There's a huge number of factors; number of trees per acre, what kind of tree, what season, what amount of humidity they have (that can cause an aditional 10db of fade fast in certain conditions), how old, how tall etc. A formula to calculate all of those would be unnecessarily complex so a percentage based on matching field results is the easiest solution.
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been using 500% for the same reason....that's what got me results > similar to real measurements. > > I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a statistical fudge factor, but I was > hoping to be a little more scientific about the adjustments in the future. > > Real tree studying types have formulas based on the number of stems per > square area and a sampling of the diameter of said stems. "500" is on the > right order of magnitude to be trees per acre....so I was curious. > > > > > On 5/18/2015 1:55 PM, Colin Stanners wrote: > > To my knowledge there is no real unit of measurement, that's one of the > values which I've set (to 499% in most heavily-treed regions - no round > numbers so it's obviously something I changed, not a default program value) > to make RM's estimates better match results which were gotten in the real > world. > > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Does anybody know what the unit of measurement is for the clutter density >> in Radio Mobile? >> The column says (%) at the top, but I'm wondering percent of what? >> >> >> > >
