My Rocket M5 is passing 30 megs on it right now. So again, if it is misaligned: AF5x doesn't associate Rocket M5 passes 30 megs
If it is aligned: AF5x doesn't associate Rocket M5 passes 30 megs Which would you prefer? What if this was a new install and I'm trying to align it starting with AF5x radios? At that kind of a signal it won't associate?! I remember the days when I could have an XR5 in an rb532 with a grid laying in the bed associate at -90 to make sure the configuration was right. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > If you’re supposed to have –51 but actually have –66 on one chain and > –77 on the other, you’re on a sidelobe or don’t have clear LOS or are so > badly misaligned you’re operating on multipath. So it may be unfair to say > that AF5X is requiring “perfect alignment”. The dBm level may not be > telling the whole story, if you aren’t even in the right zipcode as far as > alignment. > > *From:* Josh Luthman <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 9:28 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Force110 PTP links > > Let's assume it is misaligned (based on what Alex said it should be > something like -51). AF5x can't register unless it's perfectly aligned? > That's the part that concerns me the most. > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Matt Hardy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Technically, the support files said >> >> status: slave-registering >> rxpower0: -66 >> rxpower1: -77 >> rxcapacity: 3840 >> >> In most cases, this kind of chain imbalance means alignment or bad >> pigtail. We know Josh Luthman knows how to align radios ;), so still >> waiting to see if replacing it with a spare fixes it. >> If it does, this would be the first case we've heard about w/ these >> symptoms, and thousands have been installed successfully, with great >> feedback. >> >> Either way, let us know what you find... >> >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Josh Luthman < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Support files said the slave heard the master at -66. Doubt it. >>> >>> Josh Luthman >>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> 1100 Wayne St >>> Suite 1337 >>> Troy, OH 45373 >>> On Jun 11, 2015 8:13 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> New EIRP rules biting you in the ass? >>>> >>>> *From:* Josh Luthman <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 6:56 PM >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Force110 PTP links >>>> >>>> >>>> EPTP mode fills the latency fix. >>>> >>>> My first attempt at AF5x and it won't even register. I'm trying to >>>> replace Rockets that link up at -66. I'm told that there's a path issue or >>>> bad radio. >>>> >>>> Josh Luthman >>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>> Suite 1337 >>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>> On Jun 11, 2015 7:45 PM, "George Skorup" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Why exactly? Just asking. I'm wondering if we should be doing cheap >>>>> PTP with ePMP or AF5x. I have several Force110 links up (just SMs, not >>>>> PTP) >>>>> operating all across the 5GHz bands. And one 10 mile link with Laird 2' >>>>> dishes using connectorized non-GPS radios. Other than some oddities like >>>>> intermittent increases in latency, they have all been working very well. >>>>> Most are still running 2.3.3 and I don't want to touch them because >>>>> they're >>>>> working just fine. I'm leaning towards the Force110 PTP radios and >>>>> whatever >>>>> antennas required for new links since it fits with all the other Canopy >>>>> and >>>>> ePMP stuff (power injection, etc). But the AFs sure are nice when you can >>>>> do FDD (except the 5X!) and get very low latency like licensed. >>>>> >>>>> On 6/11/2015 6:32 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Honestly I think they're better than AF5x at this point. >>>>> >>>>> Josh Luthman >>>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>>> Suite 1337 >>>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>>> On Jun 11, 2015 7:25 PM, "joseph marsh" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I got 2 links ready to deploy just sitting the office waiting to go >>>>>> up on the tower >>>>>> On Jun 11, 2015 5:34 PM, "Josh Luthman" <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Uhm...I guess? It hears noise better than Ubnt for sure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Josh Luthman >>>>>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>>>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>>>>> Suite 1337 >>>>>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>>>>> On Jun 11, 2015 6:23 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does the force auto select a clean frequency? >>>>>>>> On Jun 11, 2015 5:13 PM, "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> containerized... that must be when you buy a cheap router from >>>>>>>>> walmart in put it on a tower in a rubbermaid container. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Bill Prince <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You mean connectorized? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> bp >>>>>>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2015 2:21 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The containerized 5 GHz radios do the same throughput >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >> > >
