Difference: TrajOpt (7 vs. 8)

Revision 82006-03-20 - DanielEaton

Line: 1 to 1

META TOPICPARENT	name="CPSC526ComputerAnimation"

-- MichielVanDePanne - 27 Feb 2006

Line: 25 to 25

It seems impressive for the time, and it's obviously an interesting approach to the problem of partially automating motion of characters. --Christopher Batty

Added:

>
>

It's a cool idea, but as Christopher mentioned, it scales very poorly. Discretization scales exponentially in dimension (so here, 3 spatial dimensions, 1 for time => ~TN^3 multiplied by however many joints/limbs you have). It doesn't really matter how sparse the matrices are, this is going to be a massive linear system to solve. -- Daniel Eaton

Paper Two (Synthesizing Human Motion)

Another paper. Please add your comments below.

Line: 45 to 47

The claim that the lower dimensional representation increases the naturalness of the optimized result is intriguing. I wonder if there's an intuitive explanation of why this might be the case, eg. The low dimensional model encompasses the natural motion defined in the database, but by optimizing with a larger number of dimensions it allows more flexibility for the mathematical/physics constraint optimization to take over causing greater divergence from "natural" looking motion. -Christopher Batty

Added:

>
>

It would be great if the presenters could do a quick refresher on SQP. The optimization problem these authors pose is similar to the one posed in the paper presented by Christopher, last week (low-dimensional control signals) though, this paper is a year older. What does the expression "sparse sketch" mean? Is that just the mocap data? -- Daniel Eaton

View topic | History: r8 < r7 < r6 < r5 | More topic actions...