This is absolutely the best video out there on the how's and why's. Pretty densely packed with information but if you take the video and pause once in awhile to make sure it makes sense it is excellent. I see this was made in 2019 and still far and away better than anything out there. Well done.
Haven't had a chance to test if it holds zero, but mounts just fine and has nice clear glass. Centered vertically true to a plumb line with the crosshairs which is always a plus!It's a great ua-cam.com/users/postUgkxc4K63Fd5LglDMObu7-Bgapxp_ef0W8hE scope. There's no parallax adjustment or focus ring, so may be limited to 3-7x, have to see how it is on the range. Also be aware that the rings are "look through" so you can still use irons, but they are really tall if you only intend to use the optics. On a 22LR no biggie since I'm not shooting competitions or worried about a hard cheek press. Will boresight and range test, if all goes well, I'll leave it at that!
UR video here was absolutely stunning Sir. Now I finally understand Microns and thermal make up, to make my decision on what best suits my needs. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us all. Andy
There is a guy named jetpilot or jetdriver or something on AR15 he has explained these thoroughly a few times. Actually in agreement with this video, which is a GREAT video. He's talked about ways to test different thermals against one another.
@@LoneStarBoars Great video, yeah guys troll that forum trying to make sales. I witnessed where a dealer was saying a 12 micron had higher res, which is false. Someone did a MRTD test of several scopes on there and the post got locked/deleted.....Again great video it's about time someone did this. Now days they're all good its just preference.
Pretty good info, would be better to just draw it out. bigger lens = more light larger pixels = more light. I am sure the software and pixel sensors are actually much better in 12 micron even though they gather less light otherwise there would be massive signal degradation. Very impressive the affordability available today and the form factor. The 12 reminds me of the video cameras popular 15 years ago, soon they thermals will be no bigger than a red dot with 7nm tech.
Typically whEn the technology allowing the larger sensor to be available at a reasonable price point advances so are the advance in other areas. So an upgrade to a better sensor can come with other advancements also. The reticle view and that screens resolutions is vastly important. when the photography world started boasting about the mirror less cameras basically most point and shoot cameras, were also mirror less so that meant nothing to me as a professional photographer of 52 years. What did means something when the digital view finder, which you also have in a thermal scope, was of high enough quality to fine focus accurately unsought to satisfy my requirements as a professional photographer. I would not touch them until this happened. And it did but not for some years. So in a thermal scope these technologies need to be matched. I expect this to be when a larger sensor is offered.
Pixel count is much less important than the micron size of the sensor. For example my first full size sensor camera bought in 2002 cost me $8500 just for the body and it only had 11.2 mega pixels vs smaller sensors having 20 mega pixels. The smaller pixel count camera will still out shoot them quality wise because the individual pixels are far larger and have greater light gathering ability and potentially sharper images. Note I said potentially sharper. Digital lens must be designed to bring the light in at more or less a shallow angle. This is because each pixel is like a small well. If the light comes too steep the bottom of the well is not lighted. Edge sharpness suffers if the sensor is not matched to the lens properly.
Couple of details to mention. Larger pixel sizes, 17x17 vs 12x12, has several tradeoffs, some good some bad, just to dive in. Think of floor tiles, each 12x12, vs 17x17 (units don't matter). Arrange 320 horizontally, and 240 vertically (e.g. a 320x240 sensor), and you can see that the 12x12 sensor will be much smaller. Much smaller sensor pros are: less probability a sensor has bad pixels (defect density), lesser cost (more sensors per wafer), and smaller lens (less of that expensive germanium glass). However, the tradeoff is that the smaller pixel will gather less LWIR photons in that 12x12 pixel vs the much larger 17x17 pixel. However, then you have to factor in quantum efficiency (QE), which is how much well does a pixel convert a given photon in electrical charge, which after much processing turns into what you see on the screen of the thermal scope. As sensors evolve, the QE goes up and up, so even though the smaller 12x12 pixel gets less photons, the higher QE allows the smaller photonic LWIR energy from the target into more current, so it's not a hit to sensitivity moving from 17 to 12 micron pixels. Presumably. Also the lenses usually get a bit better too, so more photons get through the lens than with previous generation. Newer sensors will also be generally less noisy, which helps QE delivery benefits all the way to the final displayed image. IMO, resolution is one thing that can't be reduced with tech evolution, I always want at least 300x300 approximately or more, to get a good image of whatever, color or thermal or anything (here reducing lens FoV of the lens also can plays a role in squeezing better quality image from a smaller sensor array like 200x200 sensors). I have been expecting thermal to evolve crazily for the last ten years, and now we are starting to see it finally. Don't be surprised to see megapixel (1000x1000) thermal imagers that will provide excellent zoom detail and wider FoV. Then with better and better sensor chip tech, we can expect the detection range to slowly expand. Then combine with LRF's, as we have seen, and even AI to recognize heat signatures, temps, etc., in 20 years the rifle scope will be a tremendous force multiplier. (disclaimer, I am not a thermal sensor expert by any means, my limited knowledge comes more from SWIT and color sensors)
So it's like any camera, the larger the pixel, the better it will be at capturing the light given the same "level" of technology. Because of todays sensor-tech, a 12um will be as good as an older 17um, but todays 17um will be better than todays 12um at capturing light. When it comes to magnification to the viewer, the magnification is a factor of the lens focal-length and the size of the sensor. Like a 35mm ("full frame") sensor vs a microFourThirds sensor of a digital camera - where the m4/3-camera would appear to be more "zoomed in" than the full-frame with the same lens (2x crop).
12 vs 17 or 640 vs 320 have any impact on battery life, other things being as close to equal as possible? I would guess the 640 would fill a memory card 4x faster recording... Thanks for the first hand good info!
It's not real magnification, it's apparent magnification. The issue is the same as a full sized sensor on a camera verses a small sensor but using the same millimeter of lens. It has to do with field of view of that lens and the smaller sensor only using a portion of what that lens sees or projects. Think of this as cropping an image in photoshop. The smaller sensor is like crop the center out of a larger image. It appears magnified but it isn't really. Some get confused with digital vs optical zoom. The 640 can digital zoom or hold it's quality before pixelation further than the 320. Also compare apples to apples and let us use the proper optics with the proper projection coverage for the sensor. A full size sensor for a Canon Eos1d normal lens is 50 to 55 mm but a Canon Rebel T-5 the same view with the same image size is 35 mm. If you sight a deer at 100 yards with both sensors and your adjust the scope where both images of th E deer are exactly the same size, the quality of the image is the same. The light gathering ability of the larger sensor will be much better. Having said this it is more difficult and costly to manufacture lenses for a larger sensor but as compared to the photography world even the larger thermal sensors are tiny. I believe the real question would be does a 320 or 384 give you the kind of quality and versatility of they type of hunting you typically do? I do believe a 320/384 is the minimum sensor size you should invest in. The 640 will gather more light and give you a greater range of magnification than the 320 if the optics are properly matched to the sensor.
Video is very helpful in my research. I have 2 questions: 1. Assuming I am pulling the trigger at around 200 - 320 meters, to me it seems the Thermion 640 resolution scopes would be best. I need better pixel quality to make sure IT is in fact a predator. As far as microns, 12 or 17 you are saying just go with the cheapest model I can find in that 640 range? 2. I'm primarily looking at the Pulsar Thermion scopes, but I'm not brand loyal to anything. The Trijicon seems to be the go-to "it's the best out there" thermal. But, I have some doubts. I understand the durability part of the equation, but I'm not hunting in a warzone or lugging it up a mountain in a day pack. So, from a best-in-picture only perspective the numbers don't line up. I can save 2,000.00 or 3,000.00 and get a 50mm thermion or a the more expensive 35mm Trijicon IR-Hunter. The materials used are practically the same if not looking at durability! Do you agree with this statement or am I missing something regarding the Trijicon? It is hard to find one to physically touch because dealers don't want to stock the expensive units! Thank you.
Hello Todd, i looked your video, but i still can't decide which device to prefer to buy , pulsar trail xq38lrf or pulsar termion xm38 because they are in a low price class that i can afford. Will be used for hunting predators in open areas up to 200m
How can you discern what optic can pick up and register targets at greater distances? looking for something that can detect heat sigs at greater distances than 1000 yards
HI Huey Im in Aus..Ive been thinking of upgrading my brand new night Tech ms19 (17micron) to tech new ms42r (12 mIcron, which just hit our stores weeks after I bought the other one), bit over double the price though.. the ms19 was $2000 AUD (cheapest thermal out there I believe, thus good value).. ms42r (12micron) $4200 AUD .. Am I better off sticking with the little guy ?? Im still a bit confused by the topic and tech (be great 'if' I could just take them both out in the field to compare).. what are your thoughts? cheers from Downunder
So I am a complete nube when it comes to thermal. Am I to understand thermal scopes only last so long? I was all ready to get my feet wet, but this gives me some pause when you're talking this much money. Can anyone speak into this?
