I love elevator simulations.

Maybe I missed it, but the algorithm should also redistribute empty elevators that stop too closely to each other.

>All this technology just to underperform the S&P

My takeaway is that the benefit of using a much more complex algorithm is marginal.

Having gone to many large furry cons(notoriously brutal on the elevators due to how much floor-to-floor traffic there is compared to other usage) I’ve seen these algos basically completely fail to adapt to unusual patterns. I once spent over half an hour on checkout day, in a hotel with 8 banks, to even have a car stop on our floor at all. Can’t really blame the algo for such a unique situation and at the end of the day a saturated system is a saturated system and nothing can be done to make it fast, but it’s always interesting to witness when a system is completely unable to accommodate a demand like that.

(In the example above we gave up and decided it was cardio time, five laps up and down 14 flights to escape with all our luggage.)

> Everyone has shared the frustration of waiting for an elevator that never seems to arrive.

Really? Maybe I'm lucky I never had to deal a lot with elevators.

This is a good article. It reminds me of a story.

At a previous employer we had heteregenous elevators. In one bank, some went to the lower half of floors only while others went to all and the company installed a "smart" elevator system. I kind of became known because I was constantly yelling about this system in the feedback group because I hate "smart" elevators and and (IMHO) they just don't work. What actually works is express elevators and sky lobbies.

This article covers one of the deficiencies this system had: full elevators. For example, you'd want to go down and an elevator would skip your floor because another had already been assigned. That one would show up full and you couldn't go down. Down wasn't so bad because the stairs weren't a bad option but up was terrible. Going up a few floors was fine. Going up 20 was... a bigger issue.

Back in the day we had elevator operators and people in the lobby during the morning rush who would shepherd people into particular elevators. I actually think this system works way better than anything technology has come up with. Even if you nail the implementation (and I've never experienced elevators that have), people don't read and will just get into elevators anyway.

Anyway the article says that generally speaking on smaller banks simple up and down buttons work best. I absolutely agree.

There's a deeper issue here though and that is solutions looking for a problem. Nobody is making money from up and down buttons. They are fromn selling smart elevator solutions. And you see this everywhere in life. It basically devolves into rent-seeking behavior. Salespeople wine and dine a couple of people responsible for making decisions and then make bank on selling something nobody wants or needs as well as the constant maintenance and updates.

[flagged]

did he factor in the lifting speed?

Enjoyed the read, thanks!

Beyond the content, the font, style, etc made it a pleasant experience for me.

I think this comparison is also assuming the distribution of request & requested floor is uniform? When actually near pairs are less likely (I'll just take the stairs) than bottom to top, so even analysing it is more complex than at first glance.