Hi, I’ve noticed when using the Location function in the IOS app (iPhone XR) the location dot does not move - it stays wherever I (it) was when first displaying that screen. When I switch to Topo mode (I have a Gotenna+ subscription) the dot does move with our position. Turning off Topo leaves the dot at the new position but again stationary. Sometimes I would like to see and follow my position on the regular streetmap rather than the Topo, or somewhere I haven’t downloaded the Topo. Is this normal and/or is there a way to get a moving position on the regular map? Thanks.
2 Likes
Hi. I would love to have possibility to relay traffic through Internet. This way, I could have one goTenna device with me, relays on both home and office, and being able to connect and communicate from all locations.
Also, there should be a public SDK key, on which everyone would be able to check the system out before registering for private SDK key.
3 Likes
Can you please make the North direction red on compass in maps? Its currently its white. Red is traditional and familiar to most compass users.Thanks!
2 Likes
Received my goTenna devices. Trying hook everything up … and get it working … while also getting familiar with the website and all that comes with it.
Noticed some areas of improvement that are needed:
-
Should include a paper user manual in the box. Doesn’t have to be elaborate, but something.
-
Online manual should be easier to find. I had to dig around to find it.
-
No where in the manual did it state how long it takes to charge the device. Should state something like 1 hour or however long it takes. Furthermore, to be quite frank, the devices should already come charged.
-
The on/off (power) button is not that noticeable. You need to make it more noticeable via raised circle with a notch in it … as most electronic devices have.
-
On the app when it asks if you want to synch your contacts, it should state whether or not they’ll get a message from goTenna. As you may know, typically when you select this feature with other apps, every single contact you have gets a message. The reality of it is that I don’t want to send a message to all of my contacts - only a select few, which is why I opted not to synch. However, is that the case with goTenna? I don’t know, which is why it should state this one way or another.
I’ll let you know if I notice anything else. 
That’s all for now.
-NS
2 Likes
I would like to be able to connect Gotenna and Gotenna Mesh at the same time via bluetooth. Since
phones now allow multiple connections this should not be an issue. Since store and forward is not allowed on MURS (VHF) a manual copy and resend button would and should be legal !!! This would enhance the current platform one step farther into the future. Brian nb9e
I have experienced the same problem. I have also told the company about it and it has never been fixed.
I suspect the FCC doesn’t see it this way. I tend to agree that a manual button to make this work would seem to skirt current regulations,however I suspect the FCC wants a bright line between these modes and would work to block production of such devices by denying them certification.
Then there is where are people going to get the old school MURS goTenna units to make use of such a button practical, if they were allowed? IIRC they’ve been out of production since release of the goTenna Mesh. IIRC, there were also some changes in MURS that would not allow goTenna to certify the old MURS-based design as suitable if released now, even without mods as proposed here.
New Gotenna Mesh user here, Two really life-alerting improvements I would love to see:
-
Ability for a ‘permanent’ mode setting or a ‘return to previous mode’ when power cycled
- i.e. as a ‘permanent’ solar powered relay, if the power dies and then returns the Gotenna mesh device won’t power back on in relay mode - it has to be manually set again.
-
External antenna connector - because… the antenna is more often, more important than the power output. Also would allow for more custom or directional user designed antenna usage.
1 Like
Alternatively, it would be nice if goTenna released their mesh firmware for other hardware boards than just their own dongles: boards like t-beam, tLora and others (Sparkfun also had a couple promising designs), which are superior in all technical specs and less restricted to modding.
The t-beam, for example, comes with a 18650 battery cradle, antenna connector, uBlox GPS, WiFi and an optional LCD screen (there are even rumours of an e-ink model in the pipeline) - a much better platform for mesh development than what’s being used now.
I understand there are cost constraints, but many members of this forum have repeatedly stated they are ready to pay extra for the mods they require.
A version of the goTenna Mesh firmware recompiled for t-beam, and published in binary format for the users to install themselves, could potentially make a lot of users happy, while shifting the hardware costs as well as the political/regulatory risks to the users themselves.
2 Likes
The restore-to-current-state-after-power-loss issue has a solution, but it requires a change in the hardware associated with the power switch.
