Escort 95000ci Radar Detector and LPP Laser Jammer

[nixem]

Hello, I am new to laser/radars and am trying to figure out an optimal setup for the next car i purchase. I have been trying to do some research, but it has been difficult since not too many people have the 9500ci.

I am looking for an easy stealth setup that is extremely reliable. I dont particularly like things hanging from my windshield and need a very high protection rating from both the front and rear. It seems that multiple units works best from experienced users on this forum. My current thoughts are...

9500ci
2 lpp front
2 lpp rear

The thing I am most concerned about is the lpp interfering with the 9500. I watched a video by radar roy and he noted that if you use multiple shifters it will actually decrease performance. Could anyone clear this up for me, or help with a better solution? Thanks!



nix

[RadarReviews_Net]

Well the first question...What kind of vehicle do you own?

Second the Laser Pro Park can be purchased using the single head or the dual head setup. In your thread above you want 4 LPP heads? That would be WAY overkill unless you drive a bus

Also what are you looking for....total jamming performance where no cop can get your reading at all even if within 100 feet or less? If you are looking for total jam performance go with a laser jammer that is a diode based...such as the Laser Pro Park or the Blinder Laser Jammer. If you are looking for a jammer just to give you time to slow down go with a led based such as the ZR4 new jammer just released by Escort. However with a led based jammer like the ZR4 the cop will get the reading on you when very close to him, say 600 feet or less to be safe.

Now if you already have the 9500ci it has the radar and laser built into the system. You wouldnt want to mount more then what the setup comes with.... 2 led based jammers up front and one led based jammer in the rear, anymore then that and you risk the chance of the jammers interfering with each other and just hurting you overall.

Now in Houston where I live I need a diode based jammer such as the Laser Pro Park, cops all the time sit on top of the hill and when you come over it...bam...you get hit with laser. Most of my laser attacks are 500 feet or less so I look for total jamming performance. If you live in an area where it is really flat a led based jammer wouldnt be so bad....but yes Houston does have its share of hills...so when you cant see over the hill...its great knowing that I will jam out their unit completly.

I think the BEST possible setup for total detection and jamming performance will always be for now the Valentine One radar detector mounted high by your rear view mirror for radar scatter and run a dual head LPP system up front on your vehicle and if you can afford an additional 3rd sensor put one in the rear for extra security...however being hit by laser from the rear at least for me seems to never happen... 95% of laser attacks come from the front of the vehicle.

Also just one other side note the LPP control box can only handle two LPP heads...so if you need a 3rd head...you would need to buy another control box...which means more money...only bad part.

So question is what kind of vehicle...and how much protection are you looking for and what kind of cost are you looking to spend around?

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by RadarReviews_Net

In your thread above you want 4 LPP heads? That would be WAY overkill unless you drive a bus

Not necessarily.

As much of jammer performance has to do with head placement, a setup that compromises "performance" for concealment (be it aesthetic or functional need) of the heads may require additional heads in order to beef-up protection.

Similarly, vehicle "size" is only one concern - the vehicle's actual hardpoint profile (i.e. upright and chromed grill, versus highly curved-profile fiberglass/carbon-fiber panels, etc.), including (but not limited to) things like headlight type and placement, can all further increase a vehicle's need for "more" protection.

...go with a laser jammer that is a diode based...such as the Laser Pro Park or the Blinder Laser Jammer.

Please note that the Blinder is an LED-based jammer, not a laser-diode based jammer like the LPP.

Originally Posted by nixem

The thing I am most concerned about is the lpp interfering with the 9500. I watched a video by radar roy and he noted that if you use multiple shifters it will actually decrease performance.

- and -

[

Originally Posted by RadarReviews_Net

Now if you already have the 9500ci it has the radar and laser built into the system. You wouldnt want to mount more then what the setup comes with.... 2 led based jammers up front and one led based jammer in the rear, anymore then that and you risk the chance of the jammers interfering with each other and just hurting you overall.

What RadarRoy speaks of is specifically in using the 3 9500ci laser heads (or ZR4 heads) in what was known as the "enthusiast's setup" - an off-the-books setup that was favored by countermeasures hobbyists to effect better frontal protection with the ZR3.

Using such a setup - with the two front heads placed close to each front headlight, and the third, the "rear" head, mounted at vehicle center-mass or on the vulnerable front-plate - with the ZR3, was very effective at increasing jammer performance, which can be seen in nearly all of the past GOL laser jammer tests.

However, with the new ZR4, it seems that whatever new programming tricks that Escort is using with this jammer, it's causing a slight temporal difference between the pulse emissions of the two "front" jammer heads and the single "rear" head - and that this "disconnect," if you will, is contributing towards causing earlier-than-expected PTs on such a modified setup.

You can review RadarRoy's statement towards this end, RadarReviews, at time-stamp 1:35 through 2:24 of the video you cited here:

Escort ZR4 Laser Jammer Tutorial Video

However, in terms of extrapolating such issues to a multiple-jammer COMBINATION setup, as nix questions, well....we just don't know that this is the case.

So far, outside of Blinder combos ( which is not recommended - here's why: http://www.radarreviews.net/forums/l...alignment.html ), we have yet to see any negative *qualitative* reports of "jammer combo" crosstalk, in terms of a "what the LIDAR gun is seeing" scenario.

Still, we have no solid data on this. It is, simply, at the current time, something that will require further, specific, testing.

[RadarReviews_Net]

nicely said, the blinder is a led based jammer? I always thought it was diode based...seems like most the videos I have seen of it, the jammer was able to do a total jam to the gun...and thats a led based...wow

[nixem]

Thank you for your replies. Let me clear up a few things.

I currently drive an accord coupe, but the system will be implemented in a new civic si coupe. I will be removing all chrome in front, possibly smoking headlight and tail light, window tint - nonreflective.

I am in a similar situation as RadarReviews and would not want to be caught off guard when driving over a hill. Also, the thing that worries me the most is the rear, specifically because I have already gotten a ticket from a rear overhead pass trap. I think people tend to neglect the rear and cops in my area exploit rear trapping (overpass, construction dividers, on ramp sectioning).

I honestly do not think that 4 LPP heads would be overkill, it would be more baseline/required with two in the front and two in the back.

The idea I had in mind was to have the 9500ci (standard set up) as my main radar and with the led diodes, be used as a wider angle interference. One 2-head LLP in front, one 2-head LLP in the back for powerful jamming.

Some assumptions I made: The 9500ci radar would be comparable to the V1, making it better in my case because I would much rather have the concealment, although the rear bracket does bother me from an outside standpoint. As far as interferance, I was specifically talking about between the led diode (escort) and the laser diode (LLP). I was not talking about moving the rear bracket of the 9500ci to the front.

One page comes to mind on some forum... i cant remember the title for the life of me (ultimate/supreme laser/radar deterrant/protection/setup) I really wish i could find the page... anyways, there was a subaru (legacy, i think his wife had a wrx) with 12 or so jammer nodes and a v1. It would be interesting to see if he has interference. --Edit: Oh gosh, is that you TWi+WRX? I just read your sig, .

Thanks for the link TSi+WRX, hopefully someone will be able to do a full writeup on various combo systems. If they do end up conflicting, I would imagine I would still use two systems in the rear to catch the high shots and straight shots.

On the list for single unit setups is the 2-head LLP + V1 (of course a 2-head in back as well)mentioned by Radar Reviews. However, I would rather try a combo setup if it has merit to be better.

I do not want to be caught off guard.
Price range for full system: I would like to keep it no more than 3k, or the best system without being overly excessive.


Does anyone else have ideas for possible setups?


Thanks for all the advice!

~nix

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by RadarReviews_Net

nicely said, the blinder is a led based jammer? I always thought it was diode based...seems like most the videos I have seen of it, the jammer was able to do a total jam to the gun...and thats a led based...wow

Yep, it's LEDs.

And remember, it's not necessarily that LEDs are any better or worse than laser-diode - remember that a *BIG* part of this "jamming game" has to do with reception. A jammer, no matter how good it's jamming algorithm or optics, simply can't provide a response to the police LIDAR, and in this respect, it's rather easy to see why a jammer system such as the 4-head or 3-head Blinders, when all mounted facing one direction, can do so well: it's reception capability is enhanced simply by occupyinig so much "real-estate" that no incoming beam is missed.

This is also why, for the ZR3, so many favored the "all three heads up front" setup, the "enthusiast's setup," which is not covered in the Escort's manual.

