Printable View
OK, Give us your ideas? Having the ability to use ALP Connect to make settings and adjustments or just display output? Do you think V1 integration needs to be able to set custom sweeps or are you fine with setting it with other products and just connecting the V1 to the ALP to get alerts, frequencies and directions is enough? Let me hear your wish list for this integration.
Hmm, well all of the above would be nice obviously, especially if it is going to be integrated with the gps to enable at least manual lockouts. But, it'd probably make more sense to start with just display and frequency information and gather feedback, there may be an adoption hindrance from users reluctant to leave yav1.
Will it stay in background until an alert and revert back afterwards?
I would say Yes, to be able to set up custom KA sweeps-it does help the range of the V-1
The way ALP Connect works now is that it can run in the background and come forward during an alert but then it will stay there unless you hit the back button to go back to the previous running app.Quote:
Originally Posted by FJR1300
That's liveable, I could have sworn it went back automatically when I had a poliscan false last weekend, I must have instinctively brought waze back up front.
I'd still use it though as I'm concerned about data speeds/possible conflicts while running V1C & ALP Connect dongles simultaneously.
Yes, The integration would eliminate the use of the V1 BT adapter since the V1 would be connected directly to the ALP's RG Module.Quote:
Originally Posted by FJR1300
If you're going to eliminate the need for the V1C LE, you do want a way for people to configure their V1 and enable custom sweeps. You can't do sweeps otherwise and that's a very important feature.
I agree with @Vortex. If the V1C is eliminated, users that have never used either the V1C and app or YaV1 will never have the ability to sweep their V1. That being said I think configuring sweeps in the app will be a must. I would also want an export feature to export GPS coordinates, speed, frequency. Sure would be nice to have the output display on a map for later reference. The biggest thing on the V1 would be to figure out how to eliminate the K band falses attributed to collision avoidance systems similar to the Audi's. Most operate in the 24 ghz band and look likeQuote:
Originally Posted by Vortex
67ms POP. The ability to disable K band pop where it is not used or the ability to filter it when in city mode would be a huge plus. This is my biggest complaint with the V1 and RedLine. Stinger has managed to eliminate these falses through advanced filtering sure would be nice to see the same thing happen on the V1. Obviously K Band filtering will be necessary as well either through GPS like YaV1 or through some other means. With as good as the V1 is at detecting radar signals, the drawback is it's continuous alerts. A noisy detector will get you in big trouble because you will either disable the source of the noise (ie K band) and risk catching the one real threat that should not have been filtered or you will live with the noise and become desensitized to the alerts eventually resulting in a ticket.
I'm going to have to think about other features, but these are the main ones that would make it worth the integration.
+1 on the map integration with alert markers, and if that is done, maybe alp alerts too.
So what would be the main benefit of using the ALP integration vs using the V1/YaV1 running alongside the current ALP app? As it stands now, they play well together. You could run both apps in the background for example while running Waze in the foreground. I'm curious what additional features or benefits would come from the ALP app that we don't currently get now with the two apps.
For iOS users it may be different since they don't have YaV1.
Initial thoughts are:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vortex
1. Single interface for all muting controls
2. No need for V1C - Direct Connect
3. Better overall integration
I personally don't like running multiple apps because you are always switching back and forth between them. Sure you can use the popup feature on YaV1, but even that at times gets annoying. I'm sure there are more, but until we know what features the ALP version will have there is no telling.
I agree that all other things being equal, it'd be better to have everything in one app. No more manually switching between apps during/after an alert and no need for purchasing a V1C module. One thing I wonder about is that GPS lockouts are one killer feature of YaV1. It can be done with the ALP using a phone or the ALP's GPS module, but is that something that AL would do, given the possibility of legal issues?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
From what I understand this was researched and it is NOT an issue. Plus they can use the dedicated GPS too if they need to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vortex
Cool. With the remote M3's, if you go for the ALP integration option currently, you get a simpler install and a savings of a few hundred bucks. You give up GPS lockouts, Live compatibility, the external speaker, and the Bel sounds. (I wish we could choose other sounds for ALP radar alerts)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
With the V1 integration option, we would save the $50 for the V1C but have to spend another $100 for the R/G module. This could potentially save us the $$ and space in having a dedicated YaV1 phone, if we run everything on our main phone. For iOS users though, the background alerting options are pretty limited and if the app isn't in the foreground (you're playing music, on the phone, etc.) we can't see things like frequency information, arrows if running in dark mode, and so on, so it may make more sense to still go for a dedicated Android display if you're an iOS user, just like we do for YaV1.
