Difference: CPSC526ComputerAnimation (16 vs. 17)

Revision 172011-11-18 - khamza

Line: 1 to 1

META TOPICPARENT	name="WebHome"

-- MichielVanDePanne - 26 Feb 2006

Line: 211 to 211

While the process is described, the paper does not appear to provide enough information for others to easily reproduce the findings. It does not provide sample or reference implementations, and does not provide background for the techniques used for the network implementation on the parallel architecture. It does not even provide the metrics and examples of the objective functions, parameter, or constraints in the cherry-picked creatures shown. While their stance that the idea is not to understand the design process, the images and videos do not tell whether the mechanics behind the behavior are actually practical or meaningful. -- KevinWoo

Added:

>
>

Evolving Virtual Creatures

(a) What is the contribution of the paper?
This paper describes how virtual creatures can be created and evolved. Simulation takes place in three-dimensional space. Shape, size, overall embodiment and the control system of the creatures are represented as a genetic language using directed graphs. A Darwinian "survival of the fittest" is used as a natural selection in process of creatures' evolution, where creatures being tested for best performance of tasks such as swimming, walking, jumping, following the light source. Generations were altered by mutating and mating directed graphs.

(b) How are the results evaluated?
The genetic algorithm was implemented to run in parallel, and an evolution with population size 300 ran for 100 generations. Evolutions were performed separately for each of the tasks. Unlike jumping, swimming, walking and light-following tasks resulted in a large number of creaters with variaty of strategies accomplishing the desired behaviours.

(c) Is the paper reproducible?
I believe so. General ideas of algorithms are presented in detail, therefore the implementation can reproduced by referencing corresponding maths behind it. However, the algorithms concerning evoluation and behaviour performance are not clear enough to be easy reproducable.

(d) How could the paper research or paper writing be improved?
The paper is well written. However, I found 6.2 Mating Directed Graph a bit unclear, because mating methods described briefly and I found them not well reasoned.

Practical character physics for animators

(a) What is the contribution of the paper?
The paper describes graphical software tool for animators, which aids in creation of accruate motion invovling ballistic paths, balance and posture. This software helps, but not obliges, to create more realistic motions as well as it can also be used to improve existing keyframed animation by physical realism. The paper also claims that the incorporation of physical properties into existing key frame-based system is a new contribution which is not implemented in any software yet.

(b) How are the results evaluated?
The results are evaluated by comparing of existing keyframe anymations created by professional animators with motions generated by the software for both ballistic and ambulatory motions.

(c) Is the paper reproducible?
Yes, it is. The paper provides very detailed explanation of what the software does. The detalization of the paper even contains mathematical formulas and algorithm listings. Besides, the scince under the hood of the software is not that difficult to reproduce.

(d) How could the paper research or paper writing be improved?
The paper is straightforward and easy to follow. However, the main purpose of the software is repeated several times in the paper, by which author presumably tries to emphasize it. So I find it somehow unneccessary which can reduce the volume of the paper.

-- Main.khamza - 18 Nov 2011

View topic | History: r20 < r19 < r18 < r17 | More topic actions...