No need to keep repeating this nearly every post!
I suspect it passed the temperature tests and met the requirement specification, until the EMI shielding was "improved". Yes somebody did a bad job on that, but the camera is overall pretty good, as you said, great lenses, solid construction, good features, and one of the very first dashcams to provide 3 channel recording. Mistakes are made in most developments, so give them a chance to correct that one mistake and we will have a great camera.
@EGS asked me about it as have others. So I've repeated myself to answer their questions.
It's to be seen whether the EMI shield is the issue or not. I'll know next week. I'm first going to try SOC/CPU ---> Artic-MX4 --> Copper Plate. More Artic MX-4 to EMI Heat Shield. And then I've removed some of the tape on the EMI to allow the heatsink better contact over the shield and SOC/CPU. Course the heatsink will have thermal paste connecting it to the shield.
If the camera still fails, I'll try heatsink direct to copper plate.
I won't assume anything at this level. I know for a fact there's a design flaw and whether or not the simple fix is better cooling is to be determined.
one of the very first dashcams to provide 3 channel recording. Mistakes are made in most developments, so give them a chance to correct that one mistake and we will have a great camera.
The Vantrue N4 offers 3 channel recording, albeit the T3 is the first 3 channel with low bitrate parking mode. Unfortunately, the camera overheats during regular recording and parking mode. So we've got an issue. Design flaws happen. It's how the manufacturer reacts and corrects that matters. I'm a person that works on actions. Actions speak louder than words.
@Zenfox_Official's absence is worrisome. If I just spent a large amount of money on a product and found there was a design flaw, I'd be gathering as much data and input as possible.
You don't get second chances on first impressions!
The cameras were sent out for testing, the purpose of testing is to find the problems, problems are expected to be found, and then fixed. Nobody has been "screwed over", it is just part of the process, the end result is what matters.
Unfortunately, the camera was sent out for testing
and offered for sale! I realize the urge to recoup one's investment is strong. No one likes being out a lot of money in the beginning stages of a business venture. Unfortunately, you have to crawl before you walk, and walk before you run. I would be less concerned if we were the only people who had their hands on the product, but we are not. I would also be less concerned if
@Zenfox_Official was regularly here posting updates about what's being tested successfully or unsuccessfully to resolve the problem.
As we know by this stage, a firmware update may be needed, but it isn't going to provide a solution.
