In ID Search mode, if the scanner stops on a transmission for a TGID you stored in that system, the BCD996T does display the Alpha tag you assigned to the TGID.
Official BCD996T Post Release Thread
- Thread starter scannerfreak
- Start date
- Status
compubandit
Member
UPMan, is there any way for it to display all TGIDs transmitted with the Alpha tags that have been assigned? It seems that you can have either but not both.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2002
- Messages
- 2,291
- Reaction score
- 1,236
it works perfectly here...I'm looking at it right now as I type this...I'm in ID search mode and seeing all of the tags I programmed.
compubandit
Member
Does anyone else think the scan speed on the 996 is SLOW? I have 4 frequencies in 6 sites and it takes 8.81 seconds to scan the six sites or 24 frequencies. Is this about average?
Ok, I'm having a problem programming my 996. I'm connected with a usb/serial. It connects to the scanner ok, goes into remote mode, deleted all the channels then gives me a "write error to scanner". I've tried all the baud settings from 9600 up, no luck. Any ideas?
Jim
Jim
What's the quickest way to erase all the pre-programmed systems and start from scratch?
That's probably because you left each system with the default Hold Time of 2 seconds. Try and change each one to 0.compubandit said:
compubandit
Member
skywatch said:
I had the same problem at first. I changed my Comm port to a different number and removed the personal info (I added) in the UASD under the configuration edit and then the misc. tab. After I did that, it worked for me. You might try sending everything but the Write Configuration. Good Luck!
compubandit
Member
kikito said:
I did and it's still slow... any other ideas?
GlacierClipper
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 871
- Reaction score
- 3
The BCD-996T is an excellent scanner.
Got mine today.
Got mine today.
Got it, had too many channels, I removed a few systems and it's working excellent, I'm sure it's my bad programming.
HIP
Member
Got it today,programmed with uasd with some trial and error.Mine seems to scan just fine and I think It is so far hands down better than my 2096, have one system set up in search text and id both show up the way the should like they do in the 2096.If it was 3ft tall and had a flat head it would be the perfect scanner.
STiMULi
Member
compubandit said:
Return it.
teebee
Member
Not trying to find something to complain about. No flip down feet as compared to the previous Uniden models. Will miss that part. This was a great feature since the speaker is at the bottom.
Put the included rubber cushions on the bracket and use it as a stand.
I gotta be missing something or doing it wrong.
The RRDB appears to give lat/long in decimal format, but the 996 needs it as DMS. While there is a conversion program available at the FCC site to do the calculations, it seems cumbersome. That's particularly so when you have a couple of Windows windows open (the USAD and the FCC converter).
If the Uniden guys really loved us, they'd include the converter as part of the USAD software, or even better, accept the lat/long in the format used by RR.
But as I said, I might be having trouble seeing the forest because of all them trees in the way.
The RRDB appears to give lat/long in decimal format, but the 996 needs it as DMS. While there is a conversion program available at the FCC site to do the calculations, it seems cumbersome. That's particularly so when you have a couple of Windows windows open (the USAD and the FCC converter).
If the Uniden guys really loved us, they'd include the converter as part of the USAD software, or even better, accept the lat/long in the format used by RR.
But as I said, I might be having trouble seeing the forest because of all them trees in the way.
teebee
Member
Thanks UPMan, I had already put the bracket on the unit. Just liked the convenience of the previous ones the way they were made.
STiMULi
Member
ofd8001 said:
I agree 100%
Again the biggest selling point is the fact that it is GPS enabled. Why should I have to do the Texas 4 step to get the locations in the systems?
I asked about that before in the UASD programming I did not get an answer other than someone pointing me to a converter. Shouldn't the conversion be done in the software? Or at least allow the coordinate style of my choice based on my mapping resource?
I am not griping (yes I am) but I would like to know what the deal is.
UASD help file said:
The location editor allows the various types of coordinates, but I have the Misc setting for DEG and the System only allows DMS. What is the use of this setting if I always have to use DMS?
Is this broke or not complete?
wall brick power supply
Hi all!
My 996 came with a bad wall brick (after a few minutes of use the scanners display shuts on and off and the brick becomes very hot) I switched to the one that came with my 898 and it works fine.
Just wanted to post so others dont freak out thinking their scanner is bad:
take care,
Matt
Hi all!
My 996 came with a bad wall brick (after a few minutes of use the scanners display shuts on and off and the brick becomes very hot) I switched to the one that came with my 898 and it works fine.
Just wanted to post so others dont freak out thinking their scanner is bad:
take care,
Matt
Hey all,
Would those of you with both a 396 and 996 (especially those in high RF environments) please be kind enough to compare the two radios on overall reception (sensitivity/overload/selectivity). Not looking for scientific charts or lab results here, just want to get a real world impression of this radios receiver as compared to the 396's.
So, in your experience, when comparing the two radios does the 996 sound/act/perform like the extra room in the box was effectively used to improve the radio's sensitivity/overload/selectivity such that it's receiver can be described as better (if not much better) than the 396's? or would you be more comfortable saying that the 996 receiver performance is similar (if not the same) as the 396?
I'll be honest, I have my hopes up, and I it would be very nice to have a radio with all these great features that will receive on par with my 296 (which out performs my 396 on receive!).
I love features and this radio certainly is packed with them, but if we could parallel track for just a moment and discuss the receiver performance of this radio, it will undoubtedly help some of us make the decision to add this radio to the collection or not.
Thanks ahead for any and all input, again it is much appreciated!
Brian.
Would those of you with both a 396 and 996 (especially those in high RF environments) please be kind enough to compare the two radios on overall reception (sensitivity/overload/selectivity). Not looking for scientific charts or lab results here, just want to get a real world impression of this radios receiver as compared to the 396's.
So, in your experience, when comparing the two radios does the 996 sound/act/perform like the extra room in the box was effectively used to improve the radio's sensitivity/overload/selectivity such that it's receiver can be described as better (if not much better) than the 396's? or would you be more comfortable saying that the 996 receiver performance is similar (if not the same) as the 396?
I'll be honest, I have my hopes up, and I it would be very nice to have a radio with all these great features that will receive on par with my 296 (which out performs my 396 on receive!).
I love features and this radio certainly is packed with them, but if we could parallel track for just a moment and discuss the receiver performance of this radio, it will undoubtedly help some of us make the decision to add this radio to the collection or not.
Thanks ahead for any and all input, again it is much appreciated!
Brian.
- Status
