Destination dispatch should be no worse than standard up/down buttons, right (at least in theory)? It provides additional information about the destination, but it should be possible for that information to be interpreted as if it were just an up/down button press, so RSR could still be used. I have a feeling a better algorithm could in fact make destination dispatch slightly better than RSR... or am I missing something?

Of course, user error is also a factor, so this isn't accounting for people not understanding how to use it and making things worse that way.

▲

brd529 3 hours ago | parent [-]

As the article says, the problem with destination dispatch is that it 'locks in' an elevator. The passenger gets told at call time what elevator to go to, and it can't change that mid flight. RSR has the advantage that the passenger has no idea which elevator will come, and so RSR can change the elevator they will get in real-time as conditions change. This was an insight I had not considered before reading the article.

▲

dperfect 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That sounds like two separate things then. Could you not have people select a destination without locking in an elevator?

(I've never encountered destination dispatch myself, so I'm not really sure how it works in practice)

▲

hypersoar 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The way I've seen it work is that there's a touch screen in the elevator lobby. You tap a floor, and then screen will say "Car C" (along with an audible message). The problem is that then the system can't reassign you to a different car after that. You'll typically have a bunch of different people going to a bunch of different floors, and there would be no reliable way to communicate to each individual their new assignment. Each car will also typically display which floors it's going to when it arrives. I suppose that, rather than assigning a car immediately, you could have passengers check cars as they arrive to see if they're going to their desired floor. Then the system could do reassignment, but people would be scrambling to check every car to see if it's the right one for them, and that's assuming that they understood the system. It would be way too chaotic in practice.

	▲	nicwolff an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Little extra "fun" anecdote: my building has two banks of eight elevators, each servicing 20 or so floors, and has six destination dispatch kiosks: one at each end and the middle of each bank. The kiosks originally had nice metal buttons for each floor and you could easily tap yours as you walked by. Sometime during Covid, the metal buttons were replaced with glass touch screens – which are totally unreadable on sunny days, because in our stunning glass-ceilinged atrium mezzanine they sit directly in sunbeams[0]. So now you have to walk up to the kiosk, shade it with your body, and squint at the screen to make out where to touch it. [0] http://www.angel.net/~nic/photos/elevators.jpg
	▲	namibj an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		You could give each one a diceware-eff-wordlist-like "ID" when they input where they want to go, perhaps have a "group" and "single" button/column per destination in the menu as well to inform the elevator if it's a group traveling together, and importantly have a fast-food-pickup-counter style dispatch screen up top visible from the waiting "hall", that assigns you a cab with an appropriate notice/heads-up period so you can make your way over to the assigned cab.
	▲	hypercube33 an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		After visiting a hospital with like 5 floors and 2 elevators people were having a hell of a time with just 'going up ' or down arrows
	▲	JoshTriplett 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Display a set of floors on a big overhead screen (in floor order so they're easy to find), have the "elevator" column blank until the elevator is assigned, and let them watch the column that's going to show them which elevator to use. But yes, this seems like a case of "unfortunately, people".
	▲	dperfect 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Thanks for the context. That makes sense.

▲

fellowniusmonk 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think the problem with simulations like this is that it doesn't include the chaos of innatentive humans.

Forcing functions that dump people into well defined funnels can have such a high net positive effect it more than makes up for theoretical losses.

It's like narrow, hard road bike tires losing performance because of deflection from rough road surfaces and how long it took designers to factor that in to real bikes.

	▲	lefra 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Kind of like airplane boarding. The ideal algorithm would be to make people board from back to front, and from window to aisle. However, people are not disciplined enough to strictly sort themselves, they won't all take the same time to sit, and some people want to board together (family with children for example). Apparently, the fastest known way to fill up a plane in real-life conditions is to let people board in random order, without pre-assigning a seat.