that tables are equivalent to the results of wireless link calculator tool?

http://www.mikrotik.com/test_link.php

why some products dont have the white line of the best data-rate distance??

for example the lhg

i think is a very good idea publishing this, a honesty proof of mikrotik

i am trying to recreate the lhg results on calculator but i dont obtain -70dbm what i am doing wrong??

For sure it will be very useful for people in order to select the proper equipment!

Cannot spot any mistakes (apart from obious ) and calculated results are in line with real life experience after you factor in a reasonable real life derating.

@chechito: if you're calculating for the LHG sensitivity at MCS7 is -75 not -80... and probably calculations are done around the optimal gain frequency, 5500?

We used -70 as the signal for the high distance result, if lower signal is acceptable, you will get bigger distances.

@normis: which frequency was used? Maximum distance parameters for 6Mbps G mode I assume?

@chechito: if you're calculating for the LHG sensitivity at MCS7 is -75 not -80... and probably calculations are done around the optimal gain freqency, 5500?

thx for your response

i have updated de sensitivity value, still -63 of signal

@chechito: -70 signal parameters (maximum distance) are for 6Mbps G/MCS 0 mode (optimal Tx Power and sensitivity)

I know, but had to ask, 6Mbps G != MCS 0 parameters on all devices.

Chechito, what are you trying to find?

i am trying to replicate this result

thx for the explanation

normis

i have just another doubt

that values apply for any channel width?? 5mhz 10mhz 20mhz 30mhz 40mhz 50mhz 80mhz etc??

if not how will be the correct way to adjust calculations for different channel width??

MCS7 = 300Mbit = 40MHz
MCS9 = 866Mbit = 80MHz

Those are specific values. Can't set more.

I dont think so, because:

MCS9 with 80 MHz channel is 433 Mbps
MCS9 with 160 MHz channel is 867 Mbps

MCS9 with 80 MHz channel is 433 Mbps
MCS9 with 160 MHz channel is 867 Mbps

This is only true for a single spacial stream case.

MCS7 = 300Mbit = 40MHz
MCS9 = 866Mbit = 80MHz

Those are specific values. Can't set more.

I dont think so, because:

MCS9 with 80 MHz channel is 433 Mbps
MCS9 with 160 MHz channel is 867 Mbps

Not entirely correct. Your values are per stream. SXT is dual chain, so multiply it. On our dual chain devices (all devices in the above table), MCS9 = 80 = 866

Sorry, im forgot. Really, MSC9 for 2S is 867.

Nice graphs!
One conclusion to make is that the QRTac 5 has now priced itselve out of the business....
The Dynadish performs better AND is cheaper.

And although in other discussion we already mentioned Dynadish is too expensive compared to the new LHG product line (price difference is too big for only different chipset and gigaport) this graphs now means the QRT have to drop in price a lot to be a selling product.
Based on this graph I see no reason why anyone would buy a QRT anymore where the Dynadish give you better and more for less money.....

QRT packs much tighter, DynaDish is big and more expensive for shipping. Also has grounding and better build quality IMO

Imho packing size is not an issue with any serious network operator. Ever bought a 32dBi ubnt dish?....

"grounding and better build quality"????
So no grounding on the DynaDish. That's a serious design failure if it is presented as P2P product and for such price.
As CPE it is not such an issue (None of my CPE's are grounded) but then it is waaaaay too expensive. I only use it when there is no other alternative...
"Better build quality"? In what respect? The Dynadish looks and feels more compact and sturdy then the QRT where the last also has the weak designed cable hatch cover...
I never looked inside a Dynadish so can't tell about its internal construction but your remark now doesn't give me a lot of confidence!
I have seen a QRT on the inside. If a Dynadish is 'less quality build" then the QRT as you say, do I now have to start being worried?

Bottom line is; I am an end user in quantities and QRT is just out of my wish list. If you need a high quality P2P link its better to spend a little extra for proper dish antennas with netmetals.
Dynadish still just makes it on my list, but only when there is no other better/cheaper alternative as CPE.

Yes, DynaDish is a fine product. I was just pointing out the good things about QRT. A single unit can be shipped cheaper to long distances when the package is smaller, total cost is lower.

So, where are they coming from? I refer to prices from both my Spanish as Polish provider and I checked some other websites. In general the QRT is more expensive.
I'd also presume all units come from the far east anyway (what is not?) so really for Europe or US its all the same. If the Dynadish is sold for less everywhere it means the QRT is out of business based on the diagrams......

I mean a single unit from the distributor to your home. They don't charge by weight/size? Then you are lucky and there is no difference

Every shipper is pricing by size/weight staffels (steps).

But I made a virtual order with my supplier in Poland. His shipping rates are similar to many others since they use same shippers as many others. UPS, Fedex, Continental, you name them... its all roughly the same.

