Ben, you guys have too many product variants, and in some cases need better naming. Like NanoBridge, NanoBeam, PowerBeam, NanoBeam AC, PowerBeam AC. I honestly don’t understand the difference between a NanoBeam and a PowerBeam, or why one has models by antenna gain in dB and the other by antenna size in mm.
And of course the NanoStation Loco, why is it Loco? Because it’s crazy small? Then there’s the M vs W thing. My head hurts. From: Ben Moore Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 4:13 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] splain the AC ubnt line Here you go: Lite - No airPrism, will do PTP and PTMP PTP - PTP only, airPrism PTMP - PTMP only, airPrism These are split due to the filtering used for each (maximize PTP and PTMP performance). We won't split unless there is a performance reason to. The cost is same either way... How much is the budget? Consider AF-5X? On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:02 PM, That One Guy <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: The current iteractions of the rocket AC line, these are the only connectorized units? What are the differences between lite, ptp, and ptmp airprism only? Are some of these shipping without all there guts? I am looking at replacing an old shitbucket tranzeo link, we already have it connected to one pol of a set of radiowaves 2 foot HP parabolics. I figure its worth checking out these AC radios, but I dont know whats what now, is this a permanent separation with UBNT of ptp and ptmp or is this two things that are going to converge? Other than the Ac component, for a low throughput demand link is there any major benefit of going to the AC over the M5 in terms of performance? (future demand is a factor as well) Also considering the epmp, goods, bads uglies between the three products there? -- 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.
