Don't bring in my english in this debate.

- You do bring up the problem with bandwith for 433MHz module.
- I give an example where a similar application can work fine at almost zero bandwidth.
- You note that my example is invalid, since it need not be applicable to the poster (which was my original point, and totally missed)
- I confirm that bandwidth is something for the poster to think about - we do not know what is "enough".
- You return with two incomprehensible sentences:
"You hear what you want to hear : I quoted this [big quote repeated again]"
and
"Do read your comments again ! . And don’t imagine solutions for OP , let him stay within his limits"

I can't see that as a problem on my side. The meaning of my posts should have been quite easy to pick up.

And imagine solutions for the OP - isn't that what we do if we try to help by making suggestions? If I do give a suggestion, I must have somehow imagined that the suggestion may be useful or applicable to the OP. Giving a suggestion I imagine is not useful would be kind of strange, don't you think :)

I give two examples why advanced isn't always better.

One is two different single-seat airplanes designed for high-g turns. The much less advanced stunt planes would still beat a jet fighter trying to do stunts. But lets take it the other way - yes, strip the jet fighter of the long-distance robots and have them do dog-fights. The jet would get into troubles. That was one reason US did originally start the "Top Gun" school. Too many lost jet fighters when they got up against smaller, more agile planes.

You somehow didn't spend time thinking about the possible meaning of the example, since you had already rejected it: "Then you try to teach me like a child ‘that military stuff’ according to your own philosopy which fits you well ". "Military stuff" did not really had an active part in the example - it was just a simple comparison where a $1M solution/plane is better than a $100M solution/plane even in a situation the more expensive/advanced solution/plane was intended to be good at.

The other example was a passenger plane that has huge amounts of automatic systems to be simple to use - at least instrumental landing systems (ILS) but often fully automatic landing systems. A single push-button automatically handling "go-around" in case an approach doesn't feel good. But a way less advanced Piper Cub or similar would still be an easier plane to learn flying with, since the advanced solutions on the passenger plane gets hidden among all the other high-tech stuff. You start to talk about 100+ passengers, totally missing the point. The number of passengers is irrelevant for a student trying to initially learn how to fly. Yes, you can learn directly on passenger planes, thanks to the flight simulators available - needed because the modern passenger plane is more advanced.


You must not spend too much time thinking that advanced is always the winning concept. The majority of products you and I will ever buy will be designed with components that have been carefully selected for their cost, and not how advanced they are. The best solution is actually quite seldom the most advanced alternative unless you do target space, military or similar where component cost is normally the smallest factor in the equation.


Sorry, but you will have to explain that sentence, because I don't understand it. But let me guess an answer:

"Do you have any of your words I wonder?"
"But doesnt have valid arguments ? but thier own hi-tech solutions."

My arguments in this thread (the words you are somehow missing) is that every project has its own requirements. So we can suggest solutions, and we can give arguments why we like them and think that they may be suitable for the OP too. But we can't write the check, giving promises that a solution is the best. Often, the problem debated isn't even relevant, because the OP started the thread from a misconception. To learn radio technology, the Nordic chip may be very nice. To get a good and reliable solution for a single sign, or maybe 20 signs, a commercial box with an antenna connector and a RS232 connector will probably be a way better solution. We can suggest this. And we can ask questions to see if we can narrow down the solutions.

A big problem with this thread is that the OP on one hand is very worried about the costs (discussing individual dollars for a device and the cost of shipping) while at the same time indicating that the device should be used in a product costing huge amounts of money and that you will normally not manage to sell more than a few of unless you already have very good contacts.

And we do not know bandwidth requirements, or communication range, or national requirements, ...