A cool connection is that a spinning-disk hard drive (HDD) is actually kind of like one really long elevator, just wrapped around a spindle instead of perfectly vertical. The SCAN algorithm is actually a disk-scheduling algorithm!
I wonder if this is an artifact of how the author used random destinations. I worked in a building that used Destination Dispatch, and the common travel pattern seemed to be:
- Everyone who is not on the ground floor generally want to go to the ground floor.
- People who are on the ground floor generally travel in large groups to the same destination.
This happens because people who worked on the same floor often leave for lunch at the same time, and return at the same time to the same floor. Destination Dispatch helps in this case because it's batching large groups of people with the same destination.
I see hotels with the kiosk model changing the UI depending on breakfast rush hour
Also the group of people going to or returning from lunch is real as well. The grouping factor happens more at the middle of the day and less at the morning or evening. Primarily because of lunch.
I just visited a new building with destination dispatch, so it seems to be still around.
My EE roommate in college had to build an elevator circuit as a final problem. It was on a bread board and had a bunch of call buttons and had a motor and a clear disk with black squares so it could figure out where it was…. I think it was the simple algorithm…
Yeah, it doesn't make any sense to optimize wait time instead of total time from pressing the button to reaching destination.
I also thought that this is one of the biggest reasons destination dispatch was better.
There are even articles about switching to destination dispatch in office buildings or hotels lead to dramatic reductions in wait time.
Surprisingly, claude failed to find a good one.
Also, part of destination dispatch (I'm guessing based on experience) removes the 'stopping on every floor problem', so the real test would be total time including wait at that point I think.
I remember this one, it deserves all sorts of praise
but imo, unlike farmer, these games reaaaaly lack the ability to make functions/subroutines
manually doing all the goto loops becomes tiring
In the game, some of the elevators are automated, and I wanted to choose an algorithm that best aligned with what players would expect an elevator to do. I ended up going with something close to LOOK, which (as the article states) is mostly what people expect. Except in case of ambiguity, I had it prioritise floors that have been waiting longer, to improve the p90, which is important in the game.
But now, add in these challenges:
- double-deck cabs (where attached cabs cover two floors at once)
- transfer floors between shafts
- express shafts
and the best (or at least, most expected) algorithm becomes much less obvious! I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out the best one.
Luckily I was in charge of a game, not a real elevator system, so I just had to find a heuristic that was good-enough, and could tweak the rules to let players manually override the elevator's plan if they don't like where it's going. This seems to have satisfied most players.
> The state of the world 30sec after you called your elevator might be very different but the system is unable to adapt. Turns out the loss in flexibility is not worth the extra information for the optimizer.
Very interesting. I am on a 30 flr 8 car today so guess it made sense for Destination Dispatch. It does mean there is rarely a full elevator and usually 3 stops max allowing it to go fast to high floors.
Other things I thought could factor in elevators is shopping trolleys: both customers and trolley collectors. One level will have people coming in with full trolleys and almost always the other levels will not. I don't think elevators really care they just fill up and you need to call another one.
Also prams but they are 2-way.
I stayed in a hotel with these. It was horrible. Most people didn't figure it out, would get in the wrong elevator, and just get lost in the building.
I wish elevators accounted for load.
I've been to a couple of larger conferences where on the Monday morning after, the hotel elevator was just hammered. Everyone wanted to go down, and the elevator would dutifully stop on every single floor no matter how full it was. If you were mobility disabled on the 2nd floor, you were basically fucked if you had a flight to catch.
One would think that, if it's a 10 person elevator and it's already stopped on 10 floors requesting it, that it could save an extra 5 minutes by just going directly to the ground floor, instead of stopping on every floor with the same conversation of "Oof, can't fit in there. I'll get the next one!"
In one of the buildings where I worked, "fancy Destination Dispatch kiosk" had a separate button with a wheelchair pictogram that would ensure that the elevator has enough space for a wheelchair.
Another thing I learned: If an elevator mechanic says: "I'll meet you first thing in the morning." He means something like 4:00AM. They want to get in and out before people start arriving to start their day.
(BTW, going _down_ while empty is typically more energy-consuming for the elevators because they are counterweighted)
Edit: that's also why you shouldn't use elevators in a fire. If the brakes in the elevator machine room fail, the cab won't crash down. It will go _up_, possibly dragging you into the fire. Many firefighters died because of that.
I wonder how do elevators find out if the car is full or not.
I once been to an office building where it obviously didn't work properly.
I needed to get down from a pretty high (15+) floor to the bottom during the evening rush.
The elevator got full immediately but still stopped almost on every floor on the way down.
