>As someone who works on pedestrian simulation software
I'm very curious what software that is.
>Would the rate of lane formation be different in a system with different boundary conditions?
Wouldn't it have to? Given that formation is the (density * speed * wiggleness) I assume boundary variability will have a logistic relationship with density right?
> Given that formation is the (density * speed * wiggleness) I assume boundary variability will have a logistic relationship with density right?
I'm not sure what you mean by this--boundary variability meaning the variance of velocity? I'm also not 100% sure what I mean about my own concern :D--really I'm just confused. I would feel like I understood the significance of the simulations more if, instead of having the same agents pop up at the bottom as just exited the top (i.e. periodic boundaries), agents simply left the simulation entirely at the top and new ones entered at the bottom (with correspondingly new velocities). Left-right boundaries are trickier I guess, not sure what would be reasonable there. Maybe just no boundaries.
There are good reasons why periodic boundaries are used (ensures density is well-defined and consistent, makes analytical calculations easier, etc.). It just strikes me as a obviously non-physical model, and one that could make emergent structures easier to form.
>As someone who works on pedestrian simulation software
I'm very curious what software that is.
>Would the rate of lane formation be different in a system with different boundary conditions?
Wouldn't it have to? Given that formation is the (density * speed * wiggleness) I assume boundary variability will have a logistic relationship with density right?