Disappointed with Viofo for Abandoning A129 Duo Owners

If one frame duplicate of 90 frames in the rear camera is really important for someone, we recommend using V1.1 firmware.

Such issue normally related vendor SDK, not so fast to solve. Even I don't think Novatek have much interesting to check this. But they have solved some duplicated frame issue on other models before if they confirmed the issue.

Is not only rear camera,front camera is duplicating and jumping frames randomly too,and sometimes heavy..You can see the sample here:
Look between 1m:30s-1m:44s.This kind of frame drop is not acceptable on a very important moment in the footage..Yes,the rear one only duplicates and will not affect the proof when needed,but the front one drops frames randomly..

 
Last edited:
Is not only rear camera,front camera is duplicating and jumping frames randomly too,and sometimes heavy..You can see the sample here:
Look between 1m:30s-1m:44s.This kind of frame drop is not acceptable on a very important moment in the footage..Yes,the rear one only duplicates and will not affect the proof when needed,but the front one drops frames randomly..

Is that on custom firmware? That's a very nice place you live there (y)
 
Yes is custom,but does the same with stock.First time I changed to custom thinking will fix the problem..Silly me :)
 
Yes I just saw was MOD2WI from the file so custom firmware - it looks like the encoder is choking at high bitrate in that release of the firmware as you can see the peaks where the missed frames are and 38 dropped frames out of 5400. What card was it?

The new wave of 4k cameras capable of high bitrate recording are going to cause lots of issues for people with slower / older cards (not saying you have one but a general observation).
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2019-09-30 at 19.27.28.png
    Screenshot 2019-09-30 at 19.27.28.png
    313.5 KB · Views: 23
Last edited:
I am using Viofo 128GB MLC card,tested with 2 other Samsung Evo Plus too with same results..
 
Last edited:
as you can see the peaks where the missed frames are and 38 dropped frames out of 5400
Can bitrate viewer tell you how many dropped frames there are in a video file?
 
I will add to this post, as mentioned, parking mode was the only reason I purchased the A129, I am most happy about the clarity of my clips. So we all as a group have different concerns. I hope soon VIOFO will get it right and it is great we have a forum like this that Dash Cam retailers can view our issues and concerns.

When you say parking mode, are you referring to the buffered parking mode with the 30 secs capture prior to an accident. Or are you talking about low bitrate recording while vehicle is parked and turned off?
 
Is not only rear camera,front camera is duplicating and jumping frames randomly too,and sometimes heavy..You can see the sample here:
Look between 1m:30s-1m:44s.This kind of frame drop is not acceptable on a very important moment in the footage..Yes,the rear one only duplicates and will not affect the proof when needed,but the front one drops frames randomly..


Did the front drop frames on V1.5 Firmware? Or is it only the 1.9 where the front is dropping?
 
Did the front drop frames on V1.5 Firmware? Or is it only the 1.9 where the front is dropping?
On all of them I have tested,but the front camera issue is happening randomly not on all footages...Issue is not present on v1.11 for the moment,but I have to test more this version,because of the random situation of the front camera issue..
 
On all of them I have tested,but the front camera issue is happening randomly not on all footages...Issue is not present on v1.11 for the moment,but I have to test more this version,because of the random situation of the front camera issue..

Please report back and let us know the results. Sounds like I might be downgrading to V1.11 for a test if all checks out.
 
You can see the sample here:
Why are you wasting our times and upload video created by unofficial firmware? No matter if you will say that also the official is creating the same video, our time is lost already.
 
Why are you wasting our times and upload video created by unofficial firmware? No matter if you will say that also the official is creating the same video, our time is lost already.
I have switched to unofficial firmware because I had the same problem with official firmware,at that time I was thinking to test with moded firmware too,to see if issue persist..Don't make me lose my time again replicating the issue with official firmware,I've already gone thru that and I don't have time only in weekends to test..Read my entire thread here:

 
We have established that this requires an SDK update, and that Novatek are in control of when the SDK updates arrive, not Viofo, and we know from experience that these arrive when every fix/addition/improvement within the update is ready, not to meet a specific timescale. After the SDK arrives, it will then take some time for Viofo to get it working correctly with each camera.

