# 6G Visible Providing Advanced Weather Services for Autonomous Driving
## 7 Results
### V2X Communications  
The primary communication method between autonomous vehicles and the service core of route planning and road weather services, at a general level and especially for the pilots in the city of Oulu, is assumed to be commercial 4G/5G communication. In our communication tests at the Sodankyla test track, viewed in Figure 9, we also considered the possibility of delivering the service data with short-range vehicular networking (in our case ITS-G5 and C-V2X) along with 5G communication tests. Our objective was to evaluate the service operability in the case that short-range vehicular networking capabilities would be available in the public roads as well, but also to evaluate the performance of different V2X communication methods in our special use cases. In ITS-G5 and C-V2X communication tests, we used the same procedure: an (autonomous) vehicle circled the test track and received a simple route and road weather data packet sent from transceiver located in RWS whenever it was in the range of the transceiver. Naturally, the procedure was the same with 5G measurements, but in this case, the communication range was not an issue, as the test network covered the test track entirely. The ranges of communication for both ITS-G5 and C-V2X tests are presented in Figure 10, consisting of \"red dots\" indicating single communication points where data packets were received, which form continuous red lines with many overlapping dots from consecutive test laps. There was no difference between the ranges of ITS-G5 and C-V2X. As stated earlier, the 5G network had complete coverage throughout the track. In ITS-G5 communication tests, we were able to measure both the communication throughput and the latency in separate tests. The throughput test consisted of four drive laps, presented as rows in Table 1 below. The latency test consisted of ten drive laps, presented in Table 2. In C-V2X communication tests, we could not capture the throughput of communication due to the black box nature of the C-V2X entity. Calculating just the number of transmitted packets and their size does not give a fair estimate of the throughput, as the exact size of the transmitted C-V2X packet is not known. Therefore, we were only able to measure the latency in C-V2X communication, presented in Table 3. Finally, 5G communication test results are shown in Table 4. Both throughput and latency are presented in this single table, as laps were not separated in this test (due to the continuous connectivity, separating laps was not relevant). In our tests, ITS-G5 communication achieved an average of 4.24 Mbps throughput compared to 26.84 Mbps in 5G. In the 5G test network, the uplink bandwidth is limited to the scale of around tens of Mbps per user, explaining the relatively low round-trip throughput (compared to 5G theoretical capacity). The communication capacity is good enough to properly deliver route and road weather data even with ITS-G5, as well as with C-V2X (even if we could not define accurate throughput values). The latency tests presented a 5.49 ms average latency for ITS-G5, 29.11 ms latency for C-V2X, and 14.39 ms  
Figure 8: Preliminary comparison of LiDAR and camera images in different weather conditions. Figure 9: Sod5G test track for development of intelligent traffic road weather services. with 5G communication. The 5G test network suffers from the structure of our test network, the core being in VTT facilities at a 350 km single-direction distance and behind several routers, causing serious additional round-trip delays. Having a network core (or edge) in our test track facilities is expected to drop the latency down to the same level as ITS-G5.