Deepest And Most Complex Ability Deus II Program

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, NCtoad said:

I did a very quick air test last night on how the reactivity function affects depth.  I was in deep high conductor, program 6.  Reactivity of 0 compared to reactivity of 5.  Reactivity of 0 gave almost TWICE the depth of reactivity 5!  That was 5-6 inches difference.   I was going to check the intermediate settings, but it was getting late and the battery icon for the coil was empty and flashing.  I may try it again tonight.  

Amazing. That is a lot of difference for only one setting changed. Do you notice any difference in TID or quality of the signal? 

Of particular interest is how all this translates into the complex ability Shopkins was talking about. I am excited for Spring to come to try all this in the field.

[GB_Amateur]

3 hours ago, NCtoad said:

I did a very quick air test last night on how the reactivity function affects depth.  I was in deep high conductor, program 6.  Reactivity of 0 compared to reactivity of 5.  Reactivity of 0 gave almost TWICE the depth of reactivity 5!  That was 5-6 inches difference.

Interesting.  I wonder how this translates to in-the-field difference.  (Many variables there to affect things....)  I like it when they allow you to push a setting past what is reasonable to use, and maybe this is what you are seeing.  On the Eqx, Recovery Speed can be set from 1 to 8 but the stock programs only use {5,6,7}.  I use RS=4 typically and I know some use RS=3 (Dankowski wrote about this setting) but does anyone use RS=1?  And the other end of the scale, RS=8, may be overkill as well.  Again, good to have the ability to push to the limit.

[Lance]

5 hours ago, NCtoad said:

I did a very quick air test last night on how the reactivity function affects depth.  I was in deep high conductor, program 6.  Reactivity of 0 compared to reactivity of 5.  Reactivity of 0 gave almost TWICE the depth of reactivity 5!  That was 5-6 inches difference.   I was going to check the intermediate settings, but it was getting late and the battery icon for the coil was empty and flashing.  I may try it again tonight.  

 I have experienced the same depth lose  with buried targets in wet sand, when increasing Reactivity.I now try keep my Reactivity around 1 on my local beaches. I also tested the "Bottle Caps" and "Silencer"  settings. I was surprised that I did not lose any depth when increasing those settings.

[Ogliuga]

Thanks for your interesting video Shopkins. I’d like to deepen one feature: you talk about iron volume set to 0 because also iron volume is a filter..I agree with you when you say that it is a filter, but in my opinion it becomes a filter when is set to 0, because in that way you cut out iron. If you set it to maximum level, 5, cpu doesn’t have to filter anything. The first Deus, mostly on mineralized grounds, is deeper with iron volume set to 5, compared to 0.  I’m curious to test this feature on D2..

[shopkins1994]

On 2/21/2022 at 1:51 PM, Chase Goldman said:

 

I hear what you are saying, shopkins, and in a processing challenged, ragged edge implementation, what you are saying makes sense..  However, this is not XP's first sophisticated detector signal processing rodeo.  They have been continuously learning from the iterations of the Deus platform and probably have led the industry in processing speed(as evidenced by recovery speed) as they set the bar with Deus with ML not catching up in this regard until Equinox,  Furthermore, simply based on observing from the outside in, it is apparent that the Deus 2 must have the power to spare simply based on the range of reactivities/recovery speeds supported plus the added load of FMF signal processing supported.  As such, the processing cycles are likely fixed and if good sw programming discipline is used there is plenty of processing headroom budgeted during every processing cycle to account for processing time slices for all of the possible applied filters that can be applied (e.g., disc, bcap, silencer, notch, etc.), without impacting the ability for the processor to get its job done in the allotted cycle time.  Therefore, tweaking these filters or turning them off should have no effect on the ability of the D2 to process the signal under its alloted maximum processing load.  To put it anotherway, the actual worst case processing time for the D2 even accounting for all filters activated is probably only a fraction of the allowable maximum processing time slice window you illustrated in your video.

That all being said, there is something to also be said for minimizing filters to the extent necessary to enable you to get the clearest "picture" of the target.  There are always tradeoffs, and the skilled detectorist is the one who is knowledgeable of what the settings do and their tradeoffs and how to appropriately balance them.

I will reiterate that based on my usage so far, XP (like ML with the Nox) has done a great job of establishing great out of the box default settings eliminating a lot of the balancing/optimization guesswork for the end user, especially the inexperienced user.  My recommendation for new users is to start with the defaults and tweak as little as necessary from there rather than going to "ground zero".  This enables you to learn the machine and mitigates the possibility of going into a grossly suboptimal setup similar to what shopkins encountered with beach mode.

