I did Bill with a little help. I posted it here and ok the UBNT list awhile back but no one seemed to notice. I intend to keep adding to it based on input from the community.
-Ty On Mar 20, 2015 10:41 PM, "Bill Prince" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hot damn! Who made that?!? > > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > > On 3/20/2015 8:13 PM, Ty Featherling wrote: > > Oops let's try again. How about this chart... > ubnt radio comparison > <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10BwvYDqrI4D8nmDRaNtfCeou0j2uZPMGIfXf9GB-cCc/edit?usp=drivesdk> > > -Ty > On Mar 20, 2015 10:12 PM, "Ty Featherling" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Try this chart. >> On Mar 20, 2015 6:07 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Yes, charts are always good. Especially if the chart would also have >>> checkmarks for which U-NII bands they are currently approved for. And what >>> power they take. >>> >>> *From:* Ben Moore <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 5:51 PM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] splain the AC ubnt line >>> >>> Yes, we do have too many variants. It is being streamlined in the AC >>> line with NanoBeam, Powerbeam (still will have multiple sizes). >>> >>> NanoBeam = all integrated >>> PowerBeam = inner feed/dish design >>> >>> It is a challenge with sku's since may sku's are needed for different >>> areas of the world (i.e. some products are very popular here and not as >>> popular in other parts of the world). >>> >>> Would chart help? >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 4:13 PM >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> *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 < >>>> [email protected]> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
