@Noah4x4 I'm not sure where you are in your venture even with reading most of your posts. As a network engineer myself, you could have saved a boatload of money just hiring a consultant for a few hours to tell you what you needed.
Didn't you end up just running an active HDMI cable? This is the best and most elegant solution. I did the same thing. I have a dedicated NUC on my outside patio for the scope. I ran both a Cat5e cable (1Gbps network) and an active HDMI cable from my NUC, up the inside of my patio wall, through the attic, and down the inside of my living room wall to the back of my Denon AVR. I have an ethernet switch back there that I back haul to my cable modem in another room (via a pipe duct in that same wall back up into the attic) That way I can control the scope from my living room on my 60" TV. I then ran a 15 meter active USB 3 cable from the NUC to the scope for the camera.
If we are talking distances greater than 100 meters of ethernet cabling, then running fiber would have been my second option. Barring that, then wireless would have been the way to go but would have necessitated a MUCH more complicated network approach. In other words, wireless would have been my last NOT first choice.
I would have setup a dedicated wireless AP just for the outside scope/NUC and then would have had to setup PtP links in order to back haul that back to my wired network in my house.
Hopefully you got everything figured out. Next time, seek out he help of professionals and get it done right the first time!
Why do you conclude I didn't seek professional advice?
What you also don't say is the specification of your camera. This challenge is easy until you get into the realms of 16K megapixels and desire using a 4K UHD monitor as your display. I was told by three separate IT Professional pals that it was not possible to send 4K screen data over domestic wireless. Until two weeks ago, I accepted that advice, albeit it is wrong. Why would I want to pay for wrong advice?
My objective was to create a wholly WIRELESS system capable of handling 4K UHD 'end to end'. The most popular route is two wirelessly networked computers and Windows Remote Desktop (or TeamViewer etc). But this route will indeed probably FAIL with a 16 megapixel or greater resolution camera unless you disable RemoteFX compression as described.
As I said, I spoke to a number of IT Professionals, plus Cloudy Nights has many knowledgeable people and was repeatedly told it could not be done except by cable. During a year of activity involving a number of contributors chasing the same broad goals nobody ever mentioned the possibility of tweaking RemoteFX compression limits until james7ca and we have both since explored it and can confirm it works. However, the relevant Microsoft technical paper dates from 2007.
One contributor in another forum has since requested that we "don't do this on any commercial network that he manages" (fair enough!) as it is designed to avoid any single user from throttling the network. But it is patently a 'hidden' secret that the professionals either don't know or they don't want us amateurs to know. Yes, based on the professional advice I was given, I did attempt a myriad of cabled solutions like that you describe and yes, like you I succeeded with cat6a cable, which, due to my circumstances could not be permanent cable. However, there was still a trace of lag due to RemoteFX compression restricting screen data flow to under 10Mbps even over cat6a cable.
The significance of what james7ca discovered and first posted is that over a local WAN/LAN a wireless solution is possible avoiding the hassle of any cables. Frankly, it would not surprise me if I soon read of somebody that succeeds with an 'end to end 4k UHD system using merely a Win10 Pro Compute Stick and battered old laptop because they have disabled RemoteFX compression. ....no cables.
It would be irresponsible to encourage anybody to do this over the Internet or any other commercial network. But it is an innovation that anybody can embrace on their private WAN/LAN. Relatively few people have 4K CMOS cameras, but their number is fast growing. I suspect it won't be long before we see the next generation of (say) 8K cameras. My redundant DSLR has already 24 megapixels. I make no apology for ignoring professional advice and embracing this in my own back yard.
Just looked up the typical cost of the 'professional' wireless AP solution that you have recommended. That would have cost me more than my entire rig. As I said, I reckon it is possible to build a 4K wireless system using very inexpensive components if you disable RemoteFX compression. However, it is NOT advisable on a mutli-user commercial network. Hence the difference of opinion between professionals and amateurs like me.
Edited by Noah4x4, 10 March 2019 - 10:24 AM.