Sorry for asking as it has probably been answered in some way already here. I have a quest 3 and want to create a separate WiFi network suitable for it for pcvr. I currently have fttc via sky q router which is heavily used. Is it possible to add something to it to create a separate faster WiFi network while leaving the sky network still in place? Just want if possible WiFi 6 capability for the vr. Easiest and cheapest options please.
Create a separate WiFi 6 network?
- Thread starter lgrenter
- Start date
I use a Wifi extender for a dedicated network for my Quest 2, the TP-Link RE505X. The RX605X is faster on 2.4Ghz but I turn off 2.4 anyway. They are both 1200Mbps on 5Ghz with wifi 6.
I run a network cable from the network switch near the PC to the extender which then creates it's own network.
Also worked great with an TPLink RE650 but that was Wifi 5 only.
If it's in the same room as the headset then you can mayby get the cheaper model without external antenna.
Associate
What throughput will you be using is the question. By the looks of it Quest3 quotes wifi [email protected]. So you need at least 2.5GB Network with WiF [email protected].
If I get the TP-Link RE505X connected as you describe via Ethernet, it the creates its own Wi-Fi 6 network? My sky router does not broadcast 6 itself so the extender creates its own with its own ssid?
Yes, totally different SSID, you need to set it to access point mode then it's just a dumb link between the Eth cable and the WiFi.
Call it whatever you like and you are good to go
Sorry no idea about throughput. I have seen on the vr forum here that 6e is better but lots report that 6 is ok with quest 3 if it is only being used for that and no other devices on the 6 network. Does that sound correct?
Associate
Basic WiFi6 2x2 will give about 1200Mbps depending on device so in real terms 700/800Mbps, I get around 800 ish on WiFi6. But do remember that I also only have 1GB ports on my router so thats all I will ever get to a PC, example shown below. That would apply for most cheap AP's on the market.
Code:
/tool/speed-test address=
status: udp download
time-remaining: 22s
ping-min-avg-max: 1.76ms / 2.27ms / 4.15ms
jitter-min-avg-max: 1us / 136us / 1.9ms
loss: 0% (0/200)
tcp-download: 829Mbps local-cpu-load:79%
tcp-upload: 914Mbps local-cpu-load:40% remote-cpu-load:0%
Soldato
Yes, those pesky 1GbE ports keep getting in the way of marketing departments reporting theoretical chipset throughputs as claimed performance.
Soldato
I believe you are either reporting theoretical numbers or perfect world simplex data rates.
RE505X has a gigabit network port so that’s the fastest it will ever run. Likewise the RE605X. You’re probably actually getting about 400Mbps to a single client. Which is plenty for most requirements.
My point was that the higher model only gets you faster 2.4Ghz, not faster 5Ghz so of the user just wants a single 5Ghz connection there is no point buying a more expensive model.
Soldato
You also said they were both 1200Mbps on 5GHz and I was simply pointing out that’s not a real value.
Associate
It also pains me that people never consider CPU-Utilisation when buying stuff, as well as trying to find said info.
So the question is, which would you buy as your access point, 864Mhz Quad Core or a 1800Mhz Quad Core AP. My Theory
is to retain as much CPU remaining to do other tasks when someone is hitting it hard VS CPU-Temp/PSU-Power Consumption.
Code:
4-core Arm-64@864Mhz to 4-core Arm-64@864Mhz/1800Mhz
CPU-Tamp max 54C
CPU-Usage 44-77%
/tool/speed-test address=
status: done
time-remaining: 0s
ping-min-avg-max: 162us / 206us / 371us
jitter-min-avg-max: 0s / 26us / 149us
loss: 0% (0/200)
tcp-download: 931Mbps local-cpu-load:77%
tcp-upload: 930Mbps local-cpu-load:73% remote-cpu-load:58%
udp-download: 945Mbps local-cpu-load:44% remote-cpu-load:32%
udp-upload: 958Mbps local-cpu-load:57% remote-cpu-load:25%
4-core Arm-64@864Mhz/1800Mhz to 4-core Arm-64@864Mhz
CPU-Tamp max 63C
CPU-Usage 25-56%
tool/speed-test address=
status: done
time-remaining: 0s
ping-min-avg-max: 143us / 199us / 304us
jitter-min-avg-max: 0s / 27us / 90us
loss: 0% (0/200)
tcp-download: 927Mbps local-cpu-load:56%
tcp-upload: 931Mbps local-cpu-load:35% remote-cpu-load:74%
udp-download: 941Mbps local-cpu-load:25% remote-cpu-load:58%
udp-upload: 954Mbps local-cpu-load:33% remote-cpu-load:50%Thanks for all the info and advice. I tried out a spare tp link extender/access point and connected it via Ethernet directly to router then set it up as an access point broadcasting its own WiFi network. So then had 2 networks in house (skyoriginal and newnetwor). the quest 3 connected perfectly to the new but would not run pcvr via virtual or steam as they needed the headset connected to same network as the pc, which is cabled to the sky router. As the access point only has one port which is being used to connect directly to the router I can’t see how this can work.
