M2 footage dash and action

[kamkar]

I dont want to crank up the M2 now, but as soon as i get a new FW for it, then it will go back into rotation.
I really want the M2 to do well, and it would fit so nice on the roof rack on my new scale 4x4 truck, at least now before i occupy that space with a row of LED's for lighting.
Though to be honest i dont think i will be running with the stock Jeep body, will have to find something else for long term use, so far i have my eye on a 1966 Chevy C10 body

Or in truggy form.

 

[TonyM]

I have PM peters email to TonyM, and mailed peter myself

Thanks, but I'm not going to go around asking someone I don't know for beta firmware. Whatever the reason, the developer has always kept testing to a small group of people, and lately seems to be ignoring the feedback given by @Dashmellow after his countless hours of voluntary testing.

Coincidentally I offered to help with testing again last week, but was told it wasn't an option. So I'm just going to wait until the next public firmware release.

 

[jokiin]

Thanks, but I'm not going to go around asking someone I don't know for beta firmware. Whatever the reason, the developer has always kept testing to a small group of people, and lately seems to be ignoring the feedback given by @Dashmellow after his countless hours of voluntary testing.

Coincidentally I offered to help with testing again last week, but was told it wasn't an option. So I'm just going to wait until the next public firmware release.

I don't think it was even known about until estore mentioned it, looked through RC groups and couldn't find any mention of it from Tom Frank until someone specifically mentioned the versions that estore had talked about, no wonder progress is slow

 

[TonyM]

I really want the M2 to do well, and it would fit so nice on the roof rack on my new scale 4x4 truck

I'd like to get into rc trucks, but like so many things I just don't have the time. I got myself a toy truck at Xmas and put the M2 on it for fun, but tbh my kids play with it more than I do.

 

[kamkar]

Yeah it do take some time, when we go for a drive it is normally 4 hours or so in the forest, wrenching on the trucks not so much, both me and my friend are not good at doing that unless something are broken.
But things like washing the trucks and doing maintenance that's not really us, when we finally get around to it then the bearings are pretty much just the outer and inner ring everything else are long gone.

So we are like badass cowboys, ride them hard and put them up wet

 

[Dashmellow]

Thanks, but I'm not going to go around asking someone I don't know for beta firmware. Whatever the reason, the developer has always kept testing to a small group of people, and lately seems to be ignoring the feedback given by @Dashmellow after his countless hours of voluntary testing.

Coincidentally I offered to help with testing again last week, but was told it wasn't an option. So I'm just going to wait until the next public firmware release.

I've been wanting to talk more about this but have been uncertain about what to say or not to say. I guess I'm kind of working up to it.

I will say this. The announcement that the Mobius 2 was in development first came on September 15, 2015 in a post by Tom Franks in the RCGroups thread and he makes clear that the camera had already been in development for awhile. The camera was finally released to the market in June, 2016 and the image quality was so poor that it created an uproar and was immediately withdrawn from the market. It was then re-released a month later with certain obvious improvements and the promise of great potential with the dual frame HDR that offered amazing dynamic range but still with serious shortcomings. Now, some 14 months later the camera remains essentially unusable in many ways and the HDR capability is no more. The M1 still offers far superior daytime image performance. We have now gone for 5 months with not a single word from the developer since the last firmware update leaving most of us to assume the camera had been abandoned. Now we hear that improvements "may" be forthcoming but I'm not holding my breath. This is not a good way to develop and market a camera, nor is it a proper way for a developer to act towards an army of loyal and patient enthusiasts, much less new potential customers especially in an increasingly competitive market for this class of camera. (a class of camera this developer single handedly created.)

I have more to say on this subject but I've concluded it may be best to leave things here for the time being.

 

[TonyM]

I don't think it was even known about until estore mentioned it, looked through RC groups and couldn't find any mention of it from Tom Frank until someone specifically mentioned the versions that estore had talked about, no wonder progress is slow

Where did you find it mentioned on RCG? (I can't find it). I emailed Tom about it after estore009 posted here, but I didn't post anything publicly on RCG.