10 x QRT = 1.256,77 + 19,50 shipping to Spain = € 1.276,27 Total

10 x Dynadish = 1.101,10 + 78,00 shipping Spain = € 1.179,10 Total.

So, the Dynadishes still saves me € 97,17 They are still cheaper! Maybe not a lot, € 9,72 each but I checked and the difference from my seller in Spain is even slightly bigger since shipping costs in total are lower...

Dynadish is a winner, cheaper and better. What arguments do have you left to recommend the QRT over the Dynadish? Only the earthing option? (I'm sure I can fit a cable with screw to the metal part of the Dynadish)

Or is the QRT just a better product? But since there ain't no detailed antenna specs (VSWR? F/B ratio? Cross. Pol. separation?) for the Dynadish to be found its hard to compare the two.... all we now have is your nice graph .....

So far my statements still has ground. Base upon the new range graphs the QRT becomes obsolete ...

Re: QRT vs Dynadish, in my experience, a dish works best with a clean shot, panels work best when shooting through obstructions.

The QRT will likely outperform the DD as a CPE. On a tower the DD will be a cheaper solution.

I do wish the DD had better shielding. The dish is plastic, correct?

Re: QRT vs Dynadish, in my experience, a dish works best with a clean shot, panels work best when shooting through obstructions.

The QRT will likely outperform the DD as a CPE. On a tower the DD will be a cheaper solution.

I do wish the DD had better shielding. The dish is plastic, correct?

Yes its plastic. Hence the radio pattern. It has quit some homogeneous big side lobs because the plastic doesn't shield a lot.
If they could just paint the inside with a reflective layer (that will last since completely enclosed) and better also the outside for only a $ more it would improve the antenna a lot.

But actually, in heavy congested spectrum or co-location on towers both QRT and Dynadish are not the best solutions. You'd better go for better shielded antennas or higher gain ones....

Hi Normis,

Any chance of one of the nice PDF sheets for the mANTbox 15 as well for comparison (maybe as a second page to the mANTbox 19 one)

Thanks
Steve

Nice post!
It will help folks who are choosing adequate equipment for their links.
One question regarding Dyna Dishes..arent they License 3 devices? Can they act as AP? Or i can just switch conf to PTP server/client?

Nice post!
It will help folks who are choosing adequate equipment for their links.
One question regarding Dyna Dishes..arent they License 3 devices? Can they act as AP? Or i can just switch conf to PTP server/client?

Any routerboard that has level 3 can be used in PtP. Just set radio to bridge function and you can connect 1 station.
If you want to convert a Level 3 device into level 4 (=AP) then you can obtain a license on the website for about usd 34,- I believe and after payment import the new key in your device and after the reboot you can use it as an AP.

Nice post!
It will help folks who are choosing adequate equipment for their links.
One question regarding Dyna Dishes..arent they License 3 devices? Can they act as AP? Or i can just switch conf to PTP server/client?

Any routerboard that has level 3 can be used in PtP. Just set radio to bridge function and you can connect 1 station.
If you want to convert a Level 3 device into level 4 (=AP) then you can obtain a license on the website for about usd 34,- I believe and after payment import the new key in your device and after the reboot you can use it as an AP.

Tnx Rudy! That explains me a lot. I assume that having one Lvl 4 AP is for Point-to-multipoint scenarios?

Does it make sense to add non-PtP devices to this comparison?

- HAP AC lite
- HAP AC
- WAP AC
- ...

Does it make sense to add non-PtP devices to this comparison?

- HAP AC lite
- HAP AC
- WAP AC
- ...

i dont think so

1. in wlan (wifi) implementation long distance coverage is the least important factor for proper implementation, most important factors are capacity and performance, this 2 achieved reducing coverage of accesspoints to improve capacity and performance

2. most wlan (wifi) implementations are indoor, making each environment unique, because that many software exist to make proper site survey of the site or even a simulated virtual site survey

thats right, but suggestions - may have other supporters for obvious/sane reasons, cuz customers want wider/broad comparison among All devices from MT.
for WISP that not issue/interests, sure, cuz they "know what they doing", usually, but for end users - Complete antennas performance charts for calculations/comparison, including indoor devices - always would be handy i guess.
but that worth Separate thread, logically(because Different purpose ~ i think).

Does it make sense to add non-PtP devices to this comparison?

- HAP AC lite
- HAP AC
- WAP AC
- ...

Indoor AP devices are usually used with End User devices, such as phones. The limiting factor here would be the phone. They all have similar max distance, few tens of meters.

I have a potential application where I would use an outdoor WAP AC, to serve a few smartphones in a few tens of meters range.
I have power, but NO other cable for upstream connection.
Could I would use the WAP AC as repeater to an mANTBox 15s for a distance of ~500m?
Would it be possible to connect on such range??
Thanks,
Gabriel

I doubt the wAP would have a reliable upstream connection, it will "hear" the mANTBox fine, but not the other way around.

