Estion results in a performance decline in LER compared pared to LECAR. The GPSR PSB36 Technical Information performs the worst since it doesn’t retailer the packet and to LECAR. The GPSR performs the worst because it doesn’t retailer the packet and tries to tries to send it immediately, failing a maximum of instances. The packets are delivered in send it right away, failing a maximum of times. The packets are delivered in GPSR only GPSR only when the destination is really a neighbor in the sender. GPSRQ also lags far behind when the destination is usually a neighbor of the sender. Quin C1 Data Sheet GPSR-Qis decided only primarily based on the in the packet Delivery ratio, indicating that if the routing also lags far behind in the packet delivery ratio, indicating that in the event the routing is decided only based on the obtainable location readily available location information and facts, with no thinking about a technique for the sparse network sce data, without having contemplating a method for the sparse network situation, the routing nario, the routing protocols suffer severely in reaching a considerable packet delivery protocols suffer severely in attaining a considerable packet delivery ratio. ratio.1.0 0.9 0.1.0 0.9 0.Packet Delivery RatioPacket Delivery Ratio0.7 0.6 0.five 0.4 0.3 0.two 0.1 0.0 5 10 15 20 250.7 0.6 0.five 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 five ten 15 20 25LECAR LER LAROD-LoDis Spray and Wait GPSR GPSR-QLECAR LER LAROD-LoDis Spray and Wait GPSR GPSR-QNumber of UAVsNumber of UAVs(a) Buffer Size = 25 MB(b) Buffer Size = 50 MBFigure 11. Functionality comparison of routing protocols for the packet delivery ratio when the Figure 11. Overall performance comparison of routing protocols for the packet delivery ratio when the buffer buffer size is (a) 25 MB and (b) 50 MB. size is (a) 25 MB and (b) 50 MB.Spray and Wait performs far improved than GPSR or GPSRQ but slightly worse than than Spray and Wait performs far improved than GPSR or GPSR-Q but slightly worse LARODLoDiS. In Spray and Wait, the sender broadcasts packets to all neighbors, LAROD-LoDiS.In Spray and Wait, the sender broadcasts packets to all neighbors, the the neighbors broadcast to their neighbors, and so on till the packet reaches its destination. neighbors broadcast to their neighbors, and so on until the packet reaches its destination. This spreading normally causes important congestion in the buffer and leads to high packet losses. We think this high packet loss may be the essential reason behind the poor performance of Spray and Wait within this experiment. Furthermore, LARODLoDiS performs greater than Spray and Wait but worse than LER and LECAR. Despite the fact that LARODLoDiS tries to help keep the amount of copies per packet low,Sensors 2021, 21,14 ofThis spreading usually causes substantial congestion within the buffer and leads to high packet losses. We believe this higher packet loss would be the crucial cause behind the poor performance of Spray and Wait in this experiment. In addition, LAROD-LoDiS performs improved than Spray and Wait but worse than LER and LECAR. Though LAROD-LoDiS tries to help keep the amount of copies per packet low, it fails to complete so from time for you to time, major to congestion. Moreover, it lacks the location estimation mechanism that very contributes to poor overall performance compared to LER and LECAR. five.2. Performance Evaluation for the Hop Count per Packet We recorded the amount of hops or UAVs that a packet travels from the sender towards the destination. The average outcome is presented in Figure 12. A reduce hop count is superior since it calls for fewer.