I realized that using L_bfsg as a proxy for LoS attenuation throughout the manual etc. is not ideal. While it is of course a relevant quantity, the pathprof.loss_complete function use the p% versions of the losses for everything else. The L_bfsg however is the 50% (median) LoS loss. Better suited would be L_b0p for most cases, as it is somehow more consistent with the other loss values. (L_bfsg can be higher than L_bd, which is counter-intuitive at first glance.)
I realized that using
L_bfsgas a proxy for LoS attenuation throughout the manual etc. is not ideal. While it is of course a relevant quantity, thepathprof.loss_completefunction use the p% versions of the losses for everything else. TheL_bfsghowever is the 50% (median) LoS loss. Better suited would beL_b0pfor most cases, as it is somehow more consistent with the other loss values. (L_bfsgcan be higher thanL_bd, which is counter-intuitive at first glance.)