Now, don't get me wrong - indeed, there's a "jamming power" consideration as well (outside of the jamming algorithm), and in this respect, yes, the LED jammers seem to be handicapped, when compared to laser-diode counterparts (extreme long-range shots, for example, was initially proven to be one of such weaknesses of LED-based systems, by "OGs" like thestaton on RD.net - ref: his old video with a C4 and EVO VIII, and their documented extreme long-range PTs), but the trade-off, currently, with laser-diode based systems is seemingly three-fold: that of longevity (reliability/durability), heat-resistance, as well as the market's warranty/customer-service issues (all of which both the Blinder and the Escort have, essentially, "in their back pocket" - although the 5-suffix Blinder units as well as the new ZR4 are "new" and do not carry the necessary miles nor time-on-road needed to give proper data regarding longevity, their similarity-of-construct with outgoing models *suggests* that such issues should be of little concern; both Blinder and Escort are established US-based companies, with excellent, long-term C/S track-records as well as deep financial reserves).

---

Originally Posted by nixem

I am in a similar situation as RadarReviews and would not want to be caught off guard when driving over a hill. Also, the thing that worries me the most is the rear, specifically because I have already gotten a ticket from a rear overhead pass trap. I think people tend to neglect the rear and cops in my area exploit rear trapping (overpass, construction dividers, on ramp sectioning).

I honestly do not think that 4 LPP heads would be overkill, it would be more baseline/required with two in the front and two in the back.

If rear jamming is a concern - and in your area, I definitely think that it would be - then no, NOTHING is OVERKILL, IMveryHO.

The rear of the vehicle is notoriously hard to protect - one glance at the typically upright angles seen, to say nothing of even the highly reflective lighting elements as well as the rear plate all makes the rear of the vehicle a true nightmare scenario.

In light of such serious enforcement in your area, honestly, every penny spent is likely going to be more than ten times' its worth in terms of "protection," when your driving record is at-stake.

As-such, I don't think that there's any overkill, at all.

In my view, you do "need" the dual LPP setup out-back. Without the ability to quantitatively test a single-head rear setup, IMveryHO, one simply needs to default to a worst case scenario, and insure best jamming odds by maximizing rear protection.

...although the rear bracket does bother me from an outside standpoint.

Look on RD.net's recently activated ZR4 sub-Forum. You should find several pictures of various enthusiasts' self-made/modified license-plate frames that are designed to - at least somewhat - visually camouflage the rear head's appearance.

As far as interferance, I was specifically talking about between the led diode (escort) and the laser diode (LLP). I was not talking about moving the rear bracket of the 9500ci to the front.

One page comes to mind on some forum... i cant remember the title for the life of me (ultimate/supreme laser/radar deterrant/protection/setup) I really wish i could find the page... anyways, there was a subaru (legacy, i think his wife had a wrx) with 12 or so jammer nodes and a v1. It would be interesting to see if he has interference. --Edit: Oh gosh, is that you TWi+WRX? I just read your sig, .

That's me, indeed.

And believe me, crosstalk is a BIG worry of mine. More on this in a follow-up post.

My screen-name may have confused you a little, as the "TSi" part refers back to my old DSM, but yep, that's me.

I honestly don't have *that* many jammers ->

The ZR3 (two heads front, plus the rear head out rear), which I use as "backup" jamming (as it does do very well, undeniably, against certain threats) as well as, in as much as you're utilizing the 9500ci, as both a "wide receiver" as well as threat-direction indicator, as it is linked to my 9500i.

The ZR3's front heads are actually slaved to the underside of my front LI heads (standard "Slim" heads), which is a part of my primary jammer arsenal, along with the LPPs. Above them (thus much closer to the roofline), stationed close to midline as well as to each headlamp, is my dual front LPP setup (buried within my upper grill, this setup does compromise extreme-angle [i.e. "over the hill"] protection, with a trade-off towards both visual concealment as well as being able to get soooooooo close to my headlights).

Out rear, a single LPP sits atop the rear plate, angled slightly bubble-positive, with my ZR3's rear head "below" the plate (also slightly angled) - which I hope will give me some additional protection against elevated-position (i.e. onramp-type) enforcement, while two LI UltraSlim heads (optically designed to best cover "rear" type encounters, which are typically at shorter initiating distances, and are at greater angles than that of front encounters) covers each outboard flank

Here's the current/revised rear setup on my Legacy: Rear lasered yesterday

As you can see, I'm quite pessimistic when it comes to rear protection - I am truly and honestly saving money to get a final LPP head back there, too, and then emulating corkguykev's rear LPP setup.

