Wireless Access

When I'm planning a new building I've done it with the Ekahau planning tool and the Aruba VisualRF tools. VisualRF is requiring 2 time the number of AP's to get -65 coverage for the same design using Ekahau. Has anyone else experienced this using both tools? We have a customer who is requiring us to use EK because they prefer that tool.

I use Airmagnet and also get a ridiculously low number of APs in that planning tool.

I find VisualRF is a much more accurate picture of what the coverage might look like.  I've based this on a like for like setup in Airmagnet, Visual RF and a real AP all set to the same power.  When I survey the real AP, the coverage area is closer to that show by Visual RF.

Thanks for your observations. 

Thanks for the insight! This post being almost 4yrs old, do you believe your findings to remain valid or have things changed?