Workarounds for CoPilot's problems.

[neil01]

I know that there are many problems with CoPilot - having experienced many of them first hand.

Finding solutions for many is posssible if you plough through the forums, but some of the threads are rather high on (for the sake of a better word) abuse - either for the poster, or the product. While I wouldn't wish to get involved in their validity - (they seem to me to range from the petty to the more than justified), wouldn't it be useful to have an area, either on the forum or the main site (heavily edited to keep it brief!) which lists the 'problems' and offer 'solutions/workarounds' in a matter of fact manner free from all 'opinions', 'rants' etc.

[Northernbloke]

Seems like a good idea.

I know that POI reporting functioned much more reliably (on versions before 5.0.1.48) if you made a wrong turn at the start of a journey and CP5 recalculated the route, since the 5.0.1.48 upgrade the POI reporting is fairly solid, although still occasionally prone to missing odd ones for no apparent reason

[Bazzer]

POI reporting solid eh ? Don't think so.

I'm running v.48

I have my POI alert setting 1 bar from the left and only set for speed cameras. On the M6 Toll heading north, it must have been picking up speed cameras on nearby roads.

Anyway, I would get the 'bell' sound with the Gatso number displayed, but no voice alert. This happened twice.

15 miles later, as it was instructing me to rejoin the M6, it also announced both speed cameras that it recognised earlier.

Hmmm, pretty crap I think.

Baz

[PONDEROUS]

oneil01.

I agree that it would be nice to try to filter out a list of issues and related technical discussions and cut out all the peripheral arguments.

The problem is that there have been numerous interventions by forum team members (and, now, former team members) that have been dismissive and incorrect or misleading. When that happens, someone has to challenge it. Those who have done so have then been met with further misleading information which itself has had to be challenged.

I don't really know the answer to this is, except to keep trying to get those concerned to address the point accurately after having done their homework. That will itself involve persistence, which will then be interpreted as abuse by some.

There is a difference between abuse and a forthright challenge when something is wrongly stated. Similarly, it not abuse to object to the very idea that the issues should be clouded by misleading interventions.

[Northernbloke]

As I understand it it's pretty damn difficult to get ANY sat nav kit to show POI's 100% all the time (especially in the case of speed cams where u need advance warning) although as a customer (to me anyway) it seems simple enuff logically in that the sat nav system knows the roads u are currently driving along and indeed are planned to drive along, then it should be simple for it to plot the cams/POI's etc and warn u well enough in advance...

This doesn't happen - and having tried Tom Tom3.07 and CP5 as well as talked to friends and colleagues with other systems (garmin and nav-man mainly) it's common to all current systems.

Personally i'd rather have "some" - but not an excessive number of "false alarms" with speedcams than no warning at all - but thats my opinion

Regards,

Northernbloke

[neil01]

[CrashBiker]

Bazzer - the symptoms you describe may be related to having an "@" sign in the speedcam text. This seems to delay the announcement after the bell until the next turn warning. I edit the speedcam xls files to remove the colon and replace "@" with " at " which seems to fix it for me.

I would respectfully agree with neil01 and ask for a section/thread that is focused on "collected fixes" for want of a better word. I'm certainly not stepping into the middle of the rights and wrongs and understand there are strong and sincere viewpoints on both sides, but I do feel the forum has become a little difficult to use for those looking to exchange hints and tips whilst avoiding the "fit for purpose" debate.

Kind regards

Crash

[PONDEROUS]

Neil01

While of course I have been one of the main ones who has done the criticising, I do agree with all that you say. Nevertheless, we still we have somehow to persuade into action those who appear not to want to know about the functional problems.

The lack of the clutter-free zone for which you yearn certainly is problematic. This is shown very clearly by the number of hits on the orignal CP 5 review on this forum and the relatively few hits on the threads that contain the information that, one might argue, is really relevant.

I wonder, is it time for a counter-review by a group of users? This could stand effectively alongside the original review and be similarly discussed on other threads. It would also help ALK mend CP 5 and produce a satisfactory CP 6.

[neil01]

Ponderous

I wholeheartedly agree with your point about persuading etc. and that it should continue. I find it quite refreshing that someone who (by your own admission) has done much of the criticising has been able to see the point I was making - An ADDITIONAL area - not a change to the existing ones.

[PONDEROUS]

Neil01

In fact, this has been a concern of mine for some time and I did try to achieve what you are suggesting before, by setting up the thead, COPILOT 5: AFTER-SALES SERVICE, USER ADVICE, etc. It will be useful to have someonewho might be interested in making sure that it succeeds this time.

What I now propose is to set up another thread which I expect will begin with the counter-review that I mentioned above. I suggest that I draft this initially and include all that I have found wrong and right with Copilot 5. I suggest that I send the draft to you by PM for your additions so that we can arrive at a balanced document before placing it on the thread.

The main purposes of a counter review as I see it would be to:

1. Provide a succinct summary of the pros and cons of CP 5 in practice for the benefit of users.

2. Provide ALK with a list of points that need to be addressed before CP 5 can be regarded as adequate (yes, adequate - "great", "superb" etc. would be a bonus.

3. Provide ALK with points that will have to be met by CP 6, and to which refernce can be made in the future when CP 6 is for sale.

I do not expect that any attempt to divert adverse comment to other threads, but at least the counter review will be there at the beginning of the thread - unless you can suggest something...

[PONDEROUS]

Correction.

Sorry, Neil01. I meant to say in the last paragraph above:

"I do not expect that any attempt to divert adverse comment to other threads to be successful, but..."

[Ako]

Review, Counter Review, Criticism, Counter Criticism, sounds the same to me. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't what Neil01 saying is a thread which listed:

Problem 1
Problem 1 fix
Problem 2
Problem 2 fix
etc
etc

seems staright forward.

(PS. this isn't meant as a criticism to any of the proposals above)

Dave

[neil01]

[PONDEROUS]

I'm somewhat lost, then, ako, as to what you are suggesting.

You say that you are not criticising my proposal for a counter review, yet you appear to object to it because it would (and it certainly would!) contradict the review originally posted by a member of the forum team.

What I am trying to achieve is to summarise, and make it easier to find out, what issues are known at the time of writing the counter-review. The sequence that you and Neil01 have proposed (i.e. Problem 1 Problem 1 fix...) could then follow, on the same thread or on dedicated threads.

As I see it, the problem is the sheer volume of material on the threads, which has become is so great that it is difficult to see the wood for the trees. That would still be the case even if one were to remove all of the criticism.

I, for one, do not propose to stop criticising where appropriate. When, say, a member of ALK or the forum team comes up with a reply that has the effect of denying the existence of a problem, then what is one to do? I do see the advantage of trying to keep it separate, but there needs to be a mechanism for doing so. I would therefore be interested to see the system that you, ako and neil01, propose. If, for example, you think that a thread dedicated to criticisms is needed, then please set one up, together with some system for cross-referencing. If it works, and contributors stick to it, then I believe that will be helpful.

Having said this, rather more is needed than than hints from users, useful though they can sometimes be. The programme is fundamentally and multiply flawed, so there has to be major action from its makers. I would therefore be interested to see how you propose to bring such action about.

I really would be pleased to know what you have in mind and to see the proposed mechanism put into action. However, I am afraid that censorship is not going to do the trick.

[Skippy]

We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?.
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!