## 6 Simulation Verification
### Performance Parameter  
Set \(T_{Qos}\) to 0.03 s, and the number of paths is 5. There are three schemes: pure spline multipath, delay multipath and delay error correction multipath.  
Pure spline multipath: no delay requirement. The results are shown in Table 4. The path delay changes from 0.027 s to 0.039 s. Two of the five roads cannot meet the delay requirements. On the other hand, without energy consumption control, the maximum transmission distance is always used for each hop, and the average energy consumption is high. This scheme cannot meet the demand of time delay and has high energy consumption.  
Figure 9: Delay and energy consumption.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \(\mathbf{\theta}\) & \(T_{\mathbf{e}te}\) & \(L_{e}\) & \(H_{\mathbf{e}te}\) & \(T_{\mathbf{e}te}\)/\(H_{\mathbf{e}te}\) & \(L_{e}\)/\(H_{\mathbf{e}te}\) \\ \hline
40 & 0.0288 & 561.23 & 11 & 0.0026 & 51.02 \\
60 & 0.0288 & 582.84 & 11 & 0.0026 & 52.989 \\
80 & 0.0288 & 607.94 & 11 & 0.0026 & 55.27 \\
100 & 0.0317 & 641.33 & 12 & 0.0026 & 53.44 \\
120 & 0.0346 & 693.69 & 13 & 0.0027 & 53.36 \\ Average & - & - & - & 0.0026 & 53.10 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Expansion angle, path length, and each distance.  
### Performance Parameter  
Most of the existing multimedia independent multipath routing algorithms are based on the maximum transmission distance per hop, without considering the balance of delay and energy consumption. Therefore, it is necessary to study new delay and energy balance routing algorithms. In this paper, a new algorithm is proposed. When multiple source nodes send data to sink nodes through multiple paths at the same time, in order to avoid interference caused by path crossover, Multiple source nodes coordinate transmission paths to avoid interference. We compare the algorithm with RTGOR algorithm [11] and TIGMR algorithm [12], and compare the following parameters:  
1 Average end-to-end delay, including various delays, such as queuing, retransmitting and transmission delays.  
2 Energy consumption E (mw) per round: Total energy consumption of 60 packets in all routes:  
\[E=\sum_{k=1}^{K}\sum_{i=1}^{P_{k}}\left(D_{n_{i-1}n_{i}}\right)^{2}\approx\sum _{k=1}^{K}\sum_{i=1}^{P_{k}}{P_{k}}^{2} \tag{36}\]  
A large number of simulations have been done to change \(T_{Q\text{os}}\) from 0.02 s to 0.04 s. Figure 10a shows the time-delay comparison. Figure 10b shows the energy consumption comparison of several routing algorithms. Since the time-delay is not considered in RTGOR algorithm and TIGMR algorithm, the energy consumption of the proposed algorithm is higher. The energy consumption of the proposed algorithm is better than that of the algorithm in RTGOR algorithm and TIGMR algorithm, and its energy consumption increases with the increase of \(T_{Q\text{os}}\). It is necessary to set \(T_{Q\text{os}}\) according to the actual situation in order to give full play to the advantages of the algorithm. When the number of paths increases from three to seven, because of the interference between paths and various network attacks, the energy consumption and delay of the three algorithms increase, because the path of the TIGMR algorithm is denser than other algorithms, so the delay is lower. The best performance of this algorithm is to satisfy the requirement of QoS delay. The interference between the path and various network attacks is avoided to the greatest extent, and the energy consumption is the lowest.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**End-to-End Delay (s)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Energy Consumption per Packet (mw)**} \\ \hline
**Time (s)** & **Path 1** & **Path 2** & **Path 3** & **Path 4** & **Path 5** & **Path 1** & **Path 2** & **Path 3** & **Path 4** & **Path 5** \\ \hline
1 & 0.028