Table 30.
Main conclusions about positioning accuracy for the different tests.
| Testbed | Test #: Main Setup | Main Conclusions about Accuracy |
|---|---|---|
| TB1 | #1: Receiver attached horizontally to OD (SoC nRF52832). | Of the two orientations in which the receiver had been arranged, the vertical was the one that offered the best results. In addition, the presence of people had not worsened the results significantly. |
| #2a: Receiver attached vertically to OD without presence of people (SoC nRF52832). | ||
| #2b: Idem #2a with presence of people (SoC nRF52832). | ||
| #3: Receiver attached vertically to OD (SoC nRF52810). | The performance of SoC nRF52832 was in general the best. | |
| #4: Receiver attached vertically to OD with SoC nRF52832. | ||
| #5: Idem #4. | It was possible to reduce the number of beacons, increase the value of A and lower the density of the grid while keeping errors to a limit. | |
| #6a: Idem #4 without presence of people. | ||
| #7: Idem #4. | ||
| #8: Idem #4 | Removal of outliers did not have a significant impact. | |
| TB2 | #9: Idem #4. | It was confirmed in another scenario that it was possible to reduce the number of beacons and lower the density of the grid while keeping errors to a limit. |
| #10: Idem #4. | ||
| #11: Idem #4. |