[Feature Request] Add custom frequency

[OE3JGW]

Hello,
as i think this tool is f* amazing, i would love to use it outside of meshtastic aswell. Im not sure if that is possible/something you would like to do, but it would be awesome.
Could you maybe make a "advanced" function or something else where we can input a custom frequency?
i think at the moment it uses lora related prediction, maybe we can get some advanced settings to simulate analog FM?

Especially between 30mhz and 500mhz would be interesting, i dont know how much sense it makes under 50mhz but still.. would be nice to see theoretical local coverage.
At the moment i wanted to test a vhf frequency and compare it to 70cm :)

Maybe you can do it, would be nice. thanks!

[mrpatrick1991]

It's possible. Here's my question:

Amateur radio operators have access to planning tools of this type already. https://www.ve2dbe.com/rmonlineinfoeng.html is likely the most well-known example. An open-source alternative could be useful, but does this belong in this tool, or should we fork it?

I wouldn't be opposed to adding a control to this project - like "amateur radio mode", that opens all the parameters for fine-tuning. We should be careful to steer most meshtastic users away from adjusting the parameters, since without careful analysis, they can make the underlying model meaningless.

Would ham radio operators find this useful? Which specific need could it fill?

[OE3JGW]

I can only speak for myself of course, but:

• i dont like closed source projects for various reasons
• i prefer modern web-based solutions for various reasons
• options are always better then not having them

In regard of the usecase, i wont suggest to limit it to HAM specifically, as for an example i wanted to use it for planning a bussines radio network where i wanted to compare some locations, vhf and uhf options and relais and all of that. So i would suggest to use as much frequency and modulation options as possible (depends on existing models of course). Just a frq-input field, mode selection (fm, ,ssb, dmr.. i dont know whats possible and how much it has an impact).

I just like your approach more then all the other tools i know, they do have their place and i bet they are very good but they are old or closed source and in the given example even need to run on the client as an exe which is something i just dont like these days. Not that i dont trust a HAM.. but in general its a thing that is kind of not modern anymore.
Also, i dont see an issue of bringing a new tool just because there already is something comparable, every Dev do have his own approach.

In regard of the question how advanced options should be visible:
yes, an "open" (all variables which make sense are accessible) version as a fork would make sense if its not purely meshtastic related, i agree with you on that.

I fully understand if you dont see the need or just dont want to do it - its alot of work i guess.
Im just suggesting things :)

and thanks for your work patrick!

[mrpatrick1991]

I agree with your points on this.

Next step is to start implementing an "advanced/ham" pane, preferably behind a message explaining the implications. There will also need to be documentation on the various model parameters so that people can use them appropriately.

I may have some time next week to look.