ATL G5 test

[BestRadarDetectors]

Works just fine. That's my explanation.

VG

The issue with G4 and I have not tested G5 yet is that its benefits were had at long range. For example without VEIL being clocked at 3800FT and G4 was able to reduce those ranges almost 50% and could have reduced PT range to lets say 1800ft. If you are on a 1000ft course you will not be able to see any benefit. Again I can only speak of G4 as I have not tested G5 yet.

[Mirage]

The issue with G4 and I have not tested G5 yet is that its benefits were had at long range. For example without VEIL being clocked at 3800FT and G4 was able to reduce those ranges almost 50% and could have reduced PT range to lets say 1800ft. If you are on a 1000ft course you will not be able to see any benefit. Again I can only speak of G4 as I have not tested G5 yet.

If that's the case, from a lidar perspective it will be completely worthless. Most lidar encounters occur at sub 1000ft. I have to say I'm disappointed if it has no effect at all. Even if it is still dark I have a black car and would have used it if it was effective.

[Jaguar]

The issue with G4 and I have not tested G5 yet is that its benefits were had at long range. For example without VEIL being clocked at 3800FT and G4 was able to reduce those ranges almost 50% and could have reduced PT range to lets say 1800ft. If you are on a 1000ft course you will not be able to see any benefit. Again I can only speak of G4 as I have not tested G5 yet.

Yup, at ranges exceeding 2000' I imagine it could help, but heck, at >2000' you might as well be shooting the whole dang car because it's tiny in any viewfinder without an optical zoom! And all in all VG, I wanted it to work. I wanted it to help reduce acquisitions, but I just didn't see any benefit to it. I was going to ask hussein to let me put some on my truck after we tested, but (and I'm not trying to speak for him but...) the results made us both decide we'd be better off without it, knowing the potential for damage to the lights, and how poor it appeared with only two layers.


I will not say however that it is a 'definitive' test, or that conditions were perfect, or any of that. It was fairly fresh on the car and relatively cold outside. That may have affected it, among other things.

I look forward to seeing other testers give it a go.

[ECMExpert]

If that's the case, from a lidar perspective it will be completely worthless. Most lidar encounters occur at sub 1000ft. I have to say I'm disappointed if it has no effect at all. Even if it is still dark I have a black car and would have used it if it was effective.

Yup, at ranges exceeding 2000' I imagine it could help, but heck, at >2000' you might as well be shooting the whole dang car because it's tiny in any viewfinder without an optical zoom! And all in all VG, I wanted it to work. I wanted it to help reduce acquisitions, but I just didn't see any benefit to it. I was going to ask hussein to let me put some on my truck after we tested, but (and I'm not trying to speak for him but...) the results made us both decide we'd be better off without it, knowing the potential for damage to the lights, and how poor it appeared with only two layers.


I will not say however that it is a 'definitive' test, or that conditions were perfect, or any of that. It was fairly fresh on the car and relatively cold outside. That may have affected it, among other things.

I look forward to seeing other testers give it a go.

This all begs the question then: I saw Bobs test back in the November introduction with RR AND IT " appeared" to work on the two C7s.
Was there any testing before or after the introduction of the product to validate the claims that it works. VG, can you chime in here with your own test results??

The good news is that vinegar appears to take it right off....

[OrlNmE]

Yup, at ranges exceeding 2000' I imagine it could help, but heck, at >2000' you might as well be shooting the whole dang car because it's tiny in any viewfinder without an optical zoom! And all in all VG, I wanted it to work. I wanted it to help reduce acquisitions, but I just didn't see any benefit to it. I was going to ask hussein to let me put some on my truck after we tested, but (and I'm not trying to speak for him but...) the results made us both decide we'd be better off without it, knowing the potential for damage to the lights, and how poor it appeared with only two layers.


I will not say however that it is a 'definitive' test, or that conditions were perfect, or any of that. It was fairly fresh on the car and relatively cold outside. That may have affected it, among other things.

I look forward to seeing other testers give it a go.

So there is long term damage to the headlights after using Veil?

Also, if it makes my truck look muddy or dirty I'll just stick with ALP. It's more of a guarantee 99% of the time as oppose to using Veil. If under 2000 feet it punches through, then it's not worth it.

[Veil Guy]

So there is long term damage to the headlights after using Veil?

Also, if it makes my truck look muddy or dirty I'll just stick with ALP. It's more of a guarantee 99% of the time as oppose to using Veil. If under 2000 feet it punches through, then it's not worth it.

The highest level of protection I believe will always be using a variety of CMs in tandem such as a jammer, veil, a good RD, a cover like a SuperProtector, and Waze/EL. Something like this today is about as good as it gets, IMO, coupled of course with very attentive driving (an extremely important component). Last year I made a "bull run" from PA to SW FL in less than 14 without incident doing just this.

[ECMExpert]

The highest level of protection I believe will always be using a variety of CMs in tandem such as a jammer, veil, a good RD, a cover like a SuperProtector, and Waze/EL. Something like this today is about as good as it gets, IMO, coupled of course with very attentive driving (an extremely important component). Last year I made a "bull run" from PA to SW FL in less than 14 without incident doing just this.

I remember that, I passed you on SB 75 in Florida.

Back on topic, let's get this G5 tested some more before drawing ANY conclusions.

[Veil Guy]

I remember that, I passed you on SB 75 in Florida.

Back on topic, let's get this G5 tested some more before drawing ANY conclusions.

Yeah. Expect to be doing another run with the month.

Keep in mind as with the case with any version of Veil, whether it be G2, G4, or G5, apparent performance/effectiveness will ALWAYS be dependent upon the remaining areas of the vehicle that are NOT treated. G5 is "stronger" in its mechanisms than previous versions. However as with any stealth technology/material, your are as only as strong as your weakest link.

For example, let's say you completely remove the headlights and the fog lights, etc from the reflective equation. If something else on the vehicle is being super reflective, then that element is going to contribute to your PTs. That's the reason why Veil will always show best on low(er) profile vehicles and/or darker colored ones than white or silver ones.

I have also come to understand recently that certain headlight designs are particularly troublesome for jammers to overcome (regardless of brand/model) and in such an instance, Veil can go a very long way into mitigating that challenge to the jammer and allow it to do its job more efficiently.

That's why I say it's very simple at the end of the day, a layered defense approach will always be the superior approach.

VG

[BestRadarDetectors]

I am sure at the next RALETC test there will be the usual test car:



So it would be good to see how G5 does on everyday cars.

[Veil Guy]

The issue with G4 and I have not tested G5 yet is that its benefits were had at long range. For example without VEIL being clocked at 3800FT and G4 was able to reduce those ranges almost 50% and could have reduced PT range to lets say 1800ft. If you are on a 1000ft course you will not be able to see any benefit. Again I can only speak of G4 as I have not tested G5 yet.

Absolutely false statement, and that in part goes to why you and I are where we are today (which I still have hope that that can change, but the ball is going to be in your court and you know what I mean by that).

Now on to Tom's claim:

Even RALETC's own tests even with pre-production Veil clearly demonstrates this to not be true and when the weather warms later, YC and the group can get together again and test what we have then.

Those results of the formal RALETC meet, although abbreviated are clear to see. To suggest that Veil is not effective at all <1000 is a myth often perpetuated by those close the the jammer industry. Been that way for years. And quite frankly, I have been observing a change in Tom's attitude toward Veil as he has become more of an ALP rep than merely a general CM vendor. That's my perception from the outside looking in. You don't have to agree with it, but there it is. I've seen this dynamic before. I've said it a million times, Veil is not a competitor to a jammer company, we are complementary and there is great synergy between the two!

http://www.rdforum.org/content/laser-veil/

They're right there in B&W, their results not mine and that was on my big silver sedan, not a low profile vehicle like a Vette. RIGTOFLY also did very well with G4 but he did over do it, a bit, on his application.

