Best posts made by Mark Swift

Fixed, seems in V2.1.1 it changed to "getControllerConfig".

I'm amazed this hasn't got more attention. A superb contribution to the community and one which I'm sure has taken many hours... Thank you!

In case it helps anyone, after a week I've resolved this.

1. If using the PA version of the nRF with the ESP, it needs to be placed a good distance from the ESP itself. Also, ensure to wrap the nRF board in film and foil (making sure that the foil touches the gold antenna connector).

2. Keep the wires connecting the nRF to the ESP / Arduino as short as possible, I choose to shield mine too as it helped with range.

After a week it's rock solid, and I'm getting circa 400-500 metres!

Just got 4 of these, happy to say they're all '+' models and connect without issues, bingo!

If I recall I tried that, I seem to remember it only works for the sensebender board? Perhaps I'm mistaken though, it was over 1 year ago. @tekka, can you confirm?

@hek I did (Not that I don't trust you), and you're right. Go get yourself a beer and pat yourself on the back

Now if I could just get my ESP8266 to actually not reply to 50% off messages with st=fail.

I've only been trying to get this all working for 3 weeks (sigh).

@pdey That's fantastic, the only thing I was missing with the modified boot loader was debug...

@hek @tekka Any reason why we can't implement this into development, it seems a great feature.

Now if I can only figure out how to apply @pdey 's fix to the current dev branch....

Awesome work Erik!

Thread revival.

I have a sensor powered by 2 AA batteries, does this still stand as a simple way to obtain their status? It was super easy to implement!

That's a possibility, it's outside in a sealed box.

I've brought it inside and will test it in the morning....

I have to chime in and share my agreement. This seems like a fundamental piece of information, I mean, we all want reliable delivery right? For now I've copied a resend function I found on the forums (with some tweaks), but in my opinion, such code should at least me in the core - with the appropriate explanation.

@tekka I guessed that, I thought however that you'd mentioned it would timeout, and try again later? As it stands it appears it'll keep trying until the battery is dead?

If nothing else I just want to clear up the behaviour so I fully understand it.

Thanks,

Mark

@MarcoE I think I do have units with the issue, my hope was you could share it here for all to see, it might help solve a number of issues for the community...