Yeah, 6 is a little better. 9 would make more sense though, and best would be to set it up to work the same way that tiny cam does where you can select a certain kind of layout that you personally prefer. Some of the layout options even allow you to have certain primary cameras a little larger and secondary cameras a little smaller like these layout options:
That’s the best possible outcome.
That’s it! That’s exactly what I suggested in the survey!
Not disregarding the rest of your post. I agree that the interface should be more configurable. However, there is no reason that any new limits should be acceptable to subscribers. It worked fine before with a lot of cams and it should still continue to do so. 6 cams might be better for you or 9 cams might be more sensible, as you put it, in your case. Others, with a different amount of cams might not feel that way. This is especially true if they had the ability to stream more than 6 or 9 cams yesterday and then all of a sudden they now are not due to the newly imposed restrictions. I do not feel anyone should feel obligated to accept newly imposed restrictions on the amount of cams that they can view in on page on LIVE View just because Wyze has decided that is the direction they want take regardless of how subscribers feel about it. If those new limits are acceptable for you, I am happy for you. Not everyone is willing to accept those new limitations nor should they have to, especially after they have already paid for a subscription where up until now they were able to stream as many cams on one page in LIVE View as their network could feasibly support.
I don’t disagree with what you said. I have 60+ cams and used to be able to view 20 at a time.
My primary point was that I thinks they should allow people to select a preferred layout similar to what Tiny Cam does. -I also recognize you acknowledged this upfront by saying you weren’t disregarding the rest of your post, I’m just clarifying that was intended to be my primary point… That I basically agree with you…6 is better than 4 and 9 would be better than 6, but custom layout would be ideal and suit nearly all use cases more fairly. We are in agreement 
My problem is I used to be able to keep a window running with cams on minimized and do other stuff. With the update, after a short time the window goes blank and/or cameras disconnect.
I cant even use the cameras really at all right now. the 6 camera view freezes after a few minutes and then the whole page has to be refreshed to get the cameras back, of course if something is going on that needs to be seen right away, that isnt happening. It happens on multiple computers and multiple locations so its a problem on their end.
I am always somewhat joking when I answer on some of the FB groups for the cams when I keep jabbing:
”It’s your wifi”
I have had problems from the get go on the web view, old version, and now this new version.
I have 29 cams running at the moment.
Viewing multiple cams was always slow to open, keep disconnecting, freezing, just being a pain.
I have four U7-Pro-Max access points, and strong signal everywhere.
But with 4 APs, at least one is always going to be on the same channel 1,6,11 as another one.
I decided to move one downstairs central, and the two in the attic already on seperate sides of the house.
Turned off the 4th for the test.
Now each is on its own channel with no overlap.
LOW AND BEHOLD!!!
WebView opens SO MUCH FASTER!!!
And all the cams are not giving me a problem at all.
No skipping, stuttering, even the audio is in sync.
After all this time…
Jeff, it’s your wifi!!
Good grief!
Ideally you should only have 3 overlapping AP’s in a networked space. If you must have 4 wireless AP’s in a networked space, you will have the first 3 of the 4 on different channels (1, 6, 11 ). You will have to reuse one of those channels for the 4th AP. Whichever AP that you choose to reuse the channel of, you will then want to place the 4th AP as physically far from that AP as possible. Networking 101.
The overlap being farthest away was always the case.
I work in spaces where we have APs in the dozens or more per building/floor.
Clearly in my case, less is more.
Same here, constant reloading, and new live feed seems to use more GB too!
It appears so to me, but I can’t speak for everyone.
Finally I can use my cameras since they switched it back to the old version!
To defend the new version a bit…
9 per page would probably be usable.
And the pages you can group them in was better than trying to do it in the old way once you got them set up.
But having each page have a name would be nice.
Scrolling through 29 cams on one page, waiting for all of them to load, and then reload when scrolling back, is a pain too.
So the new version can work with improvements implemented.
For sure. If a “group” paradigm like this is going to be enforced, then I’d like to be able to name each page (group) with something meaningful.
I’ll reiterate this point, as well:
For spares that I don’t want to delete from the app (Cams that I sometimes use for temporary applications, etc.), I don’t want to have to assign them to dead pages of Cams that are never going to connect until I plug them back in. That was one of the unnecessary restrictions that rankled me with the new version that’s apparently been rolled back…for now..
This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