On the flip side, if you are getting good results from this approach.  More power to you!  Go with what works, I just hesitate to recommend to folks just starting out with the D2 to drastically adjust away from the default settings simply based on what someone else is doing without a lot of knowledge about the relevant environmental conditions (mineralization, trash density, EMI), skill level, or detecting target objectives and how they might apply to them.

Good luck and HH.

I appreciate you taking the time to write a big response -- it helps us all when someone takes the time to write a lot of info.

To explain the way the electronic manufacturing world works (and a lot of consumer industries) is this example for XP. These numbers are made up and are used only to explain the process.

1. XP Sales team says that there are people who will buy a $1,600 detector. 

2. XP Bean counters say to sell a $1,600 machine it must cost XP $500

3. XP Marketing says for people to buy a $1,600 detector it must have X features

4. XP Engineering team has to make a $500 detector with X features. 

That it how it works. XP engineering doesn't have the luxury of putting in an unlimited CPU. In other words they can't spend $495 on a CPU leaving only $5.00 for the rest of the machine. They have to make trade offs.

And you can't let engineers make up their own machine because it'll cost $900,000 by the time they are done. 

This is why a company like Garrett has 10 different detectors. The engineering team had $100 to make an Ace, $300 to make an AT Max, etc. 

My guess is that all of the processing power of the Deus 2 is located in the coil instead of the RC. That is why their coils are so expensive. They shot themselves in the foot with that one. 

I would also say that after using the XP Deus 2 it appears to me that XP does not employ a usability engineer. 

Happy hunting!

 

 

 

[mudwhale]

On 2/21/2022 at 10:03 AM, shopkins1994 said:

Hi Everyone. I posted the following video on a response to a different post, but I thought I would post it here for you incase you aren't reading that thread.

This is a video explaining how to go the deepest depth possible with the Deus 2 and also how to increase the Deus 2's ability to process complex signals such as coins on edge. 

Happy swinging!

 

Shopkins

Some of what you stated in your is valid but a lot is not regarding the processor usage time. As an engineer, the "Processor" does not have the ability to make decisions.  There is virtually zero wait time, IE., Ticks going on as you described. The real Meat and Potato's is the "Program". When the detector sees something with the program running it goes with the setting checklist first. Regardless of what you set as "Zero" it checks and sets that setting to zero. If you set that setting to two it sets that setting to two. There is zero time differential in setting these options. All of the settings are processed this way one by one no matter what number is there in the setting before information is given to you. The programs in these machines are a version of "Relay Ladder Logic" similar to a PLC. There's a lot of Boolean in these programs, "If This, Then That" logic. Anytime something triggers the machine to start making decisions, it starts the process from the top all over again. According to XP most of the settings affect Audio only, not the performance of the machine itself unlike other detectors. The reactivity settings are the most sensitive settings affecting depth. When the reactivity is low, the coil stays on longer after seeing the first sign of a target, maybe missing a close target next to it but, staying on longer is deeper. If the reactivity is set high, the coil turns on and off quickly to separate targets. High reactivity reduces the time the coil is on between targets and reduces depth.  This is what is a depth killer/helper and a program hog on the Deus II depending on this setting. There is a LOT going on in this setting!

[Chase Goldman]

22 hours ago, shopkins1994 said:

I appreciate you taking the time to write a big response -- it helps us all when someone takes the time to write a lot of info.

To explain the way the electronic manufacturing world works (and a lot of consumer industries) is this example for XP. These numbers are made up and are used only to explain the process.

1. XP Sales team says that there are people who will buy a $1,600 detector. 

2. XP Bean counters say to sell a $1,600 machine it must cost XP $500

3. XP Marketing says for people to buy a $1,600 detector it must have X features

4. XP Engineering team has to make a $500 detector with X features. 

That it how it works. XP engineering doesn't have the luxury of putting in an unlimited CPU. In other words they can't spend $495 on a CPU leaving only $5.00 for the rest of the machine. They have to make trade offs.

And you can't let engineers make up their own machine because it'll cost $900,000 by the time they are done. 

This is why a company like Garrett has 10 different detectors. The engineering team had $100 to make an Ace, $300 to make an AT Max, etc. 

My guess is that all of the processing power of the Deus 2 is located in the coil instead of the RC. That is why their coils are so expensive. They shot themselves in the foot with that one. 