Each time an awkward scene ensued: a huge crowd of people outside elevator just standing and looking at the crowd in the elevator. Everyone has to just wait pointlessly.
I've never been to China but wouldn't you learn quickly after getting in an elevator going the wrong way not to do that again?
The only exception I can see if there's way more people than elevators and you just need to get spot at all costs.
See also: the keep open / close doors button. I had one building administrator explain to me we should add a delay of 10 seconds to the "quickly shut door" button because otherwise she kept getting her arm hit by the door. When I asked why we would add a delay to the button that's meant to reduce delays (why not simply wait for the door to close on its own, then?), and whether we should fix the sensor that prevents doors from closing if there's an obstacle instead, she just kept staring blankly at me. I don't think she understood me at all.
Again, some people simply don't grasp how elevators work.
It's probably just the old 'fake loader' psychology, to be honest. Waiting without knowing when the elevator will arrive is boring/frustrating, where getting into an elevator that moves, even if the wrong direction, feels like progress.
Things are happening, and even if it takes longer ultimately that's a less frustrating state to be in.
Although I guess that's not quite what you're talking about.
They have to be built a certain way, and need super fancy dispatch algorithms.
Efficient elevator algorithms will often suggest moving an elevator into a preempted positioning strategy, based on time of day or peer elevator positions. The scheduler might move an elevator up to offset one coming down, for example. The demand-signal algorithms at least minimize movement in this way.
I think minimizing maintenance at the cost of increasing wait times is probably an important balance to get right. No doubt, the cost owners for maintenance are not going to perceive the wait time of passengers to be as important.
An example iirc was waiting for luggage at the airport. It takes min of x minutes for the first bags to show. In one version, passengers went directly from the gate to the luggage carousel and waited x mins for the first bag → unhappy. Then the airport decided to add a long, round-about "walk" path from the gate to the luggage area that burned some of those minutes → same total "wait" but happier passengers.
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.
(I've never encountered destination dispatch myself, so I'm not really sure how it works in practice)
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.
But yes, this seems like a case of "unfortunately, people".
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.
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.
I would have never thought there were so many challenges behind a car moving up & down.
This industry is so niche and peculiar.
Elevator trip scheduling is one of the many challenges. Really a great experience so far
What I find annoying though is you clunkily go click a floor then clunkily wait then clunkily walk over to the elevator assigned which may or may not be on the other end of the space. Also another interesting thing I've seen is that it seems in my case the distance from destination selection and elevator assigned seems to reduce at times when the office is emptier so that too seems to def be accounted into the algorithm.
There’s something so satisfying about watching a machine just dutifully work through queued tasks like this.
> After my lecture, a Maxis employee who shall remain nameless buttonholed me. "You guessed right," she said. "Sim Tower was built around a real elevator simulation program we bought from a Japanese guy."
https://web.archive.org/web/20090916193335/http://www.gamasu...
I can see how that could be challenging when people get off on intermediate floors, making a full car available again, changing status. And, if 3 people are waiting and there is room for 1, should it stop or not? Etc.
My favorite takeaway from this is how simplicity often beats complexity.
I work in a building with Destination Dispatch elevators so I'm used to them. I have the opposite problem where I'll get into a normal elevator and just stand there without pushing anything.
The simulator seems to have passengers spawning on a random floor and then transiting to a different random floor. But for where I work, the trips are pretty much always from the lobby to a floor, or from a floor to the lobby. Nobody goes inbetween floors except maybe the cleaners.
Even at that relatively reduced level of complexity, it's quite tricky to figure out how to prioritize who gets served when.
I want something similar for advanced sensor stop lights...
I've long toyed with creating an elevator simulator game, but every time I build a prototype I realize it's not that fun to manually dispatch elevators, and playing with algos only goes so far! Elevator Saga is great for the programming side: https://play.elevatorsaga.com/
Deviant Ollam on Elevator Hacking https://youtu.be/ZUvGfuLlZus
However, I think you might be correct about transit systems, where the blocked doors might re-open a small amount before quickly attempting to re-close, to keep the train on schedule and prevent this behavior.
Sounds like destination dispatch would work better if it didn't tell you which elevator to get into until the elevator arrived.
EDIT: already being discussed in the thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49125423
I visit a building sometimes with destination dispatch elevators, and with low exposure across multiple years I'm confused every time the elevator I need to take is open behind me.
I once used the paternoster lift in Germany, beats any elevator algorithm efficiency because it's a non-stop "conveyor" with no doors. I still get nightmares about that elevator.
Unless you're a hotel. Then the timing is flipped: Wait in a distributed manner in the morning/mid-day, gather on the floor in the evening.