So your question is impossible to answer accurately, it can only be estimated, and the estimate may be inaccurate. They do always arrive though, it is coming, we just don't have a fixed date.

Patience is required :coffee: :cool:


No, I'm sorry Nigel, but you just "made up an excuse" for Viofo as many of the Viofo fanboys here are inclined to do! So please, don't give us this, "We have established that this requires an SDK update:.... You're just making that up!

I've been in touch with one of the most competent beta testers of the A129 and he said it's clear that Viofo has tuned their back on A129 users. The priority is being given to the new products coming out to create new sales for Viofo. These are his words, not mine, but his conclusion is clear to anyone with half-a-brain. - - And it's clear that Viofo was able to make a firmware that was both too sensitive and not sensitive enough.... So surely they can fix the problem without it taking months to do. - - In fact Bill Zhou told me personally that the problem would be corrected by the end of August... Why would he say something if it wasn't true???? - - And now he's told Zdeel7491 that the problem "may get fixed by October"... - - How much do you want to bet that that's just another "Empty Promise"??? In fact, I bet it's not even fixed by December!!!

Viofo abandoned this thread for a month before I joined this forum because they just weren't comfortable with a129 users saying "their A129 wasn't working properly". But you Nigel, as a little fanboy tried to say I was the reason they were avoiding this forum. WRONG!!! It was happening well before I joined!

So, we'll continue to play the game with Viofo...and we'll let current users and prospective users understand just how Viofo treats their customers.
 
I must admit, I have tried show restraint regarding issues with viofo, but I am getting annoyed.

If I hadn't had the problems with my camera the rear camera would have been connected when my car got dinged and I would have caught what happened.

This is exactly why I had parking mode set up.

I notice on the main page the A129 Duo is still rated above the mini 0906 for a dual dash cam.

I have a mini 0906 but decided to get the viofo a129 based on the recommendation of the wiki. It turns out the a129 is a lot less reliable so perhaps the wiki should be updated?

Sounds like the viofo hardwire kits might be flawed as well.

I have had loads of dashcams the last 6 years and I've never had issues, even with the really cheap ones. Should have stuck with the mini 0906 it seems.
 
A129 less reliable compared to 0906 is a joke. I expect some users to come here and tell the beep sound is bad because is not like in firmware 1.01 and because of this beep sound the camera is very bad and Viofo abandoned the users. You destroyed the camera when mounted the rear camera and you are blaming the product. From that point your camera started to fail.
To the hater which opened this thread I say that Dashcamtalk is maybe the only international forum where Viofo is active. It he wants more responses from Viofo to register to their forum and ask there because there for sure he will receive replies. Viofo are still offering updates in 2019 for dashcams made few years ago. For older models they added even new features. For free.

enjoy,
Mtz
 
I must admit, I have tried show restraint regarding issues with viofo, but I am getting annoyed.

If I hadn't had the problems with my camera the rear camera would have been connected when my car got dinged and I would have caught what happened.

This is exactly why I had parking mode set up.

I notice on the main page the A129 Duo is still rated above the mini 0906 for a dual dash cam.

I have a mini 0906 but decided to get the viofo a129 based on the recommendation of the wiki. It turns out the a129 is a lot less reliable so perhaps the wiki should be updated?

Sounds like the viofo hardwire kits might be flawed as well.

I have had loads of dashcams the last 6 years and I've never had issues, even with the really cheap ones. Should have stuck with the mini 0906 it seems.

Other than my first camera being an issue (swapped it out), the other 2 I own have been very reliable. Few glitches, A2 Extreme card works without a hitch, etc. It's the annoyances of dropped and duplicate frames that has been left unaddressed, that irks me. I realize Viofo is at the mercy of the SDK developer, but V1.11 clearly didn't have the issue. So Viofo should really be on these guys to find the problem and resolve.

