Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="velis" data-source="post: 728776" data-attributes="member: 96429">Precisely. The funny thing I found was that even if I had buffer set to 1MB, I would never get more than 1360 bytes from it. So if I am not reading fast enough, I'll miss the packet.If what you say is correct, that means there's no need for grabber thread. Just set a timer to read once in 30 ms and then read the entire 250 KB, passing it directly to DirectShow chain.No stutter, no lost packets, no fuss...Though I must say current code of your version does support this. Otherwise sleep(10) when no data had been read would lose huge packet numbers. But then again, such was the original code (it had sleep(1)) and it lost packets like crazy <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite5" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":confused:" />Edit: BTW: after 2 hrs, no stuttering. So your filter looks really good so far</blockquote>

[QUOTE="velis, post: 728776, member: 96429"] Precisely. The funny thing I found was that even if I had buffer set to 1MB, I would never get more than 1360 bytes from it. So if I am not reading fast enough, I'll miss the packet. If what you say is correct, that means there's no need for grabber thread. Just set a timer to read once in 30 ms and then read the entire 250 KB, passing it directly to DirectShow chain. No stutter, no lost packets, no fuss... Though I must say current code of your version does support this. Otherwise sleep(10) when no data had been read would lose huge packet numbers. But then again, such was the original code (it had sleep(1)) and it lost packets like crazy :S Edit: BTW: after 2 hrs, no stuttering. So your filter looks really good so far [/QUOTE]

Verification