Not personally for me.

Post Reply
User avatar
n8lbv
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:47 pm

Not personally for me.

Post by n8lbv » Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:22 pm

I guess a lot of people really wanted "wifi".
I VERY much preferred the ethernet connection as it allowed me to hook up ANY kind
of bridged network I wanted including Wifi.
And the wifi of my choice: high power 5Ghz or 2.4GHz or even a 3.3GHz device or ham band
AP.
Or more often then not just plain wired ethernet.
External UHF antenna for me was Also a MUST.
And not some built-in limited non changeable antenna that's just totally wrong in my opinion.
At least for how I use a hotspot.

Dual band would have been a cool feature.
Improved DMR support was really wanted. Dual or single timeslot capabilities like real DMR radios.
This hardware is still limited to "hotspot mode" DMR.

I'm disapointed the old model was discontinued as well.
It was very useful.

Thanks for listening.
I feel more like I do now.

kd4ppg
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:59 pm

Re: Not personally for me.

Post by kd4ppg » Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:58 pm

n8lbv wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:22 pm
I guess a lot of people really wanted "wifi".
I VERY much preferred the ethernet connection as it allowed me to hook up ANY kind
of bridged network I wanted including Wifi.
And the wifi of my choice: high power 5Ghz or 2.4GHz or even a 3.3GHz device or ham band
AP.
Or more often then not just plain wired ethernet.
External UHF antenna for me was Also a MUST.
And not some built-in limited non changeable antenna that's just totally wrong in my opinion.
At least for how I use a hotspot.

Dual band would have been a cool feature.
Improved DMR support was really wanted. Dual or single timeslot capabilities like real DMR radios.
This hardware is still limited to "hotspot mode" DMR.

I'm disapointed the old model was discontinued as well.
It was very useful.

Thanks for listening.
I agree with you totally.

I am doing everything I can not to enable wifi in my vehicle. Hardwired just makes a lot more sense to me, less interference.

An external antenna also makes sense to me, and removing that really boggles my mind. I suppose it reduces costs though.

Dual band isn't a big deal for me personally, all my DMR gear can do UHF, and VHF is rather crowded already. It would be a cool feature though.

Improved DMR operations would have been awesome. I can't stress enough how nice it is to be able to use both timeslots. I have a pi-star with the dual hat (full duplex capable), with both timeslots. I can command the device even when there are long winded QSOs with no breaks between transmissions. I can put one set of talkgroups on one slot, and another set on the other, and basically treat the pi-star like a real repeater with really localized footprint. Having tasted this, "hotspot mode" really isn't enjoyable anymore. I'm migrating most of my communications to the pi-star.

Unless v2 adds nextion screen support to overcome its lack of dual-timeslot and duplex mode, I see no reason to upgrade and force myself to start using wifi for my hotspot.

Jim

kd4ppg
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:59 pm

Re: Not personally for me.

Post by kd4ppg » Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:55 pm

kd4ppg wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:58 pm

Improved DMR operations would have been awesome. I can't stress enough how nice it is to be able to use both timeslots. I have a pi-star with the dual hat (full duplex capable), with both timeslots. I can command the device even when there are long winded QSOs with no breaks between transmissions. I can put one set of talkgroups on one slot, and another set on the other, and basically treat the pi-star like a real repeater with really localized footprint. Having tasted this, "hotspot mode" really isn't enjoyable anymore. I'm migrating most of my communications to the pi-star.

Having actually used my full duplex dual timeslot pi-star for a few QSOs, I now have a better appreciation for the engineering difficulties involved in doing it right. Frankly, 5MHz isn't enough split when the connectors are 2 inches apart, and even putting TX on a rooftop antenna on the vehicle, and keeping RX on the little stubby antenna, I get a lot of desense which results in the connection dropping. So yes, it is nice, but not really practical for in-band split frequency unless you can get some really good attenuation between TX and RX. I'm planning to add a couple notch filters on the TX and RX side notching out the other side's frequency, and hope that'll resolve that issue for my own use. So far, every time my QSOs have failed, I've switched over to the openSPOT and carried on. These openSPOT units truly are rock solid reliable dependable devices, which I can't stress enough. The pi based devices allow more tinkering, but also require more tinkering.

jim

Post Reply