This is not supposed to be the reason. MT published specs for both devices and antenna gain number for ax3 is for included external antennae (are they actually detachable?). And even so, if EIRP calculation is correct, then signal strength in direction of highest gain should be the same. The directionality of antenna only vones into pkay if one manages to turn (both) antennae so that they point directly at wireless station (or directly away from it), dipole antenna (stick-shaped, like those on ax3) radiates very little in these two directions (more about it in wikipedia article, includes nice charts).Semi random thought, but could it be that at least a part of the lamented issues (ax3 covering less than ax2) could be related to the ax3 (external) antennas being more directional when compared to the ax2 omnidirectional (internal) ones?
The stated value is also set as minimum parameter value. Even if antennae are detachable, I don't see a reason to replace those with lower-gain antennae. The only (sensible?) way of reaching point where apparent antenna gain would be lower than factory antennae is if one connects low-gain antennae using longer antenna cables (cable loss reduces EIRP, one could attribute the effect to lower antenna gain if the EIRP formula doesn't include cable loss, hence "apparent antenna gain"). But there are many devices more fit for such use case than ax3 is.
Statistics: Posted by mkx — Sun Jan 14, 2024 5:16 pm