## 5 Results and Discussion
### Stage II
#### 5.3.1 Less Demanding LiDAR Configuration  
Figure 6 presents the results of simultaneous latency and throughput measurements using a less demanding LiDAR configuration. For clarity, only average values are shown in the figure; however, the standard deviation (SD) for each measurement is provided in Table 6, which also details the results differentiated by additional attenuation levels. At 30 dB of attenuation, packet loss became so significant that latency reached levels disqualifying the results from any meaningful discussion. All configurations successfully transmitted the full traffic load under 0 dB of additional attenuation. This is not surprising, considering that each configuration is capable of supporting at least 130 Mbibps, as indicated in Table 5. To provide a clearer view of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline
**Configuration** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Average Throughput** \\ **(Mbps/SD)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Average RTT Latency** \\ **(ms/SD)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline (6) Low Latency: & 130.79/5.38 & **11.00**/0.55 \\ Rx to Tx = 4 & & \\ \hline (7) Low Latency: & & \\ SR Period = 1 & 132.72/4.40 & **11.32**/0.29 \\ \hline (10) Auto CSI, TRS, SSB: & & \\ PRACH = 128 & 227.94/8.28 & **31.10**/1.81 \\ \hline (11) Auto CSI, TRS, SSB: & & \\ SR Period = 1, USS = AL2 - \(>\) 8 & 218.79/16.35 & **24.80**/0.24 \\ \hline (13) Auto CSI, TRS, SSB & 231.41/13.30 & **31.41**/1.82 \\ \hline (16) Auto CSI: & & \\ No TRS, SR Period = 1 & 218.85/24.62 & **23.15**/2.42 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Results of selected base stations configurations from Figure 5.  
Figure 6: Results from simultaneous latency and throughput measurements for selected base station configurations with the less demanding LiDAR setup—Stage II. compliance, the final column in Table 6 summarizes which performance targets were met by each configuration based on selected latency and throughput requirements from relevant 3 GPP specifications. When a configuration satisfies a given requirement and all less strict ones, it is marked with a + symbol (e.g., P2+ indicates compliance with P2, P3, and P4 thresholds). This form of presentation makes it easier to identify configurations that offer robust performance across different levels of radio degradation, which is particularly useful for those intending to apply such setups in real industrial environments. Configurations optimized for high throughput performed significantly better at 0 dB of additional attenuation. All of them exhibited similar levels of throughput and latency, with Configuration 3 achieving slightly better latency results. Nevertheless, all configurations met the P3 and S3 requirements, while only Configuration 6 failed to meet the P2 requirement. At 10 dB of additional attenuation, the advantage of Configuration 3 becomes much more pronounced. While the throughput remains similar among Configurations 1-4, the latency for Configuration 3 is approximately 10 ms lower compared to its closest counterpart, Configuration 2. It can also be observed that configurations favoring low latency experienced almost a twofold degradation in throughput and a severalfold increase in latency. Here, the impact of packet loss on latency becomes evident. At this point, only Configurations 2 and 3 meet the P2 latency requirement, while Configuration 1 satisfies P3. To complement the RTT-focused analysis in Table 6, Table 7 presents downlink end-to-end latency values for Configuration 3 across different packet sizes and attenuation levels.