[HN Gopher] Traffic Simulator ___________________________________________________________________ Traffic Simulator Author : eecc Score : 391 points Date : 2021-01-07 10:08 UTC (12 hours ago) (HTM) web link (traffic-simulation.de) (TXT) w3m dump (traffic-simulation.de) | parhaml wrote: | What is the source of the logic for these mechanics? Meaning, how | did you model the results of these inputs? Traffic phenomena is | really interesting to me. This is a great way to present these | inputs and visually present the outcomes. | acvny wrote: | To model these types of processes people usually use stochastic | processes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process). I | don't know what the author used, but seems inaccurate. | jeremiecoullon wrote: | The author used the "intelligent driver model" (IDM): | https://traffic-simulation.de/info/info_IDM.html | | It's a system of ODEs that describes the dynamics of each | driver. So the inputs are: the parameters of the model and the | inflow of cars in the section of road | albertzeyer wrote: | Cities Skylines is very nice for such traffic simulations. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yITr127KZtQ | (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17182008) | (https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/7h6zr0/traf...) | | https://www.youtube.com/c/BiffaPlaysIndie/search?query=lane+... | | This is frequently posted here on HN. E.g. | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25632642. | Toutouxc wrote: | BTW the M1 Macs run Cities Skylines beautifully through Rosetta | 2. I lowkey wanted to try it for years and now on the M1 Air I | can and the game is just amazing. | brianjunyinchan wrote: | Check out ABstreet as well on github: | | https://github.com/dabreegster/abstreet | matkoniecz wrote: | A/B Street is much, much more ambitious as far as traffic | simulation goes, but still in progress. | | https://github.com/dabreegster/abstreet#ab-street | | If someone is looking for interesting Rust project to | contribute (also as a beginner) I really recommend it. Author | is great, friendly to PRs (what includes PRs made be | programmers with no Rust experience). | imaginenore wrote: | That looks really cool! I hope they finish it. | bstar77 wrote: | City Skylines traffic simulation is mediocre at best. This | project is extremely impressive. I sat and watched the traffic | simulation for 15 minutes before I realized it. | waiseristy wrote: | Unfortunately CS suffers from many "dumb computer tricks". The | pathing algorithm is open loop, often causing huge 1 lane jams | even though it would be more efficient for through traffic to | use other less congested lanes. You end up needing to create | crazy unrealistic spaghetti interchanges in order to trick the | AI into behaving | sumtechguy wrote: | Having watched way too many Biffa vids. The way to fix that | is to create/force dedicated turning lanes. There is a plugin | that lets you manage it. It should be built in. If you do not | have the plugin sometimes you can fix it by changing the | number of lanes on both sides of an interchange (what biffa | calls lane mathematics). Basically if you have 3 lanes | merging into 3 you need a 6 lane on the other side. If you | have 6 and 3 dumping off you need 3 for both exits. That does | not fix 4 way intersections though and usually you need the | plugins to fix that. | Shared404 wrote: | I agree, Computer Science does suffer from many dumb computer | tricks. | | Wait a second. Ah well, point still stands. | | E: It was a joke... | airza wrote: | In the first video a bunch of cars are crowded in one lane of | the double lane road (a problem that plagues much of the | traffic in the game) | mbank wrote: | Love these kind of micro simulations! They really help to | discover non intuitive behaviour of complex systems just by | playing around. Great job! | Geminidog wrote: | You don't need AI based non linear simulations to see what's | going on. The simulation shows that traffic can be described in | much simpler terms. | | You'll notice that traffic is actually a longitudinal wave that | travels through the system. The cars are particles and traffic is | crests in the wave. | | The wave usually travels backwards against the direction of the | cars. The worst type of traffic is when you get a standing wave | where the crest of the wave just stays in the same place. | | Take a look at the simulation with this knowledge in mind. Then | you will actually see the wave. | | An elegant solution to alleviating traffic would be to then take | techniques that dampen waves in materials and translate them into | techniques that work for traffic. | ishikawa wrote: | This was first posted without https and with www in 2013. | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6756360 | timvdalen wrote: | I saw a comment about this site earlier on a different thread, | so I think someone dug it up because of that. | fooyc wrote: | The more lanes you add, the more cars you get. Adding more lanes | doesn't solve traffic issues. