shmuelzon
commented
2 years ago Hey @relghuar,
I can't speak for everyone but, as far as I'm concerned, it's out of scope for this project. While I understand your reasoning for consolidating all of the protocols in a single project, it's not something I can/want to maintain. Especially considering that 433MHz devices will probably each have their own protocol without a common base, like BLE. As this project is MIT licensed you're more than welcome to fork it and add whatever it is you want :)
Thanks for sharing though!
Hello everyone, I'm aware this proposal goes a bit out of the original scope of BLE2MQTT gateway, but please bear with me. I currently have to use several hardware gateways for different types of sensors in my area - bluetooth, zigbee, 433mhz... it gets a bit cumbersome to maintain. I guess I'm not the only one with such an issue. As 433MHz signals at least can easily be handled by a single-pin external receiver captured by esp32 RMT module, it would be nice if the one piece of hardware with minimal adjustments could do at least basic decoding and forward such transmissions as MQTT messages along with the bluetooth ones. I've already done some basic work on that, you can see it here https://github.com/relghuar/esp32-ble2mqtt/tree/rc-scanner. It actually needs very little code and some of it is just for testing/debugging. The solution has been inspired by the arduino rc-switch project that i'm currently using - https://github.com/sui77/rc-switch - which actually runs on esp32 as well, only you need a separate board for it of course. Implementation in my rc-scanner branch has been tested with Prologue outdoors weather sensors (https://www.amazon.de/-/en/needlid-Wireless-Lightweight-Digital-Durable/dp/B08RS2Q1S8/ - protocol 101) and another custom protocol used by my own devices (protocol 102). I plan to test it with water leak alarms (24bits over protocol 1) and another type of outdoor sensor that might still need additional protocol definition as soon as I get to area where they're used. So, my question is if anyone would be interested in this? Would it pay to work on further integration with eventual pull request into main source code? If there's no perspective for it, I'll just go on playing in my own sandbox :-) Thanks a lot for your time and consideration.