RAC DashCams Use PocketGPSWorld Speed Camera Alerts

johnnym100 · Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 5:45 am Post subject:

I have also noticed the apparent strange numbering of the speedcam files. I now use the file creation date when I download to work out which is the latest version.

@woodbar - which type of the dash cam viewer desktop software are you using?
When these dash cams first came out they used a program called GPSview (or something like that) which wasn't great.

However, they moved over to Dashcam Viewer back in ~March. Currently on v2.1.6 and I have found that to be pretty good.

All the video files also play fine in VLC, including the SuperHD or 21:9 aspect ratio files.

John.

MaFt · Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:47 am Post subject:

woodbar · Occasional Visitor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 24

Yes it would be nice to find a decent responsive viewer that showed the map, route and speed in mph - a bit like Registrator used to do with my old 801 camera files - but I have found nothing to compare to it yet - either no map, no mph, does not like "Enhanced HD" etc - although I only use full HD mode anyway. Possibly part of the problem is their use of "mov" files?

The totally illogical naming of the speedcam files is absolutely ludicrous and I have been querying and then complaining about this for weeks as at one point, when it went from V0198 back to V0197 I assumed they had posted an OLDER file - it did not occur to me that this was merely the SIZE of the file and NOT the verion. WHY does it have a "V" in front and displays under the "Firmware Version" page in the camera menu if it is not the version number?

I suspect that nobody at proofcam was actually aware of this until I kept asking about it as after they checked with their "technical" department I was finally assured I had the latest file AND that it is the file size shown and NOT the version number. I have suggested they might like to use the date of release after the "V" in the display as a future policy!

I do wonder (and did ask the question) if anyone at proofcam actually has a good working knowledge of their product as combined with the waste of time and hassle over the above I had to wait for new stock to arrive from China when I placed my order a couple of months ago and when it arrived I checked the website to see if it needed new firmware - there was no reference as to which version was being offered - just labelled as firmware update and the date it was placed on the proofcam website. So I emailed them an asked what version it was? I was told, on two separate occasions that "all cameras from the factory came in with old firmware and need updating"

I then repeatedly queried this as the firmware version clearly has a date code embedded in the name and the one contained in my new camera was obviously later than the one on the website so I did not want to "downgrade" my firmware!

I had a reply that "technical" thought my assumption could be correct and they would contact the factory - a few days later there was another firmware upgrade available on site - THE SAME VERSION I HAD ALL ALONG!

I now have an intermittent problem with the camera - it often powers up when I start the car then immediately switches off? Other times it works fine. I have substituted USB cables, power sockets/adapters and even tried it in my wifes car with the same results. I was told they would send me a new cable? I queried this in view of my testing and substitutions which meant the only constant remaining was the actual RAC05 itself? I am told the new cable will have a tighter fit - we will see when it arrives although I am not expecting it to cure the fault in all honesty.

It is a shame but I am beginning to to regret my purchase as a lot of the OS is ill-conceived and it seems that no one at proofcam actually fully knows (uses?) their product and the update files. Perhaps I should have got the 806 instead?

For example - the "event" manual locking function - when you need to invoke this you actually have to press the relevant button twice (not mentioned in the manual) - once to wake the system up, then again to lock the video file. OK, not too much hassle BUT then you realise that it only saves 10 seconds prior to the second button push and 20 seconds after. Think about it - you have just steered and braked around some lunatic that should have gone to specsavers - hmmm - I will lock that file - reach up for the button and press it - screen comes on - hmmmm - nothing happening - sod it - press button again and IF you have really keen eyesight you can just see the little yellow triangle appear at the top of the screen - no beep or anything helpful like that - Ah, got that bit locked as an event.

When you get home an put the SD card in your computer - look at the event file - eh? - where is it - sorry mate - we only recorded 10 second before your eventual button push - Oh, right, next time then I won't worry about braking, steering/swerving or looking where I am going, the most important thing is to find that button, push it twice and make sure the yellow triangle displays when seen through my magnifying glass!

I did make the suggestion to them, for a future update, to do as some other manufacturers and lock the whole current clip as well as the previous or next if the incident was within 30 seconds of either end of the clip. The reply I got was to suggest I use an 8Gb card so that I could save an hour of video and manually retrieve any of the "normal" files which would have also recorded the event!

At the moment I use a 64Gb card and just use the manual event button as a time marker to point me to the incident (less 10 seconds or so!) in the normal files then save it to the PC if I want to. That is the problem really- it's a lot of "making do" and you do need a PC or similar external device as you can NOT lock or protect a normal file in the camera itself!

I don't know whether the G sensor trip actually works - has never activated on my camera - on ANY of the sensitvity settings?

Does anybody actually test these things in the real world before they release them?

MaFt · Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:08 pm Post subject:

woodbar · Occasional Visitor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 24

Thanks for that, obviously yours works then although that does not necessarily mean the one on mine does as well?

