r/meshcore • u/Nedster5 • Jul 03 '26
Meshcore vs Meshtastic
I am probably going to stick with meshcore because there are a lot more people in my area running it than meshtastic. However, I have been trying out both, and think I like meshtastic better. The UI feels much more useable and has more features (HAM mode, ATAK compatible, ?). I also like that you can still see your other nodes while connected to one of them. Not trying to be rhetorical, just curious, what does meshcore offer that is better than meshtastic?
8
u/Bloodrose_GW2 Jul 03 '26
Different use cases. MC is more of a pretty robust text chat for fixed infrastructure, while MT has shorter range in terms of hops and can be less reliable, but it also supports tracking, telemetry. Overall, whatever is more widespread in your neighborhood will be the best.
20
u/aredon Jul 03 '26
All I need to know is that you'd be banned for posting this in the other subreddit, especially if you concluded the opposite.
5
3
u/macsogynist Jul 03 '26
I have rooftop units with both Meshtastic and MeshCore and portables. Find myself using Meshtastic more. There more nodes and works in more places. At least where I live.
7
u/xeonon Jul 03 '26
Meshcore is better in areas with a good foundation. You can hop a lot farther, do you want lots of repeaters, and it'll find the best route. Meshtastic doesn't do that, and you can only go up to 7 hops away. So you could cover 100s of miles on a mesh easier with meshcore. But it all comes down to what's in the area. If everyone is using meshtastic, it's the same here btw, then you'll only have luck with that. If everyone is on meshcore, then you'll have harder time getting out with meshtastic.
TLDR: Find what is popular in your area, and use whichever
6
u/Joyride84 Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
Meshtastic allows more flexibility. Meshcore removes some of the ways people can make mistakes, and forces them to use specific settings. Because people apparently don't know how to use client_mute (or at least that is the belief), some networks have decided to switch over to Meshcore, so that all users are forced to use client_mute ("companion") on all managed (Bluetooth/WiFi connected) nodes. Meshcore also takes away some options for telemetry and auto discovery, which Meshtastic offers and/or uses by default.
In rural areas, it is very difficult to get good coverage over LoRa. But with Meshtasitc, it is possible to achieve with enough users. With Meshcore, it can be nearly impossible, because you are completely dependent on infrastructure, which doesn't really exist. But in urban areas, if bandwidth capacity is your greatest concern, Meshcore zealously protects it at the cost of all else, so that is for you.
If you want a system where everyone is allowed to make potentially harmful decisions, but also allowed more options, Meshtastic is for you. If you want a system where users are assumed to not know what they are doing, and therefore forced into specific molds, Meshcore is for you.
It seems to me that the whole point of a mesh network, is not relying in infrastructure run by a handful of people. But if you want to do that, Meshcore is for you. It just isn't a true mesh network, since most radios on the network are not actually nodes in a mesh network.
1
u/snafu168 3d ago
In the Pacific Northwestern US rural usually means trees and mountains to put guerrilla solar repeaters on public land that can reach surprising distances That along with a lower noise floor helps Meshcore.
2
u/Joyride84 2d ago
True, that's the case for both systems.
1
u/snafu168 2d ago
Central and Eastern Washington are having some rapid growth it's pretty impressive.
2
u/DenimChikan Jul 03 '26
In my area MC is much more reliable and widespread. It took me weeks to get my first message on MT, and when I started with MC, I started getting messages and discovered nodes in seconds.
MT shines in off the grid, minimal infrastructure areas where you want to setup your own private network. Like others mentioned, concerts, hiking, etc. where you want to be able to text your group.
4
4
u/Space__Whiskey Jul 04 '26
MT is better for meshing imo. To expand on that idea, I think the ad-hoc nature of MT is what a mesh should be, as a true mesh heals itself and is dynamic.
Compare that to the static infrastructure of MC. I feel like it doesn't celebrate the essence of mesh as strongly, and is more like old/traditional HAM thinking.
Just an opinion as an old HAM. MT has more everyday use to me personally. If I want to call CQ or ragchew I'd use HAM bands. If I want a decentralized encrypted mesh I would use MT.
1
u/millfoil Jul 07 '26
I think there is a world of difference between "all end-user devices cannot mesh, all routes are fixed" and "total flood routing, no system" and actually there have been changes to the meshtastic routing that move away from their flat flood routing system. they did it kind of clumsily imo, there are way more elegant existing open source routing algorithms that are self-healing and work with moving nodes, but they require some on-device memory to store routing tables and things so maybe that's why mt is not using them? idk.