Thanks for the link TSi+WRX, hopefully someone will be able to do a full writeup on various combo systems. If they do end up conflicting, I would imagine I would still use two systems in the rear to catch the high shots and straight shots.

No problem. Glad to assist a fellow hobbyist!

As for a comprehensive "possible crosstalk" writeup, I'd love to see one done, too. God knows I need that data!

Until then, though, I'll again state what I did above, that I'll revisit this thread with a follow-up post outlining what I know, for the time being, about the POTENTIAL concerns.

Again, the lack of hard data - as well as any kind of "answer" - dissapoints, but I do think that you'll find it interesting.

Does anyone else have ideas for possible setups?

I honestly think that the V1 + quad LPP / quad AL / quad LI / quad PASS (with even more integration possibilities) setup will be quite nice, and should fit within your budget. Similarly, I think that as long as cross-talk does not prove to be an issue (and even if it does, you could simply enable permanent "receive only" mode on the Shifter portion of the 9500ci), a combo setup using the 9500ci as the detector base would work just as nicely.

[TSi+WRX]

OK, here's my "crosstalk" presentation - it's wordy, but I think that it covers everything known, to-date.

--- Copy-pasted, with select edits, from an earlier post of mine on RD.net ---

As a multiple-jammer user, this topic has been something that I've kept my eyes on for a bit.

Note here that I am focusing exclusively on multiple-jammer (i.e. different jammers) issues - in my mind, no matter how many heads of a SINGLE jammer you have, no matter how close they may be to another head of the same jammer, you should NOT elicit crosstalk. I believe that if such crosstalk can be elicited, then it is a jammer design fault.

[ Note here that yes, I do believe that the ZR4, in eliciting "flight mistiming" issues in the temporal delay of a "three-heads-in-one-direction," does fall under this "design fault" category. I would hope that the guys at Escort would be able to address this problem with a firmware fix. ]

---

Although I'm less worried about jam-codes, this is a very valid concern for many in our greater community, particularly those overseas or in otherwise jammer-prohibited areas. Indeed, this was speculated, by Ivan (the organic brain behind not only the LI, but also the AL/LPP twins), no less, to be of serious concern.

It's still a component of multiple jammer use that has yet to be truly tested, to see if such speculations/worries bear fruit.

In a less quantitative manner, though, interceptor.tw did test a Blinder/LI setup in this very manner, and found that some form of cross-talk did occur, resulting in "unpredictable" performance (sometimes true JTG, sometimes quite long-ranged PTs, no rhyme nor reason/pattern). At the same time, though, he noted that on the specific hardware he'd chosen to test with (LIDAR guns with enabled jam-codes in-use in Taiwan and other areas of the Far East), no such codes were thrown.

Nevertheless, the test is, even he admits very humbly, not a true quantitative measure, and is at this point only a "report" of sorts. Still, despite the negative result on jam-codes in this particular instance, it remains a worry.

This test, however, did highlight the other big concern - which some of you have brought up here: what does the police LIDAR "see."

In this particular case-study from interceptor.tw, certainly, something is happening that's occasionally and unpredictably making the jamming ineffective - we just don't, at-present, know exactly what this problem happens to be.

Although a not insignificant number of us run more than one jammer, to what has been reported, real-world, to good use, so far, there's been no true quantitative tests which simulate such scenarios, and furthermore, even more concerning, there's been no pursuit as to the exact cause of observed cross-talk that's been documented many times in "benchtop" as well as "close-reflective-surface" circumstances.

RacerX was among the first to document that a Blinder/AL combo, placed in close proximity in a benchtop situation, with the Blinder firing, could in-turn elicit the AL to fire - and to thus continue in a circular/cyclic manner for a number of seconds after the incident LIDAR has been terminated. Similarly, it's been demonstrated by Ronin, on his previous LPP/ZR3 setup, that, with his vehicle's bumper (to which his jammers were mounted) close to the reflective white wall of his garage, eliciting his ZR3 to fire can cause his LPPs to respond. [ This is in-essence what is seen with my own LI/LPP setup (2.7/6.09 firmware), which, with a close-enough reflective surface, the LPP's "parking pulses" will set off, repeatedly and consistently, the LI's "Unknown Gun" jamming algorithm. Ivan responded to my complaints about this, and by the 6.14 firmware revision, this "LPP parking beam cross-talk" issue was no longer a concer, as he'd written new code to exclude such responses! I can confirm, indeed, that with my current 2.8/7.03 firmware control-box, that this fix has been successfully implemented, and that it is not just an "alert defeat" (i.e. that the heads are still firing, just that the warning has been turned off, which would have been an easy fix, albeit not the correct one), but that the heads actually do not respond to the LPP's outgoing parking-beam pulserates. ]

Yet, in the real world, although the Blinder/LI has shown to be potentially problematic, Ronin ZR3/LPP setup has been quantitatively tested to provide excellent coverage, with no concerns for undue PTs, as well as has seen excellent real-world performance (one of which is among the best documented of *any* jammer/jamming video, to-date).

