Difference: CPSC526ComputerAnimation (12 vs. 13)

-- Main.davidm - 18 Nov 2011

Evolving Virtual Creatures - David Matheson

(a) Contribution: The key contribution is a framework for applying genetic algorithms to optimize creature morphologies and controller systems. They represent both with directed graphs where the nodes specify rigid bodies and partial "neural nets" (they're not really neural nets).

(b) Evaluation: The results were evaluated qualitatively. For each task they describe different morphologies and control strategies that were selected. It would have been nice to see the relative performance of different morphology and control schemes.

(c) Reproducibility: The idea of the paper is reproducible and their evaluation functions are well documented. However the parameters for the possible rigid bodies are not specified. Also the parameters for the simulation such as high and low velocities for switching between spring/impulse models are not provided.

(d) Improvements in Research/Writing: This paper is a framework for applying genetic algorithms to morphology and control systems. Different meta control schemes could be evaluated using different models for control. As long as it maintains the requirements of the genetic selection it will still work as part of the framework. I think the paper could have been clearer by specifying the requirements for applying genetic selection to morphology and control independently of their particular specification of morphology and control.

Practical Character Physics for Animators - David Matheson

(a) Contribution: An interactive system that allows animators to combine their traditional kinematic approach with physical simulation. They focus on visualizing realistic ballistic trajectories and angular momentum. This allows animators to use the algorithms specified to adjust their animations to make them more physically correct.

(b) Evaluation: The results outline how physically realistic a set of animations are before and after using the tools specified in the paper. While they provide quantitative results they don't provide the number of animators/animations evaluated. This paper is evaluating the animators as much as the their purposed tools.

(c) Reproducibility: Yes the tools are reproducible but their claims of how animators use them are not as reproducible.

(d) Improvements in Research/Writing: Overal the paper is well written but it is more like a technical report than a research paper. They go through the math in good detail. In some cases other papers are referenced to explain terminology (such preparatory and recovery phases) when it could have been explained as part of this paper.