## 4 Results and Discussion
### Analysis of Results  
The summary of the field measurement results (all 5 Scenarios) is shown in Figure 11a-e. The result for each scenario is discussed next. Figure 10: RSSI (dBm) for different scenarios in a West city Auckland shopping mall parking lot. Figure 9: Number of SSIDs identified in the WestCity Auckland shopping mall parking lot. Scenario 1 (Level 1): The measurements were conducted on Level 1 of the WestCity Auckland shopping mall parking lot using two wireless laptops (802.11n cards) equipped with two experimental cars. The TX and RX were positioned at specific distances, and file sharing was initiated from TX to the RX. The field trial results from Scenario 1 (Figure 10(a)) showed that the received signal strength indicator (RSSI) had the best reliability at around \(-45\) dBm within 1 m to 2 m, while it had its lowest performance at approximately \(-90\) dBm to \(-92\) dBm, in the range of 50 m to 58 m. The transmission time and the number of missing packets increased as the distance between the TX and RX increased. This indicates that the received signal strength indicator (RSSI) is not a good indicator for the presence of a large number of missing packets. Figure 11: Summary of field measurement results. (**a**) Scenario 1; (**b**) Scenario 2; (**c**) Scenario 3; (**d**) Scenario 4; and (**e**) Scenario 5.  
network performance and reliability decreased with increasing distance, with significant packet losses observed at longer distances. Scenario 2 (Level 1 to Level 2): The measurements were conducted between Level 1 and Level 2 of the WestCity shopping mall parking lot using two cars equipped with wireless laptops. The RSSI and packet transmission were assessed over increasing distances. The best RSSI performance was observed at approximately 4 m to 4.12 m but degraded beyond that range (Figure 11b). As the distance increased, the number of missing packets during transmission also increased significantly. This was observed for both text and image files, indicating a decrease in network performance and reliability with increasing distance. Factors such as wall barriers and blocked roofs likely contributed to the signal degradation and packet losses. Scenario 3 (Level 1 to Level 3): The measurements were conducted between Level 1 and Level 3 of the WestCity shopping mall parking lot using two cars equipped with laptops. The RSSI, missing packets, and file sharing were assessed at different distances. The best RSSI performance was observed at approximately 8m, indicating the optimal reliability between the two levels (Figure 11c). However, as the distance increased beyond 8.24 m, the RSSI decreased significantly, indicating poor reliability. Beyond 9.43 m, connection was lost (no signal) between the transmitter (TX) and receiver (RX). The number of missing packets increased as the distance increased, leading to a decreased reliability in file transmission. For both text and image files, successful transmission was observed up to 8.06 m, but frequent disconnections occurred beyond 8.6 m. The transmission time between the TX and RX was approximately 1.6 ms. Scenario 4 (Level 1 to Level 4): The measurements in the WestCity shopping mall parking lot were conducted between Level 1 and Level 4, using two cars equipped with laptops, labeled TX and RX. However, we did not obtain any results due to the connection loss between TX and RX at a separation of 12 m.  
Scenario 5 (Level 1 to Roadside): Measurements were conducted from Level 1 of the parking lot to Edsel Street. As before, two cars with laptops were used, where one laptop acted as the TX on Level 1 and the other one as RX on Edsel Street. The measurements were carried out at varying distances, and file sharing was initiated from the TX to the RX (Figure 11e). In this scenario, the RSSI showed the highest reliability at distances ranging from 11 m to 31 m, with RSSI values ranging from \(-\)55 dBm to \(-\)74 dBm. However, at distances between 41 m and 68 m, the RSSI indicated poor reliability, with values ranging from \(-\)81 dBm to \(-\)92 dBm.