am now considering getting a cheap WiFi 6 capable router to use as an access point. Am I correct in thinking that a new router can be wired to my existing sky router, the new then set as access point broadcasting the newnetwork for the for headset, then if I connect the pc to the new router instead of the old one then both devices will then be on the newnetwork (with the pc connected via Ethernet to it?). This will still leave the old sky router broadcasting for the family devices and the new router only being for wireless vr and pc?
am now considering getting a cheap WiFi 6 capable router to use as an access point. Am I correct in thinking that a new router can be wired to my existing sky router, the new then set as access point broadcasting the newnetwork for the for headset, then if I connect the pc to the new router instead of the old one then both devices will then be on the newnetwork (with the pc connected via Ethernet to it?). This will still leave the old sky router broadcasting for the family devices and the new router only being for wireless vr and pc?
Soldato
Is the TP-Link running in access point mode? If it's running in another mode with DHCP server enabled then yes, it will run as a separate network, but making sure it's in access point mode (so it's just doing wireless and nothing else) will have everything under a single network. You can still have the TP-Link broadcasting a different SSID.
Last edited:
Associate
cAP ax has 2 ports
What’s the cAP ax?
Does this mean that the tp will also show as the new network via its Ethernet ports at rear so that pc and vr are on the same network?
Soldato
Not sure what you mean, but basically it won't appear as a separate network. It's just an extra device, and any other devices connected to its WiFi will appear correctly in the Sky's DHCP list. This is when you know the TP-Link is in the correct mode.
Think I am confusing myself now.
All I want to do is within my existing home network connect an access point type device that operates in WiFi 6 so that I can then wirelessly connect to the quest 3 and it would also recognise my pc linked to the home router via Ethernet . Would the pc show up on the same network as the access point? Do I give the point its own name so that only the quest uses it and if so does this still count as the same network for the pc?
All I want to do is within my existing home network connect an access point type device that operates in WiFi 6 so that I can then wirelessly connect to the quest 3 and it would also recognise my pc linked to the home router via Ethernet . Would the pc show up on the same network as the access point? Do I give the point its own name so that only the quest uses it and if so does this still count as the same network for the pc?
Soldato
Yes, if access point mode sets the correct settings then the PC will be in the same network as the quest and access point, as it should disable the local network on the TP-Link, leaving the Sky router to manage it.
Think of the Sky router as a town. It has two kinds of roads (wired and wireless), but they all interlink with each other so every person can meet with others in the town. Now think of the TP-Link, even if it has only one kind of road (wireless), if it's not in proper access point mode, as a completely separate town. Just like the Sky town, everything within the TP-Link town can see each other, but due to strict border controls on the main road connecting it to Sky, residents in one town can't see the other.
Setting the TP-Link to the correct access point mode will effectively merge the two towns together. If properly set up, the TP-Link's DHCP server should be disabled so anything on its wireless will be managed by the Sky router instead.
Different wireless names does not mean a separate network, you're just renaming the "roads" your devices connect to, so yes, keep it different so the Quest stays only connected to that.
Might be best to share screenshots of the TP-Link settings so we can help guide you to the correct settings.
Think of the Sky router as a town. It has two kinds of roads (wired and wireless), but they all interlink with each other so every person can meet with others in the town. Now think of the TP-Link, even if it has only one kind of road (wireless), if it's not in proper access point mode, as a completely separate town. Just like the Sky town, everything within the TP-Link town can see each other, but due to strict border controls on the main road connecting it to Sky, residents in one town can't see the other.
Setting the TP-Link to the correct access point mode will effectively merge the two towns together. If properly set up, the TP-Link's DHCP server should be disabled so anything on its wireless will be managed by the Sky router instead.
Different wireless names does not mean a separate network, you're just renaming the "roads" your devices connect to, so yes, keep it different so the Quest stays only connected to that.
Might be best to share screenshots of the TP-Link settings so we can help guide you to the correct settings.
Last edited: