D-Link Forums

Software => D-ViewCam => Topic started by: SFP on February 09, 2010, 07:25:52 AM

Title: Dview 3.0 and DCS-900a / 950
Post by: SFP on February 09, 2010, 07:25:52 AM
First I want to say THANK YOU for a revision to the Dview Cam software to v3.0. I've had it running for around 24 hours now and everything that I want it to do it seems to be doing well, with extra options built in there that I know I can use in the future. I appreciate it.

I have several cameras (9 total at the moment) and I'm having an issue with getting the older ones to work with V3.0. The 900b and the 910's I can get to work. The ones that I cannot seem to get connected are the DCS-900a, DCS-900w, and the DCS-950's (Total of 4). Are they compatible with the new software, and if not are there plans for the future to allow them to communicate with V3.0?

Is there a workaround for this?

Thank you in advance, and any input would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Dview 3.0 and DCS-900a / 950
Post by: ECF on February 10, 2010, 01:44:55 PM
Some of the older cameras that are not on the list when manually adding cameras cannot be added. I am looking into seeing if they can be supported in the next update to the software. Hopefully...
Title: Re: Dview 3.0 and DCS-900a / 950
Post by: toppy on April 08, 2010, 04:59:38 AM
Did you find out if there are hopes of supporting the DCS-900a/950?  How did you add the DCS-900b?  I uninstalled 3.0 already because of lack of support, but don't remember seeing a DCS-900b option?
Title: Re: Dview 3.0 and DCS-900a / 950
Post by: ECF on April 20, 2010, 11:30:34 AM
No confirmation of certainty yet.
Title: Re: Dview 3.0 and DCS-900a / 950
Post by: jeffjohn on June 09, 2010, 06:09:50 AM
PLEASE allow access to my DCS-900 cameras; spoiling an otherwise good experience of DView3.0.  Is there no way of adding a script?  jeff
Title: Re: Dview 3.0 and DCS-900a / 950
Post by: jeffjohn on June 10, 2010, 12:49:13 AM
Well, encouraged by SFP, I 'renamed' my DCS-900b as a -910 and connected via TCP...ignored all conflict warnings ,and ........it works!
Title: Re: Dview 3.0 and DCS-900a / 950
Post by: SFP on June 10, 2010, 05:37:05 AM
I'm glad it worked for you.

I've seen mention of a 3.01 version being worked on, but have not seen it released. Do we know if that version will support some of the older cameras yet?

900a, 900w, and 950's are what i'm concerned about.

Thank you in advance.
Title: Re: Dview 3.0 and DCS-900a / 950
Post by: Mackerel on June 11, 2010, 09:32:24 PM
V3.01 is out there, not sure if that version is the one we would get 'here'. It is in Taiwan, and I will look up the thread in this forum. I am using it, and have not found any new bugs, related to V3.00. Some things are a bit smoother, but no dramatic changes to V3.00...

Please try version 3.01 available at http://tsd.dlink.com.tw it is listed under DCS-100. If this version still has this issue I will report the issue to Product Management. Unfortunately my monitor does not support this high of resolution or I would check it out myself.
Title: Re: Dview 3.0 and DCS-900a / 950
Post by: mkrinc on June 19, 2010, 03:22:16 PM
I've been playing with 3.0 and I got my Dcs G900W's to work. Used dview cam 2.04 to change the model name to "dcs-920-(3 digit-IP)" then manually added them in 3.0. In 3.0 I told it they were 910 cams and after it gave me the warning parameters it came up. I have no tried going wireless on these yet. But even with 2.4 I ran wired because they would never reliablely stay connected via wireless.
Hope that helps. email me if you learned anything else.
Thanks
 Have not tried 3.1 yet, but am running this on windows 7 without problems yet.
Title: Re: Dview 3.0 and DCS-900a / 950
Post by: Mackerel on June 19, 2010, 11:35:40 PM
I have no tried going wireless on these yet. But even with 2.4 I ran wired because they would never reliablely stay connected via wireless.
I run all of mine wired. Because of the bandwidth and 'nearness to each other' I noticed some loss, limiting the output to a much lower standard. With wired I can go fairly high on quality and size of image. Takes quite some gigs per hour, but disk is cheap...