<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hc-12 on SensorRig — Real Raspberry Pi Sensor Monitoring</title><link>https://sensorrig.com/tags/hc-12/</link><description>Recent content in Hc-12 on SensorRig — Real Raspberry Pi Sensor Monitoring</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://sensorrig.com/tags/hc-12/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>HC-12 vs WiFi for Remote Sensor Nodes: What 433 MHz Actually Buys You</title><link>https://sensorrig.com/posts/hc12-vs-wifi-remote-sensor-nodes/</link><pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://sensorrig.com/posts/hc12-vs-wifi-remote-sensor-nodes/</guid><description>Every home-monitoring tutorial assumes WiFi reaches your sensor. Mine didn&amp;rsquo;t. Two masonry walls and a steel-reinforced floor between the Pi and the pump room meant an ESP32-C3 that associated fine on the bench and dropped every 40 seconds in place.
The fix was to stop fighting 2.4 GHz and drop to 433 MHz with a pair of HC-12 modules. Here&amp;rsquo;s the honest comparison after running both.
The tradeoff in one table WiFi (ESP32-C3 native) HC-12 @ 433 MHz Wall penetration poor very good Throughput Mbit/s ~1–5 kbit/s usable Power per reading high (assoc + DHCP + TLS) low (UART burst) Infrastructure needed AP in range none, point-to-point Debuggability excellent painful Cost per node €0 (built in) ~€5 The headline: you trade bandwidth you don&amp;rsquo;t need for range you desperately do.</description></item></channel></rss>