TX only nodes

End Devices (Nodes)
21

I have also not seen any commercial uses either, although size wise there would not be much difference, it is available in QFN.

I use them for hobby stuff quite a bit and have my own node PCB that uses all wired components (so easy build) and a DIP 1284P. It has a single Mikrobus socket for a choice of LoRa modules, size is 80mm x 33mm.

22

Found the same topic from maybe the same TO on a different forum (german) TTN V3 das Ende einer guten Idee? - Mikrocontroller.net

23

Basically from a quick read (TL:DR)

  1. trolling from a distance
  2. upset with change - but technology evolves, get over it
  3. Toys out of pram/leaving the party
  4. Someone (actually a few) recognised value and benefit and needs of V3, and fact that earlier ok operation of non compliant nodes was a bonus but isnt/wasnt sustainable long term
  5. TTN one of the few (non commercial) networks that lets small user sna developer play with/use the technology, and commercial networks even more constrained wrt types of nodes and need for (near) compliance with standards/specifications
  6. No new arguements evolved, and no new participants joined in so discussion died after a few days with ā€˜agree to disagreeā€™ stand off :slight_smile:

Sad but guess we cant take everyone with usā€¦ V2 is dead, long live V3 :wink:

24

Mr @temp99707 appears to say he doesnā€™t use LoRa, so as well as being factually wrong in his first post, his opinion is rather irrelevant and it seems no one really agrees with him anyway, so Iā€™m not sure itā€™s a problem to leave him behind.

25

@temp99707

Ideally, even the moving nodes must be receiving MAC commands. I agree with you that it seems aggressive the non-welcome to TX only devices.

Probably the network is big enough and they donā€™t want more TX only nodes. In my country it would not be a problem. Low traffic, but I donā€™t have information about the TTS infrastructure.

Yes, the bar is set high now, some extra time to adapt, but you can make it.

26

TX only nodes are not LoRaWAN compliant. TTN is a LoRaWAN network. That it worked in V2 was a coincidence, not by design. That is doesnā€™t work in V3 is because V3 is following the specification more closely.

If you want to use TTN you need to use devices that are compatible with the LoRaWAN standards. Both gateways and nodes.

1 Like
27

Having compliant devices should be a reasonable default expectation - particularly given that you can make a TinyLoRa replica using a Pro Mini, an RFM95 and the very latest LoRaWAN v1.0.3 pretty much totally compliant MCCI LMIC with, between my knowledge for raw LMIC and, for larger devices, LMIC-node with assistance from the inventor, @bluejedi, there is absolutely no reason why people canā€™t be making devices for under $/Ā£/ā‚¬10 including some form of basic sensor which will run on a couple of AA batteries for about two to three years.

I know this for a fact. Somewhere in my garden is Device#2, the second one I ever made. Itā€™s not optimal as it has an older version of LMIC & like TinyLoRa, is ABP but it has only ever been sent two downlinks before v3 got the message to leave it alone.

So there is NOTHING stopping a TinyLoRa device thatā€™s been previously deployed being setup on v3 and there is plenty of assistance for polite requests for the magic command line parameters to minimise downlink traffic to save the gateway sending pointless updates.

The ā€˜issueā€™ seems to me to be that people interpreted the expectation that we use LoRaWAN compliant devices as a ban. Iā€™ve never seen that said.

Whilst the lack of interest in updating something like SlimLoRa seems to preclude a light weight build, for emphasis, hereā€™s my take on the situation:

We can still build & deploy low cost devices

We can still receive data from TinyLoRa devices

(with a caveat that when itā€™s battery change time, perhaps they are swapped out for a newer device).

28

This is wrong. I continue to use LoRa only without WAN and TTN. In the middle of Germany and had the only gateway here in 1000kmĀ². So it is no problem for me to do without TTN.
I donā€™t use AVR or tinyLora myself. I just canā€™t trust a network that locks out existing hardware. If in a few years MAC V1.1 will be mandatory, will all V1.0.1 versions be banned again?

And will these users be condemned again as gamblers / crackers and hobbyists?
Nobody knows and I am not taking this risk.

29

To quote doschi from mikrocontroller.net:

2021-12-03 10:16

temp wrote: > Since December 1st, TTN only has V3. There are now > some pitfalls built in, which are a nogo for me. e.g. ā€¦`

Please name sources! I couldnā€™t find anything about it. Thank you.

30

no, everything has been said about that, not just by me. And itā€™s easy to find anywhere. Why donā€™t you think so even though everyone else knows what itā€™s about?

31

Right, this is just a reiteration of viewpoints which isnā€™t going anywhere. If no one provides any new information without vague pointers to it being available everywhere Iā€™ll close the topic in 24 hours. There are plenty of subjects conspiracy theorists can use for discussion elsewhere, how TTN works doesnā€™t need to become one of them.

2 Likes
32

Of course, this last sentence cannot go unmentioned. As soon as one expresses a criticism, it is a conspiracy theory. OK. For me the matter has been discussed and trust in ttn has been destroyed. Merry Christmas.

33

No it isnā€™t. If you would take the time to read my forum messages over the years you know Iā€™m very critical (earlier this year I expressed doubts about the same issue you raised). However I do try to listen to rebuttal. Just venting frustration, speculating what might happen and reiterating the same arguments makes it conspiracy theory. By the way, reiterating the same arguments doesnā€™t make them true.