## 5 Simulation and Analysis
### Statistical Analysis of the Mobility Models
We should consistently observe lower delay under RWP followed by EGM and the worst delay under RD. In terms of the fluctuation of the topology measured by means of the average number of links created/broken, we can see that the network topology changes the most under GM and RWP and the  
Figure 6: Coverage for the various mobility models. least under ST. However, the ratio of broken links over created links is roughly the same for all of the mobility models. There is no mobility model that tends to \"accumulate\" or \"lose\" links over time compared to another. As far as coverage is concerned, Figure 6 depicts it as a function of time. We can infer that EGM, GM and RD provide a better coverage of the entire area (close enough to 100%), compared to RWP and ST. The mobility models present a steady state. By steady state, we mean a state when the coverage ratio remains close to a constant. We see that RD and GM reach the steady-state coverage faster with the highest steady-state value (almost 100%), closely followed by EGM. ST has the slowest convergence towards its steady state (around 95%). In fact, it seems as if it just reaches its steady state towards the end of the simulation (1700 s). RWP converges to its steady-state value almost at the same pace as RD and GM do; however the steady-state value of RWP is the lowest of all (90%). Overall, the main information to take away from Figure 6 is that with some mobility models (ST and the widely-used RWP), the 30 nodes take way more time than others (EGM, GM and RD) to cover the entire region in an acceptable/interesting extent. As a matter of fact, anything between the 90% and 100% range can be seen as satisfactory. We can see that GM, RD and EGM enter that range around halfway through into the simulation, whereas as ST enters the same range towards the end. The widely-used RWP enters the range almost at the end of the simulation; this clearly shows an unsatisfactory coverage overall compared to GM, RD and EGM. Furthermore, we can see in Figure 7 that with RWP, the nodes cluster around the center of the region and pass by the boundary regions with a very low density. At the other extreme, GM (Figure 8) shows a more uniform node distribution with no specific spikes. We expect EGM to have a similar if not slightly better distribution as GM, since it is an enhanced version of the latter. All of the above on coverage gives us an idea of the better suitability of one mobility model over another when it comes to a UAANET application, such as search missions. We now know that RD, GM and EGM are better choices than RWP and ST. Coverage does not give us much information about the potential performance of routing protocols. It is more of a measure of suitability to a given UAANET application. The conjunction of all of the above-mentioned statistics leads us to believe that RWP will provide the best performance among all of the routing protocols. On the other hand, RD should exhibit the worst performance among all of the protocols. Moreover, EGM consistently shows the second best statistics right behind RWP. We expect this ranking to reflect on the routing protocols' performance, as well.