Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovencleaner  I will wait till the next GOL test. |
That's the smart-money bet.
That's what I'd do, in your shoes.
The test/results shouldn't be that far off, and the interval will allow you to save up so that you'll, in the end, just be able to get whatever it is that proves most fitting for your needs, without worrying about budgetary concerns.
Quote:
|
Long range LED punch through can be remmedied by reducing LIDAR signature with passive countermeasures.
|
Agreed - to an extent.
The thing with
thestaton's demo is that, surprisingly enough, the vehicle was even equipped with passive countermeasures.
At some point (no pun intended), I think that the vehicle just becomes so small, visually, that *any* surface on it becomes a point of concern - and unless you're running a totall composite vehicle with virtually no LIDAR hardpoints (i.e. non-metallic paint, no exposed lighting elements, etc.), you're going to suffer those extreme (and unreasonable - since no true trap would be set-up that way) PTs.
Quote:
|
I still think that the M25 would provide sufficient coverage for a car such as mine, and I don't need to overkill things with an LI / Dual LPP
|
I both agree and disagree.
I think that yes, the M25 (and later upgrade to M35) would likely serve you well enough, but in this game of "no guarantees," the only sure thing that can be said is that "overkill" is *the only* way to go.
I tend to think of LIDAR protection as insurance - you can never have too much, and it is an investment.
The dollars spent earns itself back as soon as you dodge the first LIDAR trap. Not only in terms of the punitive fine from the citation, but also, much more importantly, from the untold dollars saved from an insurance premium hike, which can last for years, as fallout.
Quote:
|
I guess I could wait till the ZR4 but could it really be that much better?
|
That's the wildcard question, indeed.