All of these models are set over real Earth as per Eznec5. I set the mast segments at 1' each. They are noted on the Antenna View details as wire #5. Again my intent was to demonstrate the current magnitudes at different heights.
I'll have to refresh my memory about the AP. I have not modeled it as yet. I'm not even sure modeling and changing the mast will show us this trend toward a higher angles, but the guys at Avanti saw something, and they were likely familiar with the math and theory necessary to do what modeling does today.
Regarding free space models and things looking peachy. IMO that is the way free space models are supposed to work...they serve a very important purpose. This idea is very similar to my ideas presented in another thread about gain and the .64 vs. .625 wave. It might be important to understand...if folks could get their thinking past their bias for a minute.
Eznec has a feature called "Average Gain." This feature gives the modeler some idea about the efficiency of his design, and allows one to tweak and check his antenna construction, features, and the affects on losses that we could not determine without a lossless base line model. Again this is similar to what I've been talking about in the other thread regarding .64/.625 wave. As we do things (modify) to make our antenna work over real Earth and show maximum gain and angle, we tend to add loss. Then we tweak striving to minimize those losses, back down toward the free space model and hopefully we increase efficiency in the process.
Considering efficiency, the closer we get our model back toward the free space model the better off we will likely be, even though we can't completely duplicate our free space model or make it as lossless over real Earth. The free space model just gives us a base line to compare the real life model, and that is why we run the Average Gain feature only in free space and with all losses minimized with the model. Bob, it is similar to what you use to do in the open fields of your parents place while testing your antennas.
Bob, albeit there are issues with modeling, I think you would be captivated by learning to model Eznec. I don't know what has blocked your progress in the past, but mine always had to do with a lack of understanding the data entry part. After I saw the light, with simple models, the program became relatively easy to get the hang of it. Then I had to learn what I could about the features, functions, limitations, and controls. I think I bought the upgrade in about a month or so.
You can do it, and whiz past me in nothing flat. It would be great to have someone to collaborate with in learning.
