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)
VisualRF is "predictive" while Fluke Aircheck is actual. Those are technically two different things.
How are you using the Fluke Aircheck to validate coverage?
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")
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.
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.
Thank you both for your points.
My issue is actually that Visual RF is understating the 225's coverage:
(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...
At Aruba, we believe that the most dynamic customer experiences happen at the Edge. Our mission is to deliver innovative solutions that harness data at the Edge to drive powerful business outcomes.
© Copyright 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LPAll Rights Reserved.