## 9 Simulation Results with SUI Model
These values reflect a balanced modeling approach in which shadowing is incorporated deterministically as a terrain-dependent offset. Such practice is widely used in simulation-based comparative studies where statistical averaging is not feasible or not desired, and where consistent conditions across test scenarios are required. It provides a controlled means to account for shadowing without introducing stochastic variability, thereby supporting the systematic evaluation of propagation models under varying terrain conditions. It is acknowledged that the adopted values may be subject to further refinement based on future empirical studies targeting the 3.6 GHz and 6 GHz bands, as no detailed measurement-based validation has yet been undertaken for these frequencies. The field strength levels derived from the path loss, calculated using Equation (36), are illustrated in Figure 29, while their statistical distribution is depicted in Figure 30.  
The field strength levels generally follow a regular, exponentially decreasing trend with increasing distance, locally modulated by variations in the constants assigned to different terrain types. It is also clearly observable that the application of the SUI model yields no significant differences in the results across the various terrain types. This aligns with the fact that the model does not incorporate the terrain profile between the transmitter and the receiver in its calculations. The means of the field strength distributions also lie remarkably close to one another. When examining the distribution as a function of distance, it becomes evident that the test points align with two clearly distinguishable, exponentially decreasing curves. The test points located in areas with more varied terrain features (TestBS_1 and TestBS_3) are  
Figure 30: Distribution of field strength values, SUI model. Figure 29: Field strength level values around the base stations (SUI model). distributed roughly equally across both curves, while in the case of TestBS_2-positioned in a flat area with few terrain-type transitions-most associated test points fall along the higher of the two exponential curves. This is expected: even with this model, the highest field strength levels are observed in areas offering near-complete line of sight across largely flat terrain. Even when considered in isolation, without comparison to other models, one may easily conclude that the model produces coarse, imprecise results that fail to adequately reflect the terrain characteristics, albeit doing so with minimal computational demand and through the use of simple mathematical expressions. Following the discussion of the 6 GHz results, it is worth noting that comparing the behavior of the SUI model at a lower frequency, namely 3.6 GHz, is a logical and straightforward extension. However, it must be emphasized that the SUI model does not explicitly account for the terrain profile or the geometric effects of topography on wave propagation. Consequently, the only differences between the simulation results at these two frequencies stem from the frequency-dependent constants within the model. It can be readily demonstrated that this leads to the predicted field strength at 3.6 GHz being approximately 1.33 dB higher than that at 6 GHz, as directly derived from the path loss expression of the SUI model.