Simulcast VS Sites

[productionguy85]

Hello, just looking for some insight and opinions on something. If I need 3 separate towers (sites) for coverage, why would I make the system a Simulcast instead of an actual 3 site system? Wouldn't 3 seperate sites be cheaper (since you would not necessarily need the same amount of repeaters at each site, as you do with simulcast). Say Site 1 has 6 channels, site 2 has 11, and site 3 only has 3. That's only 19 repeaters (in non- simulcast VS 33 in simulcast). Plus with simulcast, you would need comparators for each channel so that's 11 comparators. So please somebody tell me how or what is the advantage of simulcast over regular sites?
Please correct any info that is not accurate, I'm by no means an expert at this stuff... Obviously

 

[Thunderknight]

It's more complex. You need to determine operational areas, talkgroup coverage requirements, etc.
if you can define coverage by the site coverage (eg police south, police west, police north) then separate sites might be ok. But if you need overlap them simulcast becomes more favorable.
If the simulcast improves coverage in mixed areas, it keeps the user or radio from constant channel changes.
Also if you have 3 sites with different frequencies, you might need 19 channels since the coverage overlap would likely prevent reuse of the channels. In simulcast you may get away with less total channels (since all sites are the same) depending on loading needs.

 

[N4DES]

And simulcast, like voting, allows for joint probability with regards to being able to receive a signal from multiple directions at the same time. With single sites, even with roaming, you run into the possibility of shadowing where an adjacent tower might not be heard. You can also engineer lower power sites using simulcast that can increase reliability, reduce electric load (smaller back-up components) or lower height antennas on a tower that might just save a tower strengthening project.