I’d like to request a RainPoint moisture sensor option with a significantly stronger RF signal.
In real‑world use, the current FRF sensors struggle with distance, soil attenuation, and interference — even when placed relatively close to the gateway. A higher‑power RF variant (or an extended‑range model) would make the system far more reliable for larger yards, deeper beds, and installations where the gateway cannot be placed directly outdoors.
In my situation, the mature SunPatiens towers over the moisture sensor thereby reducing the signal to 1 bar (123 dBm). The gateway placement (HWG040WLBRF) is not an issue.
A “long‑range” or “high‑gain” moisture sensor would be a very welcome hardware option.
Thank you for considering this feature.
Thanks for this detailed and thoughtful feedback — you’re absolutely right that RF signal in soil-based sensors can be tricky.
A few practical things that can help in the meantime:
Raise the gateway — placing it higher up (on a shelf, wall, or post) often improves signal significantly, since it reduces ground interference.
Move the gateway closer — even a few feet can make a difference, especially with dense vegetation in between.
Clear the path — if possible, position the soil sensor in a more open spot. Mature plants like your SunPatiens can absorb a lot of signal.
Try adjusting the gateway’s orientation — sometimes rotating it slightly or changing its angle can improve reception.
We’ve noted your request for a long-range or high-gain moisture sensor — it’s valuable feedback like this that helps shape future hardware decisions. Thanks for taking the time to share it! 
Thank you for your kind approach to acknowledge and acceptance of my suggestion. Let me add that there is inconsistency in the RF strength of the existing model. Let me explain. I have 4 moisture sensors in my backyard - 3 of which are connected to one gateway. One of the 3 was showing a weak signal. So, I swapped it with a sensor located closer to the gateway. This resulted in the weak one improving while the one moved to the weak’s former location retained a good strength in the exact former location of the weak sensor. This says to me that there is variation in the quality of the sensors.
Again, thanks for accepting feedback.
Really appreciate you taking the time to test this so methodically — that’s genuinely useful insight.
One thing worth keeping in mind: after swapping sensors around, it can take 5–10 minutes for the readings (including signal strength) to update. So the signal value you see right after moving a sensor isn’t always the final number — it may still be adjusting.
That said, your observation about variation between units is absolutely noted, and we’ll pass it along to the team. Feedback like this is exactly what helps improve future hardware.
Thanks again for sharing!