It’s the regulatory risks that have been the primary drivers here. In the ISM band where it is licensed for use, the GTM faces several restrictions on its effective radiated power, length of transmission time, sharing with other users, etc. Along with the restricted transmission power, an antenna that is not subject to easy substitution by the consumer is required as a way to help ensure that the ERP limit is observed. Thus, much of what some prospective hackers view as potential low-hanging fruit ripe for plucking by handy consumers is actually driven by regulatory requirements that goTenna has no control over.
Release of the firmware only might be unregulated in the eyes of the FCC, don’t know. It is also a valuable asset of the sort that most don’t expect to be turned over to the public at a nominal charge.
My point exactly. Put a goTenna assembly line in every home and let’s see them fight this door-to-door.
Innovation usually involves an element of unexpected, wouldn’t you agree? Nobody expects innovation - if they did, they’d just invent it themselves!
“Some Assembly Required” is something most marketing people will tell you is a hard sell for most of the public.
The unexpected is fine when you don’t have to worry about regulations and rules. As a device that is clearly in the FCC’s jurisdiction, the GTM is constrained by that fact.
On the other hand, nothing prevents anyone from developing their own mesh implementations. Several projects have done so. AFAIK, each has markedly less user interest in terms of numbers than goTenna.
This is not true and hasn’t been for quite some time:
Just to be clear, my suggestion was in addition to the existing candybar hardware, which is pretty awesome - it’s just not a “one size fits all” thing. “Most of the people” will still buy the candybars; this is more about capturing the power users, who are currently migrating to other mesh projects.
They do indeed, however this fact is irrelevant and un-actionable to the goTenna Product Manager who started this thread to crowdsource improvement ideas for goTenna, not for other people’s projects.
1 Like
I, too, would like a dedicated relay node version. However, unless the FCC changes something, that version will still face several handicaps that seem to conflict with what some desire. Regulatory limits are facts that aren’t easily overcome. They need to be changed before things like a connector for an external antenna can be provided, for instance. People just seem to read by this difficulty, apparently thinking it’s something easily overcome. It’s not or I’m pretty darn sure goTenna would’ve acted to do so.
Projects that aren’t constrained by FCC regulations can easily accomplish (at least in terms of the rule box they operate in, if not the implementation) some or all of the things that people want to see done with GTM, but which are not regulatory compliant. My point was it’s more useful to not waste time arguing for features that are clearly outside the constraints imposed by the FCC on GTM
Having designed a number of products, shepherding them through FCC (among others) approvals, and updating those approvals via FCC “Permissive Changes” as the products evolve, I can state that there are ways to make certain changes, even in hardware, which do not affect RF performance and therefore fall under the existing approval.
An external antenna connector would be a problem, as the rules are there to specifically restrict the amount of radiated power in a shared band. However, tweaking the power control circuitry, even in hardware, to enable an “auto-on” or “repeater mode” could be done without regulatory hurdles. Might take some paperwork (Class II PC), might not (Class I PC), and I’d be glad to help if desired.
2 Likes
Others have mentioned relaxing the “walled garden”, where SDK token devices cannot interact with the GTM-blessed app. I understand the rationale for this. It would still be very nice to be able to have a custom app via the SDK interact with GTM app for users who opt in.
So here’s a simple solution: add a setting in the GTM app for choosing the token to be used for messaging. The default could just be named that, without exposing its value. App users could choose to add a token to the list of those available, much like adding a contact. This would allow developers to test their apps without creating chatter in the default use case. Fixed nodes could be set up with very low power “hosts” connected via USB as relays…they would relay traffic for all tokens (as is already the case), but could be pingable, respond to location requests via the SDK token the host is set up with. So a remote “relay” could be pinged for status with a phone (by choosing its SDK token for use in the GTM app) without having it hunting for the device it was paired to which is no longer present.
A use case I’d really like to see available that this would allow: setting up such “relays” and deploying them along a route for communication back to a base location, and being able to request their locations for retrieval when breaking camp. I can easily see a GTM in normal relay mode getting placed in some “good spot” and then never being found again.
This would argue for one more modest change to the SDK: an interface programmatically setting the location of a running instance of the Python SDK, so super-low-power installations don’t have to have a GPS to respond to location requests. But that may be possible via a side-channel, like BT.
–Richard
2 Likes
I can think of two awesome things. One would have to be an addition to a hardware update, but the other is software.
-
It’d be nice if there was an external antenna connection for people who want to have an awesome relay node
-
Having a plugin for the gotenna mesh (not pro) for the CivTAK or ATAK would be awesome. Especially for non funded groups like CERT
2 Likes