1 / 23

A Comparison of Crowd Simulation Techniques

A Comparison of Crowd Simulation Techniques. Author: Matthew Funcke Supervisor: George Wells. Why compare them?. Many, many, models. All different Multiple Applications. Entertainment Industry – Movies and Games Evacuation simulation Architectural optimisation Crowd Control

rusty
Télécharger la présentation

A Comparison of Crowd Simulation Techniques

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Comparison of Crowd Simulation Techniques Author: Matthew Funcke Supervisor: George Wells

  2. Why compare them? • Many, many, models. • All different • Multiple Applications. • Entertainment Industry – Movies and Games • Evacuation simulation • Architectural optimisation • Crowd Control • Training – Military and Police • Teaching – Academic • Save time and effort in the future.

  3. Types of models • Three base methods • Cellular Automata • Rule-based Models • Social Forces Models • Hybrid models eg: • MassMotion • Massive • HiDAC

  4. An overabundance of models • Floor Fields Quinn SF MASCM • Massive Muramatsu ALLSAFE • HiDAC SGEM Exodus ABS CA Burstedde Exit89 Space Syntax OpenSteer • Aseri Kebel et al. Autonomous Pedestrians Crosses • PathFinder • Blue & Adler FPETool • Paxport Reynold F.A.S.T. Kirchner • MassMotion • Legion • Social Distances Reactive Navigation • PEDFLOW Helios • Helbing SF Maïm • Wagoum • Simwalk ACUMEN • Simulex TIMTEX

  5. A Representative Sample • 2 of each fundamental model • 2 low complexity/quality models • 2 medium complexity/quality models • 2 high complexity/quality models

  6. The models to analyse • Massive • Massmotion • HiDAC • Helbing • Quinn • Reynolds • OpenSteer • Generic CA • ABS • H • H • H • L • M • L • M • L • M Hybrid Models Social Forces Models Rule-based Models Cellular Automata

  7. Cellular Automata Generic Cellular Automaton ABS Cellular Automaton

  8. Social Forces Models Original Social Forces • Parallelised Social Forces

  9. Hybrid Models Massive Software MassMotion

  10. Comparing models • Several proposed methods: • Visual comparison

  11. Comparing models • Several proposed methods: • Visual comparison • Quantitative 4D histograms

  12. Comparing models • Several proposed methods: • Visual comparison • Quantitative 4D histograms • Literature-based scoring: • Identify common comparison factors • Weight application • Score models • Apply equations • Compare specific models based on final scores • Generalise results

  13. Comparing models - Weights

  14. Comparing models - Scores

  15. Comparing models – Equations Weighted Average

  16. Results – before penalties

  17. Comparing models – Equations Weighted Average Penalties

  18. Results – after penalties

  19. Specific Conclusions

  20. Specific Conclusions Bias?

  21. Specific Conclusions: Non-commercial / Hybrid Anything ->

  22. Generalised Conclusions • Commercial models are generally better. • Hybrid models are generally best. • Social forces if you need accuracy. • CAs when simplicity is essential. • Rule-based models for when looks and not accuracy matter.

  23. ?

More Related