## 4 Performance Evaluation
### Performance Evaluation Comparison  
In this section, the results for an ideal MATLAB simulation environment are compared to an outdoor realtime environment. The path length and the coverage ratio metrics show the same results as it depends on the path model. However, the average localization error and energy consumption show different results. The list of parameters used in both simulation and hardware comparison are shown in Table 3.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Value** \\ \hline Network area size & 20 \(\times\) 20 m\({}^{2}\) \\ Number of mobile anchor nodes & 1 \\ Number of unknown nodes & 20 (outdoor) \\ Resolution L & L = 10, 12.5, 15, 17.5, \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Experimental parameters.  
Figure 24: Path length (PL) corresponding to resolution (L) in Arrow-Curve model, R-Curve path model, and H-Curve (outdoor environment): (**a**) outdoor environment; (**b**) indoor environment.  
Figure 25: Power consumption (mW) corresponding to resolution (L) in Arrow-Curve model, R-Curve path model, and H-Curve: (**a**) outdoor environment; (**b**) indoor environment.  
The comparison metrics used to evaluate the proposed models are average position error and power consumption.  
1. Average localization error  
Figure 26 shows the average localization error of the two path models using MATLAB simulation compared to using Node MCU.  
As shown in Figure 26, Arrow-Curve and R-Curve average localization error results in both simulation environment and real environment achieve high accuracy results. Arrow-Curve achieves average localization error results in simulation environment that are less than those of the real environment by 75.9%. R-Curve achieves average localization error results in simulation environment less than those of the real environment by 67.5%. That is because in the real environment, there is no ideal situation such as in the simulation, and we cannot keep all nodes on the line of sight with the mobile anchor node and cannot keep the outdoor area free from all kinds of noise. Hence, the signal will be dissipated in such circumstances more than in simulation, and the error will increase.  
2. Energy Consumption  
As shown in Figure 27, Arrow-Curve and R-Curve energy consumption results in both simulation environment and real environment. Both of dissipate high energy in the real environment. Arrow-Curve dissipates 93% less energy in the simulation environment than in the real environment. R-Curve dissipates 96.68% less energy in the simulation environment less than in the real environment. That is because the battery specifications are far more limiting in real hardware than in simulation.  
Figure 26: Average localization error (m) corresponding to resolution (L) in both simulation and real environment: (a) Arrow-Curve path model; (b) R-Curve path model.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Parameter** & **Value** \\ \hline Path loss exponent (n\({}_{\text{P}}\)) & 2.3 \\ RSSI\({}_{0}\) (D\({}_{0}\)) & \(-\)54 \\ D\({}_{0}\) & 0.4 m \\ Number of beacons received at each pausing & 50 \\ point (Node MCU) & 10 \\ Simulation run times (MATLAB) & 10 \\ Communication range & 28 m \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: _Cont._