I mean each mode is dynamically tracking the LQI of every other node it can see (within config limits; only when awake), and choosing which mains powered router to pass a message to. Some of my devices show 12x neighbours.
A table is fundamentally a 1:1 representation. Mesh is fundamentally 1:Many.
That’s why the ZHA network map is so messy - each node shows all other nodes it can see.
Even more complex… for each path between two nodes (A and B) should you show the signal from the perspective of node A or node B? They are different.
I assume ZHA picks one for colour coding and shows two numbers on a link (for mains powered router nodes, not battery as they sleep so probably don’t report as much data), with higher being better (e.g. >192 is green).
I’ve not actually pulled data from the ZHA API to know what is actually reported, but am just trying to show the complexity of representing mesh networks. IMHO, a table isn’t going to cut-it, except if you select ONE node to measure from.
To throw some constructive ideas out there:
-
ZHA already uses colour codes and shows bi-directional LQI as annotations like 200/185), however a “Show Issues Mode” might help by switching from the existing “emphasise good” to “emphasise bad” to make poor mesh LQI stand out more and putting working nodes into the background.
When was a dead node last seen? What was the battery level? -
The existing ZHA diagram might also place nodes better, and have better zoom controls.
This could be as simple as configuring a standard library better - but like most engineering, the fact it doesn’t already, suggests much more work.
Generally, I’ve only used a mesh diagram to get a rough idea where there is a “thin patch” with nodes with fewer “neighbours”. The hard part of interpretation is the nodes show radio proximity - not physical and capturing the latter in 3D is orders of magnitude harder.