It could also be that you and I simply aren’t privy to what is actually happening “the instant” you are waiting for the elevator.
…which makes me wonder how often the firmware in these get updated. Assuming it’s not just a pile of ancient relays and stuff. And if, when they do get updated, the algorithms get improved. Or if the algorithm is something that gets sold to the building and “upgrading” is an actual purchase.
Anyway, I could get a little LLM buddy to look it all up but where is the fun in that?
I swear no matter if it was busy or not, it seemed like everyone was assigned to the same one or two elevators. The wait was always so long too, I used the stairs most of the time if just going <6 flights.
Someone besides RCCL needs to study that algorithm.
[1]: https://clarkmoody.com/Moody_AgentBasedElevatorControl.pdf
Using such a primitive elevator gave me a newfound appreciation for the complexity of modern designs. The queueing algorithms are subtle but clever, and the difference in efficiency is instantly obvious once you've dealt with the alternative.
Now maybe I can beat that game!
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35152341
1: https://computer.rip/2023-03-13-the-door-close-button.html
That will need planning and assignment I guess? But at what load figures does it become more efficient?
I was recently at a Radisson hotel in Germany where I was tried to summon an car, but none would appear for a long time. I believe that someone was keeping the doors open on their floor to wait for someone. The fact that all the other elevators were passing by in both directions was actually a bit infuriating as well.
At that moment I really wished for an algorithm that would recognize when an car spent a significant amount of time on one floor and then reassign the other floors to a new elevator.
For example, some elevators allow adjusting the door closing/opening speeds etc., I'd be curious what other things can be adjusted.
My guess is whoever hinted at that didn’t fully understand what they were taking about.
I watch it like once a year because it always tickles some part of me. Like all the different modes you can get an elevator into. The most fancy one people might encounter is when moving into or out of a building. The front office can give you a key to give exclusive control over an elevator so your movers aren’t waiting around on elevators. Put it in that mode and it will stop responding to calls from other floors. Only the person with the key can control the elevator. You get on, select the floor, door closes elevator goes, and then just chills there with the door open waiting for you. Annoying for the rest if the building (the building is down an elevator when in that mode) but is amazing for the person using it! But there are way, way more depending on the installation and function.
Fun fact: most elevator shafts are sealed at the top as tight as possible to prevent them from becoming a giant chimney in a fire. It never even occurred to me until I was in a mechanical room wondering “where is the hatch to look down the shaft?” The answer is “there is none, and it’s a feature not a bug.” You want to block all airflow so fire doesn’t chase up the shaft into neighboring floors. Who knew!
Level 2: Traffic lights, graphics (2D arrays)
Level 3: Flight control, simulations (3D arrays)
Level 4: Satellite tracking, virtual worlds (4D arrays)
...
So many problems can be cast to arrays to be solved with various linear algebra.
Considering LLMs are "Level 1000+" puzzles in this analogy, I wonder if every problem could be represented by an n-dimensional vector and solvable with algebra.
They at least make great interview questions - Tic-Tac-Toe is commonly given, but is obvious. The board already "looks" like arrays. The less obvious ones, like elevators (or load balancing), are always interesting.
- Two elevators ascending and descending in near lock step, in a two-elevator building, effectively reduced to one elevator.
- When going in a different direction from the requested one (e.g. called elevator to go up, but actually going down), the doors wastefully close, open and close again. Seen this in many elevators.
- At 3 a.m. you take the elevator to a parkade, like to get something from a car. When you return to the elevator a minute later, it is gone; it spontaneously moved away even though nobody is using it but you.
So, for instance, I didn't measure the elevator's efficiency in the wait time. I included (weighted) travel time. I assumed LOOK algorithm was used. And then when I tried to calculate various outcomes for different trips I suddenly realized that elevator's efficiency and fairness seem to go different ways.
Without trying to reproduce my evaluation system, here's my finding in fewer details: if you have two passengers, one going from the ground floor to the top floor and other joining for the shorter ride down in the middle, then the elevator that makes a "detour" is more efficient, but it hardly seems fair that the passenger traveling ground floor to the top should go even a single floor in the opposite direction.
Somehow, until that point, I lived with an illusion that the most efficient solution to a problem must be the most fair to every participant. Discovering this counterexample sent me on the "tour of discovery" of ethics and different philosophers who contributed to it... and while in the end it made me none the wiser, I'm happy to have discovered this field.
My takeaway is that the benefit of using a much more complex algorithm is marginal.
(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.)
Really? Maybe I'm lucky I never had to deal a lot with elevators.
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.
That's what the no-button elevators with the kiosk does.
Beyond the content, the font, style, etc made it a pleasant experience for me.
