## 3 Results and Discussions
### MaxJitter  
Figure 3 shows the throughput behavior of AODV and GPSR in city and highway environments across varying MaxJitter values. The data show a notable divergence in how each protocol reacts to increasing MaxJitter in different scenarios. In urban settings, AODV throughput increases with a higher MaxJitter, whereas on highways, AODV's throughput decreases as MaxJitter rises. GPSR exhibits a decreasing trend toward a MaxJitter of 0.5 s in city environments and continues to decrease proportionally with MaxJitter on highways. MaxJitter introduces a random time interval between the transmission of consecutive packets, which helps mitigate packet collisions. According to the study in [23], a higher MaxJitter can reduce the probability of collisions, but it may also induce performance degradation due to increased delays between packet transmissions. This behavior explains the observed performance of AODV and GPSR in highway environments, where vehicles are often aligned in straight lines, leading to non-overlapping transmission ranges. In such cases, a lower MaxJitter is preferable, as the lower collision probability allows for smoother transmission without the need for large timing gaps between packets. Consequently, AODV experiences a performance drop with a higher MaxJitter in highway scenarios due to unnecessary delays in packet transmission. Conversely, in urban environments, vehicles are densely positioned within smaller areas, causing their transmission ranges to overlap frequently, leading to a higher likelihood of collisions. In this context, higher jitter values are more effective as they introduce greater randomness in packet transmission times, reducing the chances of packet collisions. This explains the increased throughput observed for AODV in city environments as MaxJitter rises, as the protocol benefits from reduced interference and packet losses. On the other hand, GPSR's performance in both city and highway settings deteriorates with an increasing MaxJitter, likely due to the protocol's sensitivity to delays introduced by higher jitter values, particularly in dynamic environments. In summary, the observed throughput trends highlight the impact of network topology and MaxJitter on routing protocol performance. AODV benefits from a higher MaxJitter in city environments due to reduced collisions but suffers on highways where collision risks are naturally low. In contrast, GPSR exhibits performance degradation as MaxJitter increases, suggesting a more sensitive response to delayed transmissions in both scenarios. These findings emphasize the importance of tuning MaxJitter to specific network conditions to optimize routing efficiency. The jittering effects observed on throughput also extend to the Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR), as illustrated in Figure 4. Both AODV and GPSR exhibit distinct PDR behaviors depending on the MaxJitter values in city and highway environments. In highways,  
Figure 3: Throughput comparison between VANET scenarios and MaxJitter. the PDR for both protocols is higher when MaxJitter is low and gradually decreases as MaxJitter increases. In contrast, in city environments, PDR is lower at smaller MaxJitter values but improves proportionally as MaxJitter rises. This pattern can be attributed to similar underlying dynamics that influence throughput. In urban areas, vehicle density is higher, leading to more frequent overlaps in transmission ranges. These overlaps increase the probability of packet collisions. A higher MaxJitter helps reduce these collisions by introducing greater randomness between consecutive packet transmissions, thereby reducing the likelihood of simultaneous transmissions from nearby nodes. As a result, PDR improves with an increasing MaxJitter in cities, similar to the observed rise in throughput. With more efficient collision mitigation, the network experiences fewer packet drops, leading to higher PDR as MaxJitter increases.