Controllerless Networks

last person joined: 12 hours ago 

Aruba Instant Wi-Fi: Meet the controllerless Wi-Fi solution that's easy to set-up, is loaded with security and smarts, and won't break your budget.
Expand all | Collapse all

Visual RF vs. Fluke Aircheck

This thread has been viewed 0 times
  • 1.  Visual RF vs. Fluke Aircheck

    Posted Dec 03, 2015 11:09 AM

    Hey all,

    I'm going through a "validation" process with a Fluke Aircheck (handheld)...

     

    Reading from the Fluke are dramatically better in terms of coverage distances...

     

    any thoughts on why?

    (grid size? TX rate? attenuation settings?)

     

    (I'll try to post screenshots later to demonstrate)



  • 2.  RE: Visual RF vs. Fluke Aircheck

    Posted Dec 03, 2015 11:12 AM

    VisualRF is "predictive" while Fluke Aircheck is actual.  Those are technically two different things.

     

    How are you using the Fluke Aircheck to validate coverage?



  • 3.  RE: Visual RF vs. Fluke Aircheck

    Posted Dec 03, 2015 11:15 AM

    Just walking slowly from each AP, monitoring dBM numbers as we go...

     

    (I know VRF is predictive, but I was hoping to get closer to "probable" than "possible")

     

     

     



  • 4.  RE: Visual RF vs. Fluke Aircheck

    Posted Dec 03, 2015 11:55 AM

    the.sleeper,

     

    It is probably good if you add diversity to your clients.  Use a real client like a Windows laptop, a Mac and a couple mobile devices (if android, use Aruba utilities), to compare between what fluke sees and what these devices see.  Make a chart with all their signal strengths and you would get an idea of the differences.



  • 5.  RE: Visual RF vs. Fluke Aircheck

    Posted Dec 03, 2015 03:14 PM

    Additionally, with VisualRF, you can see variances based on the type of environment you configured as part of the modeling. If you configured open space in a dense office environment, VisualRF will present a far more optimistic model than reality. 



  • 6.  RE: Visual RF vs. Fluke Aircheck

    Posted Dec 10, 2015 01:51 PM

    Colin, Jerrod, 

    Thank you both for your points.

     

    My issue is actually that Visual RF is understating the 225's coverage:

     

    VRF-coverage.jpeg

     

      fluke.coverage.jpeg

     

    (I manually drew the Aircheck map to illustrate the readings we were getting... basically green = -65 dBM or better)

     

    The difference between the two is large enough that VRF estimates are almost of no use.

     

    Seems like there would be a way to "calibrate" VRF somehow... dunno, just throwing out ideas...