Slashdot Mirror
UCLA Adds Physics to Prat-falls
BaltoAaron writes "CNN.com is reporting on Petros Faloutsos , a UCLA scientist, that has developed a program that creates animation based almost solely on physics. Faloutsos "believes his animation program will one day allow virtual stunt artists to replace their flesh-and-blood counterparts in performing otherwise deadly feats of derring-do." "It's the Holy Grail of character animation. Everybody wants to do it, but there's not a whole lot of it out there right now.""
Havent the video game makers created a program that creates animation based almost solely on physics yet? ;)
This guy http://www.q12.org/phd-movies.html did a physical body *and* made it walk with artificial controls. (And he's developed a library for the physics called ODE which makes doing a body falling down stairs about a days work, maybe half.)
People who quote themselves bug the crap out of me -- Me.
so, better special effects, big whoop
What this guy meant to say is that this is the Holy Grail for Porn. You know why.
visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
You could get into the program and change a variable or two and have your characters looking like they really are on a high-gravity or low-gravity planet, or in the viscous atmosphere of Jupiter, or whatever you like! I'm looking forward to it.
Except that it had been done using sensors placed on someone's body vs. coded. Sounds brilliant, though! I'd like to see some trash-and-smash on the big-screen that they haven't been able to do before.
Useless opinions, worthless observations, and more!
Now we'll get to see the three stodges remade with Cowboy Neal, John Katz, and CmrdTaco punching each other using computer physics. What a great world.
You know, that 3d shooter with dinos and a physics-based engine. That one was a stinker.
I remember thinking that something about it looked unnatural, even a little cheap. Now I know it wasn't a low budget effect, just a new technique.
While this may one day create much more realistic effect in film, I'm not sure it's quite ready yet. Did this scene stand out for anyone else that saw this flick as a little "off"?
yes i run a goth/punk/emo porn site.
Haven't special effects wizards been using physics simulators for movie effects and video games for at least a few years now? Sure, this may be more advanced then previous physics engines, but is it really something revolutionary?
Think For Yourself. Question Authority.
I believe that Alias Wavefront's Maya has already done this.
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
between this and the same hardware that can be used with lightwave or nomad?
Ave Molech Setting
DANCE is a portable, open, plug-in based, object-oriented software package for physics-based character animation. It runs on Linux, Irix, Windows 98/NT and is being ported to MacOS by Joe Laszlo. One of its goals is to provide researchers with a common platform where they can test their control methods and share their results. In addition, it provides the common, yet complex functionality that everyone needs in a physics-based animation system, allowing researchers to concentrate on their research work. Dance has been used for a variety of physics-based applications that include biomechanics modelling and composeable controllers. For more information, please contact the authors.
It's available to download and play with!
well if they can get the power to do it so be it.
Every computer generted graphic movie thus far has failed but no one is totaly sure why. Final fantasy though excelent with the eye popping candy you realize that is is just a computer after 5 mins of enteraction. I dont see this comming to true fruition as of yet. But yes it would make for alot better FX. Some times i just watch a movie for the FX.
The thing that worrys me most is that from most films eye candy takes up for true plot. Now if we can make a computer that can make really good plots the movies will rock.
But this does sound alot better then bill hicks idea of using the termanaly ill and people sentanced to death to do this work. Though it still is kinda appealing.
Kudos to any one that can pull it off am sure they will who knows one day we can all make gore fest as a plug in to adobe premere.
There has been research in this area being done for years, much of it presented at SIGGRAPH. There are techniques to animate characters through intricate plots just by specifying behavioral charactics, techniques to apply motion dynamics to characters of significantly different shape, and even "video puppetry" that allows images to self-animate in response to speech. All are a number of years old. All were hailed as holy grails. This just seems to be a case of CNN finally noticing.
At last year's SIGGRAPH, everyone already knew about polynomial textures, because there had been a news story about it. To me, though, the highlight of the show was that it is now possible to walk around with an uncalibrated, handheld camera, and completely automatically get a decent 3-D model out of it (textured, of course). No news story about that.
at least
You could've hired me.
Years and years...
http://www.animats.com/
Physics-based animation has been a hot topic in computer graphics for a decade. SIGGRAPH made a major award to Prof. Andy Witkin of Carnige Mellon in 2001 for major progress in this field. This involves anmal motions, objects colliding, objects shattering (e.g. Phantom Menace) and so on.