Looking at a x1 magnification clip on thermal 384x with 17micron. Can you explain how the image would be compared to the 640x with 12 micron that has digital zoom as opposed to the x1 mag I’m looking at? Will the resolution of the 384x distort when magnified using my day scope behind it?
Great job Todd. Why do I get the impression you made this video out of necessity...lol. Also I would like to add that not all lenses,screens and software are created equal as I am sure you are aware. Will Pulsar ever make a 640 version of the Thermion in the future?
I suppose you mean a 640 version of the 12 micron core, since they already have a 640 version of the 17 micron. It's a good question. I didn't buy a Thermion and decided to wait for that version.
Just trying to educate people not sure if it’s working. They have 640 17 micron thermions now like Alberto said. There is no timeframe on 12 micron units yet ULIS did announce a 640 12 micron core now but that means nothing Flir announced the boson 12 micron core years ago and still do not have a working 640 12 micron scope.
I don’t know I would think the same as any other. The screen will go out long before most cores. That 35 micron I have is from the late 80’ early 90’s and still works.
Hi Todd, Just recently found your channel. Thanks for the great videos. Since thermal is always improving, what’s your latest recommendation for someone who just wants to plink at night - mainly raccoons and coyotes, inside 100 yds. Thanks!
Depends on your price range, minimum cost scope that works ok is RXQ30 core, but I highly recommend at least the xQ38 trail. They get better from there up.
@@LoneStarBoars New 2021 Trijicon it's really new or they just change the menu a little bit and they are calling "New Model" just to push them out off the shelves?
They sell the old ones to a couple of companies that are not worth mentioning. The new ones they never got right that was one of the reasons they had a constant 4-8 month wait on repairs.
The Pulsar Trail 2, XP50 and XQ50 is extremely complex to operate. They put far too many push-button complexity into these scopes. These are NOT combat-ready, simple, and intuitive devices. These scopes are for the back-porch tripod with lots of time on your hands to get it into the correct focus, reticle, range, etc, etc.....every single time you turn it on.
This is absolutely the best video out there on the how's and why's. Pretty densely packed with information but if you take the video and pause once in awhile to make sure it makes sense it is excellent. I see this was made in 2019 and still far and away better than anything out there. Well done.
Best explanation I've heard to date. Seriously looking at IR but the prices take my breath away
Same here dude 😰
Haven't had a chance to test if it holds zero, but mounts just fine and has nice clear glass. Centered vertically true to a plumb line with the crosshairs which is always a plus!It's a great ua-cam.com/users/postUgkxc4K63Fd5LglDMObu7-Bgapxp_ef0W8hE scope. There's no parallax adjustment or focus ring, so may be limited to 3-7x, have to see how it is on the range. Also be aware that the rings are "look through" so you can still use irons, but they are really tall if you only intend to use the optics. On a 22LR no biggie since I'm not shooting competitions or worried about a hard cheek press. Will boresight and range test, if all goes well, I'll leave it at that!
Wow Todd some great info. Thanks for taking the time for educating us.
I love the no bs informative quick chat. Keep being awesome brother.
Good guy to work with- bought a high end thermal from him,- very happy with results.
This information was amazing and greatly helped with understanding pricing.
UR video here was absolutely stunning Sir.
Now I finally understand Microns and thermal make up, to make my decision on what best suits my needs.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us all.
Andy
The best explanation ive seen and ive watched a few many thanks from the UK
One thing on my bucket list to do before I die is to meet Todd Huey. I watch all of his videos, he seems like a cool dude
Great explanation of the basics of thermal riflr scopes. A must see before oriëntating on availability of thermal rife scopes.
There is a guy named jetpilot or jetdriver or something on AR15 he has explained these thoroughly a few times. Actually in agreement with this video, which is a GREAT video. He's talked about ways to test different thermals against one another.
I’m banned from arfcom a guy named Victor from TNVC doesn’t deal with truth very well.
@@LoneStarBoars Great video, yeah guys troll that forum trying to make sales. I witnessed where a dealer was saying a 12 micron had higher res, which is false. Someone did a MRTD test of several scopes on there and the post got locked/deleted.....Again great video it's about time someone did this. Now days they're all good its just preference.
Arf NV forum is a TNVC fanboy club. Very sad to see because there are some knowledgeable people there.
Well of course he is they line his pockets $$$$
Pretty good info, would be better to just draw it out. bigger lens = more light larger pixels = more light. I am sure the software and pixel sensors are actually much better in 12 micron even though they gather less light otherwise there would be massive signal degradation. Very impressive the affordability available today and the form factor. The 12 reminds me of the video cameras popular 15 years ago, soon they thermals will be no bigger than a red dot with 7nm tech.
Typically whEn the technology allowing the larger sensor to be available at a reasonable price point advances so are the advance in other areas. So an upgrade to a better sensor can come with other advancements also. The reticle view and that screens resolutions is vastly important. when the photography world started boasting about the mirror less cameras basically most point and shoot cameras, were also mirror less so that meant nothing to me as a professional photographer of 52 years. What did means something when the digital view finder, which you also have in a thermal scope, was of high enough quality to fine focus accurately unsought to satisfy my requirements as a professional photographer. I would not touch them until this happened. And it did but not for some years. So in a thermal scope these technologies need to be matched. I expect this to be when a larger sensor is offered.
Pixel count is much less important than the micron size of the sensor. For example my first full size sensor camera bought in 2002 cost me $8500 just for the body and it only had 11.2 mega pixels vs smaller sensors having 20 mega pixels. The smaller pixel count camera will still out shoot them quality wise because the individual pixels are far larger and have greater light gathering ability and potentially sharper images. Note I said potentially sharper. Digital lens must be designed to bring the light in at more or less a shallow angle. This is because each pixel is like a small well. If the light comes too steep the bottom of the well is not lighted. Edge sharpness suffers if the sensor is not matched to the lens properly.
Couple of details to mention. Larger pixel sizes, 17x17 vs 12x12, has several tradeoffs, some good some bad, just to dive in.
Think of floor tiles, each 12x12, vs 17x17 (units don't matter). Arrange 320 horizontally, and 240 vertically (e.g. a 320x240 sensor), and you can see that the 12x12 sensor will be much smaller.
Much smaller sensor pros are: less probability a sensor has bad pixels (defect density), lesser cost (more sensors per wafer), and smaller lens (less of that expensive germanium glass).
However, the tradeoff is that the smaller pixel will gather less LWIR photons in that 12x12 pixel vs the much larger 17x17 pixel. However, then you have to factor in quantum efficiency (QE), which is how much well does a pixel convert a given photon in electrical charge, which after much processing turns into what you see on the screen of the thermal scope.
As sensors evolve, the QE goes up and up, so even though the smaller 12x12 pixel gets less photons, the higher QE allows the smaller photonic LWIR energy from the target into more current, so it's not a hit to sensitivity moving from 17 to 12 micron pixels. Presumably. Also the lenses usually get a bit better too, so more photons get through the lens than with previous generation.
Newer sensors will also be generally less noisy, which helps QE delivery benefits all the way to the final displayed image.
IMO, resolution is one thing that can't be reduced with tech evolution, I always want at least 300x300 approximately or more, to get a good image of whatever, color or thermal or anything (here reducing lens FoV of the lens also can plays a role in squeezing better quality image from a smaller sensor array like 200x200 sensors).
I have been expecting thermal to evolve crazily for the last ten years, and now we are starting to see it finally. Don't be surprised to see megapixel (1000x1000) thermal imagers that will provide excellent zoom detail and wider FoV. Then with better and better sensor chip tech, we can expect the detection range to slowly expand.
Then combine with LRF's, as we have seen, and even AI to recognize heat signatures, temps, etc., in 20 years the rifle scope will be a tremendous force multiplier.
(disclaimer, I am not a thermal sensor expert by any means, my limited knowledge comes more from SWIT and color sensors)
Thanks for the detailed explanation. As my wife says... "Thanks for dumbing it down".
Thanks for the information, big help when deciding what scope to go with
Definitely knows his business.
Thanks for the video. I understand the technology better now.
Awesome breakdown Crayola style. Easy to understand thank you.
So it's like any camera, the larger the pixel, the better it will be at capturing the light given the same "level" of technology. Because of todays sensor-tech, a 12um will be as good as an older 17um, but todays 17um will be better than todays 12um at capturing light. When it comes to magnification to the viewer, the magnification is a factor of the lens focal-length and the size of the sensor. Like a 35mm ("full frame") sensor vs a microFourThirds sensor of a digital camera - where the m4/3-camera would appear to be more "zoomed in" than the full-frame with the same lens (2x crop).
12 vs 17 or 640 vs 320 have any impact on battery life, other things being as close to equal as possible?
I would guess the 640 would fill a memory card 4x faster recording...
Thanks for the first hand good info!
I have not noticed any difference in battery life 640 vs 320. Now 60 Hz will drain the battery almost 2x faster than 30hz.
It's not real magnification, it's apparent magnification. The issue is the same as a full sized sensor on a camera verses a small sensor but using the same millimeter of lens. It has to do with field of view of that lens and the smaller sensor only using a portion of what that lens sees or projects. Think of this as cropping an image in photoshop. The smaller sensor is like crop the center out of a larger image. It appears magnified but it isn't really. Some get confused with digital vs optical zoom. The 640 can digital zoom or hold it's quality before pixelation further than the 320. Also compare apples to apples and let us use the proper optics with the proper projection coverage for the sensor. A full size sensor for a Canon Eos1d normal lens is 50 to 55 mm but a Canon Rebel T-5 the same view with the same image size is 35 mm. If you sight a deer at 100 yards with both sensors and your adjust the scope where both images of th
E deer are exactly the same size, the quality of the image is the same. The light gathering ability of the larger sensor will be much better. Having said this it is more difficult and costly to manufacture lenses for a larger sensor but as compared to the photography world even the larger thermal sensors are tiny. I believe the real question would be does a 320 or 384 give you the kind of quality and versatility of they type of hunting you typically do? I do believe a 320/384 is the minimum sensor size you should invest in. The 640 will gather more light and give you a greater range of magnification than the 320 if the optics are properly matched to the sensor.
Video is very helpful in my research. I have 2 questions:
1. Assuming I am pulling the trigger at around 200 - 320 meters, to me it seems the Thermion 640 resolution scopes would be best. I need better pixel quality to make sure IT is in fact a predator. As far as microns, 12 or 17 you are saying just go with the cheapest model I can find in that 640 range?
2. I'm primarily looking at the Pulsar Thermion scopes, but I'm not brand loyal to anything. The Trijicon seems to be the go-to "it's the best out there" thermal. But, I have some doubts. I understand the durability part of the equation, but I'm not hunting in a warzone or lugging it up a mountain in a day pack. So, from a best-in-picture only perspective the numbers don't line up. I can save 2,000.00 or 3,000.00 and get a 50mm thermion or a the more expensive 35mm Trijicon IR-Hunter. The materials used are practically the same if not looking at durability! Do you agree with this statement or am I missing something regarding the Trijicon? It is hard to find one to physically touch because dealers don't want to stock the expensive units!
Thank you.
Really good explanation - you know your stuff.
Its a camera sensor effectively a FX vs APC Sort of deal.
Nice rifle rack wall - what is it?
whats the best thermal for the money? i have ar-10 308 i want a thermal but im ignorant to all this. just learning about thermals
Good video. You did a great job of giving a easily understandable explanation. Only criticism is that BAE systems is a British based company.
What about it?
Good info bud, a lot explained there we all wonder about
Nice intelligent explanation. Thank you.
Please put these type of videos in a playlist
Hello Todd, i looked your video, but i still can't decide which device to prefer to buy , pulsar trail xq38lrf or pulsar termion xm38 because they are in a low price class that i can afford. Will be used for hunting predators in open areas up to 200m
Thank you for the information.
Thank for the detailed information!
How can you discern what optic can pick up and register targets at greater distances? looking for something that can detect heat sigs at greater distances than 1000 yards
Wow what a wealth of knowledge... Do you have any of the same info on thermal clip-ons for daytime scopes?
If you want a clip on it’s going to start at $16k and still not look as good as a dedicated scope.
HI Huey
Im in Aus..Ive been thinking of upgrading my brand new night Tech ms19 (17micron) to tech new ms42r (12 mIcron, which just hit our stores weeks after I bought the other one), bit over double the price though.. the ms19 was $2000 AUD (cheapest thermal out there I believe, thus good value).. ms42r (12micron) $4200 AUD .. Am I better off sticking with the little guy ?? Im still a bit confused by the topic and tech (be great 'if' I could just take them both out in the field to compare).. what are your thoughts?
cheers from Downunder
The new Iray Stimulus thermal is around $1500.
So I am a complete nube when it comes to thermal. Am I to understand thermal scopes only last so long? I was all ready to get my feet wet, but this gives me some pause when you're talking this much money. Can anyone speak into this?
What is your opinion of a entry level ATN THOR LT 4-8X THERMAL RIFLESCOPE?
Looking at a x1 magnification clip on thermal 384x with 17micron. Can you explain how the image would be compared to the 640x with 12 micron that has digital zoom as opposed to the x1 mag I’m looking at? Will the resolution of the 384x distort when magnified using my day scope behind it?
6:58 In my experience tighter is definitely better and I don’t know anything about thermal scopes 😉👍🏻
Great information.. Thank you.
Great job Todd. Why do I get the impression you made this video out of necessity...lol. Also I would like to add that not all lenses,screens and software are created equal as I am sure you are aware. Will Pulsar ever make a 640 version of the Thermion in the future?
I suppose you mean a 640 version of the 12 micron core, since they already have a 640 version of the 17 micron. It's a good question. I didn't buy a Thermion and decided to wait for that version.
Just trying to educate people not sure if it’s working. They have 640 17 micron thermions now like Alberto said. There is no timeframe on 12 micron units yet ULIS did announce a 640 12 micron core now but that means nothing Flir announced the boson 12 micron core years ago and still do not have a working 640 12 micron scope.
Nicely done!
Im assuming there are no current gen Raytheon AN/ PAS 13(V1)lightweight models sold to public?
Thanks for sharing.
Great expectations!
Gosh. It's like what I used to hear while sitting at the back of Algebra lessons. Now I sweep floors((
Excellent narrative. Just curious, what is a reasonable life expectancy from the new 12 micron cores. 🛩
I don’t know I would think the same as any other. The screen will go out long before most cores. That 35 micron I have is from the late 80’ early 90’s and still works.
buy from todd he will know more about the products and ship em faster than others
where is Kaitlyn Lowes? Why don't you invite her to the videos anymore?
Our schedules do not align anymore.
@@LoneStarBoars ok thanks !
great info
imagine being aimed at you by a guy with the 35 micron scope mounted. that would be terrifying
Hi Todd,
Just recently found your channel. Thanks for the great videos.
Since thermal is always improving, what’s your latest recommendation for someone who just wants to plink at night - mainly raccoons and coyotes, inside 100 yds.
Thanks!
Depends on your price range, minimum cost scope that works ok is RXQ30 core, but I highly recommend at least the xQ38 trail. They get better from there up.
Any opinions on AGM 25 384??
I avoid Chinese thermals
@@LoneStarBoars Proudly manufactured in Springerville Arizona USA
640x480 it's old. Why they are not making 800x600 or 1024x576?
They are the cost of the cores is still in the high 30k and low $40k range right now.
@@LoneStarBoars New 2021 Trijicon it's really new or they just change the menu a little bit and they are calling "New Model" just to push them out off the shelves?
👍
Thankyou
Is FLIR going to keep selling it’s cores to other companies making thermal scopes now that flir has stopped making them for civilians?
They sell the old ones to a couple of companies that are not worth mentioning. The new ones they never got right that was one of the reasons they had a constant 4-8 month wait on repairs.
Cool
Has anyone down loaded the new firmware for the Pulsar Trail yet? was it worth it?
I did out using them now seems more contrasty
Keren
The Pulsar Trail 2, XP50 and XQ50 is extremely complex to operate. They put far too many push-button complexity into these scopes. These are NOT combat-ready, simple, and intuitive devices. These scopes are for the back-porch tripod with lots of time on your hands to get it into the correct focus, reticle, range, etc, etc.....every single time you turn it on.
Pulsar is not a military optic. But I have no trouble at all, like everything else learn your equipment.
ATN x50 plis How muchis it
We don’t use ATN they have too many failures.
Thanks