|
By:
google stopwatch
|
|
By:
Yeah I'll take the .1 back .3 faster, that is still a good way off the trial, way over half a second slower
We shdnt be settling for that when know they can do much better, it's no way near good enough |
|
By:
it's quite funny james...
if you look at the youtube video where they showed you the format of the pictures and asked for comments... from what i can tell it is exactly the same as what they have produced since yesterday... so instead of asking 'what do you think'... they should have just said 'this is what you are getting like it or lump it'... the whole thing is a farce if you ask me... but i ain't surprised in the slightest... |
|
By:
same as yesterday, ever so slightly (possibly 0.2 approx secs) in front of RTV via sky (W10 on Firefox) which is technically an improvement in my experience as it used to be that these RTV tracks via BLV were 0.5-1.5 behind RTV via sky. I think we're just gutted as 0.6 was floated as a likely possibility but still grateful for the effort - I love technical improvement
|
|
By:
so dusty...
are you saying today's Kempton pics are 1 second faster than yesterdays...? not here they ain't... i'm sticking to the 0.1 sec improvement... 0.2 secs at a push... nowhere near 1 sec tho... |
|
By:
I think we're just gutted as 0.6 was floated as a likely possibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------ i think you will find 0.4 secs was the original 'promise' IRE... |
|
By:
probably just put it slightly faster i.e .3 so we just fk off hibby
keeps the trackies and facetimers happy, still gives them huge advantage and hopefully, for them, shuts us up again, absolutely no where near good enough and they know it. Get it to the speeds of the trial |
|
By:
sorry for double post
|
|
By:
didn't see that hibby but we're on the same page as far as estimation of the difference to RTV via SKY. Does anyone know the difference between RTV via SKY and RTV via Virgin Media please?
|
|
By:
the youtube video where it shows you 'live' then '2020' then '2019' is quite funny james...
just shows you how ridiculous the last 2 days have been... |
|
By:
HappyHibby
03 Jun 20 12:10 Joined: 18 Oct 02 | Topic/replies: 12,673 | Blogger: HappyHibby's blog ------------------------------------------------------------------------ i think you will find 0.4 secs was the original 'promise' IRE... Without wanting to be pedantic,i dont think it was a "promise". |
|
By:
it was certainly trailed as 'we will be 0.4 secs behind live' DOUBLED...
turns out we are now about 0.2 secs faster than we were... which by my reckoning is pathetic. |
|
By:
The trial was just rubbing it in our faces before throwing us crumbs. Whether its 0.1 or 0.3 secs faster, it's crumbs.
|
|
By:
absolutely spot on john...
|
|
By:
it was certainly trailed as 'we will be 0.4 secs behind live' DOUBLED..
they never said 0.4 behind live. between 0.6 - 1 second , probably 0.7 this is only the second day of the "new" stream, might be a few things to iron out |
|
By:
you are incorrect pablo.
|
|
By:
'0.4 secs behind live' was the revelation...
|
|
By:
post it where they said this please HH
|
|
By:
Whichever way you cut it, it's improved from yesterday, there's nothing to say that this is where it stops, so let's see where it ends up in a week or so.
|
|
By:
not got a clue pablo...
do you think i take a note of every single thing that is said on here...? i distinctly recall 0.4 secs was the claim... look at the youtube video... looks like 0.4 secs to me... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwDvXwfyMsw&feature=youtu.be |
|
By:
Hibby
No I was saying the clock was around 1s by eye, and its now around 2s by eye perhaps over 1s yesterday and now under 2s today Wesdag Got to be sharp in this game |
|
By:
will keep an eye on it during this race dusty...
|
|
By:
HH , 0.6 was the claim by users on here
|
|
By:
well we've got 1.6, whats a second between mates
![]() |
|
By:
ok pablo...
i just made up the 0.4 second claim... you win. well done. |
|
By:
RTV clock on BLV is approx 2 secs faster than the one on ch426...
i agree dusty... so i think that is 1 second more than it was yesterday... but the pics are approx 0.3 secs at a push faster... all very weird imv... |
|
By:
oh and my BLV paused on that Kempton race just as they reached the home straight...
pure coincidence again i think... |
|
By:
no need to be like that HH
if i'm wrong no problem . can someone confirm how far behind everyone thought the faster stream was behind live thanks |
|
By:
clear your cookies etc
|
|
By:
Well its quicker than yesterday lets see what happens over the next few days keep at them Bootman.
|
|
By:
yes, going in the right direction. Another .6 faster and they will have it to the speeds they said they would
|
|
By:
Considering that RTV HD pics are different gravy from BLV pic quality, 0.3 between the two is not worth it, imho.
|
|
By:
Another .6 faster and they will have it to the speeds they said they would
which is what ? |
|
By:
can someone confirm how far behind everyone thought the faster stream was behind live
during the trial it was close to ft..so -.4 imo. |
|
By:
Personally I get that as fast as the old Flash live video player, when we changed the setting to 0, probably around 0.5 seconds behind the trial speed.
|
|
By:
.5 to .6 pablo as was the speeds during the test/trial
|
|
By:
during the trial it was close to ft..so -.4 imo.
apologies HH , you are correct . thanks willie, i thought it was agreed that the pics were 0.6 behind live |
|
By:
thanks JD
so , did the forum suggest the speeds were 0.6 , but RUK said they would be as fast as 0.4 ? |
|
By:
thebootmn...
when are we getting to the 0.4 or 0.6 secs behind 'live' that we were promised and was clearly visible in that youtube video...? you are not to blame personally but you are the one who is speaking to the people that count... can you give us some sort of idea why this is so hard to achieve please...??? |