Look guys, as a passive countermeasure, Veil has inherent limitations. NO countermeasure is 100%. In fact those of RALETC and those familiar with their results of the pass clearly demonstrate that the jamming efficiencies of even a loaded up ALP have their limitations. Veil is NO different. I can this until I am blue in the face, defense in depth is the best course of action.

I believe YC has the integrity to admit publicly that 1) Veil does especially well with the Dragon Eyes, where the LIs and Blinders struggle. And 2) I believe he rightly understands that as newer high tech guns continue to proliferate that Veil will continue to show better.

Further, test courses are reflective in the real-world for several reasons and I trust Radar Rob can also attest to this. Veil tends to ALWAYS show better in the real-world, because the officers are not looking to specifically find weaknesses of jammers. I have plenty of video'd encounters demonstrating this including ones from Happya$$ and Hidago (both of whom are Veilievers). Qui-Qon, also knows well the real-world benefits of Veil and I will let him speak for himself. I trust him and his experience and his neutrality and non-biasness. He will be using G5 shorlty as will Happya$$ and both of those gentlemen will give us very valuable feedback so we can learn and improve.

Those of you close to testing, know full well how to defeat active countermeasures with certain targeting techniques that are starting to be employed by officers intending to defeat them and know about them. So be careful sitting on your high horse. I would be inclined to conduct a test to show how simply it actually is and perhaps will but I would post that in and advanced section as to not further educate officers who may be lurking. But Rob will also attest that most of the lidar gun mfrs know the tricks too and are educating officers. So the moral of the story is twofold. Take test results with a grain of salt good or bad and drive with a defense in depth approach.

Provided that you guys treat me, my company, and our continuing efforts with respect and dignity, I'll be pleased to continue engaging you online. For those that seem to want to fully discredit the product, my integrity, and my character online I have better things to do with my time, like run a company and continuing developing our products.

For those that are open minded enough, I am pleased to see a pretty decent and educational discussion developing on RDF. For those not banned are can see the thread, I encourage you to read the posts. Jag and Mirage are participating as well. And again, as long as the conversation stays productive and true, I will be happy to contribute what I can. But as I said there too, I don't and won't tit for tat or be pushed into a defensive position. For those that want to spend 1000s of dollars by purchasing ALP QUINTS, go ahead. Veil is less than a C note and will always help whether it can stand on its on or not (with any given vehicle). Either like it support it believe in it or believe in those that do and who have good experiences in the real-world or NOT. Nothing I can so or do will change the hearts and minds of those that have already written Veil (g4 or g5) off for their own personal reasons. So I won't try. Been there done that. The results are the results and this is just one set of results. I am not going to make excuses as to why this or that. I've head a lot of things like that from these tests such as well the heads aren't aligned right. Or we'll have a fix to this next algorithm. All potentially correct and true, but nonetheless could be deadly in the real-world, as we saw with LI in the recent past. Hey they still can't figure things out. LI users should be using Veil just for that reason!

Please don't take my words as being mean-spirited. They're not meant to be. But continuing to defend a product that has been proven enough times over the course of more than a decade is silly. I'll listen, learn, and appreciate those that have the neutrality to understand the benefits of stealth passive countermeasures and their proper context, just as our friends in the military and IC do.

Here's the thread I am referring to. And one final point, if I may, to the extent Mirage and/or RALETC/ECCTG or other amateur testing groups conduct themselves professionally and objectively and can help us improve with constructive feedback, I will be pleased to continue engaging them both publicly and privately as we move forward with new product development. We can work together to make our world better. I would prefer that vision than one of adversity and conflict.

Thanks for reading and hopefully understanding my position here.

Here's the thread link:

http://www.rdforum.org/showthread.php?t=42248

For those that I can reach, thanks for your understanding.

VG