Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Representative UAV-assisted optical/hybrid studies and modeling gaps.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

Hybrid FSO/VLC UAV relay architecture integrating narrow-beam FSO uplinks and LED-based VLC downlinks with dynamic link adaptation.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

System model of a UAV-assisted hybrid optical link: a narrow-beam FSO uplink connects the ground terminal to the UAV, while a wide-aperture VLC downlink serves ground users.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 2.

Simulation parameters.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 3.

FSO received power versus link distance for varying visibility conditions (different extinction coefficients κ).

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

FSO bit-error rate (BER) versus link distance under different turbulence strengths (C2n).

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Line-of-sight (LoS) alignment probability versus RMS pointing jitter, for multiple receiver capture half-angles Θc.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

VLC SNR versus receiver field of view (FOV): (a) impact of altitude; (b) nominal operating altitude.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

VLC SNR heatmap over the ground footprint at the nominal altitude and LED semi-angle at half-power.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

FSO BER versus beam divergence angle for a fixed range/channel/noise setting (illustrating divergence-driven misalignment trade-offs).

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Table 3.

Baseline systems used for comparative evaluation.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Minimal benchmark check versus standard published baseline models: FSO with pointing errors [41,45] and Lambertian VLC [1,46].

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Sensitivity study settings.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Recommended parameter settings for robust hybrid FSO/VLC relay.

More »

Table 6 Expand

More »

Expand