The A/D keys should work exactly the same as they always have.
The change made was only to respect the radius reduction applied. So if you added the equipment with only a 75% radius, the improved logic will prevent you from reducing the radius another 25%.
If you have a case that is not that issue, it might be best to send it in to us, so we can best replicate the issue.

--J

aaahhh... ok. Got it. we typically design with 80% reduction. and finally understanding this, we only have 5% reduction to work with. makes sense. thanks!

OK, here's another one using RainBirds RVAN nozzles 1318. with cycling A and D, I bring it down to the lowest setting radius 12.75, I would think that would be the lowest for the 18' radius at 75% reduction. what about at 13'? shouldn't it bring it down to 10.4? Im going through the "k" querry and cant find anything.

thanks.

The R-VAN14 cranks down to 10.5'. Everything appears to be matching their specs (http://www.rainbird.com/documents/turf/bro_R-VAN-Reference_standard.pdf) exactly.

--J

What you're saying is that I need to switch heads instead of reducing the range the RVAN's have? All the while, the rvan14 cranked down, I'm unable to utilize it's 8' radius. I'm locked at 10'6.

As I mentioned, the radius for the 5 models should match exactly in this chart:
http://www.rainbird.com/documents/turf/bro_r-van-reference_standard.pdf
While it is true that the R-VAN14 can actually be adjusted down to 57% of its standard radius, we have all heads across the system limited to 75%.
We are still considering how best to support this 8' range.

--J

that's so weird. I thought the percentage is supposed to account for variables like wind. and that the percentage was relative to the radius, ie. 10' spaced at 8, 8' spaced at 6, and so on. and having the percentage relative to the when reducing the radius A/D keys. I get that the heads are showing the radius reduction, but not for when we space things closer for the reduced range. sorry, I'm trying to understand the new logic of the spacing. it's just that when I was using the A/D keys, I saw the adjustment severely limited.

here's what I found when I changed the radius reduction back to 100%

100% Radius:
RVAN1724 - 23' to 17.24'
RVAN1318 - 17' to 12.75'
RVAN14 - 14' to 10.5

80% Radius
RVAN1724 - 18.4' to17.25'
RVAN1318 - 13.6' to 12.75'
RVAN14 - 11.2' to 10.5'

What I thought 80% was going to do
RVAN1724 - 19.2' to 13.6'
RVAN1318 - 14.4' to 10.4'
RVAN14 - 11.2' to 6.4'

hope this made sense to what I was thinking.

I guess the way to understand our logic, is that the spray radius shows what the head is actually capable of, not how closely you would like to place them.

In this case, they show the RVAN1724 as being 23' (24), and able to be reduced down to 17' (hence being called the 1724).
If you add the head to the project at 80% of its radius (with the latest update), then it is as you state, a maximum of 18.4', and able to be reduced down to the same minimum, 17'.

That said, obviously you have more experience with this head, especially in a windy situation such as Hawaii. To us it seems outlandish to spec a 24' rotary for a 13' area. So if you could elaborate a bit more, on some of your knowledge of how the head operates and how you have found it to work in real-world conditions, that certainly helps us a lot.
The primary "problem" we were solving with this last update, was that we had users mention that a head added at 80% radius was able to be reduced to well under what it actually threw at, so the update was all about matching the actual products more accurately.

--J

yah, we design kind of weirdly. we take in account for wind, and have a 20% reduction for spacing, not radius. as explained, for example with 10' sprays, spaced at 8', all the while overspraying at head to head. with spray radius, reduced with relative space reduction. i think this was happening with the older versions of LFX. Having to relearn things for a little bit, the new logic is pretty much how we designed our irrigation before LFX came into our office, so it was pretty easy to get used to with all the other spray heads because there are so many sizes. With the RVAN we had to bring back to 100% radius to take advantage of the broad radius. there was a sizable gap between the 1318 to 1724 which caused so much questions for me. i get that the logic is supposed to relate to what the catalog says, but for our practices, it will just take some getting used to. maybe a wish list item for wind factor spacing to have another radius within the spray radius.

To add to this. Are there any plans to add a different logic to how Toro has their riser valve in their spray and rotary heads. we recently have gone to check out Toro. We think there is great promise and HUGE versatility in using these risers offered by Toro. You could literally use one nozzle for an entire residential or small commercial project. We've asked Toro to be proactive with LFX and hopefully we will get to take advantage of this technology. If you ever needed me to give you an example of why i would use a large radius nozzle on small spaces, Toro's riser valve would allow this.