|
By:
This new format came about because flash was being discontinued and the touted alternatives were very slow. So from the point of view of the developers "success" is going to be measured as returning to the speed of the flash format. So it's going to be difficult to push for an improvement.
|
|
By:
Dave, they were as fast without flash as they ever were, infact they were the fastest LV I’ve seen.
On Barry Orr’s lack of comment, it doesn’t surprise me. Picture speeds are out of bf’s hands, talking them up would only open a can of worms highlighting how they provide the markets while others make us of a clandestine rights allocation. |
|
By:
Picture speeds are out of bf’s hands
---------------------------------------- can't agree with that dusty... Betfair does a heck of a lot of sponsorship on RTV... to think they couldn't 'up the ante' a bit (if they wanted to) seems pretty laughable to me... and let's not forget RTV only has some of it's customers due to in running on Betfair... i wouldn't subscribe to RTV if it wasn't for in running for example... and i doubt i'm the only one... |
|
By:
Dave, they were as fast without flash as they ever were
Are you sure? I thought that they reverted to flash? |
|
By:
seems to be the case according to this thread
https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/31610127/in-running-fixed?post_id=558669507#558669507#flvWelcomeHeader . |
|
By:
Were the tests using flash, cos I can’t recall now?
Would be a remarkably silly thing to me if they were given the product being on it’s last legs. |
|
By:
never grasped why ruk would allow a 0.5 stream for free thus probably losing every ruk subscription..and teething problems my 4rse..they know how it worked during the trials.
|
|
By:
^^no the tests were the new format
|
|
By:
The history of this issue is
flash being decommissioned betfair supplier decommissions early and uses another format this format extremely slow causing outcry betfair reverts to flash until a low latency substitute for flash can be implemented. |
|
By:
I thought the books wanted a fast feed for customers to encourage `cash out' which is their biggest margin product?
|
|
By:
We know from the trials that 0.6 delay is possible but that was achieved by sending the raw pics direct from the track to our pc's. The pictures we got yesterday were processed (bookmaker odds etc added). So these pictures are no doubt sent from the track to the studio, processed and then sent to us. The extra steps creates a similar delay to those of the tv pictures which work in the same way.
The title 'watch and bet' suggests its been set up for in-running betting but have the waters have been muddied by the subscription channel pandering to the bookmakers again? |
|
By:
In other words, pics are being transmitted "raw", with the 0.6 sec delay, before the bells and whistles "processing" occurs. Which makes the job of being one of the "processors" a mighty lucrative one.
|
|
By:
HTML5 is the (partial) answer but it would seem they're not looking for the answer. It's used for fast LV elsewhere with very good speeds
|
|
By:
The model of 'raw' pics streamed direct to the end-user from the track wouldn't work because bandwidth on the fibre to the track would be quickly consumed
A single uncompressed instance of the service will be sent from the track to HQ or a CDN Most likely, LV originates from RTV, the graphics are proof of which. The bells & whistles could conceivably add delay, although the transcoding is also a factor |
|
By:
big cat , how do you know some much about streaming of pics ?
|
|
By:
prosniper : No doubt everyone hopes it's #3..but that's an unlikely longshot imo. I'd make it 11/2 - 1/5 - 33/1
i'll take the 33/1 price to whatever liability you can afford |
|
By:
big cat, as dustybin said they did it before to a mass audience with .6 (which is the delay of a raw picture), rather that make excuses for them i think we need them to give answers, something has changed, racing was in mire even before the this recession, they are the first sport back in the uk and could have potentially created new interest in the sport with this
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
That's a very educated guess you have there, bigcat. No vested interest I hope!
As has already been pointed out above, they already had lv to .6 during the trial and it worked absolutely fine. Have they forgotten what they done during said trial when the pics were .6 behind live? Have they forgotten all the meetings they had with the bootman and members of this forum on the importance of fast speeds/latency? Why did Kempton play miles worse than Newcastle yesterday when both were meant to be level playing fields? |
|
By:
Possibly because Kempton is a much harder track to play for most in running players than Newcastle.
|
|
By:
Newcastle isn't usually great either, especially since flash was removed and the pics went 1.5ish behind live.
The winners at Kempton were 1.01 when in 2nd/3rd a few times yesterday. I'd say a few were playing at the track off fast pics at Kempton but none are playing from the track at Newcastle just now. Begs the question, who? But answers the question as to why the rtv lv is still so slow despite all the promises |
|
By:
A couple of the trials were at kempton and the difference to yesterday was evident.
No point skirting around the issue. |
|
By:
I didn't see the trial. I'd imagine that Kempton was harder because there was trading activity at the track (despite the restrictions)
I don't know why the new service is not delivering low latency. I have no idea, other than guessing. I'd like to see the .6 level playing field to rid the world desperate drone morons and so on |
|
By:
thebootman...
have you had any feedback from RTV overnight regarding the speeds of their pics on BLV...? or will it all just be ignored until we deal with the fact that the pics won't be speeded up after all and we will just have to like it or lump it...? seems to me there is a heck of a lot of silence on this matter... considering it was all 'this is a game-changer' when that RTV survey thingy was done about half a year ago now... |
|
By:
better today
|
|
By:
here is the youtube video that triggered the 'game-changer' responses btw...
pretty laughable when you look at how it has panned out really... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwDvXwfyMsw&feature=youtu.be |
|
By:
Agree better today though not as fast as the trial IMO.
|
|
By:
marginally better agreed
|
|
By:
It's about a tenth faster, that's just not good enough
Absolute p1ss take |
|
By:
At least there is a noticeable difference, no question about that.
|
|
By:
the increase in speed can be seen on the clock too
nearer 2s ahead of RTV where it was around 1s yesterday |
|
By:
faster than rtv?
|
|
By:
an improvement overnight of 0.1 seconds...
good god it's laughable... agree entirely with jamesdean... |
|
By:
I'd say its a little more, perhaps 0.3
|
|
By:
so still just .7 of a second slower than the trial hibby
great innit, absolute joke |
|
By:
dusty...
no point the clock being 2 secs faster if the pics are about 0.1 seconds faster... |
|
By:
More than 0.1 for certain
|
|
By:
I mean the clock was about 1s, perhaps a little over ahead
Now its nearly 2s, meaning all things being equal the difference between the two can be seen in the clock |
|
By:
How are guys able to time a fraction of a second please?
|
|
By:
Yes, it's more than 0.1.
|