 v R7 v Ka 34.7, 35.5 and 33.8 off-axis and through foliage 10-11-2020

[Vancity23]

@Brainstorm69 Awesome test as always, enjoyed the video pics all laid out easy to review. 134.141.114 FW....jealous man...

 

[jestric]

I was wondering if anyone was going to mention that. Yes, it is the current beta.

@001 posted yesterday that he received a new R7 from Amazon and it was loaded with 133.141.113 firmware.

 

[SilenceDogoodNinja]

I believe the Auto Mute Memory beta firmware started at 134.x.x so the Amazon unit is little behind on the beta software

 

[jestric]

I believe the Auto Mute Memory beta firmware started at 134.x.x so the Amazon unit is little behind on the beta software

Thank you for the information.

 

[001]

@001 posted yesterday that he received a new R7 from Amazon and it was loaded with 133.141.113 firmware.

Yep, 1.33 doesn't have auto mute memory though.

 

[OBeerWANKenobi]

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.

 

[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.

It's possible. The curve creates the off-axis (obviously). And the trees also create some signal blockage. Here is an overhead.

 

[LouG]

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.

I was thinking that too. Armco is a great reflector.

 

[OBeerWANKenobi]

This is what I am kind of imagining. Obviously the RF projects in a cone but taking just the center projection there would be something like this.

The angle of reflection should be equal to the angle of incidence. Since it's a curved surface, we need a "surface" tangent to the curve and coincident with the point of contact to calculate the angle from. Anyway, if I did this right (don't pay attention to the linear dimensions as they aren't to scale) that would put he intersection of the signal and the car's path at approximately the point circled in green.

Of course w are going to get further reflections from the conical nature of the signal but most of those will have to go through the woods on either side. It's possible we'd get a reflection from the first house on the left there though.

 

[Brainstorm69]

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

 

[DC Fluid]

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.

My recent testing has me somewhat confused on this issue.
R7A vs R7B vs R3.....
After being beaten by its twin, multiple times, by a few % points on every test, R7A went away for a major repair job, came back and promptly spanked R7B against the Python II K Band. For first time ever.
Then I go out and do the Thanksgiving testing and R7B comes out well on top for straight line max distance sensitivity, very close but R7A wins on off axis set-up, and both got schooled by the R3 on the off axis.
Different days, different detectors, different radar guns....
We have to remember the "It's just one test" motto and really look for trends over many, many tests.
Hot or cold could be so many factors.
Larger variances in performance may indicate a sub-par unit if confirmed in fairly controlled tests.

 

[OBeerWANKenobi]

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.

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.

 

[Brainstorm69]

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.

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.

 

[OBeerWANKenobi]

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.

 

[Brainstorm69]

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.

Well, there is also always the possibility that my V1G2 and R7 are pretty similar when it comes to off-axis capabilities and therefore little separation. There's certainly nothing about the distance to the gun in this test that is going to cause separation. But it is also possible that the foliage is so dense off to the right of the car between the RD and the radar gun that there are some course limitations. Hard to say for sure, although none of the 34.7 detections were dropped after the initial detection. And 35.5 detections were shorter, as you would normally expect they would be.

In the end, the test is just another data point. It would be good to see some more off-axis testing to get others. And btw, you aren't being a PITA...lol.

 

[thesilverbullet]

possible that the beta fw got a gain bump?

 

[VariableWave]

possible that the beta fw got a gain bump?

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.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

 

[oversteer325]

possible that the beta fw got a gain bump?

If that’s true, it is amazing what Uniden has accomplished without using an LNA.

 

[DC Fluid]

@OBeerWANKenobi
On short courses and long courses I've done, by attenuated radar gun with foilage and off axis, I found:
longer distances show a nicer graph and separation in receptions, but the % difference remains pretty close on both situations.
The big kink in the plan is when you get a completely blocked signal keeping every detector blind up until you pop up into where first contact is possible, and it was blocked so well that the signal is suddenly strong for every detector, making them all alert within a very close group.

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?

I find that the ground is the biggest blocker. A hill or series of hills between gun and detector can totally block signal, only received when you crest the top of a hill. I've had to readjust my courses many times to get that nice spread between best and worst detections.

FYI all, the Falcon HR can alert my R7 when I round the corner onto a hilly straight stretch, 9.5 kilometers away.
Low power, ha!
Gun off axis 45-degrees the R Series still picks it up over 5 kms away.
Takes a lot of foilage and terrain to stump these new detectors.
The 9500ix was 1/20th on range off axis Ka. (5% of R7)

Many different courses tested and averaged may be the only way to score a winner.

I loved @Brainstorm69 complilation of results in previous years that averaged all the % wins by detector.
That's one of the charts that really made me feel good about purchases.
A whole year averaged out.
If several testers submitted similar compilations it could be added to the TXCTG and even better, reducing any bias from suspect tests or fluke receptions.

 

[OBeerWANKenobi]

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?

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.