Error in linkplanner

[halexius]

Can someone try to make a ptp link link between:

66.75398N, 013.26098E

and

66.76072N, 013.26493E

in real world this link is obstructed, but shows up in green on my web-linkplanner

[Andrew_Haywood]

Hi,

We always recommend that you perform a site survey and edit the profile as required to improve the accuracy of the predictions. The freely available terrain and clutter data that we use for LINKPlanner was measured some time ago and the techniques used to measure the heights may cause inaccuracies in some locations.

For this particular link it is using the Aster dataset. The reflections from water can give falls readings during measurement. Google Earth shows a similar obstruction.

LINKPlanner version:

Thanks,

Andy

[halexius]

@Andrew_Haywood

commend that you perform a site survey and edit the profile as required to improve the accuracy of the predictions. The freely available terrain and clutter data that we use for LINKPlanner was measured some time ago and the techniques used to measure the heights may cause inaccuracies in some locations.

For this particular link it is using the Aster dataset. The reflections from water can give falls readings during measurement. Google Earth shows a similar obstruction

Are there the same elevation profile map in use as in the on-prem linkplanner.

Getting som unreliable elevation profiles on the online version.

have another link here as well there the profile seems to be off:

NKOM Planner:

Ubiquity link.ui

[halexius]

@Andrew_Haywood

ommend that you perform a site survey and edit the profile as required to improve the accuracy of the predictions. The freely available terrain and clutter data that we use for LINKPlanner was measured some time ago and the techniques used to measure the heights may cause inaccuracies in some locations.

Google Earth:

[Andrew_Haywood]

It’s the same profiles for both. We can only provide the profile for the data that we have, which is why we recommend that you perform a site survey and edit the profile to match the real-world conditions.

If you have more confidence in the profile from other sources then you can edit the LINKPlanner profile to match.

We’re using Aster v1 data for this region since the Aster v2 data is noisy for most locations. Even when I look at the Aster v2 profile it still doesn’t match what you are seeing from other tools.

Thanks,

Andy

[halexius]

I did not have these issues with the on-prem version of Linkplanner.

That’s a bit of a shame. I was really happy and confident with the old planner. I feel i cannot trust the online version. Is there something you can consider to implement in online version?

Another example

PATHLOSS 5:

[Andrew_Haywood]

The desktop version uses the same code and data - so the results are identical to the online version. The graphs may look slightly different depending on the width/height, but the values will be the same. If I put your coordinates into the desktop version then I see the same profile:

If you trusted the old LINKPlanner then you should also trust the online one - it’s the same (maybe slight floating point differences from running on a more modern platform).

If you are happy with the Pathloss profile, but you want to plan in LINKPlanner then export the Pathloss profile to CSV and import it into LINKPlanner. I’d still recommend performing a site survey, it’s the only way to be certain that the link is LOS. All datasets have inaccuracies depending on the measurement technique and the date when the heights were measured.

Thanks,

Andy