Hi, I tried to connect 2 android devices via bluetooth to one t-beam and could not get it to work as I suspected.
When the web interface becomes available would it then be possible to connect multiple phones over wifi so they can both use the same t-beam to send/view messages? This would be useful for connecting to a relay node at a camp site or home base.
Only one connection of any type works at a time currently, each user needs a device.
Right but if your accessing a web page via http it seems like multiple devices on the same wifi network can access the same page?
Only one of those pages can connect to a device at a time, it will either fail to connect or kick off the other user. That page is connected to your tbeam and using the single available connection.
There have been talks about having what you want. The current web implementation is relatively young compared to the over all project.
I personally think it would be great if with a few minor changes more than one computer could connect via wifi and all wifi connected devices just see the node/user interface.
To be clear I’m not asking for more than one ‘Named User’ on the network, just that there can be more than one ‘active web session’ so more than one device can interact with the node via the web interface.
This is the blocking bug which requires a pretty substantial refactor.
There’s only a heart for that message. I want to push a different button. 
You are definitely much more optimistic on this one than I, seems like a hairball 
This is definitely much needed, especially in emergency situations like post earthquakes, floods, etc.
Thanks for sharing that. I’m beginning to feel the dev’s pain on this topic.
What do you think the minimum acceptable number of concurrent users is for the multi user being useful? I think it has to be an ESP32 device.
Anything more than 1. At this point, having at least 1 more device being able to connect to the same meshtastic board would be awesome.
What is the use case for 2-3 concurrent users? Seems like a low number that is not really enough for the uses cases I have seen, but is likely the range possible on an ESP32. I would be all in if I thought it could support 10+ reasonably.
To be used like an Access Point for a household or other small groups that are generally in a static location. I would define 2-5 users for this use case.
This avoids having multiple nodes running at a single location, lowering channel overheads and hardware cost.
I think 3 is probably pushing it, 4 and 5 are a real stretch.
Perhaps some kind of aggregator running externally to the Meshtastic device. MQTT?
We just use a cheap iPad that stays connected to the house unit and is the “base station”
Just imagine there’s 2 groups of hikers or a search and rescue team.
8 people with only 2 meshtastic devices. And they’re supposed to split into two teams to search an area and they all need comms between the 2 groups.
Or if there’s 2 nearby campsites and everyone at both campsites need communication.
The real potential enhancement available is to add a single extra concurrently connected user to each device, and everyone’s theoretical use case I have seen substantially exceeds this.
I don’t think SAR is a real use case for multi user, a degraded experience to save $50 won’t be the choice made by government agencies for emergencies.
For the hikers those two groups can communicate as is and am not sure what multiple phones connecting to one device does in this case. 4 users connected on both sides is unlikely, the likely user experience is a degraded experience for 2 users on each side.
Pull requests are accepted, but I think it is a ton of work to maybe get 2 concurrently connected devices working. Pretty sure nobody has picked this up despite all the discussion over a couple of years because it is a lot of work and the chance of total failure is high.
There’s always the use case of connecting 2 houses in rural areas or remote places.