Difference: RunWalk (9 vs. 10)

Revision 102006-03-22 - DanielEaton

Line: 1 to 1

META TOPICPARENT	name="CPSC526ComputerAnimation"

-- MichielVanDePanne - 27 Feb 2006

Line: 22 to 22

The results seem interesting, I hope that we'll be treated to a video during the presentation today. I share Ken's confusion about the scaling factors (wrt to velocity and time). That table is neat in showing that it's not straightforward to scale a dynamic creature as one would maybe expect. On page 355 they note that they're assuming an infinited coefficient of friction to prevent slipping, but that in actuality, their models need a relatively small (?) coefficient to accomplish this. I can't remember much about the magnitudes of realistic coefficients of friction, so are the figures they quote indeed "realistic"? -- Main.Daniel Eaton

Changed:

<
<

(Animation of Dynamic Legged Locomotion) The authors state that the motions described in the paper are physically realistic. It is hard to tell without seeing a animation, but I am guessing that control methods as well as any other method could generate a non-realistic motion, and it is up to the implementation to dictate the motion “quality”. It would be interesting for me to discuss/analyze that point. Another question is whether physicaly based motion is a realistic one and vice versa. – Hagit Schechter

>
>

(Animation of Dynamic Legged Locomotion) The authors state that the motions described in the paper are physically realistic. It is hard to tell without seeing a animation, but I am guessing that control methods as well as any other methods could generate a non-realistic motion, and it is up to the implementation to dictate the motion “quality”. It would be interesting for me to discuss/analyze that point. Another question is whether physicaly based motion is a realistic one and vice versa. – Hagit Schechter

Paper Two

Line: 38 to 38

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

Changed:

<
<

(Limit cycle control) I am interested to learn if there have been significant results in controlling complex / less stable types of motion such as running. Also, I assume that control techniques are used in robotics research as well, and am interested to compare the different challenges and results in the two areas. -- Hagit Schechter

>
>

(Limit cycle control) I am interested to learn if there have been significant results in controlling running and other more complex / less stable types of motion. Also, I would assume that control; methods are shared with the area of robotics research and am interested to compare the different challenges and results in both areas. -- Hagit Schechter

I'm a little confused about the term "open-loop": in section 5.1, this FSM uses foot-contact sensors to decide when to make state transitions, but isn't open-loop sensor-less (I retract this, in my skimming I didn't see the comment that it is only quasi-open-loop)? Also, what happens if one of the stages takes too long? It seems like the timing has been handcrafted to prevent that (giving each stage more than they need to complete), but what if? Could you talk a little more about why the biped falls over in figure 10? -- DanielEaton

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