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" <part15...@gmail.com> 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" <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Try this chart.
>> On Mar 20, 2015 6:07 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> 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 <ben.mo...@ubnt.com>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 5:51 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *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 <af...@kwisp.com> 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 <ben.mo...@ubnt.com>
>>>> *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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