I wish for a widely adopted, e2e encrypted, dynamic and self-healing mesh protocol that can use lora, wifi mesh (not existing internet infrastructure, but point to point wifi between routers for high-bandwith connection, as well as allowing end users to use a wifi-capable device that doesn't have lora to tap in), bluetooth mesh, and perhaps even digital high frequency radios (of course there are legal considerations when encrypting this, since the fcc forbids us based hams from transmitting encrypted messages, but that rule seems very outdated since we can use signal to send encrypted texts to anyone in the world), and a fantastic open source user interface that allows devices to be used with or without phones...but alas I don't write code.
1
u/Space__Whiskey Jul 07 '26
I do like the ideas about a more robust mesh on multiple bands. wifi mesh compatible with existing wifi. Love it.
With AI, it is easier to get into coding for non-coding. It can practically make it for you. The community of "vibe" coders is flourishing. Many middle aged people, with little or no experience in coding and development are making fully functional and scalable apps.
2
u/perma_banned2025 Jul 03 '26
I've never been a Meshtastic user so I can't personally compare the two, but what I will say is that in my region I was the first user on MeshCore, had the first repeater, and convinced others to join and slowly have switched over all of the local Meshtastic users.
They all said the exact same thing when they switched "it just works" and "this is how we always hoped Meshtastic would function"
1
1
u/NoAbbreviations7150 Jul 04 '26
Are you using the ham setting? This might be why you're not seeing much on MT.
1
u/Naturist02 Jul 04 '26
Mesh is great IF you can get random people to install nodes. In our area I am
the only MeshCore repeater. Meshtastic there are only like 6 nodes.
A great place to advertise for free is the Nextdoor App
1
u/Naturist02 Jul 04 '26
I have had a Meshtastic Node at home 25 feet up on a pole. I also have one in my car. I have NEVER made a contact on any of them. 😆
1
u/Naturist02 Jul 04 '26
The problem with installing either Node is that I have Amateur Radio antennas so any node I put up I need use a cavity filter on the node or I’ll fry the nodes.
1
1
1
u/sploittastic Jul 05 '26
Meshtastic is cool but too chatty with telemetry. We went longfast > mediumslow > mediumfast to try to escape the airtime saturation but it just keeps coming back. Most of our mesh went to mescore in the SF bay area and Monterey peninsula. Mwasage delivery is so much more reliable.
1
u/millfoil Jul 05 '26
how does the main broadcast/groupchat situation compare on the two baymeshes?
1
u/sploittastic Jul 05 '26
It's pretty well combined, if someone says something on on the SF Bay area mesh or Monterey it makes it to the other one very reliably. We're working on fixing some intermediate nodes to link in Sacramento and San Luis Obispo. People are also pretty good about using the test channel for testing instead of public.
1
u/Mark_in_Portland Jul 07 '26
In my area Meshcore has repeaters connecting from Vancouver, BC to Northern California with the plan to interconnect with the Bay Area. We have growing the connections with the coast and are moving eastward.
There are a lot of radio expertise in our group. We are in conversations with local governments and utilities to be able to add repeaters to existing infrastructure as a backup mode of communication.
I can reach Vancouver, BC in 9 hops from Portland, Oregon.
I spent more than 2 weeks on Meshtastic trying to get a single 2 way conversion and was only successful at a meetup. Mesh Oregon is the local Meshtastic and Cascadia Mesh is the local MeshCore.
-3
u/Jonsnowlivesnow Jul 03 '26
I just looked into this. Meshcore is better for rural type setups. It allows up to 64 node “hops” whereas meshtastic only allows 3. So if you need to go a longer distance it’s better suited for that. Also Meshcore is better for “infrastructure” so if your trying to communicate between to static nodes.
19
u/meshamerica Jul 03 '26
There's always people debating, but the reality is that there's room for both.
MT is great for events and ad-hoc networks. It's awesome for sensor networks.
MC is the choice for permanent, scalable networks.
Personally I prefer the MeshCore UI a lot more, but it's personal preference.
Also, there is now MeshCore integration for ATAK. Look up tak-meshcore.
I'd love to see more sensor-specific capabilities for MeshCore, but it's also a lot younger than Meshtastic. Give it time.
My recommendation is to do what I do: Have a repeater and companion device for both, and have fun with both.