Currently it is common for agents who are not in direct danger to evacuate to the instructed place of evacuation on a route that takes them closer to the danger, and also adds to congestion.
Another possibility is that their chosen place of evacuation takes them closer to the fire than if they had just stayed put.
This may be a consequence of blanket messaging-- in practice each area would be instructed to evacuate to a place that is tailored to their situation, so this will fall out as the messaging model is tested. But it is nevertheless important that agents have some awareness of where the fire is so that their chosen destination in the LeaveNow process makes sense.
Whether this awareness comes from smoke visual or messaging that locates the source/direction of the fire, this should play an important role in the LeaveNow decision (see #58) and may also help resolve the issues discussed in (#63).
Copied from original issue: agentsoz/bdi-abm-integration#64
From @osbornejr on August 22, 2018 4:49
Currently it is common for agents who are not in direct danger to evacuate to the instructed place of evacuation on a route that takes them closer to the danger, and also adds to congestion. Another possibility is that their chosen place of evacuation takes them closer to the fire than if they had just stayed put. This may be a consequence of blanket messaging-- in practice each area would be instructed to evacuate to a place that is tailored to their situation, so this will fall out as the messaging model is tested. But it is nevertheless important that agents have some awareness of where the fire is so that their chosen destination in the LeaveNow process makes sense.
Whether this awareness comes from smoke visual or messaging that locates the source/direction of the fire, this should play an important role in the LeaveNow decision (see #58) and may also help resolve the issues discussed in (#63).
Copied from original issue: agentsoz/bdi-abm-integration#64