Interesting to note the pre-record seems to be about 7 seconds plus 14 seconds post record? The specification is 10 + 20, which is pretty short in any case so unless you have edited the clip your example is even shorter and therefore even less useful in a real emergency situation?

What setting do you have the G sensor on?

M8TJT · Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 4:33 pm Post subject:

I would have thought that if anything significant enough to warrant it to be preserved happened, the best way would be to whip the SD card out just to make absolutely sure that it does not get overwritten. I have a spare SD in the car just to cover this eventuality. (They are pretty cheap these days)

woodbar · Occasional Visitor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 24

Well yes, I see that and it is one way of doing it, but again that involves some manual intervention and you have to remember to do it and make sure you have the spare card.

BUT, when the camera actually has a designated built in function to do this automatically then surely it is only fair to expect this to be implemented in a usable and efficient manner. After all, is this not actually one of, if not THE, main reason for actually installing the device in the first place?

I just want to fit and forget the camera and on the odd occasion that something untoward happens I need to feel confident that, whether the "event" is triggered by the G sensor or manually, that it has actually protected some usable footage for a reasonable amount of time either side of an event and that the protected file is still available on the SD card when I get back home and can review it as necessary. My old camera, and lots of other makes, do that as far as I can see?

After all, we are only talking about some sloppy, ill conceived programming here, it's not as if the hardware needs modifying to accomplish it. As I suggested before, possibly never tested in "real world" scenario?

M8TJT · Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:40 pm Post subject:

Whilst I fully agreewith your sentiments in principle. I still consider my way to be the most reliable. Yes, manual intervention if that's what you want to call it. But as what you are trying to preserve is on the card in its entirety, let alone a few seconds before and after, is it not worth a little 'manual intervention' for peace of mind, as you have probably quite a bit of 'manual intervention' required elsewhere as well if the G forces have been enough to trigger it?

woodbar · Occasional Visitor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 24

We obviously have different views on the subject so we could probably debate this for a while yet!

I understand what you are saying but in the event of an "event" - say a Kamikaze cyclist zooms across the zebra crossing without looking and you swipe his rear wheel and send him flying OR the old dear in her Corsa swerves across the road in front of you to grab the parking space outside Specsavers and you scrape the side of her car - you obviously stop your car, out of gear, handbrake on, switch engine off, seatbelt off, start to open the door - Oh maybe the G sensor did not trigger so you press the manual button (remember to do it twice) because you want proof that you were not at fault.

At this point you could start to be pretty stressed - you jump out to see if the cyclist has broken anything (other than his bike) or the old dear is having a panic attack - Oh, hang on I must remember to change the SD card - really?

Why bother in that case? Just fit a big SD card and keep a notepad and pen in easy reach and jot down the time of the event for later retrieval?

The point being that this is marketed as being able to automatically store a locked version of a G sensor or manually created "event" and it just does not do that reliably, especially in the case of a manual event. Other makes do it effectively so it is not "rocket science".

M8TJT · Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:31 am Post subject:

I did say that I agreed with you that it should work as advertised and it's silly having to press the 'emergency' button twice, but I fail to see your arguments for not just removing the SD card 'when the dust has settled' to definitely preserve everything on it regardless of any shortcomings of the dashcam.
So let's call it a day. I was only coming up with a cast iron 'work around' for your perceived shortcomings of the dashcam.

Kremmen · Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 10:09 am Post subject:

Maybe a RTFM ?

Overview of controls shows that button 8 locks the recorded video file.

Plus the G-Sensor has 4 settings.

http://proofcam.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/RAC-05-User-Manual.pdf
_________________
Satnav:
Garmin DS61 LMT-D (In the car)
Garmin 2599 LMT-D (Indoor test rig)
DashCam:
Viofo A119 V3

woodbar · Occasional Visitor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 24

woodbar · Occasional Visitor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 24

Kremmen · Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:00 am Post subject:

If the unit is not performing as per the user manual and your expectations then you have recourse.

Depending on what you are using the unit for are there any other units that match your requirements?
_________________
Satnav:
Garmin DS61 LMT-D (In the car)
Garmin 2599 LMT-D (Indoor test rig)
DashCam:
Viofo A119 V3

johnnym100 · Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:21 am Post subject:

I have one of these and the g-sensor works on mine (and other people's) so it's not a software issue. Events are stored in the events folder and not overwritten.

I haven't had the bungee jumping cam event that MaFt linked but had plenty of g-alerts from mounting/unmounting the camera. Even a few potholes have set it off.

IIRC the 'low' setting means “low sensitivity/ high g” as opposed to “trigger at low shock levels.”

I assume you have tried a manual trigger by waving/tapping the device itself?

Failing that, perhaps a hardware issue on your cam?

John.

	PocketGPS
	Web