Fork 380.57 HGG-FINAL

[Matthew Patrick]

Ok I did some better tests today. I had a helper to be my pigeon bird. I used Google earth to measure distance.
I found one device that would play along with me at 5Ghz, its a laptop so I am sure there is a antenna near the screen attached to the adapter on the mainboard. The routers antenna's are orientated at different angles. Its location is about 20ft above ground surrounded by single pane windows/walls with no insulation to outside of house.

Laptop using a ubuntu generic driver:
5Ghz, Max coverage enabled, power 100%, 20 Mhz channel bandwidth -- 429ft
2.4Ghz, Max coverage enabled, power 100%, 20/40Mhz bandwidth, 600ft before disconnecting, then reconnecting at 400ft.

Changed hardware on router and testing device:
2.4Ghz, antenna from a tp-link 2.4ghz router, 1 factory antenna in middle, a (3X longer) 9dBi 2.4Ghz ebay antenna, all orientated vertically. I shut down 5Ghz on router. I used a Samsung Android tablet.

2.4Ghz, Max coverage, power 100%, 20/40 bandwidth, my pigeon got to 1,400ft away from the house. I had the tablet setup to view the wireless log in the router refreshing every second.

That coverage is crazy. I think that ebay antenna makes a world of difference and I would say my laptop may not be as good as some of the android devices when it comes to weak signals or transmitting power..
Sorry Matt I forgot to try 5Ghz at performance.
Edit: I should add there is only 1 other AP running 2.4Ghz feq and I do not overlap his. My RSSI floor/noise is -92dBa

Well its fine. And btw. The router have 3 antenna right? And the stock asus one is the middle? Thx for ur test btw

 

[kvic]

Please Fw for AC5300 thanks

Be patient, perhaps..

Maybe add AC3100 and AC88 to the list too for many reasons. For one, to show hggomes is a 'real man' in the league closer to Apple jail breakers not a script kiddie..

 

[RogerSC]

Okay, got 380.57_6 FINAL set up here using the old driver. Working very well, and the cpu is the usual temperature on the RT-AC68P of around 78 degrees after about 8 hours of uptime. Did a factory reset after flashing 380.57_6 on top of 378.55_3 FINAL, and re-entered my configuration settings. Nice, pleased with what I'm seeing here now.

Thanks!

 

[Cake]

Well its fine. And btw. The router have 3 antenna right? And the stock asus one is the middle? Thx for ur test btw

correct

 

[Matthew Patrick]

correct

Btw. Are the speed decreased if the power go 100% and are the heat changes? Or not? Thanks

 

[Cake]

Btw. Are the speed decreased if the power go 100% and are the heat changes? Or not? Thanks

I check the temperatures once in a while, nothing unusual.
Yes speed goes to 1 and 1 according to the router. With the laptop test it stayed there for a a while. The android decreased link speeds slowly. I think RSSI was 89-90 and the RSSI floor is at 92 Db. Link was 1 Mbps ingress/egress I believe at the outer reaches.

The only 5Ghz device I could get to work was the laptop. I noticed yesterday I was about 1000ft+ away with my android phone (3X stock Asus antenna's) its a old Samsung S2 @ 2.4Ghz. I think the laptop I used isn't as good for some reason. Maybe the 5Ghz will go 500ft with something else.
I think I got the other guy in my area beat coverage wise
He sells his Internet using a radius server I believe.

 

[Matthew Patrick]

I check the temperatures once in a while, nothing unusual.
Yes speed goes to 1 and 1 according to the router. With the laptop test it stayed there for a a while. The android decreased link speeds slowly. I think RSSI was 89-90 and the RSSI floor is at 92 Db. Link was 1 Mbps ingress/egress I believe at the outer reaches.

The only 5Ghz device I could get to work was the laptop. I noticed yesterday I was about 1000ft+ away with my android phone (3X stock Asus antenna's) its a old Samsung S2 @ 2.4Ghz. I think the laptop I used isn't as good for some reason. Maybe the 5Ghz will go 500ft with something else.
I think I got the other guy in my area beat coverage wise
He sells his Internet using a radius server I believe.

Oh thats why. Btw. On android is 1mbit link? What? When 2.4ghz? On like 700feet or 1000+? Thx so muchh

 

[kvic]

That does not give you the right to spam this site.

With due respect, your spams are as good as sfx's, not only on this thread but many other places on this forum...that's to say something you know already or you don't like to hear is considered spam..

I could understand some people's interests in this fork - boosting TX power and getting a few more channels for their regions. These could be properly done with source opened - now "keys to the kingdom" are already in the open air. Nothing need to hide really..

With GPL compliance plus proper adherence to regional RF regulations, this fork can perhaps make a positive impact - drive vendors to work harder to have stock firmware to not miss channels for a region or incorrectly limits TX power for a region..

Apparently hggomes has no such interest for the betterment of this community. Now people see him violates GPL. What have these people done to have hggomes to release the source code?

No, but turn a blind eye. Including respectfully yours. Have you PM'ed hggomes to release the source code for GPL compliance?

Most users of this fork are individuals at home. Respectfully yours actually have commercial interest. You install this fork in commercial premises for your customers - at the risk of having them violating local RF regulations, not to mention making them accomplice of GPL pirates.

That's a bit out of class IMHO.

