Reply
Senior Member
Posts: 3,286
Registered: ‎07-28-2009
Kudos: 978
Solutions: 44

Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

[ Edited ]

Since it has been around 3 months since the last beta is it safe to assume future development of AC2 is dead in favor of UNMS?  Not a fan of UNMS BTW, I find it inferior to AC2 for troubleshooting.  Very limited statistics and data available vs AC2.

Established Member
Posts: 849
Registered: ‎12-17-2012
Kudos: 171
Solutions: 24

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

Sort of feels like the airControl 1 - airControl 2 'transition'.   Man Sad

Please do not respond to my threads if you're going to be rude or condescending. We're all learning here... Icon Razz

From the forum rules:
* While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts.
Senior Member
Posts: 3,286
Registered: ‎07-28-2009
Kudos: 978
Solutions: 44

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

Except AC2 is much better than AC1.  Not the case with UNMS.

Established Member
Posts: 849
Registered: ‎12-17-2012
Kudos: 171
Solutions: 24

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

At first AC 1 was better than AC 2. 

 

There were certain features that weren't available on AC 2 and it took a long time before we could turn off AC 1 after we started using in parallel with AC2.

 

We are running into the same situation with AC 2 and UNMS now - we're seeing problems not being taken care of in AC 2 and UNMS isn't ready yet...

Please do not respond to my threads if you're going to be rude or condescending. We're all learning here... Icon Razz

From the forum rules:
* While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts.
Veteran Member
Posts: 4,829
Registered: ‎03-02-2015
Kudos: 938
Solutions: 219

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

I agree absolutely with @JWW.
AC2 development slowed down but major bugs will be fixed.

UNMS is in heavy development and supporting almost all UBNT devices takes NOW more time so you can't compare to AC2.1.
From AC1 to AC2 they copied/ edited parts of firmware and voila AC2 reporter was ready.(more or less)
Regarding development status of UNMS vs. AC2.1 now,.... it's like comparing AC2.0-beta 2 or beta3 vs. AC1.
You get a vague idea how complicated AC2 is, by enabling debug mode in logging settings.
Pulling a simple info from one device takes several ssh commands.
The overall concept of an app for thousands or ten thousands of devices running in JVM with a custom database was not the best at all.
...at least they switched later to postgreSQL after the origin developers left UBNT, but all other disadvantages are still there.
just ask a MAC OS X or non Ubuntu/debian user for example.
===================================================
We all work for KUDOs here.
Thx
Senior Member
Posts: 3,286
Registered: ‎07-28-2009
Kudos: 978
Solutions: 44

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

[ Edited ]

I guess all I care about is that AC2 remains fully functional with all existing and any new WISP radios until such time that UNMS has at least the same feature set as AC2 in regards to device list layout, stats monitoring, charts, and rule creation.

 

Ending AC2 prematurely will negatively impact my business by limiting my ability to monitor and troubleshoot wireless issues.

 

BTW - I run AC2 on Windows 10 with around 1200 devices and really have not seen much issue with the program.

Ubiquiti Employee
Posts: 766
Registered: ‎05-28-2012
Kudos: 392
Solutions: 80

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

Hi @sbyrd,

I do plan on releasing updates for AC2, but these will be limited to security and bug fixes with some support for new airMax devices (when possible).

New Member
Posts: 22
Registered: ‎01-17-2011
Kudos: 7
Solutions: 1

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

so... as we can understand - AC2 developing really is ending....

bad news...

...kažkodėl tai manęs nestebina...

Senior Member
Posts: 3,286
Registered: ‎07-28-2009
Kudos: 978
Solutions: 44

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?


@UBNT-Karolis wrote:

Hi @sbyrd,

I do plan on releasing updates for AC2, but these will be limited to security and bug fixes with some support for new airMax devices (when possible).


Thank you for keeping up support while you can.  I am sure it has not been easy as I assume you don't get much support for AC2 from the higher ups.  Please push as hard as you can to keep AC2 support for any current and future AC/Airfiber devices that use the same FW and chipsets as existing devices in AC2.  I can't think it is really that difficult to add support as long as the HW is using the same components as equipment already in AC2, but in another forum thread UBNT's posistion on the Litebeam AP GPS support was to say all new devices are for UNMS and not AC2.

Established Member
Posts: 849
Registered: ‎12-17-2012
Kudos: 171
Solutions: 24

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

This would be ok if UNMS was even close to being ready to take over from AC2.   Man Sad

Please do not respond to my threads if you're going to be rude or condescending. We're all learning here... Icon Razz

From the forum rules:
* While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts.
Regular Member
Posts: 672
Registered: ‎10-11-2013
Kudos: 198
Solutions: 3

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?


@JWW wrote:

This would be ok if UNMS was even close to being ready to take over from AC2.   Man Sad


Yes. We manage all UBNT-AP/CPEs with AC2. Moving to UNMS now would push us far back. Dont see much progress in UNMS regarding CPE Managment/Mapping ...

Senior Member
Posts: 3,286
Registered: ‎07-28-2009
Kudos: 978
Solutions: 44

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

[ Edited ]

Seriously how can we even think to use UNMS to manage/support/diagnose link quality and client issues.

 

Compare UNMS for NBE-2AC-13 vs AC2 for the same model of CPE.  UNMS barely has any data that would be useful for troubleshooting Airmax issues.  The Latency, CPU/Ram, and Throughput are not enough data to properly support a complex system like Airmax.

 

UNMS

UNMS.PNGStats ChartsUNMS2.PNGDashboard

 

AC2

AC2 Dash.PNGAC2 Chart 1.PNGAC2 Chart 2.PNGAC2 Chart 3.PNGAC2 Chart 4.PNG

Regular Member
Posts: 379
Registered: ‎03-04-2015
Kudos: 49
Solutions: 1

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

not to mention that UNMS has major flaws .... unable to support more than 400 - 500 CPE's and if enabled on any AC AP it creates traffic issues and slowes down the AP ... we test it ... horible to the point the we turned off the server and had to disable all those AP that had UNMS enabled

Veteran Member
Posts: 4,829
Registered: ‎03-02-2015
Kudos: 938
Solutions: 219

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

@ZeRo-cOol

with UNMS beta 0.13.x release soon and multi-core support, several hundreds and more monitored devices should be possible.

Regarding UNMS issues itself you should open your own thread there:
(now or after testing 0.13.x)
https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UNMS-Beta/bd-p/UNMSBeta

@UBNT-Radek
===================================================
We all work for KUDOs here.
Thx
Established Member
Posts: 1,034
Registered: ‎08-06-2011
Kudos: 195
Solutions: 8

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

@Skipper0815,

 

I think you missed @ZeRo-cOol 's point about UNMS...he wasn't reporting on an issue(s)...but good moderating out there, sir.



If it was easy, everyone would be doing it!

"Found the problem! It was the interface between the seat and the keyboard."
Ubiquiti Employee
Posts: 3,175
Registered: ‎09-08-2017
Kudos: 1210
Solutions: 232

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

@ZeRo-cOol Hello Paul. I agree that UNMS performance for a high number of devices was suboptimal at best. As @Skipper0815 correctly pointed out we made a huge step forward performance vise in latest 0.13.0 release. We will probably publish an RC build this week. The performance is very important for us so I created a dedicated thread to get users' feedback about it.

After we release a final version of 0.13.0 I will move the thread to the beta section of the forum so everyone can let us know if the newly optimized performance is satisfactory and I would like to encourage you to give us your opinion then. 

UBNT_Alternate_Logo.png
UNMS Support - If you want to report an issue please use this guide.

Check out our ever-evolving Help Center for answers to many common questions!

Senior Member
Posts: 3,335
Registered: ‎07-17-2010
Kudos: 778
Solutions: 191

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

[ Edited ]

@sbyrd .It sure seems as your point has fallen on deaf ears. I'm very disappointed in Ubnt, again. This is the same thing they did to ac1. If they would have just supported that we could be Happy. Now they want to push us to unms, however we don't need or want software that does "everything" we need software that does what Air control does, manages radios.  And it works well. 

Veteran Member
Posts: 4,829
Registered: ‎03-02-2015
Kudos: 938
Solutions: 219

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

@j2840fl

Afaik AC1 never made it out of beta.
So we have AC2.1 stable and new devices will still be supported.
No one have to use UNMS now for airmax/airfiber, so why disappointed?
===================================================
We all work for KUDOs here.
Thx
Senior Member
Posts: 3,335
Registered: ‎07-17-2010
Kudos: 778
Solutions: 191

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

@Skipper0815 . I'm disappointed that we finally have a working radio management tool and there "may" be future support "if" there is time. Ac1 was a great tool, development stopped for ac2. Many have been along a very long bumpy ride with ac2 development, now to that it works, it's not planned to continue future device support. Development resources are now focused on unms. The cycle repeats. 

Veteran Member
Posts: 4,829
Registered: ‎03-02-2015
Kudos: 938
Solutions: 219

Re: Is it safe to assume Aircontrol 2 development is dead?

I think that Karolis' answer was vague, because it depends totally on firmware support for AC2 and new devices. (and of course availability of devlp resources)

As network mass configuration is still missing, AC2 is more or less just a wireless monitoring solution. This is a topic which everyone has a different POV but imho on the long term more pros than cons.
Instead of wasting 12 or more months implementing that, they decided to launch something new, which can handle Edgemax AND airmax /airfiber together.... and doesn't need crappy java.
===================================================
We all work for KUDOs here.
Thx
Reply