panorama software,virtual tour software
Alternate Text
Joined: 2008-10-03
Send Msg:
Posts: 10
I have talked about the problem of the loading speed with the support.
They said that they were able to solve the problem by the next update.
About when it is possible to update it : though there is no answer.
The material that I passed is the following.
Comparison of loading time
The test result in the tour of Paul was added at the end.

In the test of the EP team, it is a result that the loading of TW4 is slightly fast when there is no cache.
The result is different depending on the Internet line quality in each country.
I think that it becomes reference of the EP team if it tests on various conditions.

The EP team says that they understood the cause and the solution.
I am hoping for the option addition of the data lookahead for cache of TW3.
This seems not to be understood.

How do you think?


Alternate Text
Joined: 2007-10-04
Send Msg:
Posts: 111

This is why I will wait for the update before I buy TW4.  My results were as follows.
TW3- 21 seconds for tour to load completely and show first scene

TW4 Normal publish.- 38 seconds to load first scene. Not only twice as long but had to wait for evey scene to load when I click on the hotspot. (Does TW4 not preload images in the backround like TW3?)

TW4-Slice publish - 1 MINUTE and 12 seconds for the first scene to be complete. Again had to wait almost a minute for the next picture to load. I hope this is changed in the update.

I want the new functions of TW4,  but I am going to wait for update as many others have stated.



Alternate Text
Joined: 2006-05-29
Send Msg:
Posts: 134
Thanks Masayuki & DaMan for testing my simple samples. If TW4 loads so slowly with a small 3mb tour can you imagine how long it would take for one 10 times the size!

I sent a ticket in regarding the slow loading of TW4 and again added in the sub standard of the viewer.

Here is the reply: -

Thanks very much for contacting Easypano.

Your feedback has been submitted to our R&D Deparment. And our programmers have already been trying their best to improve the flash player of tourweaver 4.0, believe the update version will be released in the near future. Thanks for your carefully checking and sincere suggestions. Your patience and understanding will be highly appreciated.   BTW: In tourweaver publish setting, the "Flash VR" option, don't tick"Indicate Load Progress...". Maybe it will save you some loading time.

Maybe some progress, I'm not sure! Why should I want to turn off the progress loading bar? We have a loading bar in TW3 that works fine, it's a function I want to use in my tours and do use in other software to produce my work.

TW4 is simply not loading in the background; each image/pano seems to load when you come to it, thus losing any effect of a smooth walkthrough.

This is very frustrating as I paid for the software upgrade when it was first released but I can't and will not use it until these problems are eliminated.

TW4 offers many great new features and there are always bugs that will crop up in any software development, but TW4 in my opinion has gone backwards because of these two main issues: - viewer quality and slow tour loading.



Alternate Text
Joined: 2003-05-09
Send Msg:
Posts: 348

I limited my speed to 8 kb using Netlimiter 2 Pro, to see how the tour loads.

To me it seems that only the 1 scene is loaded. No download of aditional scenes in the background seems to be done. Is this correct.

It would be nice that while you are on scene 1 all the next scenes would download in the back to be cached.

Am I doing something wrong or is this just how TW 4. works?

Regards Markus

Nikon D70s, Sigma 8 mm, 4 to 12 shots, Agnos MrotatorTShort, PTGui, PS CS3, and lots of other software :-)
Alternate Text
Joined: 2008-10-03
Send Msg:
Posts: 10
TW4 doesn't preload the image of the background like TW3 as understood with this Activity list.
However, E-mail of correcting it with next update was gotten several hours ago.

About slice publish.
Only Japan is a target of my tour.
There is no reason to select the slice.
I set it to JPEG quality 100 without thinking well.
Therefore, the test of slice was not realistic.