@philippe
I agree with the these positive points, except that it is not yet a great solution.

The big missing feature is the ability for a door bell press to ring a smart phone, like a normal phone call or or internet call app like WhatsApp/Signal and automatically open the Reolink client for the doorbell with video and audio presented.

The notification to the smart phone of too messy and cumbersome for interacting with a person at the door. The time it takes to act on a notification and all the manual process necessary, the person at the door would be gone.

I realise Reolink are working on implementing some smart home features like Google Home/Alexa support, which is all good, but the more basic features are needed first

I guess it can be implemented easily enough using SIP, so hopefully this can be rectified soon in updated firmware,

@510048640204928
@reolink-fiona 
Yes. When is it, or is it ever going to be available in Australia? My PoE cable from the Reolink NVR has been hanging out the brick wall next to my front door for many months now in anticipation.

It would be better if Reolink came clean and told us the reason for the availability problem. I doubt it has anything to do with the sales team and more likely manufacturing/supply issues in China. Or possibly Reolink has limited the supply of this first generation doorbell due to a pending announcement of a 2nd generation that will address many of the limiting design aspects of this first gen one (eg limited field of view - maybe needs dual camera's)..

@pierre-gielen_288801745879289

I read somewhere on Reddit that this message to install a legacy version of DirectX must be a bug due to sloppy coding.

The suspicion about the nature of this bug is that it is detecting to verify DirectX is installed, but instead of checking for a minimum version or greater, it is checking that the minimum version is installed. Therefore the workaround would be to ignore the message as in all probability, the currently installed version of DirectX is already adequate work the Relink client.

Can anyone confirm if this new version still requires DirectX or not?

@joseph_1979
Thanks, I was well aware you are a customer just like me. I also am very familiar with regression testing large systems - in my case as an architect in telco routed and switched networks.

@joseph_1979 So it looks like they are going to keep pushing out versions with buggy new features but not any maintenance updates to create a stable release.

Would you know if this v8.13.0 beta continued to use DirectX?

@ecri_153017360044193

After waiting patiently for a response here from Reolink on what they are doing to address these issues with v8.12.1, I too have downgraded to a less problematic version as no response seems to be forthcoming.

For me that is v8.11.0. Will wait for a new release that has been beta tested (or bleeding edge forum member reviews/comments if it goes straight to general release) before attempting an upgrade again.

We need an explanation on why these files from an old version of DirectX are needed.

Or are they needed?

What doesn't work if they are not installed?

Is the new 64 bit client using some software library that is dependent on an old version of DirectX? It just make no sense to me.

Where has Fiona from Reolink gone to tell us what is going on?

@pierre-gielen_288801745879289

I read somewhere on Reddit that this message to install a legacy version of DirectX must be a bug due to sloppy coding.

The suspicion about the nature of this bug is that it is detecting to verify DirectX is installed, but instead of checking for a minimum version or greater, it is checking that the minimum version is installed. Therefore the workaround would be to ignore the message as in all probability, the currently installed version of DirectX is already adequate work the Relink client.

@garywelch_504848912371852
The enabling "Hardware Decoding First". fixed the problem for me as well. It should work without having to do this though, so I should call it a workaround rather than a fix.
Thanks @garywelch_504848912371852.

@joseph_1979 Yes I did try native connection via WIFI without VPN enabled very briefly once and this worked - as expected.

@joseph_1979 Thanks for your suggestions. I have an update based on my Japan travel experience.

I had been using a private VPN (ExpressVPN), as I would never connect via a public WiFi these days without one.

I found that connection to the cameras was possible from some WiFi networks (mostly private WiFi networks such as hotels and restaurants were more successful compared to public free WiFi's of transport hubs) only by enabling split tunneling for the Reolink application (an ExpressVPN feature setting). So essentially allowing the Reolink app protocol ports to bypa*s the VPN.

I did not test further with mobile network connectivity as I turned Telstra roaming off (didn't want to pay the $10 per day cost).

It would still be nice though to have IPv6 functionality to avoid the CG-NAT issue.

I might see if I can get a free static IP address from Telstra Mobile, but think this would be unlikely. I might have more success in getting a dynamic public IP address that is not using CG-NAT if that could solve the issue of access to the cameras over Telstra Mobile in Australia.

I have been remotely connecting to cameras at my parents house and vice versa for a couple of years now. I opted out of cg-nat for the ISP at each house and all works fine. Could never connect over the mobile network though (Telstra Australia).

I am overseas now but cannot access the cameras from any public WiFi.

Could the reason be that it is a cg- nat issue at the source end (my end using the Reolink client). If so, maybe IPv6 is an only possible solution if Reolink would support it in the future?