This forum deals with any kind of trip optimization based on xTour1, xTour2 and the Developer APIs "RouteOptimization" and "SequenceOptimization". No matter whether it is automatic planning or manual dispatching, refering to transport orders or service planning.
Attention: this does not refer to PTV Optiflow SaaS and PTV Developer RouteOptimization Optiflow.
These are the two possible fixation types in XTour:
VEHICLE_ORDERS: 2.1 All orders that are served by a vehicle must remain served by this vehicle. Additional orders can be assigned to this vehicle. In this case, the ID of the fixation corresponds to the vehicleId.
TRIP_TO_VEHICLE: 2.7 The trip is part of the input plan and must remain "as is". It also must remain served by the same vehicle as in the input plan. In this case, the ID of the fixation corresponds to the trip ID.
Context:
Point is I am evaluating the possibility of a tour by fixing 1 demand as a fix-appointment and adding 1 more without fixing the time.
In the input plan I put first the fixed and later the other demand.
My question is:
When using VEHICLE_ORDERS, is the sequence of the stops of the trip respected? I would say by reading the documentation that the sequence is not respected and that PTV will evaluate both sequences (going 1st to Demand 1 and later to Demand 2 or in the other way around).
As far as I see, in my results the sequence is also fix which is leading to violations in opening interval exceedance
When using VEHICLE_ORDERS, is the sequence of the stops of the trip respected? I would say by reading the documentation that the sequence is not respected and that PTV will evaluate both sequences (going 1st to Demand 1 and later to Demand 2 or in the other way around).
I agree with you - from my understanding the only thing that you fix by this parameter is "the orders/stops of the tour" but not their sequence.
But: The input sequence is relevant because if this given sequence is invalid (causes violations) we do not consider the vehicle as "potential fr optimization" and simply reflect the input sequence. (Check last lines of Meaning of an input plan... (xTour 1) - concept is the same in xTour2)
So please check the violation status - if the given tour is not violated I recommend to create a helpdesk ticket so we can look into your specific messages.
Bernd
Bernd Welter Technical Partner Manager Developer Components
PTV Logistics - Germany
Bernd at... The Forum,LinkedIn, Youtube, StackOverflow
I like the smell of PTV Developer in the morning...
As Bernd explained, the sequence is not fixed but the input plan should be valid. Otherwise it is left untouched. Why don't you give the original plan with the "fix-appointment" as input and the new appointment as an unplanned order? In this case, you let the algorithm decide where to put it. If you want that unplanned order to be on a specific vehicle, you can achieve this by specifying a corresponding restriction. For instance you could use the combination com.ptvgroup.xserver.xtour.Order.requiredVehicleEquipment / com.ptvgroup.xserver.xtour.Vehicle.equipment.
Hello kleffa and Bernd, thank you so much for your support,
Sure, that is the only chance I have, fixing them in the Tour by any equipment which link them and delete them from the input plan. I did it completely from the input plan as at first moment I understood from the documentation that the sequence was not relevant, now it is really clear.
Thank you once more time for your support and guidance!
Ignacio