Not to defend Viofo, but a lot of times camera issues are related to improper install or an incompatible SD card. I had a Sandisk Ultra and the camera absolutely was incompatible with that card. I tried in the new cameras and all it died was randomly cause the camera to free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mtz
A129 less reliable compared to 0906 is a joke. I expect some users to come here and tell the beep sound is bad because is not like in firmware 1.01 and because of this beep sound the camera is very bad and Viofo abandoned the users. You destroyed the camera when mounted the rear camera and you are blaming the product. From that point your camera started to fail.
To the hater which opened this thread I say that Dashcamtalk is maybe the only international forum where Viofo is active. It he wants more responses from Viofo to register to their forum and ask there because there for sure he will receive replies. Viofo are still offering updates in 2019 for dashcams made few years ago. For older models they added even new features. For free.

enjoy,
Mtz

My gripe is that Viofo doesn't see this issue as an immediate one, and a lot of us would disagree. I'm going to downgrade to Firmware 1.11 ASAP. I'd rather have smooth capture of any and all video than a few extra features I'll never use (buffered parking mode).

The camera is my insurance policy against people. I want assurance the camera functions properly each and every time. While Dropped frames on front camera and duplicate frames on rear will capture the accident, the consumer is not given the best possible vantage point with these issues.
 
I was probably a bit unfair with my last post.
My replacement a129 has been fine so far. The only issue I had is once while using the app and trying to start recording, I got the timeout error.
This might just be a small bug or a freak connection issue.

It's just frustrating when you rely on stuff to work. In this case however it seems I was just unlucky and got a dud.
 
I notice on the main page the A129 Duo is still rated above the mini 0906 for a dual dash cam.
I have a mini 0906 but decided to get the viofo a129 based on the recommendation of the wiki. It turns out the a129 is a lot less reliable so perhaps the wiki should be updated?
I have had loads of dashcams the last 6 years and I've never had issues, even with the really cheap ones. Should have stuck with the mini 0906 it seems.
I was probably a bit unfair with my last post.
My replacement a129 has been fine so far. The only issue I had is once while using the app and trying to start recording, I got the timeout error.
This might just be a small bug or a freak connection issue.
So 10 hours ago your Viofo was the worst dashcam you had in last 6 years and after 10 hours the Viofo is fine? How that? You received the replacement 9 hours ago and after 9 hours of tests you found only a small bug (which can be a smartphone or Android bug)?
You were not a bit unfair, you were very unfair, like a hater. The words remain here on the forum, sometimes is too late to declare that you was a bit unfair.

Also the thread title is very unfair because the viofo user is still active on the forum giving some answers. But from my 14 years of experience in forums is not good to interact with such haters like the OP because he will become more hater. Maybe the Viofo dashcams have some problems for some users, no dashcam is perfect but what did the OP is very unfair. For sure he have some problems maybe is Viofo dashcam fault or user fault but the thread title is unfair.

enjoy,
Mtz
 
Last edited:
So 10 hours ago your Viofo was the worst dashcam you had in last 6 years and after 10 hours the Viofo is fine? How that? You received the replacement 9 hours ago and after 9 hours of tests you found only a small bug (which can be a smartphone or Android bug)?
You were not a bit unfair, you were very unfair, like a hater. The words remain here on the forum, sometimes is too late to declare that you was a bit unfair.

Also the thread title is very unfair because the viofo user is still active on the forum giving some answers. But from my 14 years of experience in forums is not good to interact with such haters like the OP because he will become more hater. Maybe the Viofo dashcams have some problems for some users, no dashcam is perfect but what did the OP is very unfair. For sure he have some problems maybe is Viofo dashcam fault or user fault but the thread title is unfair.

enjoy,
Mtz

I'm the OP and I am being very fair. Viofo has categorically stated this is NOT an important issue to them. I understand the new 4K PRO is their shining star, but sidelining their current top of the line customers, is off putting. Now, I get that Viofo doesn't create their SDK. But the very least they could do is take this information and send it over to their developer for a resolution. As clearly Firmware Version (Beta) 1.11 doesn't have the issue and all others do. Which requires some investigation into what code created the problem. It's not an overnight process, but it should be getting addressed.
 
Back
Top