I would also say that after using the XP Deus 2 it appears to me that XP does not employ a usability engineer. 

Happy hunting!

 

 

 

I really can appreciate you telling us how it works.  You apparently have some direct experience in the industy, I presume?  Being a senior electronics and electrical engineering design and project manager for the last 35+ years has also taught me a thing or two.  So has 5 years of working with Andy Sabisch and indirectly with XP on teaching the ins and outs of Deus.  For example, I can confirm that your guess is correct, the target signal processing “brains” for both Deus and Deus 2 resides in the coil, and no it is not an “unlimited” CPU but it definitely has the processing horsepower and code to enable it to handle the full load of processing and filters on multiple adjacent targets during a single swing at reasonable recovery speed settings.

The limit basically comes down to how long the target audio can persist until the next target is “revealed” to the operator based on sweep speed, not primarily processing power or processing cycle time limits.  Thus the high reactivity/recovery that the Deus detectors exhibit (and others like Equinox that are in the same class) results in audio blips at the extremes of recovery speed which can limit the ability to perceive deeper targets.  It is true that certain filters seem to adversely impact or counter the effect of high recovery speeds resulting in target masking.  But that all comes back to the idea of balance I discussed earlier and idea of the operator being able dial in their machine to come up with settings that balance the competing effects of the various settings and the environmental factors that impact target detect ability (e.g., ground conductivity and mineralization, moisture, junk target density, depth, target orientation, target electromagnetic properties, and EMI).

Recovery speed is the classic example of this trade off.  You are trading separation for depth.  Maximize recovery speed for separation, minimize for depth.  But it is never that simple in the real world.  If you lower recovery speed too far, then you are introducing more ground noise and perhaps EMI susceptibilty.  Increase it too far and you limit depth or the ability to fully process the target (yes there are practical limits at the extremes based on sweep speed and processing headroom).  The ideal balance point is somewhere in the middle and the competent designer gives the operator plenty of margin at the edge of allowable settings to find the sweet spot.

Steve H. posted a great conveyor belt analogy to explain this classic trade off on adjustable recovery speed and the balancing act necessary in this post intended for Equinox but it also applies to Deus/Deus 2.

So I welcome your views, speculation, and knowledge as I believe we can all continuously gain knowledge on these technically complex machines from one another based on our collective experiences.  The tech may even be familiar to some, but the implementation details are generally protected by the manufactures as intellectual property to gain a competitive edge.  That leaves us, the users, with an incomplete picture and only the ability to speculate and take educated guesses as to what is really going on underneath the hood.  

At the same time I hope you approach the forum with an open mind and share your speculative views with the view that no one individual possesses the complete truth on how these devices work unless they are the actual designer.  And also with the mindset that perhaps others here have diverse experiences and have shreds of knowledge and information that you may not posses that you can also benefit from.  That’s how the forum works.  In the end,  we're all just mostly making guesses here informed by physical principles, theory, practical knowledge and experience and miniscule amounts of published design information.

Anyway, great discussion and looking forward to more as we try to figure out these new machines.  The picture will only get clearer with more of these getting in users hands and as we all accumulate more swing hours.

Thanks and Happy Hunting!

[Ogliuga]

I’m not an engineer but only a simple md passionate. I like this thread because is really interesting. My question is: is iron volume a filter when is set to 0, and so when iron is cut out? Because in my opinion it becomes a filter only when is set to 0, discriminating iron.  Let me know please, because it’s not my intent to write inaccuracies. Thanks in advance.

[Guest]

Still, the underlying idea seems worth considering and I thank the OP for his video and thoughts which I find useful. Even if not entirely accurate, the idea of using settings to increase accuracy and/or depth is a good one. Hunting in all metal mode is commonly used and useful to many, and even trading separation for depth (or vice versa) are useful tools. A logical extension of commonly used ideas might not be such a bad thing.

Shopkins, I am sorry for the tone of some of the responses you have received. This is not the place it used to be. Right or wrong, there is good information in all the posts, including yours, and it should be welcome.

[Chase Goldman]

2 hours ago, Ogliuga said:

I’m not an engineer but only a simple md passionate. I like this thread because is really interesting. My question is: is iron volume a filter when is set to 0, and so when iron is cut out? Because in my opinion it becomes a filter only when is set to 0, discriminating iron.  Let me know please, because it’s not my intent to write inaccuracies. Thanks in advance.

Iron volume is not a filter at all.  Iron volume merely let's you hear discriminated iron tones with a coarse volume adjustment.  Discrimination is the filter in this case.