 

[jokiin]

Where did you find it mentioned on RCG? (I can't find it). I emailed Tom about it after estore009 posted here, but I didn't post anything publicly on RCG.

have just gone through his posts and can't find it, not sure if he has since deleted or edited the post but there was mention of the newer beta versions and "significant improvements" not the first time I've seen him talk about improvements that went backwards though so not sure how much you could rely on that comment anyway

may still have the page open on my desktop at work, will have a look on Monday in case I do, to be honest I don't have a lot of faith in what he considers improvements as he seems to look at things totally from a drone perspective which could mean nothing for our use, it was more of interest due to mention of an actual later beta firmware version

 

[TonyM]

have just gone through his posts and can't find it, not sure if he has since deleted or edited the post but there was mention of the newer beta versions and "significant improvements" not the first time I've seen him talk about improvements that went backwards though so not sure how much you could rely on that comment anyway

may still have the page open on my desktop at work, will have a look on Monday in case I do, to be honest I don't have a lot of faith in what he considers improvements as he seems to look at things totally from a drone perspective which could mean nothing for our use, it was more of interest due to mention of an actual later beta firmware version

I wouldn't worry about finding the actual post. I was only curious since I'd just been reading the RCG M2 thread and thought I'd missed something.

 

[SawMaster]

For a long time now I have been silently wondering what effect the chain of communication between user-testers like Dashmellow and TonyM might be having. It seems that Isoprop had been relaying info but we never got to see exactly what was being sent or said. More than a few have commented on the weirdness of this set-up which apparently worked well with the M1 but might have degraded thereafter. And of course nobody can know how any sent messages were received at the far end and whether their content was given full credence. As a trained communicator I know that the best communications are direct, but there are times when it's better to have someone compiling and filtering the received reports into a synopsis of only the necessary content to enhance communication efficiency. This is usually done only in cases where there is a huge amount of input or where time is limited and brevity essential; the risk with doing it this way is that whoever is doing he compiling and filtering may miss relaying something essential or allow their personal feelings to enter the picture thus skewing the message that was originally intended. Unless time is of the essence direct communications are the best communications as then nothing can be missed.

The one thing I am positively certain of is that there is an inherent flaw in Mobius's communications system of which they are not fully understanding the effects of. It's their 'baby' and they can do whatever they please with it, but they will reap the consequences of their choices no matter what else occurs. It is always better to seek and accept what you need over what you like, for some of the best medicines are rather unpalatable but very effective anyway and are often the only effective cure there is. Ignore them at your own peril.

Phil

 

[kamkar]

I like the way Sj do it with a google document we just fill into our findings as testers, this also let you see what other testers have found and you can try to replicate to see if it is a one off or a general issue.

 

[jokiin]

For a long time now I have been silently wondering what effect the chain of communication between user-testers like Dashmellow and TonyM might be having. It seems that Isoprop had been relaying info but we never got to see exactly what was being sent or said. More than a few have commented on the weirdness of this set-up which apparently worked well with the M1 but might have degraded thereafter. And of course nobody can know how any sent messages were received at the far end and whether their content was given full credence.

From what I'd been able to gather with the M1 any bug report was filtered through Tom Frank or Isoprop and if they couldn't replicate a problem the detail was never passed to the developer, likewise those guys were the primary source of feedback for the developer on any changes, maybe that worked to some degree but I could easily see how that would get out of hand, things could get missed or things were done to suit what they felt was best which may not have always been in the best interest of the development of the product, perhaps that in part comes down to language barriers/level of understanding of the developer and was deemed a suitable way to handle things

The M2 is a far more complex product by nature of the way they chose to do their own firmware so while I have no doubt that @Dashmellow would have been providing them solid feedback there is a possibility that it was overwhelming in the level of detail compared to what they had been used to on prior models

 

[TonyM]

Thinking of things I can do with the M2, that I cannot do so easily with other cameras, I tried using it today as a blind-spot camera. Used the FW setting to turn the display round 90deg, then mounted the camera by sticking it directly to the top of the door panel near the side mirror with some VHB tape. Ideally I wanted a view looking forwards at the side mirror, but it's not at the right height to get a decent view unless I tape it to my head!

 

[TonyM]

I'm still getting the same ghosting issues and skipped frames
Settings: 1080p60, h264, highest bitrate, 90deg rotation, Transcend 300x. I recently did a full re-install of the firmware, card re-format and h2testw check.
I also had the ghosting issue when running 720p120 again at the weekend, despite reporting earlier that it was fixed. It seems the first file or two can be ok, but subsequent files keep getting worse.....

 

[teddyc1]

Back on the Cycliq bicycle cam idea, i see that Cycliq plans to come out with better video in their bike cam/lights soon. This would make it an option, for me at least. They have an email subscribe page up:
https://cycliq.com/sharperbrighter/