27. February 2016 at 9:16
#4172
xingtong
Participant
Hi,Dear Martin Taranetz
Thank you for your attention.I did as you told me.I find these variables are in linear scale which seems to be right.But with your kind guidance,I found avg_pathloss_lin_i_calc(pathloss_idxs) in v2 was wrong because pathloss_idxs were all the same.That is to say, different interference suffers the same passloss.Then I paid attention to pathloss_idxs.Its calculation is shown as follows.
——————–before———————–
% With this calculation, size(RX_W_half_RB_i_UE,3) is 1 which must be unreasonable.
pathloss_idxs = zeros(size(RX_W_half_RB_i_UE));
for i_=1:size(RX_W_half_RB_i_UE,3)
pathloss_idxs(:,:, i_ ,<strong>:</strong>) = i_;
end——————–later————————
pathloss_idxs = zeros(size(RX_W_half_RB_i_UE));
for i_=1:size(RX_W_half_RB_i_UE,4)
pathloss_idxs(:,:,:,i_) = i_;
end————————————————-
With later calculation,the wideband_SINR value of the UE becomes normal.
Best regards,
Xing.