I am building a simulation in which items (like chess pieces) move on a discrete set of positions that do not follow a sequence (like positions on a chessboard) according to a schedule.
Each position can hold only one item at any given time. The schedule could ask multiple items to move at the same time. If the destination position is occupied, the scheduled movement is cancelled.
Here is the question: if item A and item B, originally situated at position 1 and position 2 respectively, are scheduled to move simultaneously to their next positions position 2 and position 3, how do I make sure that item A gets to position 2, hopefully in an efficient design?
The reason to ask this question is that naively I would check whether position 2 is being occupied for item 1 to move into. If the check happens before item B is moved out of the way, item 1 would not move while in fact it should. Because the positions do not follow a sequence, it is not obvious which one to check first. You could imagine things gets messy if many items want to move at the same time. In the extreme case, a full chessboard of items should be allowed to move/rearrange themselves but the naive check may not be able to facilitate that.
Is there a common practice to handle such "nonexistent collision"? Ideas and references are all welcomed.
Two researchers, Ahmed Al Rowaei and Arnold Buss, published a paper in 2010 investigating the impact that using discrete time steps has on model accuracy/fidelity when the real-world system is event-based. There was also some follow-on work in 2011 with their colleague Stephen Lieberman. A major finding was that if you use time stepped models, order of execution matters and can cause the models to deviate from real-world behaviors in significant ways. Time-stepped models generally require you to introduce tie-breaking logic which doesn't exist in the real system. Logic that is needed for the model but doesn't exist in reality is called a "modeling artifact," and can lead to increased model complexity and inaccuracies. Systematic collision resolution schemes can lead to systematic biases.
Their recommendation was to build models based on continuous time. Events are scheduled using the actual (continuous) event times, which determine the order of event execution as in the real-world system. This occasionally (but rarely) requires priority tie breaking based on event type, so that (for example) departure events occur before arrival events if both were to occur at the exact same time.
If you insist on sticking with time-stepped models, a different strategy is to use two or more passes at each time step. The first pass lays out the desired state transitions and identifies potential conflicts, the last pass applies the actual transitions after conflicts have been resolved. The resolution process might be do-able in the initial setup pass, or may require additional passes if it's sufficiently complex.