←back to thread

579 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
wao0uuno ◴[] No.44288283[source]
I tested meshtastic in a major european city with pretty much 100% mesh coverage and its real life performance was quite underwhelming. Often I would receive messages that I could not reply to because of differences in antenna gain and crappy mesh performance. Public chat was either completely dead or flooded with test messages. Everything was super slow because the mesh can’t actually scale that well and craps out with more than a 100 nodes. Even medium fast channel would clog up fast. I would never depend on meshtastic during an emergency because it barely works even when nobody is using it. I think a public wifi mesh would be more worthwhile. Older used wifi routers are pretty much free and in unlimited supply. They use very little power. Everyone already has a compatible client device on their pocket. Sure the mesh would fail during a total blackout but at least it would be useful for something when the power is up.
replies(8): >>44288360 #>>44288526 #>>44288738 #>>44289031 #>>44289394 #>>44289536 #>>44289709 #>>44293576 #
adrianN ◴[] No.44288738[source]
Wifi routers use quite a lot of power for the area that they can cover. Ten watts or so for a hundred square meters is a lot of you want to cover a whole city.
replies(2): >>44289168 #>>44293826 #
apitman ◴[] No.44293826[source]
Yes but in exchange you get way more bandwidth. No idea whether it would be enough to run a city-scale text network though.
replies(1): >>44294102 #
1. bigfatkitten ◴[] No.44294102[source]
With a range of maybe 100 metres line of sight, if you’re lucky.