ASagan

This was something I was dealing with quite awhile ago, it is possible with fixed route vehicles, and there are tricks to get it working with other types of routing. I did it with fixed route vehicles with a few steps INSIDE the object the vehicle would go into. I've attached a fairly old example that might help FixedRouteVehicleEnteringSubModel.spfx

That is correct. You have the average, min, max from within a run. And the average of the average, the average of the min, the average of the max... the min of the min/average/max, and the max of the min/average/max. Looking at your results, I see that the average time in station of ScreeningLineL1.Xray.Processing ranged from 12.6974 to 13.3549 seconds, while the min ranged from 0.1229 to 0.8086 seconds, and so on and so forth.

Just enter the state as your link weight. Viola! I've attached a demo model using this for you to check out. sample_StateForLinkWeight.spfx

Dave... Did not know number 3. Excellent

Looks to me like your error is occurring because you have the 'wrong' associated object with your process. Is the press your associated object, or your plant entity? Regarding deadlocks -- What do you mean by transfer deadlocks?

Dariusz, There are many ways of tackling your second question. One way is to increment the monitors threshold state when it fires. I've attached a sample model. sampleMonitorFiringIncrement.spfx

Dariusz, I don't think I've explained myself very well, as if you were 'seizing from a list' the way I described, then the first transporter in the list that is available would be selected, automatically covering your question. 1) Create an object list property in your object. 2) Set the seize step to 'seize from list' and give it the object list. The seize step will automatically select the first free object. I've attached a model demonstrating this. This model has two transporter instances which even have a population of 2. These transporters have been added to the list 'ObjectList1'. I've created an object with an object list property called 'object list name'. This object seizes an object from the list on an event. The running model has four of these seizing objects. Pushing a button in the facility will fire an event, triggering the object to seize a transporter. The transporters will be seized one after another. SampleModelOfSeizingFromList.spfx

You can seize from a list. You'll notice the server has the ability to seize a resource from a list -- therefore we can do it too! All you need to do is create a property to pass in of a list instead of a specific object, and set the seize step properties to seize from a list.

Dariusz, This is the same 'problem' as placing a server in a model and having the server seize a secondary resource for processing. As all the Simio objects are open, you can copy/subclass the server and see how it does this. In short, here's how it can be done: 1. Give a property to your machinery object of 'seize resource' or 'available worker'. 2. Create a process in your machinery object that seizes the resource property. 3. Create a process in your machinery object that will release the resource property when no longer needed.

Interesting discussion. Most programs I've worked with uses the same coordinate system as Simio -- confuses me a bit from my physics days because the z direction is reversed, but the xyz used in Simio is 'correct' otherwise. Unfortunately I don't use these programs enough to say for sure which ones use what...

Did you check if this was a permissions problem? If you're on Win7 you might need to 'unblock' the dll. Right click on the dll and select properties. Then choose to unblock and apply.

Try Model.Entity.Type == String.FromReal(MyTable.ProductType). Total alternative to the current approach -- use an excel table to create 500 different entity types as you originally said was unfeasible. Becomes easy. Look in the 'shared forum' to see the utilities on how to create models straight from excel.

While I stated that both can be constraints, I do find this rare. When I've used the transporter with weight = 100 metric tons and volume = infinity (say, a train wagon), it seems to work just fine. I don't think I understand your problem.

Interesting pick-up on this one Mark. I actually think the tanker is correct and the standard objects are wrong. I have worked on systems before where both volume and weight have been constraints depending on density.

The pipe object appears to have artificial maximum on its rate of transfer. The pipe initially starts with a desired speed state value of 2 m/s has a hidden property input. This means that any entity transferring into the pipe starts at a maximum of that speed. Attempting to transfer entities at mass/volumes that correspond to a linear speed greater than 2m/s doesn't work. Changing this property/state however, does not appear to fix the problem. Entities remain capped at 2m/s.