Speaking of YaV1, coming up with a reason to replace that is really the main thing for me. Really the app would have to basically copy all of YaV1's features, if not add more features above and beyond what YaV1 currently offers. Both Francky and AL's engineers are good about implementing bug fixes quickly so that's a plus. Francky is currently faster since he doesn't have all the other AL stuff on his plate. Given that the Android platform is better for this app, the main question really seems to be why we'd migrate away from YaV1.
You guys need to also stop thinking like enthusiasts.... I know its hard but you guys are maybe 1% of the market. You need to think like everyday users which is the majority of our customers. When thinking of new integrations we have to clear our mind and think of selling easy integrations that everyday users can use and operate without cluttering the support lines. YaV1 is not for the everyday user and is very complicated to most non enthusiasts. The AL Integration will be much easier to learn and use and for an average person using a new V1 the integration should be very exciting for them because their V1 does not have voice alerts and does not have any frequency display without V1C.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vortex
We might do it is phases but it will be a polished product when released.
lol, fair enough. Having an easier to use and learn app would be a benefit compared to YaV1. Coming into it with more of a beginner's mind, having a frequency display and voice alerts is a big upgrade. We've gotten a bit used to it now that the V1C has been out a while, but I remember how fantastic that was not needing to run another RD like a RL or Plus to get frequency info. That said, given that you're talking to enthusiasts, it still has to offer us something that we'd want above and beyond YaV1 if you'd want us to switch too. For the general population it is a different story, that's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by BestRadarDetectors
One quick thought, it'd be awesome to get Bel radar alert sounds when running an M3 head (or Escort sounds, though they're not as good IMHO) or V1 sounds when running a V1. The V1 has its own sounds built-in (unlike a remote M3 head) and so it's not as important to have audio alerts coming from the app if we can do it from the RD.
Looking at the R/G module, it looks like we can only do a STiR or V1, but not both at the same time since they share the same port. I'm thinking about adding a 9500ci head eventually, but if I do that, will I not be able to integrate with the V1 down the line?
Not without switching the cables aroind. Remember we are those crazy enthusiasts that run multiple detectors and jammers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vortex
I thought of another new feature that ALP already offers on the STIR that would be nice on the V1. Segmented K band.
heh that's totally cool to support just one at a time. I'm just thinking of the evolution of my own install and what to buy. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
That would be cool. I dunno if that could be done currently since it'd probably be simply an interface with ESP and the V1 would still have its own brains and sweeping methodology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
That is correct it would have to basically mute segments that were not active automatically. Very similar to the StiR integration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vortex
Oh that's how it's done? I figured it was actually adjusting the sweep given that K band segmentation actually is available with the native remote M3 packages. At the end of the day, it's all the same though. With the V1, they certainly could mute the segments, but the alerts would still show up on the V1 screen just like it does with YaV1. We'd get audio muting, but not visual muting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
Sti-R integration does not Mute the segments, The hardware is not sweeping those segments if you turn off certain segments. The ALP is not doing anything differently than the Sti-R Plus or 9500CI would do on their own except passing the alerts when there is one. With the standard V1C when setting sweeps doesn't it do the same thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
Muting segments is indeed different than not scanning the segments in the first place. The Max band segmentation on Ka, back when it was still available during initial FCC testing, would scan everything and mute what's not needed while Ka segmentation on both the M3 and V1's would actually not scan the frequencies in the first place, hence the performance boost.Quote:
Originally Posted by BestRadarDetectors
I stand corrected. I didn't know that stir was able to segment K band.Quote:
Originally Posted by BestRadarDetectors
It is mostly used in the International versions of the Sti-R Plus but the features were available in the US heads as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage