|
Colby, Kansas | My reply to you was probably a little to brief and harsh last night. Here is some previous discussion
http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=102353&posts=2...
I guess at the end of the day, for what it cost to put in a Loop you could have a impact based system without the errors for the same or not much difference in money.
People can say what they want about accuracy at the tuckload or field scale, not sure I care, I want it to be accurate at some site specific scale, even the poorest of calibrated systems can work out to meet the average yield on a big enough comparison. You can have a yield monitor that is 20% off in the high yielding areas and 20% off in the low yielding areas but the "average" matches your truck tickets to a tee.
If the loups were like $1200 and your option was to have a yield monitor or not have one, then yeah I could probably jump at that. But for the money at play I think there is a better design available.
Sometime I'd like to run a machine that had both an AgLeader and a Loup on it, that would be interesting data to compare.
Regards,
Lucas
| |
|
Loup yield monitor thoughts?
