Fig 1.
A twelve-frame classic GoP [17].
Table 1.
A review of related previously-done researches.
Fig 2.
Hierarchical structure of AHP.
Table 2.
The scale of paired comparisons in AHP method [51].
Table 3.
Paired comparisons [40].
Table 4.
Defining some of the expressions which have been used.
Fig 3.
The proposed method on RSU side.
Fig 4.
The proposed method in the receiver vehicles.
Fig 5.
Vehicles buffer map.
Fig 6.
The structure of Example 1.
Fig 7.
Selection pattern drawing.
Table 5.
Paired comparisons of combinations based on being close to play back-criterion.
Table 6.
Paired comparison of combinations based on frames priority-criterion.
Table 7.
Paired comparison of combinations based on decodable-criterion.
Table 8.
Paired comparison of criteria in this order (1. Close to be played back 2. Frames priority 3. Being decodable).
Table 9.
The normalized geometric mean of combinations based on the criteria.
Table 10.
Normalized geometric mean of combinations based on the criteria.
Table 11.
Simulation parameters.
Fig 8.
Point-to-point average versus the maximum speed of nodes in BSCS, TCS, and the proposed method.
Fig 9.
The average of point-to-point delay versus pause time of nodes in BSCS, TCS and the proposed method.
Fig 10.
The average of point-to-point delay versus the number of nodes in BSCS, TCS, and the proposed method.
Fig 11.
The throughput versus the number of nodes in BSCS, TCS, and the proposed method.
Fig 12.
The throughput versus the maximum speed of nodes in BSCS, TCS, and the proposed method.
In Table 12, the improvement percentage of the proposed method compared to BSCS and TCS is stated.
Table 12.
The improvement percentage of the proposed method compared to BSCS and TCS.