The easiest way to test this is via a reverse path calc. Design for the target signal level you see now and compare it. On Jun 5, 2016 6:38 PM, "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, no... I don't believe ubnt radios will limit it properly for > ptmp, even all the right boxes are checked and the antenna is set > properly... but ePMP would. > On Jun 5, 2016 6:28 PM, "Colin Stanners" <cstann...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If all that is done in the Ubnt gear, yes, but I suspect a number of Ubnt > WISPs do not... > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Jerry Head <li...@blountbroadband.com> > wrote: > >> i guess it could be something like that...but are they not both limited >> to regional maximum if one checks the calculate EIRP limit in the ubnt >> gear? And sets the correct antenna gain of course... >> >> On 6/5/2016 3:58 PM, Colin Stanners wrote: >> >> Is it possible the ePMP tx power is at the regional maximum while the >> ubiquiti tx power was at the hardware maximum? >> >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Jerry Head <li...@blountbroadband.com> >> wrote: >> >>> RSSI? >>> 4-7dBm >>> >>> >>> On 6/5/2016 1:17 PM, Jay Weekley wrote: >>> >>>> What was the average signal difference? >>>> >>>> Jerry Head wrote: >>>> >>>>> It absolutely does perform worse on the same link, we just helped a >>>>> friend move an entire site from UBNT to epmp to make use of the sync >>>>> capabilities. We actually had to transfer about 15% of the customers to >>>>> 900 >>>>> because they would not work at all on epmp. >>>>> >>>>> On 6/2/2016 4:31 PM, Mathew Howard wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But does it actually perform worse that UBNT 2.4ghz on the same link, >>>>>> or is it maybe just differences in how they calculate signal levels? It >>>>>> doesn't make any sense that two different radios running on the same >>>>>> frequency putting the same amount of power into the same antennas would >>>>>> give significantly different signal levels... >>>>>> >>>>>> The closest thing I've done to a comparison was playing with a Force >>>>>> 200 2.4ghz in wifi mode... there didn't seem to be a significant >>>>>> difference >>>>>> between it and a PowerBeam connecting to the same AP. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Josh Luthman < >>>>>> <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>j...@imaginenetworksllc.com <mailto: >>>>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 <tel:937-552-2340> >>>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>>>> Suite 1337 >>>>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Ken Hohhof < <af...@kwisp.com> >>>>>> af...@kwisp.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m thinking more the CPE antennas. >>>>>> *From:* CBB - Jay Fuller <mailto: <par...@cyberbroadband.net> >>>>>> par...@cyberbroadband.net> >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 3:59 PM >>>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>>>>> *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 <mailto: <af...@kwisp.com> >>>>>> af...@kwisp.com> >>>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >>>>>> *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 <mailto: >>>>>> <par...@cyberbroadband.net>par...@cyberbroadband.net> >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 3:28 PM >>>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>>>>> *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 <mailto: <matt.mailingli...@gmail.com> >>>>>> matt.mailingli...@gmail.com> >>>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >>>>>> *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? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
