Farida,
this is exactly what we found in the analysis of the IKEA showroom floor plan, VGA quite different to Agents. The difference is explained by agents having forward facing vision and a process that leads to them moving towards open space. What IKEA designers had done was to ‘hide’ shortcuts by always hiding them behind partitions so that with forward facing vision you would have turn round to see the shortcut. Agents tend not to turn round but keep going forwards and do miss the shortcuts. This difference leads to a completely different analysis result. in VGA you can set the angle of vision number of bins to 32 - i.e. to 360 degrees and then the result approximated vga integration more closely.
Alan
> On 9 Dec 2016, at 03:49, Farida Nilufar <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I am using Agent-based Simulation to find av evacuation scenario for a factory. So far I understand Axial & VGA analysis gives an understanding of configuration and in case of simulation, agents follow the clues of the morphology/configuration. In one case Agent simulation (any point) appears totally different from Axial/VGA (Integration) results. Agents prefer a route which can not be explained by any means. Why?
> I am attaching
>
> Prof. Farida Nilufar PhD
> Department of Architecture
> Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology [BUET]
> Contact: 0088-02-9665650-80/ 7221 or 7153
> email: [log in to unmask]@arch.buet.ac.bd
>
> <Needle Drop Ltd._Any Point_Agent Simulation_30.11.16.graph><Needle Drop Ltd_4th Floor_DXF_30.11.16.dxf>
|