• sqweeeeeeee@fosscad.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I wonder why Meshtastic didn’t just duplicate APRS design for the most part. The routing in APRS seems far superior

    • mmmac@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      APRS routing is not adaptive to moving topology; Meshtastic explicitly supports mobile nodes and dynamic meshes

      MT is more meant for flexible, off-grid, ad-hoc meshes with mixed mobile/static nodes and evolving routing optimizations

      In my opinion, faux unicast on a broadcast medium is generally not a good fit

      • sqweeeeeeee@fosscad.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Yeah, I was misremembering exactly how APRS worked. I had a higher power mobile in my vehicle set up to digipeat packets from my handheld, but I guess that most mobile/handheld APRS radios are not digipeating. I just liked that with APRS the repeating stations name was appended to the packet, and I also liked that you could specify a path if desired.

        Sometimes I am using meshtastic with just a couple of nodes in the middle of nowhere, and it currently works great for that. But at my house I’ve got a rooftop node, and then there is a mountaintop repeater many miles away that the rooftop node can hit, and a static node in FarAwayTown on the other side of the mountain. If I were able to set a path to “hop3” in the first scenario, but change it to “rooftop,mountaintop,FarAwayTown,hop3”, it would allow me to communicate to those in FarAwayTown without bogging down the local mesh. I was pretty stoked that I could create solar meshtastic nodes to stick on a rooftop or nearby mountaintop for less than $20 to extend range, but doing so seems to cause a lot of congestion locally.

        Then again, it is likely that I have no idea what I am talking about and need to study up on meshtastic 😆 I’m pretty new to this.