I'd better use a SXT Lite wired to the wAP to wirelessly connect to the mANTBox.

One thing with the QRT vs DD, the QRT has a better antenna mount. 

But would love a LHG with ac support as a cpe.

Chechito, what are you trying to find?

i am trying to replicate this result
lhg3.jpg

I was encouraged by Normis post to replace my High gain SXT with the LHG. But I discovered that the LHG does not work very well in a crowded area compared to the High gain SXT. A week after deploying the LHG in a point to point connection, I had to revert back to the High gain SXT because I get better signal quality compared to the LHG. I also tried connecting the LHG to an RF Elements Symmetric antenna. (40 degrees) to replace another SXT HG, again the result wasn't good in a crowded environment.

Would be nice to have some more powerful solution as well. According to the calculator a combination of NetMetal5+mANT30 in theory would reach 60km where Dynadish stops at 14km?

Local legal regulations may not allow it....

Because LHG doesn't have ac support.

Thanks a lot for this post. This will surely help users to choose the right one.

Hi guys, I wonder which would be the best choice among QRT/Dinadish options in order to set a PTP link as follows:

Little more than 27km LoS between small countryside towns, mostly prairie, few trees in middle.
One of the sites has no wired internet connection, poor mobile connection options.
The other one has 1Mbps MPLS, my idea is to bridge them for sharing the internet link.
I made the plot below using the PathRF Line Of Sight tool
Thanks in advance, best regards

Héctor

Both should pass 1Mbps easily, provided there's LOS.

Maybe even a couple LHG-5 should do.

How's the spectrum there?

Additionally, you may find Mikrotik Selection guide for PtP Links useful.

Seems you didn't include the attachment?

Thanks for answering!
I'm sorry for the attachment, this is my very first post here
https://goo.gl/photos/KL8Z2o2PYfVupTza7
I first thought on using LHG-5 but I'm afraid would be at the edge of operational distance, according to the guide you mentioned.
Seems to be quite clean path, also the spectrum there.
Maybe should I do a Fresnel zone study? Perhaps https://www.loxcel.com/3d-fresnel-zone
Btw, the mounting on one site is likely to be on a F.M. broadcasting mast.
I don't think this suppose any issue, do you?
Regards

Héctor

You should definitely do a Fresnel study. This Calculator can be used for free.

FM environment is going to give you ethernet link issues, you'll need ferrite beads that cover 25-150MHz range for any ethernet cables involved.

Thank you so much pukkita, my boss is considering to set up a test link at a similar distance for performance evaluation.
I'll let you know any further advance
Best regards

Héctor

So have role that graph

Listen to Pukkita, he's an old school network cat and knows stuff.
Second, i suggest Dyna Dish as reliable and quality solution for covering such distance. I have couple of links that performs smooth for almost six months now.Never had any problems.
Cheers!

Thank you so much pukkita, my boss is considering to set up a test link at a similar distance for performance evaluation.
I'll let you know any further advance
Best regards

Héctor

Sadly wireless is all about the location. You can setup a test link on spectrum free locations, and get full throughput; then mount the same equipment on its definitive location and barely be able to get decent throughput on any channel due to interference; beware specially of nearby, or pointing to your equipment Airfibers 5, they can wipe out the entire spectrum, specially if badly setup.

If your location spectrum is crowded (i.e. there are more PTPs in that tower) QRT can have an advantage vs DynaDish; performance with both is very close, but QRT seems to stand nearby interference better than the dynadish (better shielding).

The best shielding option in crowded towers is mANT30 PA + Sleeve30. Add a netmetal as radio and use a fiber run on the FM tower and you'll have the best setup in terms of resiliency.

Where's the internet source located? at the FM tower?

What happened to the tables in the first post? Every time I click on the link it takes me to the main MikroTik download page.

What happened to the tables in the first post? Every time I click on the link it takes me to the main MikroTik download page.

same here!
Also cannot download the PNG files.

They've gone. Just use this instead https://mikrotik.com/calculator

The tables have been moved to product documentation download tabs:

https://mikrotik.com/product/lhg_2#fndtn-downloads

Selection guide for PtP links
https://i.mt.lv/cdn/rb_files/antenas-160404123306.pdf

Selection guide for PtMP links
https://i.mt.lv/cdn/rb_files/antenas-ma ... 123306.pdf

And a separate LHG 5 document which is stripped from the current brochure https://i.mt.lv/cdn/rb_files/LHG_5_all-180130154020.pdf

However not updated since 04/04/2016...

And since Mikrotik likes hide information here and there we might want to reference this at the same time https://mikrotik.com/products/matrix