How to avoid winner-take-all

[Antti-L]

I am sorry but I think it would be too time-consuming to try and investigate your issue with those three Excel files.

> However investment costs for the new technology TCANDSL1 for cases ITC1 and ITC05 were higher then base case but both had same value.

If I understand you correctly, the unexpected issue ("unexpected result was in investment costs") was that the investment costs for the new technology TCANDSL1 were higher in cases ITC1 and ITC05 than in the base case.  Is that correct?

If you would like me to investigate that issue, could you therefore please provide the reproducible cases:

  1) The *.DD and *.RUN files and the *.LST file for the base case.
  2) The *.DD and *.RUN files and the *.LST file for the ITC1 case.

With these files at hand, I would be able to quickly reproduce the issue and investigate it.

[Antti-L]

Ok, as there was no reply, I tried to look at it with the Excel files now anyway.
At first I thought it would be difficult to reproduce the issue, because there was no information about what the Base case should include.
However, it turned out that it was a very simple bug causing the unexpected issue: The Logit market sharing feature had been thus far tested only with a single market, and your example immediately disclosed that with multiple markets a bug was causing spurious interference between markets. This bug will be fixed in the next version.

Thank you nonetheless for trying this experimental feature and for reporting the issue, which was caused by a careless oversight in the implementation.

[Antti-L]

The bug discovered above has been fixed in TIMES v4.7.6, released in November 2023.