That looks like way too much fun to toy with. That way I could say something along the lines of "I want to beat up my big sister", go through all the frustrating physics behind it... then not really want to do it as I would have exhausted my poor brian trying to figure out higher math. I think this is cool... good for the movie industry? Probably.. But eh, I also kinda like the actors that have the guts to do their own stunts. Shows they enjoy it and actually do the work they are getting paid to do. bad thing is, actors might be goin' out of work quicker.
-- RJ
Wow, all one-year-old SIGGRAPH papers should be slashdot stories.
This is the death of competitive FPS games as we know it. No longer will we be able to change our jump direction in midair, jump 7 feet through windows, run tirelessly carrying 750 rounds of ammunition, and get hit by blast damage through walls.
On the upside, the blood & guts is going to look a lot cooler.
Loneliness is a power that we possess to give or take away forever
I know were you can get a cheap homeless drunk to do it for a bottle of whiskey.
Well, the trouble with using it to replace stuntmen has as much to do with the realism of actual footage of an event vs a cgi simulation of one.
That is, there are many other factors that cgi imagery comes no where close to mimicking, so even if tommorow this software let you create completely realistic human animation, it wouldn't put the union out of business yet.
Many of the more spectacular stunts in our favorite action movies...such as the ones in crouching tiger...used the computer simply to composite the scene elements (like replacing the ropes from the flying harnesses), rather than recreate the scene. Or that train crash in Die Hard 3. The computer is often used to combine several "real" footages (like combining the actors on one set and the dangerous stuff on another) rather than do a whole scene, anyway.
However, games could be great with this tech. I have always wanted to see a realistic fighting game, one with actual full physics animation, medical grade damage modeling (and when someone is hurt, realistic degradation of their performance), and the completely unscripted movements that an animation engine like this would allow.
For instance, if someone punched your on screen avatar in the gut, your character would first stagger with the blow, and then shake back and forth as he tries to catch his breath. If you hit one of the attack commands at that moment, the subsequent attack animation would be modified by him still recovering from the blow, as WELL as what the other player was doing. A compltely freeform system. Yes, I know its possible to fake some of this now but there are some obvious limits. For instance, no matter how hard or how light your avatar got punched, he will probably still stagger with the same animation.
And of course the "beowolf cluster" of all these technologies : a massively multiplayer online game where you can run around fighting other avatars like above, as well as casting spells, killing monsters, leveling, looting, camping, kill stealing... All the rest of the good things we come to expect from games of this type
Now add this to some online games and suddenly Everquest becomes even more addictive.
(Of course, knowing EQ, the requirements will go up to a Quad Xeon 2Ghz with 4GB RAM and dual GeForce 4's. And it will still be slow)
I think that there is something on it.
Really!
http://www.mrl.nyu.edu/~dt/
This is rather old, last year's SIGGRAPH and all, but I thought the even older artificial fish were always kinda cool.
Can you back that up? It's not on the AP, it's not on CNN, it's not on Yahoo News... ? I think you are mistaken.
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
Half a bottle of used beer?
Infuriate left and right
There's nobody in the animation industry that thinks it's a good idea. Not directors, not animators, not modelers. The article talks about Character animation. Everything else has been out there for a long time. Particle simulations, rigid and soft body dynamics, and cloth sims are all standard in the industry now. But, and this is a big BUT, after the simulation is run there is ALWAYS tweaking that must be done by an artist. It might work for simple physics, but once again CNN is reporting 5 years too late.
-- -- A truly great man never puts away the simplicity of a child
I'm willing to believe that this is a new and sophisticated tool, though I see there are already a bunch of credible posts about prior art (I go to SIGGRAPH, too).
My issue is that a lot more than physics needs to go into an animation. There's brain up there controlling all those muscles, it's not just a bunch of sticks and rubber bands. A character animator is an *actor*, part of his or her job is to give the appearance of intention to a character's performance.
Falling down the stairs is (relatively) easy. Show me the panic the moment he realizes he's lost his balance and can't stop himself. Does he flop like a drunk or roll out like Jet Li?
You still need to control a character with a human brain, whether that brain belongs to a mocapped stunt man or an animator.
The researcher performed this work for his
Ph.D. thesis at Toronto. Though he is
most likely continuing the line of research
as a professor, the article is about his
thesis work.