What I currently believe, based on the "benchtop" scenario, is that the design of the Blinder heads - which, as we've seen from IRCMUSA's IR-videos (sadly now lost to history), is constructed so that the front half of the entire casing is completely IR-transparent - is causing "light spill," and it is this "spill" that an adjacent (other) jammer is seeing (akin to Ronin's garage reflective-surface test of the ZR3/LPP). This in-turn elicits the other jammer to respond perhaps (and thus the inconsistency of behavior seen with interceptor.tw's testing, which showed a predictably unpredictable pattern) not to the incoming LIDAR threat, but instead, to the output pattern of the adjacent Blinder IR-LEDs.

Unfortunately, there's currently no quantitative proof - either positive nor negative - to my speculations above.

To me, this cross-talk scenario is something that's not much a concern to too many of us - so few, even in the greater jammer community worldwide, run more than one jammer at a time.

However, this is definitely a concern - and is something that, although not many people will ever have to worry about - is something that's catching our collective eyes more and more.

I think that some formal testing on this front would definitely be most interesting!

['09 Milan]

Originally Posted by nixem

The 9500ci radar would be comparable to the V1, making it better in my case because I would much rather have the concealment

No the 9500ci would be much better performance wise, not to mention adding a great deal of features. What color is your car? It plays a great deal in how the laser detectors work, as well as the surface area of your headlights. The new Hondas are harder to detect than most other cars so you're OK in that respect, keeping in mind that you don't use the front plate (if need be you can still keep it in your interior and then put it on your dash when needed) and remove all front chrome. You should probably also use Veil on your headlights. On areas where Veil cannot be used you can take advantage of lasers "reflection" and "overexposure" errors by using a good wax like Zaino.

I was specifically talking about between the led diode (escort) and the laser diode (LLP).

We're in the same boat as you, and also looking into the crosstalk issue. For us there is no such thing as overkill when dealing with radar We will be using LI instead of LPP as they seem to work much better, but the same idea would still apply. If there is a problem, then we will not use the ZR4 heads and stick with the LI heads instead. Having said this keep in mind that the new CES show is just a few weeks away, and these companies could be showing new product (I heard that BEL was working on a 3/4 head ZR4 setup). You might want to wait until after the CES show, as this is still a fairly young industry and new products are being released all the time. Would really like to see a version of the 9500ci without the laser shifting (or a Sti-R with a blue display). That would solve a lot of issues. Also read all of the tests/reviews on the net with a grain of salt, as test results are based on so many factors, many of which will not be in effect where you live. Even if the same exact car is tested, something like dust,humidity can play a role in test results. Laser is also vulnerable to cosine error. Keep this in mind when you see a video (especially those in hilly areas). Also even if the same kind of car is used in the tests, they may be using a 100pps laser gun instead of a 125pps, so you need to find out exactly what kind of gun is being tested, and if those same guns are used in your country/area. That's why for us on-line test results and 'videos' are anecdotal at best! The only exception to this rule is with Veil, which works the same no matter what guns are used. When all the smoke settles I think we'll find that no matter which heads are being used that there will be crosstalk. That's because all laser guns use the 904nm wavelength, and that is where the crosstalk will come into play. Our research is also pointing to the fact that crosstalk will happen more when you stack the heads, then when they are all mounted on the same horizontal plane. I'll be testing this more and let you know what we find

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

Would really like to see a version of the 9500ci without the laser shifting...

This should be possible, already.

The 9500ci should arrive/be-delivered in Shifter "Receive Only" mode, and the ZR4 can also be switched to such a mode on a "permanent" basis (i.e. "from startup," instead of after-encounter).

It's my humble opinion that even if you *do* wind-up seeing untoward cross-talk issues between the ZR4 and your primary jammer, that you simply turn the ZR4 to "Receive Only" mode, and take advantage of its ability to discriminate between front versus rear LIDAR encounters.

