latency time

Hi.

This FMS is all well and good, but doesn't it all work a lot better when you deploy via a

streaming service provider, like Akamai, Limelight, Mirror or Vitalstream?

Simply without multiple redundant servers linked in large networks,

its impossible for a small user running FSM on a hosted server to make a professional

delivery impact on a mere budget of $995 (the cost of the software).

So why not just pay a service provider and save all the hassle. I know Adobe say their software streams

right out of the box, but isn't that all just sales BS?

Also when you ring Adobe you get caught in the Tech Support trap.

ADOBE: "If you buy the software sir, we'll give you tech support".

ME: "Yes but I want to know whether streaming myself will save me $360 a month in streaming costs

and whether streaming straight from the box is as good as my service provider?" ADOBE: "You don't have a tech support plan sir,

but you could log into one of our forums and ask someone there!" "Or you could ask an Apple Mac reseller in the UK!" ME: "but

none of the resellers know anything about FMS!"

DOES EVERYONE GET THE PICTURE!!!!!

Would love to stream my own stuff, but !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.andrewcb.com

A lot of contributors here seem to have more problems than the software's perceived benefits,

is this the reality ~ a nice idea, but a load of rubbish in practice?

OR does it actually work well.

Regards to all,

Andrew CB.

Hi.

This FMS is all well and good, but doesn't it all work a lot better when you deploy via a

streaming service provider, like Akamai, Limelight, Mirror or Vitalstream?

Simply without multiple redundant servers linked in large networks,

its impossible for a small user running FSM on a hosted server to make a professional

delivery impact on a mere budget of $995 (the cost of the software).

So why not just pay a service provider and save all the hassle. I know Adobe say their software streams

right out of the box, but isn't that all just sales BS?

Also when you ring Adobe you get caught in the Tech Support trap.

ADOBE: "If you buy the software sir, we'll give you tech support".

ME: "Yes but I want to know whether streaming myself will save me $360 a month in streaming costs

and whether streaming straight from the box is as good as my service provider?" ADOBE: "You don't have a tech support plan sir,

but you could log into one of our forums and ask someone there!" "Or you could ask an Apple Mac reseller in the UK!" ME: "but

none of the resellers know anything about FMS!"

DOES EVERYONE GET THE PICTURE!!!!!

Would love to stream my own stuff, but !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http:/www.andrewcb.com

A lot of contributors here seem to have more problems than the software's perceived benefits,

is this the reality ~ a nice idea, but a load of rubbish in practice?

OR does it actually work well.

Regards to all,

Andrew CB.

camera.setQuality(0,100);

What you're telling the flashplayer is to use as much bandwidth as it needs to maintain 100% quality. This is sort of unrealistic, as very few users will have enough bandwidth to publish a camera at 100% quality. I'd try defining a byterate (byterate is the first argument), and reducing the quality (the second argument). As you have it now, not only will latency suffer, but the flashplayer will drop a lot of frames to keep up (or try to keep up anyway)

camera.setKeyFrameInterval (9);

Any particular reason you're sending keyframes every 9 frames? You could likely get away with spacing them further apart. You can go as high as 48... my typical practice is to send one per second.

camera.setMode(397,307,15,true);

Most webcams don't support 397x307, so the flashplayer is going to need to work pretty hard to resample and scale the image. I tend to use commonly supported resolutions to avoid this, 320x240 would be a better option. Also, are you displaying the video at the same size at which you're capturing the camera? If not, the flashplayer has to scale the image on playback, which tends to make the video look muddy and/or blocky.

your settings look good .......how much bandwidth do you have? Do you have a buffer on the netStream?