Fs Capture
Boone Southern
When I do a screen recording using Dropbox Capture (v94.0.3), the resulting video skips and buffers upon playback. It's unwatchable. I have tried waiting for the full video to load before playing it - that does not help. I've uninstalled and reinstalled Dropbox Capture - that doesn't help. Cleared my cache too, that didn't fix it. I'm using Windows 11 on a PC, and other screen recording software does not do this (Loom, the native Microsoft screen record software, etc). The capture feature works just fine for still images so there is only a problem with screen recording. I've been using Dropbox Capture for a few months since it was in beta--this was not a problem about a month ago. Anyone have a solution?
Did this post help you? If so, give it a Like below to let us know.
Need help with something else? Ask me a question!
Find Tips & Tricks Discover more ways to use Dropbox here!
Interested in Community Groups? Click here to join!
fs capture
It's happening with anything I record. The Dropbox Capture sits in my windows tray - when I take any screen record with it, I get these skips. I tried recording something in Google Chrome, and just now I tried recording my desktop. Same skipping / buffering.
The capture attribute takes as its value a string that specifies which camera to use for capture of image or video data, if the accept attribute indicates that the input should be of one of those types.
Note: Capture was previously a Boolean attribute which, if present, requested that the device's media capture device(s) such as camera or microphone be used instead of requesting a file input.
Make sure that you have any Capture related processes closed, a reboot should get you there. Find the active Capture.ini file, usually in the installation in tools\Capture and rename it. Start Regedit.exe, find the HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\OrCAD\CaptureWorkspace key and delete it and the subkeys that belong to it, then close regedit and see if that fixes things. Get the latest hotfix.
We had an XP machine running 16.2 fine. Installed 16.3 into a new directory and it wouldn't load. Removed everything, 16.2 and 16.3 then reinstalled 16.3. Still has the same problem, when I launch orcad cis the first time it never loads. I can see the capture.exe process running in taskmgr, it grabs 50% of the CPU and will hold that for at least several hours without ever fully loading.
Me too. OrCAD Capture 16.3-p008 was working fine. All of a sudden, when I loaded it again, I would get the splash screen. A moment later the splash screen would go away, but the program window never came up. On Windows 7 when I mouse over OrCAD Capture on the task bar, I would get a short window with the program name in it, rather than a thumbnail of the main window -- I think this means the main window wasn't created yet, much less displayed. Task Manager showed the program, but not as "Not Responding". The program easily exited from task bar close window option on popup.
I have a customer who is trying to perform a packet capture on a switchport. However, when they click the stop button or wait for the specified duration, they receive the following error message: "Failed to connect to server." Has anyone experienced this issue before, or could it be due to some block on the client machine?
We have tested various computers and browsers and it appears that there is an issue specifically with the Read-only account when using SAML. However, when we attempted the same operation with the admin account, they were able to initiate and download the packet capture successfully. We have a started a case for it.
This solution sits at the bottom of the waste hierarchy. Landfill waste will decline as diets change, waste is reduced, and recycling and composting grow. Wastes that cannot, or should not, be combusted in waste-to-energy facilities will reach landfills as a last resort, where they will produce methane and other gases. Depending on the scenario, capturing and burning landfill methane to generate electricity can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3.89 gigatons or increase it by 1.48 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent over a 30-year period.
Landfill methane can be tapped, captured, and used as a fairly clean energy source for generating electricity or heat, rather than leaking into the air or being dispersed as waste. The climate benefit is twofold: prevent landfill emissions and displace coal, oil, or natural gas that might otherwise be used.
Project Drawdown defines our Landfill Methane Capture solution as the process of capturing methane generated from municipal solid waste in landfills and burning the captured biogas to generate electricity. This solution replaces conventional electricity-generating technologies such as coal, oil, and natural gas power plants.
Landfill methane capture can achieve 85 percent efficiency or more in closed and engineered landfills; it is least effective in open dumps, where the collection efficiency is approximately 10 percent and capture is typically not seen as economically favorable. As a waste treatment solution, landfill methane capture is seen as a last resort and is preferred only to landfilling without methane capture. However, where landfills exist it is an important solution for mitigating greenhouse gases.
This analysis models the impacts of the adoption of landfill methane capture for electricity generation and gas flaring. Landfill methane capture is a mature technology that has been used widely for decades.
We based the total addressable market for the Landfill Methane Capture solution on projected global electricity generation from 2020 to 2050. The total addressable market is different for the two adoption scenarios because Scenario 2 projects extensive electrification of transportation, space heating, etc., dramatically increasing demand and therefore production of electricity worldwide.
We estimated current adoption (the amount of functional demand supplied in 2018) at 33.1 terawatt-hours, or 0.13 percent of total electricity generated worldwide. Total adoption estimates vary widely because different sources place a different value on biomass and waste for energy.
The sources we used do not distinguish between landfill methane capture and biogas technologies for electricity generation; instead, their results combine biomass and waste for electricity generation. To determine future adoption, we assumed that biogas represents around 20 percent of total electricity generation from bioenergy worldwide, and biogas from landfills covered within this solution represents 30 percent of total biogas. The remaining 70 percent is covered by methane capture from agriculture, manure, and wastewater.
We calculated impacts of increased adoption of landfill methane capture from 2020 to 2050 by comparing two growth scenarios with a reference scenario in which the market share was fixed at current levels.
We estimated landfill methane capture emission rates using the first-order decay method recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in order to estimate both total emissions reductions for landfill gas-to-electricity generation and an increase in landfill gas flaring for the reference scenario.
The financial inputs used assume installation costs of US$1,921 per kilowatt. Due to the maturity of landfill methane capture technology, we applied a learning rate of 2 percent. We used an average capacity factor of 80 percent, compared with 55 percent for conventional technologies, and an average fixed operation and maintenance cost of US$237.2 per kilowatt, compared with US$34.7 per kilowatt for conventional technologies.
In integrating Landfill Methane Capture with other solutions, we adjusted the total addressable market for electricity generation technologies to account for reduced demand due to the growth of energy-efficiency solutions (e.g., LED Lighting and High-Efficiency Heat Pumps) as well as increased electrification from other solutions such as Electric Cars and High-Speed Rail. We calculated grid emissions factors based on the annual mix of different electricity-generating technologies over time. We determined direct and indirect emissions factors for each technology were determined through a meta-analysis of multiple sources.
59fb9ae87f