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#Induced_traffic... | hedora wrote: | Here's a more useful concept than induced demand: | | Ever since cities were invented, people have refused to have | commutes longer than ~30 minutes each way, on average. | | The utility of the city increases with the number of people in | the city. | | The purpose of the transit system (roads, trains, buses, bike | lanes, side walks, ferries, etc., etc) is to increase the | usefulness of the city by increasing the number of people that | can commute to the city. | | If adding more roads, trains, etc leads to more commuters, that | means the city is bottlenecked on the transit system, and you | need to expand it even more. | | The core argument of induced demand is that more roads won't | make your commute shorter. This observation shouldn't be | surprising, since commute times are a function of humans | tolerance for long commutes, and have been mostly constant for | > 3000 years. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | "Induced demand" is just a backhanded way of complaining that | more people can be served by expansion of a particular piece of | infrastructure that you don't like. Nobody ever complains about | induced demand on the subway from more frequent service causing | more people to decide that's the best option for them. | | Rush hour is like pouring a 5gal bucket into a sink. You can't | reasonably handle that all at once will have some water in it | until it all makes its way through the pipe. But you have to be | insane to use that as an argument against making the pipe | bigger. Increasing the max capacity of the pipe (so more lanes, | in the case of highways) means that it can have normal flow | before it starts backing up. The "induces" demand because at | the margins some people who were voluntarily changing their | usage times to avoid the peak hours will commute at peak hours. | | I am intentionally trying to use generic language here because | this isn't a unique phenomenon to highways. | scatters wrote: | More frequent service on the subway doesn't require vast | amounts of land to be removed from productive activity. At | most it might require a small expansion of stabling | facilities for extra carriages and engines. | | Induced demand means that when you make the drain pipe | bigger, the bucket gets bigger as well, so the sink gets even | more full. This is not sustainable. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Why is more utilization a problem? It means more people are | being served by infrastructure. Imagine complaining that | more people are going to parks because the city turned a | bunch of vacant lots into parks. | | In the case of things like roads, rails and bus stops more | utilization means more economic activity which is a good | thing. | asdff wrote: | The issue with widening highways is that traffic doesn't | exist in a vacuum. You aren't widening the surface roads that | back up into the highway or the interchanges to other | highways, that is the crux of traffic. You widen one pipe but | it feeds into the same set of narrow straws anyway, and your | sink is just as backed up. | beerandt wrote: | Still, this is an argument for upgrading all "pipes", not | one for attempting to control demand on the supply/capacity | side. | | But even absent that, you _want_ surface, collector, and | feeder streets to be the natural "rate-limiting" parts of | the network (in that order). | | It's why it's especially egregious to wave-in people from a | driveway or parking lot into traffic on an already | congested street. It breaks the natural rate limiting. | | The right-of-way rules are surprisingly well-thought out, | from a systems perspective. | leetcrew wrote: | most of the surface streets you would want to widen can't | be. you would have to take over property or (gasp!) | remove parking. | beerandt wrote: | Improving capacity and traffic flow doesn't always have | to mean widen. | | But the point is that you increase capacities where you | can, and that it's better to start large with freeways, | etc and work your way down, even if freeway capacity then | exceeds feeder capacity (which then exceeds collector | capacity, exceeds surface capacity). | imtringued wrote: | The problem with individual cars is that they are less | efficient than public transport. If you make a city car | friendly you are going to see more inefficient cars fill up | the existing road. The problem isn't some induced demand | meme. It's that some forms of transportation are inherently | more inefficient than others. You can solve traffic problems | by increasing lanes if you dedicate those additional lanes to | public transport. | jschwartzi wrote: | No, Induced Demand describes the phenomenon whereby the roads | eat considerably into the surrounding neighborhoods and get | louder and more dangerous while the amount of traffic remains | the same. | 99_00 wrote: | Traffic isn't the primary problem. It is a side effect of | mobility, which is desirable. | | If Traffic was the primary problem then the solution would be | to eliminate roads. | Daho0n wrote: | Any games out there with good traffic simulation (IE. that | doesn't break down as soon as there's a lot of traffic like | Cities Skyline)? | searedsteak wrote: | Looks like maxing out acceleration solves all other problems. I | guess we should require a minimum power-to-weight ratio for cars | from now on. | yabones wrote: | Maxing out 'politeness', 'acceleration', and 'inflow' I could | achieve nearly 7000veh/hr. | | Probably impossible, since it would cause heaps of rear ending | accidents. Maybe if driver assist features both prevent lane | changes and optimize avg. speed. | kharak wrote: | I've made the same observation. But I don't believe human | drivers could reasonably take advantage of high acceleration, | at least not as well as the simulated cars here. This is a | great showcase of the usefulness of autonomous cars, though. | Take humans out of the equation and traffic will flow. | andrewstuart2 wrote: | The other thing that really seems to make the biggest | difference (in combination with better acceleration) is | following distance, which is another thing that presumably | gets less important with autonomous cars because you don't | really have to account for a relatively slow reaction time or | poor braking. | | The observation on acceleration does make me wonder whether | teaching proper merging etiquette better (reach freeway | speeds before you're at the merge junction) would make a | significant difference if properly followed. | gnopgnip wrote: | Autonomous cars still need to have adequate following | distance. Without that one small problem turns into a 10+ | car pileup. | Daho0n wrote: | Autonomous cars would be in contact with the cars ahead | so it would react to car 1 braking, not number 9. IMO we | will see this years before we see actual autonomous cars, | no matter what fever dreams Elon Musk have. | epanchin wrote: | How do autonomous cars deal with cheap or worn tyres? Is | there still a lot of allowance for braking distance? | throwaway0a5e wrote: | A burnout at the beginning of every drive cycle would do | wonders for calibration. | bob1029 wrote: | Or weather/road conditions. Reaction time is irrelevant | if you happen to be driving over an | irregular/wet/oily/sandy/etc section of roadway at the | moment maximum braking force is demanded. | shellfishgene wrote: | This would actually be possible to implement with the general | switch to electric cars... | jschwartzi wrote: | What about electric trucks? I set the veh/hr to max and then | when I changed truck percentage to 14% I almost immediately | stopped traffic at the onramp as the trucks inevitably don't | have enough space to accelerate from the meter point. | Especially if one of the cars cuts the truck off. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | In practice that would mean a lot more head/tail accidents, | I've seen that happen plenty of times in traffic jams from | over-eager drivers, sudden stops (either people trying to go | too fast or not paying attention), etc. | bhupy wrote: | Easier to do with self driving cars, and can probably be | attained with Level 3 autonomy. | amcoastal wrote: | Yeah, and there would be no reason to increase acceleration | -- increasing the acceleration only aids in this project | because it shortens the time when the car behind the | stopped car in front of it can get up to speed. If the cars | are all talking to each other -- they can all start | accelerating at the exact same time and rate as soon as the | light turns green etc. | bhupy wrote: | That's true only when every car is a self driving car. In | the interim, if only a subset of cars is running Level 3 | autonomy, then including a quick acceleration into the | adaptive cruise control is a good way to minimize these | phantom traffic jams. | andrewstuart2 wrote: | There's also the frequent problem of split attention when | you're accelerating like that. Often you may be trying to | change lanes, and checking a mirror for an opening. Even | without that kind of better communication, computers are | just better at tracking multiple data points at once. | InitialLastName wrote: | Not to mention killing a lot more non-car road users who | don't have access to the same acceleration. | bones6 wrote: | On the ring map, with default settings, just stopping traffic | with the traffic light for a second produces the dreaded rubber- | band effect propagating forever around the circle. Fun simulator! | billfruit wrote: | That behaviour is mesmerising to observe in the simulation. | iamflimflam1 wrote: | Turning the politeness down to zero really messes things up for | everyone. There's a lesson in there somewhere... | niea_11 wrote: | I found that changing the politeness in either directions | causes traffic jams. But I feel it happens faster if you | decrease the value (but I'm not sure). Also it's best to set | "timewrap" to 20 times to see the effects quickly. | [deleted] | mongol wrote: | I would like to use a driving simulator to learn how to drive on | the left side. Is there something like that? Good if I would rent | a car on Ireland. | dogline wrote: | I've always wanted to program something like this. What are good | references to simulation programming to handle this kind of use | case? | bob1029 wrote: | If you want to build a large scale, real-time simulation with | many participants, you might want to check out some paradigms | being used in the game development arena. Particularly concepts | like Unity's DOTS/ECS approach. | | Ultimately, the task is producing a good model of your domain | and then organizing the data in such a way that you can quickly | mutate a very large number of instances with each tick (if you | are seeking real-time). | | If you are not seeking real-time, you could probably do | whatever the hell you want. | billfruit wrote: | I was also