Please, excuse me my probably lame question, but talks about subj were popular some years ago. I hardly tried hard to search an info about it and since found almost nothing special. So, do triple-chain NetMetal’s form beam with other .11ac devices or even maybe .11n? Or that will be in next generations?
Theoretically 3-chain beamforming device with 3 V-pol antennas (closly allocated) can work the same or better then 3 single-chain devices with 3 120-deg sector antennas.
Will be there, say, SXT SA5 BF with MIMO 6x6 (9 patches each 3 of with fed by it’s own double-chain)?
We also have no plans for it at the moment, it could change in the future, if there would be a measurable benefit, or if it becomes easier or cheaper to implement. This text applies to all features that we don’t have
Little sad to hear that, but on the other side that means your company has a wide space to profound RnD.
One more question, normis. As wiki says “Nv2 DOES NOT HAVE YET: … synchronization between Nv2 APs”. Is there (possibility of) synchronization between two wireless interfaces working on one routerboard on the same frequency or close bands?
I think it would be more simple in implementation and more robust and useful than synchronization between two or more APs.
that would be quit fat setup, not widely distributed/sold and thus not very interested for majority of brands, yet.
how much even top-dog consumer routers with more than 4 antennas do you see?(including internal)among mass-sold?
i managed to find two with 6 and 8, respectively and each time someone ask dealer about in their retail store, they laugh, telling about
there isn’t point to rushing into “very specific market niche” just for fun. like bringing 6x6 or 9x9 or fatter, introducing something like QAM512/QAM512 or unapproved-yet more compelx modulations.
since 60GHz adoption there(expected at end of this year or so)would be bit more fun and more bandwith(but internal antennas in majority of proposed devices, spoil portions of it. but at benefits of DRAMATICALLY reduced cost of devices.
Beamforming is great to increase coverage. You get some additional gain. So it is a feature which is more worth than additional bandwidth in some cases. We have (expenisve) wimax systems which do beamforming. Coverage is incredible. With some newer .ac-chipsets this will be much more affordable. The atheros chipset MT uses at the moment does no beamforming.
Atherros was Qualcomm brand(among several others)/division, but such product they intend to deploy/release under major name, ie “Qualcomm” if im read their anounce for upcoming chips properly.
Marvel also consisdering it too, but question profitability, yet. Mediatek wanted too, but they didn’t have enough engineers so they join train too late, even if.
not sure bout Broadcom or intel, but would b surprised if they ignore that too. low-yeld brands.
Beamforming. Interesting subject. But imho more a nice sales tool than real improvement.
I have had the change to play with some beam forming product from Ruckus. (Proprietary add-on at the time for 802.11b/g/n)
It works but with one big “BUT”.
I have done tests with a laptop and walked away from an beamforming AP. It kept the laptop connected to a certain range.
BUT the moment the laptop disconnected for whatever reason (wifi is dynamic, device is mobile) I had to walk several meters back close to the AP to get enough signal again to get the unit associated again…
So where is now the benefit?
Conclusion would be it works than better for fixed antenna installations. OK. But to be honest, there are easier ways of increasing range for such installations. Like better antenna’s.
I don’t know, I still think ‘beamforming’ will be a very marginal improvement in radio’s that can do it against relative high costs (extra antennas and powerful cpu needed).
But on the other hand, I can already imagine which competitor of MikroTik will use this feature to the most in their promotion of their so called ‘carrier grade’ product line…
in over-simplifying comparison: potential performance benefits and new features of beamforming-enabling devices is comparable to difference between dish-based radars and AESA radars.
they even shared similar math in frimware and silicon sometimes.
The benefit is you get higher modulation rates and therefore higher speeds at higher distances. As the beams are steared they do interfere less with the next sector using the same frequency. Dont neglect the sense of beamforming.
The improvement is not marginal if done right. When chipset makers integrate it you’ll see improvements even when their products are integrated by marketing companies.
@ste; hmm, I have to agree in a great deal with you. And any improvement is an improvement, no matter how small.
Actually in re-thinking; I was more thinking the technology would be for moving or mobile stations. But here the issue is still that when a device moves out of the range of the beam from the AP you have to bring it back much closer to the AP to get it connected again to make use of it again. I think this negative effect (and very irritating I tell you!) is mostly overlooked.
For fixed network WISP operators indeed your argument stands. I now also see your point. If due the ‘beam’ now you can sustain a one or two level higher MCS-rate your throughput could indeed increase noticeable, special if it also helps to create higher signal to noise levels.
(Preferably station should also do beam forming, special in PtP links. I’ll guess in PtMP situations the stations are usually downloading more that uploading so the connection rate fm AP to Station bears more importance than the reverse. So now it would be OK if only AP has the feature…)
And for WISP it might also be a help to get problematic NLOS link to work (better)?
Actually I even see an option for a urbanized ‘forest’ where traditional wifi is hardly economic possible due the many tall trees and the dense AP network (mesh) you need to cover all houses.
Here beamforming might well help a lot to get as many as possible connected without too many AP’s needed…
). One addition: Stations have to support Beamforming for a good solution. In Wimax and .ac there are sounding mechanisms. The station gives information back to the AP so he knows the signal received at the station. This helps to adapt the beam. This is the difference between open and closed loop beamforming.
Hi,
even though MikroTik doesn’t have any beamforming products yet, isn’t it just a matter of finding an appropriate wifi card supporting beamforming and stick it into a miniPCIe slot on the routerboard and make myself a beamforming-enabled wifi router? Or is there something else preventing me from doing it?
). One addition: Stations have to support Beamforming for a good solution. In Wimax and .ac there are sounding mechanisms. The station gives information back to the AP so he knows the signal received at the station. This helps to adapt the beam. This is the difference between open and closed loop beamforming.