 

[Cake]

I wouldn't expect lots of range with 5Ghz. Yes 2.4Ghz and I would say at 700 feet your 1 or 2 steps away from 1 and 1. I'm not sure what the levels are- ex. 64Mbs then 32Mb/s then 16Mb's until you get to 1 and 1. I notice its not always the same like it might be 10/1 or something but at the outer reaches its 1/1.
If there is a offline non-cloud app I can put on my phone (gps, logging, data link rate) I will test it out again.
You can almost watch youtube at 1Mbp/s

 

[rogern]

This is not related to this firmware, but how do you set the channel on 2.4GHz in triband mode as in EU channels 1,5,9,13 is the ones to use. Not US 1,6,11 as they only have 11 channels to use?

 

[Trickster]

After reading this entire thread I find quite curious how some people talk about the FCC violations on this FW when older ASUS FW versions allow it also, done with a set of commands. I really cant see the difference...

 

[Matthew Patrick]

Yea. Its up to the users . if they wanna take risk and use it then why not. If there are some peoples that didnt want to use it. Then dont use it. Its simple. But if ur door got knocked by FCC or police. Dont blame this thread. Cuz u are the one decided to use this fw. If there someone didnt happy on this fw. Just use merlin or john fork. Okay? Now everybody happy .. Please kindly see my message and dont be such haters to my replay. cheers

 

[thiggins]

ok, SFX. Point made. Move on.

 

[Nullity]

After reading this entire thread I find quite curious how some people talk about the FCC violations on this FW when older ASUS FW versions allow it also, done with a set of commands. I really cant see the difference...

You are confident that this firmware has no other tweaks, and is capable of nothing more than the older firmware?

 

[L&LD]

With due respect, your spams are as good as sfx's, not only on this thread but many other places on this forum...that's to say something you know already or you don't like to hear is considered spam..

I could understand some people's interests in this fork - boosting TX power and getting a few more channels for their regions. These could be properly done with source opened - now "keys to the kingdom" are already in the open air. Nothing need to hide really..

With GPL compliance plus proper adherence to regional RF regulations, this fork can perhaps make a positive impact - drive vendors to work harder to have stock firmware to not miss channels for a region or incorrectly limits TX power for a region..

Apparently hggomes has no such interest for the betterment of this community. Now people see him violates GPL. What have these people done to have hggomes to release the source code?

No, but turn a blind eye. Including respectfully yours. Have you PM'ed hggomes to release the source code for GPL compliance?

Most users of this fork are individuals at home. Respectfully yours actually have commercial interest. You install this fork in commercial premises for your customers - at the risk of having them violating local RF regulations, not to mention making them accomplice of GPL pirates.

That's a bit out of class IMHO.

With all due respect I usually respond to other's questions, where I can help. Not the same thing at all.

I have thought of the few customers that I have offered this build to. I know they are not operating outside their regional RF regulations and they agree to see where this goes at this point. Right now? No one with an open mind is too worried.

I have not turned a blind eye as you say, and have not violated any local regulations or making anyone an GPL pirate.

The last statement I remember reading directly from hggomes on this subject (with those posts now deleted) is that it will be released when it's ready. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

As for me not asking for the source code, you're correct. Because I don't know what to make of it and is therefore a stupid request on my part.

In either event, Tim has responded on this issue (sfx2000's continued posts) and trust that the next time we hear anything will be the availability of the source code.

Do note that I agree with sfx2000's reasons for the release of the source (that is what participating in a discussion I previously knew nothing about gets us; increased knowledge), but pursuing it in a more professional manner is both more responsible and more in the spirit of the few words I have read about GPL's intents too.

 

[Trickster]

You are confident that this firmware has no other tweaks, and is capable of nothing more than the older firmware?

It wasn't a complain about the FW, it's amazing, I use it on my 2 routers (RT-N16 and RT-AC87U), I know it has a great potencial I was talking about Regional Settins / TXPower, if you installed official old ASUS FWs you will also be violating the rules, why not complain about it also? Or John FW? I dont see a difference ... Integrated on the FW (hgg) or using command line (old ASUS FWs), both will violate those rules anyway. At the end its ALL about user responsability.

 

[LeeH]

Hi all, I'm having disappointing results from this.

at 75% tx I now can get 2 bars out of 3 in my furthest bedroom but as soon as the connection is put under any load my iPad disconnects and no devices can rejoin for so some time.

If the increase range is not reliable then I cannot see any advantage using this. Am I correct?

 

[Matthew Patrick]

Hi all, I'm having disappointing results from this.

at 75% tx I now can get 2 bars out of 3 in my furthest bedroom but as soon as the connection is put under any load my iPad disconnects and no devices can rejoin for so some time.

If the increase range is not reliable then I cannot see any advantage using this. Am I correct?

It shouldn't doing that. I think

 

[RMerlin]

After reading this entire thread I find quite curious how some people talk about the FCC violations on this FW when older ASUS FW versions allow it also, done with a set of commands. I really cant see the difference...

The FCC changed the rules two years ago. New rules are progressively becoming active, with the latest portions of it becoming active this summer. You will no longer be able to market any device (even existing ones) that do not comply starting in June or July (I forgot the exact date).

This is why Asus changed the firmware code last year, moving all the radio stuff to closed source components. And Broadcom moved to an encrypted CFE starting with the current generation of SoC such as what is used by the RT-AC88U and up. All manufacturers have been adjusting since last year.

 

[Trickster]

Sure, but it doesn't change the point for those who want to remove routers restrictions, they are able to do so simply flashing with official ASUS FWs old version, should we blame ASUS (FW) or the user setting those higher tx levels?

The answer seems quite obvious to me.