@David-TP Thank you, David. I managed to apply the firmware to each unit, and the difference, as you can see comparing my pings from the first posts, are night and day

The left is one of the 2.4ghz cameras as pinged in earlier posts. I can also see when scanning the wifi bands, that the channels are now separated, and 2 of them seem to be using the 20Mhz channel width. When I had scanned prior, they were basically all 40mhz and just stacked up on top of each other on the same channel.  Just for info, and I am sure it is expected. The 2 S7's are still on the 40mhz channel width, but the reduction of overlapping overall appears to have made it much better.

So, I will do a longer-term test over this week and update here to be sure, but, at first glance, this appears MUCH better. Thank you.  

 

pjs_gsy wrote

  @ARGamingPK1 Interesting.Not sure I would want to do that given the security risk, but I will try it temporarily and see if it helps. Thanks.

 

ah, nope. Still the same!

 

inging 192.168.2.32 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=343ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=819ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=64
Request timed out.
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=326ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=64

  @pjs_gsy Same IP, after BETA

Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.32: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=64

Yes, there is jitter, but, far less variance, and no dropouts.

  @ARGamingPK1 Hardwired to lan PC. new BETA has resolved it, though I still have 1 camera (a tplink one) that cannot reconnect