Difference: RunWalk (3 vs. 4)

Revision 42006-03-22 - KenRose

Line: 1 to 1

META TOPICPARENT	name="CPSC526ComputerAnimation"

-- MichielVanDePanne - 27 Feb 2006

Line: 16 to 16

because... It is flawed because ... I didn't understand the following bits... Open problems are ... -- Michiel van de Panne

Changed:

<
<

Another paragraph. Replace this text.

>
>

Similar to my comments from last class, I enjoyed this "older" SIGGRAPH paper because it reads like a good textbook as opposed to a research paper. Anyways, the main issue I've always had with control based techniques is that while they ensure physical correctness, they do not necessarily look real (that is, like an actual human). The paper sort of steals my thunder on this by saying "... animals move with a smoothness and coordination that is not required by physical realism alone". Nevertheless, this paper is good in that it provides a good initial exploration into the successful use of applying control algorithms to generate balanced walking and running motions. I'm not quite sure I understand their allometric derivations of the scale factors in Table 1. Clearly, the dimension (not units!) of velocity are LT^{-1}, but why is its scale factor L^{1/2}? -- KenRose

Paper Two

Line: 29 to 29

This set of papers is significantly different from what I have seen in our class so far, it introduces quite a few new concepts which I expect more elaborations on, such as what does it mean by unstable motion? Linear predictive model (section 5.2), and proportional derivative controller (PD). The idea presented in the paper is very neat, using FSM to determine next state and PD controller to compute the required force and torques which can lead the articulated figure to the desired pose. However, control perturbation is used to solve this control problem and perturbation is like trial-and-error therefore, it would still be an issue of the efficiency. -- Steven Chang

Added:

>
>

I liked the result of this paper in that it was able to apply control techniques to an articulated figure with a higher number of DOF (19). The previous paper only applied the control algorithms to models with a few DOF, which further limited their realism. I would like to know more about the selection of the regulation variables. Specifically, is this something that is done once for one class of closed-loop motion (e.g., I'll use swing COM for running) or does it have to be done for every motion? Also, the paper mentions that "the evidence for the above linear approximation is empirical". Are there closed loop motions for which perturbations result in non-linear effects? Finally, are there videos of the final animations? The paper mentions that the results still do have a robotic feel to them for the case of the 4 pose FSM. -- KenRose

View topic | History: r12 < r11 < r10 < r9 | More topic actions...