I mean signal attenuation through foliage. Possibly LOS range, too, but I don't really have a whole lot of testing for that because if we see the tower we do 5 GHz.
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:56 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < [email protected]> wrote: > i just replied to the thread > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So by penetration, do you mean LOS range, or signal attenuation through >> foliage? >> >> Another possibility, foliage probably depolarizes the signal, perhaps the >> two radios have differing ability to recover the two streams and achieve >> full MIMO-B throughput. Although I would expect they would both be relying >> on the 802.11 chip processing for this. >> >> >> *From:* Josh Luthman <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:10 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >> >> And I've tried IT Elite dual pol panels, Force 200 2.4, integrated + >> reflector for CPEs. Continues to suck. >> >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I’m thinking more the CPE antennas. >>> >>> *From:* CBB - Jay Fuller <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 3:59 PM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>> >>> >>> hmm, i will check into that. Pretty sure with ubnt we're using kp >>> performance. With epmp, i think it is bundled antennas... >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 3:50 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>> >>> Jay, I suspect the difference you are seeing may be mainly in the >>> antennas. 2.4 GHz from any vendor should penetrate the same, the radio >>> waves don’t care what brand radio launched them. And I think the >>> difference between the platforms will be most evident in low interference >>> environment where they can achieve their full modulation and throughput. >>> With low SNR, I think it’s kind of like arguing Ferrari vs Porsche for off >>> road racing, neither will be able to show off its capabilities. Receiver >>> sensitivity and bits/sec/Hz won’t matter. >>> >>> >>> *From:* CBB - Jay Fuller <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 3:28 PM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>> >>> >>> Also interested in interference rejection of the pmp450 - is there any >>> (in 2.4) >>> we are getting better foliage penetration with ubnt 2.4 than epmp 2.4 - >>> - and from the performance of >>> the epmp 2.4 i wish wish wish it penetrated better! >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Matt <[email protected]> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 2:25 PM >>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>> >>> We have mostly PMP100 and PMP450 deployed. Some Ubiquiti we tried and >>> some we inherited as well. Have some ePMP we have tested but so far >>> have not deployed more then couple test links. >>> >>> For those who have tried both ePMP and PMP450 what are the differences >>> you have seen in performance? Interference tolerance among others? >>> >>> For those that have gone with PMP450 over ePMP what was the reasoning? >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >
