Reply
Senior Member
Posts: 3,279
Registered: ‎07-28-2009
Kudos: 975
Solutions: 44

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

I will say I do not get the hate for the Java desktop client of AC2.  I personally cannot stand to use the web client as it lacks the speed, customizability, or responsiveness of the desktop client.  When given a choice between web clients or native desktop clients for programs I always prefer the "fat" client.  Examples would be VMware, Mikrotik Dude, and Aircontrol 2.

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

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

The main thing that I dislike about the desktop client that it won't run on my phone!   Man Happy

 

I'm all for multiplatform.  I'm not a web developer,  but I've seen some amazing HTML 5 demos on smartphones that lead me to believe that UNMS  could run well on a smartphone if some development was applied to it.

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.
Established Member
Posts: 1,599
Registered: ‎10-11-2009
Kudos: 328
Solutions: 6

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

I prefer the fat client as well. Just like with Mikrotik, does anyone use the web management... lol
Established Member
Posts: 849
Registered: ‎12-17-2012
Kudos: 171
Solutions: 24

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

Sometimes we have to use a smartphone and VPN to our AC2 server and use the web client.  But it's limited and never fun.

 

And the web client allows us to limit what we see so that we can just look at infrastructure for example.  We don't seem to be able to do that with the desktop client.

 

But the map view on a smartphone is about useless...

 

Hopefully these problems can be avoided eventually on UNMS.  If it's not orphaned too early like 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.
Member
Posts: 287
Registered: ‎04-15-2009
Kudos: 53
Solutions: 3

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


@JWW wrote:

The main thing that I dislike about the desktop client that it won't run on my phone!   Man Happy

 

I'm all for multiplatform.  I'm not a web developer,  but I've seen some amazing HTML 5 demos on smartphones that lead me to believe that UNMS  could run well on a smartphone if some development was applied to it.


Maybe it's because I use a small phone (iPhone SE), but I find the web interface completely unusable on mobile. In either orientation, the sidebars overlap the center column but aren't wide enough to interact with properly. Even with the sidebars collapsed, the center column is unusable. It's far and away the most unusable web interface on mobile that I've encountered.

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

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

I have apretty large phone and it's still alomost unusable.

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.
Member
Posts: 245
Registered: ‎02-14-2017
Kudos: 45
Solutions: 2

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

@UBNT-KarolisI'm still waiting on LAP-GPS and 8.5.8... The featureset and functionality of AC2 in 2.1.1 beta has been great and doesn't need attention. What we do need is the ability to continue to use AC2 until UNMS has the ability to monitor capacity, airtime, noisefloor, and detailed signals. It's really upsetting that these menial things are no longer being supported. I will be happy to let aircontrol go and use UNMS (I have a server running the latest alpha already!) when it has the features. I rely heavily on AC2 for troubleshooting.

Established Member
Posts: 1,707
Registered: ‎05-20-2008
Kudos: 454
Solutions: 6

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

UNMS tries to do everything. We dont need that. We need Aircontrol2 to only manage our radios and thats it !
UBNT lost its focus on WISPs.
Senior Member
Posts: 3,330
Registered: ‎07-17-2010
Kudos: 776
Solutions: 190

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


@doush wrote:
UNMS tries to do everything. We dont need that. We need Aircontrol2 to only manage our radios and thats it !


YES.

SuperUser
Posts: 14,326
Registered: ‎12-08-2008
Kudos: 11073
Solutions: 684
Contributions: 1

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

[ Edited ]

@doush wrote:
UNMS tries to do everything. We dont need that. We need Aircontrol2 to only manage our radios and thats it !
UBNT lost its focus on WISPs.

In your opinion.   We are currently implementing UNMS and UCRM prior to the merger of the two, and couldn't be happier.   We've been using AC2 since it was in Alpha, and continue to do so, but it's limitations are becoming obvious and doing more development on it at this point would be a waste of resources.   That said, it still works OK for just monitoring radios, and so there's nothing to prevent you continuing to use it.   It even monitors LTU PtMP radios, so it's there for the future too.   But the ability to monitor all the UBNT hardware in our entire system, including customer firewalls (ER-X, ACB), hundreds of routers, and GPON devices tells me we'd be crazy to not use it.   Add in the CRM/Billing capabilities and why would you use something else?   Especially at the price - free.   And it's exactly what the Wireless/Fiber ISP community needs.

