On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 17:24:17 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

This subsequent restriction to GRAPHICS (and not to issues of NEC per se)
...

But the GRAPHICS are only plotting what NEC calculated, are they not?

The point of the matter (re-iterated by Roy) is that the graphical
representation is one for wide application (99.9999%) and the
remaining (0.0001%) still have access to the DATA. There is nothing
lost but convenience. True, one may come to some erroneous conclusion
on abstracting the near-in characteristics to the far field
representations. I would challenge them more for their
mis-application than their literal mis-understanding, however. There
is not much demand for 160M operation to the horizon that goes wanting
elaborate modeling. Simple experience eclipses that easily.

To cut to the nut of the matter:
But to bring us back to the major complaint which seems to be that the
Nec engine doesn't model the last few degrees over ground very well
is simply wrong in the first degree (also re-iterated by Roy).

I've been modeling for results at the horizon for as long as I've held
a copy of EL/EZNEC. This and the Brown, Lewis, Epstein data confirm
to within 1dB as I've reported on more than one occasion. This is a
validation in the absolute, not relative sense; and to a probable
higher degree of accuracy than the average Ham pursues or could
obtain.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC