GaryW

I changed the codec to Geo H264 and the quality to low but it didn't have a noticeable effect on how long it took all of the cameras to appear.

It's not AT&T, it's Frontier DSL and it IS faster than our one cable site, I've tested both of them myself. We two sites on other DSL systems (one on Verizon and one on a small telephone company) and they are MUCH slower than Frontier. Luckily, they're also our smallest sites with the fewest cameras. I've had Frontier DSL service at home for several years and have found that it's only marginally slower than the local Time-Warner Roadrunner service. At a couple of our sites, cable isn't available anyway. Part of my problem seems to be that MultiView appears to connect separately for each channel and may be tying up my router. When I bypass the VPN server in the router and use port forwarding instead, the video appears much faster but not nearly as fast as with RemoteView. Changing to a different router isn't an option, our car wash systems require a router with an integrated VPN server. [/i]

We have faster than typical DSL service in our area (the slowest DSL option available is 6 Mbps) and the one site that is on cable is actually slower. We have no bandwidth problem with RemoteView. MultiView has acceptable speed once all of the cameras are connected but it takes much too long for all of the cameras to appear. Limiting the number of cameras isn't an option. With up to 9 car wash bays at a site, each with a camera, plus several other cameras, we need to view them all to get a good idea of whether there are any problems at the site. Limiting the video quality would probably be acceptable but I haven't been able to find the quality and screen size settings that you mentioned. The lowest screen size setting that I can find is "normal" (320x240).

It's MultiView that's slow over the Internet, RemoteView is fast but isn't supported by v8.3. MultiView is fine on a local network, the first camera displays almost immediately over the Internet but the other cameras can take two or three minutes before they all appear. Our systems are mostly on DSL lines with around 5000-6000 Kbps download and 370 kbps upload. The download speed is irrelevant for the video, the upload speed is the important one. The upload speed is usually much slower than the download speed on broadband systems but is rarely advertised. We have a bunch of sites (automatic and self-serve car washes) that we don't normally actively monitor but we need to check them occasionally if there's a problem or to see if we need to send someone to the site on a busy day. We also use the systems to analyze malfunctions and investigate customer damage claims. We currently have GeoVision systems at 6 of our sites, the company just bought some more washes, which I also plan to put GeoVision systems in. Mostly, v8.2 is sufficient for our requirements, although it would be nice to have more than 16 cameras in a couple of our sites. I bought several used GV800-16 cards, it would probably be cheaper for me to put in a second system than to buy the newer PCI and PCIe cards and the faster computer needed for 32 cameras in one system. For a 32-channel v8.3 system with GV800 cards, you need one of each kind. Other GV boards have different requirements.

I discovered that the TCP server had been removed when I upgraded to v8.3 a couple of months ago. I wasn't too surprised since although v8.2 supports RemoteView the references to it were removed from the v8.2 manual and RemoteView wasn't included on the v8.2 CD. MultiView is unacceptably slow to start up when connected remotely. A few days ago I switched my two systems with v8.3 back to v8.2.

I just discovered the discussions about Livevue and am anxious to try the version for v8.3. Multiview takes so long to load all of the cameras that it's just about unusable in my application. I've been considering going back to v8.2. I have GeoVision systems at several car wash sites with more coming soon. The washes are automatic and self-serve and most of the time do not have an attendent. We don't actively monitor the cameras but do need to check them for problems and whether we need to send someone to the site. With earlier GeoVision versions we used Multicam, not ideal but good for a quick status check. With v8.3, Multicam is no longer supported. Each of our sites is set up as a VPN, which is necessitated by the network configuration of the car wash equipment. We log into the VPN to monitor both the equipment and the cameras and can be connected to only one site at a time. If necessary, I could configure the routers to bypass the VPN for the GeoVision system by using port forwarding. Will Livevue run on a 64-bit version of Windows? I've found that even though there's a 32-bit version of Windows 7 available, few manufacturers are offering computers with it, even the build-to-order models don't list it as an option. Webcam, Multiview, and Remote Viewlog do run on 64-bit Windows 7, even if the main system won't.

Is there any way to speed up Multiview? Previous versions of the GeoVision software had a multi-camera viewer that displayed up to 16 cameras almost immediately but that is no longer supported as of V8.3. Multiview is so slow in displaying all of the cameras that it is almost unusable. Most of my sites (car washes) have DSL lines with about 370 Kbps upload speed. The resolution and video quality are less important tha being able to connect and view the cameras in a reasonable time. The previous (fast) viewer was very acceptable.

I can't get either MultiView 8.2 or 8.3 to run on my notebook running 32-bit Vista. MultiView 8.12 runs OK. I don't have any trouble with either my XP desktop or my Vista desktop. When I launch MultiView 8.2 or 8.3, it asks for my username and password but nothing displays after that. If I launch MultiView again, it says that MultiView is already running, which the Windows Task Manager confirms. Anyone have any ideas?