looking to learn more about this. Discrete Event | Simulation books may be of some help. | mickallen wrote: | This looks really cool! What's the tech stack? | sandworm101 wrote: | I love these little simulators because while they purport to show | that slower more polite driving is more efficient, more often | than not they show the exact opposite. Want to shove the most | cars through per hour? Remove the speed limit. Accelerate and | brake like every intersection is a drag race. Leave absolutely no | distance between cars. And dump any notion of polite lane | changes. NASCAR was right: Minimize unused pavement. The most | efficient way to move large numbers of cars down a road is at | 200mph with only inches between each car. | recursive wrote: | > they purport to show that slower more polite driving is more | efficient | | Where are you seeing this? | jonnycomputer wrote: | In this instance, upping the politeness bar seems to reduce | traffic ... | recursive wrote: | The comment I was responding to indicated the opposite. | falcrist wrote: | Adjusting it in either direction seems detrimental. | jedberg wrote: | That's because these simulations don't include inattentive | drivers. They assume everyone behaves ideally. | | Normally all those things you said would result in accidents. | If the simulators randomly added delays for cars braking or | starting up, and then kept a death count, it would be more | accurate... | ravi-delia wrote: | Hell screw the death count, just a graph of average commuting | time becoming unbounded would be enough to get people on | board. | kevindong wrote: | A pet peeve of mine when I still drove was when drivers would | leave 1-3 car length's in front of their car when stopped at a | stoplight. And then after the car in front starts moving, it'd | take them a solid second to start inching forward also. | | The bigger problem was that this type of behavior was the norm | to the point where at slow speed intersections with stoplights | (e.g. city streets around college campuses), only a single | digit number of cars would be able to go through per green | light. | kiliantics wrote: | Putting more people through per stoplight doesn't really | change much. You just get more people at the next stop light. | The light is by far the limiting factor, not the drivers. | That's why polite driving actually helps, because you get | less people blocking each other and less mishaps, the things | that actually slow everything down. | dmurray wrote: | You've never been stopped at a light where the queue was | many multiples of the number of cars that could get through | in one cycle? | sandworm101 wrote: | Or worse yet, they leave so much space that they don't | trigger the sensors. That can mess with the traffic | management scheme, sometimes preventing a light from _ever_ | changing. | screye wrote: | One solution might be to characterize individual drivers | (agents) by running an RL experiment that mimics the | interactions of individual car drivers. If the reward function | is made to compare traffic patterns of the simulation vs real | life, then eventually the RL model (a combination of agents) | should converge to how humans drive. | | So you would have various transition probabilities of a car | driver moving from an attentive state into various inattentive | states, with drivers having different reactions in each state. | | It would also help to have a level of "variance" in individual | drivers. So instead of having a bunch of drivers who are just | as likely to make mistakes, you have some who transition far | more easily into inattentiveness and some whose likelihood of | damage/nuisance is higher than the standard driver when | inattentive. | | It seems entirely doable. (famous last words) | TheGallopedHigh wrote: | These type of models are done to death in traffic and other | social models. Just look up "agent based modeling" and read | to your heart's content | vbtemp wrote: | Things like this are cool. What I would be curious to see though, | rather than setting global parameters (i.e., politeness), would | be to have each agent have its own politeness score (as well as | other attributes). Models like the one linked to here work as if | each agent is a particle, rather than autonomous decision-maker | adapting to their circumstances locked in long-term, iterated | games with other anonymous drivers. | | This way, agents would adapt their attributes to maximize their | own local advantage, and therefore could see how large scale | trends develop. I've driven in many countries and regions within | countries, and it's just wild how "driving cultures" vary so | much. Some places the drivers are so polite to the point it | really makes things dangerous, other places the drivers are | vindictive (distinct from being aggressive driver). It would be | interesting to model how driving cultures emerge. | | Edit: I guess the short story is I'm really curious why some | places, like Bangkok driving is chaotic, dangerous, gridlocked, | and no one adheres to traffic laws much or yields to pedestrians, | but relatively devoid of road rage (and people will let you merge | over if you need to). In DC, people carefully adhere to red | lights, stop signs, pedestrians, etc but will go far, far out of | their way to block you from changing lanes once they see your | turn signal go on. | | Also, exploring the game theoretic (probably prisoner's dilemma?) | aspects of tailgating and how that seriously depends on the | driving culture. When someone tailgates, the tailgatee can slow | down (everyone loses), speed up or move out of the way (tailgater | wins/tailgatee loses), etc. If everyone slowed down when | tailgated, there would be no benefit of tailgating; if enough | people give in when tailgated, that keeps rewarding the behavior. | Anyway, that would be something fun to explore in one of these | traffic simulations. | pc86 wrote: | This would be a neat reinforcement learning project. | | > _Some places the drivers are so polite to the point it really | makes things dangerous_ | | I've known people like this, who will approach a 4-way | intersection and stop even when they don't have a stop sign and | the perpendicular street does. | jeffhuys wrote: | Participating in traffic all comes down to being as | predictable as possible, I think. | beerandt wrote: | Yes, but in a way that's obvious to other drivers. | | Driving decisively is more important to overall safety than | driving defensively. | mattbk1 wrote: | *and people on foot or bicycles | SilasX wrote: | Yep. I prefer the driving rule, "Don't be nice, be | predictable." | | That is, don't deliberately be mean, but don't extend any | courtesy where doing so would come at the cost of being | predictable. | parhamn wrote: | > who will approach a 4-way intersection and stop even when | they don't have a stop sign and the perpendicular street does | | Not the main point but I never liked how traffic signs aren't | affirmative sometimes. In the case of the 4-way usually the | stopping direction have a stop sign with a missing "All Way" | sign below it. But thats not required in all jurisdictions. | Nor is the non-stopping direction 100% sure their stop sign | is still visible (shrubs, weather, etc) and can proceed at | regular speed. | | I'm sure there are a ton of reasons for the way things are, I | just think the outcome is you can't really ever be 100% sure | what the correct thing to do is without slowing down and | observing. | macintux wrote: | Speaking as someone who recently blew through a 4-way stop | with other cars waiting, because the setting sun made it | hard to see the stop sign, yeah, there are no shortage of | human factors at play. | asdff wrote: | Stop signs are the shape they are so you can recognize them | from the reverse for this purpose | btowngar wrote: | Hard to recognize them from the reverse when they're | hidden behind a bush! | vbtemp wrote: | Places where I've seen it, people who have the right of way | take that to mean they get to play "traffic cop". E.g., at a | 4-way stop the "extra polite" person who gets there first, | instead of going through the intersection first, waits and | waves the person who does not have the right of way to go | through first, which makes that person (and everyone else) | confused, and then causes a lot of slowdown, frustration, | etc. Of course only happens in certain locales, where it's | part of the local driving culture. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Or they slam on the brakes at the end of what should be a | merging ramp or lane because the fore and aft distances to | the other traffic that were good enough for the prior N | people would be too close for them. | Daho0n wrote: | Well to be fair the distance most people feel fine with | is not near what is safe. | 2iP1zbR wrote: | this has always bothered me. | | if you have the right of way, and you do not take the right | of way, in most cases you are effectively disobeying | traffic rules and disrupting the flow of traffic. | jsrcout wrote: | > Some places the drivers are so polite to the point it really | makes things dangerous | | I live in a small town that has extra polite drivers. It was | really confusing for a while. Eventually I realized that it was | a practical response to the overall street layout, with a | limited number of main streets, and different areas of town not | being well connected. Stopping to let others cross improves the | overall traffic flow - if no one did it, traffic would just be | backed up for miles. | bonestamp2 wrote: | It would be cool to study things like politeness, top speed, | acceleration, etc in different cities and then create traffic | profiles that represent these cities and see what kind of | tweaks can improve each one. | darrennix wrote: | Clearly we just need to make all cars accelerate at 4.0m/s and | our traffic problems would've solved. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Regardless of how I change the map layout, traffic in/out flow or | truck/car ratio I seem to get the best results when I crank | accel, speed and right bias for trucks to the max and lane-change | threshold and following distance to the minimum. | | Which makes sense since those are basically the ideal conditions | for reducing the number of obstructions low speed (merging, | exiting, trucks on grade) traffic poses to higher speed traffic | and reduces the effective road area of the obstruction. | snarfy wrote: | You can almost always fix the traffic by maxing out | acceleration. Sadly, this vindicates my real world aggressive | driving behavior. | ripperdoc wrote: | Probably you need to add the factor of accidents. Not only do | they kill people, they are also the major reason for blocking | traffic. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Why is it sad if it turns out a subset of people are already | behaving in a way that analysis indicates promotes better | flow? | t0astbread wrote: | Because aggressive driving is dangerous? Perhaps aggressive | driving also contributes negatively to the overall flow in | the real world when not everyone drives equally aggressive | (i.e. through extra lane switches caused). But I don't know | much about traffic analysis so idk. | xixixao wrote: | Needs an American mode where people don't know they should stick | to the right-most lane, unless passing. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | And a Connecticut mode where nobody uses the right lane to pass | people who do that. | analog31 wrote: | To simulate my neighborhood, it needs some parked cars and | trees that appear out of nowhere. | NwtnsMthd wrote: | Other uniquely American things: | | - Passing on the right | | - Taking an exit from the passing lane (cutting everyone off) | | - Couch in the middle of the highway | C19is20 wrote: | Just set 'Politeness', to zero: don't touch anything | else.....Italy. | | *Things have got better year on year, though. I have f+r | dashcams - rarely needed, nowadays. If anything, they do ensure | I drive better. | vegetablepotpie wrote: | It seems that decreasing politeness increases lane changing | behavior. The effect of reducing politeness is that people in the | on ramp get in the highway quicker but the whole highway slows | down. | sokoloff wrote: | Any idea why the max Accel figure is set so low by default? 0.3 | m/s/s requires over a minute and a half to accelerate to 60 | mph/100kph. | | I'd expect something more like 2 m/s/s (0-100 kph in 14 seconds) | if it's a safety-related threshold and at least 1 m/s/s if it's a | general operation setting. | | That it's set so far away from that makes me wonder if I don't | understand what it's used for. | leetcrew wrote: | it is odd, especially since the "info" section on the same page | lists reasonable figures as being in the range of 0.8-2.5 | m/s/s. even 0.8 makes a big difference over 0.3. I can only | assume they set the initial conditions to actually result in a | traffic jam. | aj7 wrote: | Appears to violate divJ + rhodot = 0. | gfxgirl wrote: | I don't know if "right bias" is enough to simulate my experience | in traffic which includes trying to get in the fastest lane and | also trying to get over to the exit for my exit. As well as when | my exit is backed up a couple of miles but the lane I'm in is | moving faster such that I have to block my lane to wait for an | opening into the lanes that will exit. | reallymental wrote: | Perhaps these questions are appropriate for this post. | | I'm beginning to delve into this space and I've not managed to | get any satisfactory answers to these questions, despite my | month(s) long search. | | 1) How does one build a traffic (i.e state-space system), | forgetting the visualization aspect of things ? Just generating | sparse matrices, and adding elements to interact (add/subtract) | from these matrices would be a great start! Any way to do this in | a compiled language ? | | 2) Are there any libraries out there that help you simulate | traffic in an existing network of roads, extracted from | OpenStreetMaps perhaps? | skrunch wrote: | This doesn't exactly answer your question, but what I settled | on during my dissertation (granted, that was a few years ago | now) was SUMO: https://www.eclipse.org/sumo/ | | IIRC you could import maps from from open street map, but I'm | not sure if it has a "headless" mode, without all the | visualisation. | 2Gkashmiri wrote: | having your route to office simulated with this would be | super cool on osm | adamjb wrote: | On 2) there's Matsim and AequilibraE off the top of my head. | dabreegster wrote: | 1) There are different choices you can make about simulating | individual agents or aggregate flows along roads. Assuming | you're interested in the former, you can advance the simulation | in discrete time-steps using approaches like the intelligent | driver model mentioned in another thread. Chapter 4 of | https://apps.cs.utexas.edu/tech_reports/reports/tr/TR-2157.p... | is a different approach to the discrete time system that tries | to handle complications that come up when applying to | OpenStreetMap, like having a vehicle cross multiple roads and | intersections in a single 0.1 second timestep, due to really | short roads. If you're willing to throw away detailed movement | (including acceleration and lane-changing), you can try a | discrete-event approach, where you say "this vehicle enters one | end of a road at time t, don't calculate anything for it until | t + best_case_time_to_cross". | https://dabreegster.github.io/abstreet/trafficsim/index.html | has some ideas there. | | 2) Another option with much less detailed traffic simulation, | but much more UI focus, is abstreet.org | mlaretallack wrote: | For 2, Eclipse Sumo allows import of a road network from | openstreetmap. | whalesalad wrote: | My favorite observation is that you can move the 'politeness' | slider all the way up - touch nothing else - and watch the world | burn. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-07 23:00 UTC)