 

When my chief Networking guy saw what UNMS does now, he said (and I quote) " This is exactly what I've been looking for since 2000 and haven't been able to find.   Now I won't have to build anything ever again to manage the network".  I nearly had to sit on him to calm him down.   And his enthuasim has only increased the more he's delved into it.   Ditto the business side of the house with UCRM.

 

Sometimes doing everything is a good thing ;-)

Jim

" How can anyone trust Scientists? If new evidence comes along, they change their minds! " Politician's joke (sort of...)
"Humans are allergic to change..They love to say, ‘We’ve always done it this way.’ I try to fight that. "Admiral Grace Hopper, USN, Computer Scientist
":It's not Rocket Science! - Oh wait, Actually it is... "NASA bumper sticker
":The biggest problem in tech I see right now is that most users don't want to do things that are hard. That doesn't bode well for the industry or the society.": (me. actually ;-)
Established Member
Posts: 849
Registered: ‎12-17-2012
Kudos: 171
Solutions: 24

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

If it would just did everything that airControl did and was useful on a smartphone we'd be happy.

 

Dropping support for something before the replacement (airGateway/airCube) is ready and has the full feature of the previous item is frustrating!

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.
SuperUser
Posts: 4,016
Registered: ‎06-30-2010
Kudos: 1830
Solutions: 173
Contributions: 9

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

[ Edited ]

@eejimm wrote:

In your opinion.   We are currently implementing UNMS and UCRM prior to the merger of the two, and couldn't be happier.   We've been using AC2 since it was in Alpha, and continue to do so, but it's limitations are becoming obvious and doing more development on it at this point would be a waste of resources.   That said, it still works OK for just monitoring radios, and so there's nothing to prevent you continuing to use it.   It even monitors LTU PtMP radios, so it's there for the future too.   But the ability to monitor all the UBNT hardware in our entire system, including customer firewalls (ER-X, ACB), hundreds of routers, and GPON devices tells me we'd be crazy to not use it.   Add in the CRM/Billing capabilities and why would you use something else?   Especially at the price - free.   And it's exactly what the Wireless/Fiber ISP community needs.

 

When my chief Networking guy saw what UNMS does now, he said (and I quote) " This is exactly what I've been looking for since 2000 and haven't been able to find.   Now I won't have to build anything ever again to manage the network".  I nearly had to sit on him to calm him down.   And his enthuasim has only increased the more he's delved into it.   Ditto the business side of the house with UCRM.

 

Sometimes doing everything is a good thing ;-)

Jim


 Well said @eejimm .

 

I find myself using UNMS more and more, and AC2 less and less, as UNMS grows steadily.

 

 

AC2 still has some things over UNMS, e.g. troubleshooting, mass firmware/configurations, Topo. overview and a few others.

But UNMS is 'catching up' fast, and even does a few things better than AC2 now, and far superior hardware support.

 

IMO AC2 had huge potential, but 'missed out' on 'key features', and for me has become a huge hassle just to maintain semi-functional.

 

/Paetur

 

 

Regular Member
Posts: 667
Registered: ‎10-11-2013
Kudos: 197
Solutions: 3

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

This Topographic map showing the signals with colored lines is a great tool I dont want to miss. Installing a new CPE I immediately see with neighboring CPEs if signal is within range. Gives a real good view of the wireless network. Hope this is integrated into UNMS.

Emerging Member
Posts: 65
Registered: ‎10-23-2014
Kudos: 161

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

Can you please follow through on the commitments you've made to your loyal users? We make strategic decisions based on what you tell us is going to happen.

 

We have all more than patiently waited for AC1, AC2, UNMS and UCRM (mFi, crm point) etc etc etc to be fully fleshed out... We are not going to keep jumping around rebuilding and redesigning how we manage our networks every-time you guys decide to abandon a platform that you had encouraged us to commit to. UNMS has not proven effective, even close to what AC2 can provide -  We also spent a lot of time on CRM to find out its now temporary Mad5 

 

Please finish the commitments made to us with AC2 and release the software with network configuration abilities that have been promised. 

 

Loyal UBNT users since 2006 - 

Senior Member
Posts: 3,279
Registered: ‎07-28-2009
Kudos: 975
Solutions: 44

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

[ Edited ]

Until UNMS can chart and display AMC, AMQ, CCQ, TX/RX Capacity, WLAN Modulation, Airtime, WLAN TX latency, Client counts Signal strength for both chains, and noise floor at a minimum I will continue to use AC2. 

 

Until UNMS can allow for custom alerts using logical operators and logic building I will continue to use AC2.

 

Until UNMS maps each device and shows a wireless link line along with color coded signal strength I will continue to use AC2.

 

Until UNMS allows me to create custom dynamic device groups based off of custom rule sets I will continue to use AC2.

 

Basically at this time UNMS might exceed AC2 in regards to device configuration, web interface speed, and server resources, but it lags so far behind AC2 in the imporant things like system and device performance monitoring and troubleshooting.

 

IMHO UNMS has to do everything AC2 did at a minimum to be considered a suitable replacement and not a downgrade.

https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UNMS-Feature-Requests/Everything-Aircontrol-2-can-do/idi-p/2483002

Senior Member
Posts: 3,279
Registered: ‎07-28-2009
Kudos: 975
Solutions: 44

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

Finally bit the bullet and setup a test UNMS server.  I am not impressed to say the least.  For UBNT routers and switches it looks to be a great system.  For Airmax/Airfiber it looks to be practically useless outside of FW updates or extremely simple monitoring.

 

There is very little useful information about the health of the wireless links and no customization ability at all.  I hate to go into the UNSM forum and basically dump all over the software, but I really do not even know where to begin to critique it as there is so much more wrong with it than right.

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

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

They seem to be working on it, but there is a huge gap between it and airControl right now.  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: 3,781
Registered: ‎01-13-2009
Kudos: 708
Solutions: 9

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

So I haven't tried  UNMS, does it actually do EVERYTHING that AC2 does? We have over 6,000 UBNT monitored devices now and find ourselves daily zooming out and looking at signal graphs over many months of time, etc. We mostly use it for the graphing, which gives us most insite in troubleshooting small changes over long periods of time (darwinisim style) 

Senior Member
Posts: 3,279
Registered: ‎07-28-2009
Kudos: 975
Solutions: 44

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

[ Edited ]

@wispwest wrote:

So I haven't tried  UNMS, does it actually do EVERYTHING that AC2 does? We have over 6,000 UBNT monitored devices now and find ourselves daily zooming out and looking at signal graphs over many months of time, etc. We mostly use it for the graphing, which gives us most insite in troubleshooting small changes over long periods of time (darwinisim style) 


@wispwest I recommend trying just so you can tell the developers what is missing and what you need in UNMS.  However I would not use it to replace AC2 yet as it has a very long long way to go.  

 

There is no map view, a lack of all but basic stats and graphs, there is no graph zoom or scroll, you cannot create rules or custom alerts, and the list goes on.

 

I have added just one AP and its clients to UNMS so I can see how things progress and how it works.  This also helps me better know what to tell the developers is missing.

 

https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UNMS-Beta/What-is-the-design-philosophy-behind-UNMS/m-p/2569927#M9873

https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UNMS-Beta/UNMS-Charts-Any-ability-to-look-at-past-data/m-p/2569597

 

Established Member
Posts: 1,033
Registered: ‎08-06-2011
Kudos: 195
Solutions: 8

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

Hi @wispwest,

 

So I set up a VM and installed UNMS, looked it over for a week or so with a tower and clients added, then shut down the VM as I can use the resources for better things.  "A long way to go" is an understatement.

 

Hope they figure this one out soon.



If it was easy, everyone would be doing it!

"Found the problem! It was the interface between the seat and the keyboard."
Reply