The ZR4 has already been seen to be an *excellent* LIDAR receiver, via the IR videos taken by Cbr and ELVATO, two of the active members of the Central-Florida enthusiast group. The sensitivity - or rather, the receptive range - of the ZR4 is truly shockingly positive, even if its jamming capability is less-than-stellar, and I truly feel that this should be taken advantage of.

Our research is also pointing to the fact that crosstalk will happen more when you stack the heads, then when they are all mounted on the same horizontal plane. I'll be testing this more and let you know what we find

^ Most interesting.

Have you documented which of the various combos are more prone to such? Is a certain unit more likely to elicit - and another (or the same) more likely to respond?

And exactly what kind of cross-talk is being produced? Is it just "reactive," with the jamming capability to the police LIDAR being unaffected? or is it interference-causing?

Also, is this benchtop? or does this play-out in real-world as well? The reason I'm asking this, specifically, is because in both RacerX's "benchtop" setup as well as in Ronin's "real-world" setup, both were of horizontal, in-plane, orientation, and yet, "reactive" cross-talk was easily elicited.

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

That would solve a lot of issues. Also read all of the tests/reviews on the net with a grain of salt, as test results are based on so many factors, many of which will not be in effect where you live. Even if the same exact car is tested, something like dust,humidity can play a role in test results. Laser is also vulnerable to cosine error. Keep this in mind when you see a video (especially those in hilly areas). Also even if the same kind of car is used in the tests, they may be using a 100pps laser gun instead of a 125pps, so you need to find out exactly what kind of gun is being tested, and if those same guns are used in your country/area. That's why for us on-line test results and 'videos' are anecdotal at best!

I don't think it's as bad as being "anecdotal."

Instead, it's just that as you said, you have to (1) take such results "with a grain of salt" (i.e. can you TRUST the tester[s]) and (2) that you critically analyze the data presented.

The former is self-explainatory, but with the latter:

In these days of ever more aggressive enthusiasts and increased knowledge-base, it's actually very common for either the videos or their subsequent discussions to fully disclose not only the LIDAR equipment used as well as its exact physical setup (i.e. hand-shot, steadied, or tripod, etc.), testing personnel (i.e. trained current/retired enforcer, enthusiast, new hobbyist, etc.), but also even that particular device's exact firmware revision and even, in the most discerning of cases, the item's last calibration/maintenance/service date.

This, along with, as you cited, the physical circumstances (i.e. roadway dips, weather conditions, etc.), I feel, should play a role in the critical analysis of such data, and you'll find that this is true on the RD.net (and other) hobbyist site discussions of such videos and tests, which can be *quite* extensive.

I don't think that the data should be regarded as "anecdotal." Rather, they should be carefully examined, and conclusions drawn to reflect similar real-world situations, for which, *EACH CASE*, will simply be just as "anecdotal" in nature.

Unless we all drive our cars in enclosed laboratories, on level-rail guided roadways with laser encounters at pre-measured and specific setups, there is always going to be variation, and I think that it is just as important to learn from the visualized variability from each of these tests, as it is to try to extrapolate a "standard" from them.

The only exception to this rule is with Veil, which works the same no matter what guns are used.

^ Ah, but there's the trick....

Although VEIL works in the same *manner* to each LIDAR threat, the ability of VEIL to *defeat* said threat seems to be highly variable. For example, it's long known that VEIL (G2) is very, very effective against the Stalker.....but less-so for other threats.

Similarly, data obtained through VEIL can be just as "anecdotal" as that of the jammers you've referenced above - no two VEIL applications are identical, and even then, no two vehicles share the same hardpoints.

What's effective VEIL application for one setup may totally fail the next - either requiring more coats, or, alternatively, for the applied coat(s) to be suspended further away from the main optics (i.e. "naked" projector lenses, which *intensely* focus the reflective elements buried behind their face).

When all the smoke settles I think we'll find that no matter which heads are being used that there will be crosstalk. That's because all laser guns use the 904nm wavelength, and that is where the crosstalk will come into play.

Agreed.

I just want to see, though, if it's going to be detrimental/interference - or if it's only in terms of "benchtop/elicit" scenarios, and that the real-world performance is more mimicked by that of the experiences of the various multi-jammer using hobbyists we have in our midst.

Whatever this data indicates, I'm eager to know!