Discussion of computer simulation techniques and comparison of languages

SIMULATION ◽  
1967 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 181-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Tiechroew ◽  
John Francis Lubin ◽  
Thomas D. Truitt
Keyword(s):  
Computer Simulation ◽  
Graduate School ◽  
University Of Pennsylvania ◽  
Computer Languages ◽  
Simulation Techniques ◽  
Simulation Languages ◽  
Software Packages ◽  
Univer Sity ◽  
Computer Simulation Techniques

A draft of this paper was prepared for the Workshop on Simu lation Languages, Graduate School of Business, Stanford Univer sity, March 6 and 7, 1964. The paper has benefited from sugges tions from participants at the Workshop, particularly Michael Montalbano, and from projects carried out by students in the Graduate School of Business: H. Barnett, H. Guichelaar, Lloyd Krause, John P. Seagel, Charles Turk, Victor Preisser. The paper has also benefited from discussions held in connection with the Workshop on Simulation Languages, University of Pennsylvania, March 17 and 18, 1966. Characteristics of computer languages and software packages change rapidly. Some statements in the paper were originally intended for the situation current in March, 1964. Where signifi cant changes have occurred the text has been modified.

Three-dimensional predator–prey interactions: a computer simulation of bird flocks and aircraft

1986 ◽  
Vol 64 (11) ◽  
pp. 2624-2633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter F. Major ◽  
Lawrence M. Dill ◽  
David M. Eaves
Keyword(s):  
Computer Simulation ◽  
Prey Species ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Aircraft Engine ◽  
Aquatic Environments ◽  
Aircraft Engines ◽  
Predator Prey ◽  
Simulation Techniques ◽  
Computer Simulation Techniques ◽  
Individual Prey

Three-dimensional interactions between grouped aerial predators (frontal discs of aircraft engines), either linearly arrayed or clustered, and flocks of small birds were studied using interactive computer simulation techniques. Each predator modelled was orders of magnitude larger than an individual prey, but the prey flock was larger than each predator. Expected numbers of individual prey captured from flocks were determined for various predator speeds and trajectories, flock–predator initial distances and angles, and flock sizes, shapes, densities, trajectories, and speeds. Generally, larger predators and clustered predators caught more prey. The simulation techniques employed in this study may also prove useful in studies of predator–prey interactions between schools or swarms of small aquatic prey species and their much larger vertebrate predators, such as mysticete cetaceans.The study also provides a method to study problems associated with turbine aircraft engine damage caused by the ingestion of small flocking birds, as well as net sampling of organisms in open aquatic environments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document