"Inverse kinimatics" was added to such modeling/rendering programs as SoftImage back in the early 90s. You could "drop" stuff and have it bounce around or blow in the wind or act like jello or whatever. Yes, even fall down stairs.
You just create your model and connect the "bones" (fundimental objects that move) via articulated joints that could swivel in any direction you specify. Then determine what forces are acting on it (gravity or wind for example) and stuff like how the objects interact (do they bounce? or stick?) and then just hit "play" and off it goes...
What's the big deal here?
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I did some work on the 'ego motion' problem in grad school ie determining self-motion solely from an image sequence. Since this effectively the same problem as creating a 3D map from an image sequence, I'd be interested to see what the state of the art has evolved to. Any refs would be appreciated.
That sounds amazing. Does this mean that a formerly HARD AI problem (vision & representation) is now solved?! Do you recall any names or something, so that I can look for more information?
Belief is the currency of delusion.
in watching Jackie Chan movies :-)
Jackie Chan rocks!
(A little quick on the trigger there maybe. To clarify; I do understand the difference between being able to create a 3d-world "as you go" (easier) from inferring it without being able to move about freely, and then going from (possibly erraneously inferred) 3d-data to "This is a chair" (harder), but the this sounds so much more advanced than the things I've read about in AI research (1990s stuff)). Pointers would be much appreciated.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Sounds kinda weak. How is this different from the 3D Studio package "Reactor"? Certainly he isn't talking about moving the body entirely through physics calculations because people don't move according to simple physics - the muscles play a huge role in determining how we move, and our brain plays a role in that. (Note the fact that not everyone walks the same - and it's not for purely physics-based reasons.) So replacing stunt actors with this application would look incredibly fake. It would only look realistic if the character was supposed to be unconscious or dead - i.e. his muscles were playing no part in the movement of his body.
Those are my thoughts (and I'm a 3D game developer).
Every decent visual effects house is already doing better stuff than that - and with physics too.
-- SIGFPE
I thought Terry Gilliam was the Holy Grail of anima.. oh nevermind..
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
Since when have movies cared about physics? I mean, in Speed the bus "jumps" an unfinished section of an overpass.
And when was the last time you saw a movie where the explosion is seen BEFORE it is heard?
Not to mention virtually every space fiction movie ever made with the sole exception of 2001.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Are you absolutely sure you want a fighting game that's realistic? Millions of people would complain about "play balance" in a realistic game. Face it, if you hit someone, physics dictates they're going down unless they take drastic measures to counteract that. And like you insinuated, if they take drastic measures, it leaves them open for more punishment. That's why, in real fights, it's almost always the guy who connects first that wins. And medical-grade damage modeling is definitely something you don't want. In almost every fighting game ever made, hitting someone in the stomach staggers them back, but that's about it. From (unfortunate) experience, getting hit in the stomach actuallymakes one double over and takes you out of the running for a minute or more.
Let's face it...reality isn't fun. It takes a lot of money put from a special effects budget to make a movie look exciting. And that's because in real-life, things just aren't that cool.
4-star general in a one-man army.
I highly recommend "the hacker and the ants" by Rudy Rucker.
Basically, it's about using artificial intelligence to test market stuff. Interesting.
Re:The Matrix
this post should be taken with a grain of salt, as I am not a professional 3-D computer animator. however, I am trained in the art/craft of 2-d animation (particularly drawn character-based animation), so I'm far from clueless.
simply put, physics based animation will have a _long_ distance to go before it starts to look "good" to anyone who wants to see anything beyond "physics".
The inherent problem is that there is rarely a one-to-one correspondence between something being "physically accurate" and something being "visually entertaining". in other words, entertaining/compelling visuals aren't necessarily based in physical reality.
Prime anecdotal evidence: Wile E. Coyote.
"But that's not live action!" you say. Well, this also applies to the vast majority of live-action "action movie" sequences; the overwhelming majority of these are composed of multiple takes shot from multiple angles on multiple sets, and later composited/edited together - in other words, the action was _not_physically_possible_, but had to be "assembled" from lots of smaller, quasi-physically-possible elements.
many of the posts here reference video game physics as unrealistic; they've got it exactly right - except that this is far more than a video-game-specific issue.
of course, in the long term the need to "ficitionalize/cheat" at physics may be addressed by a layer operating _above_ the physics engine (perhaps tweaking physical laws, running a simulation but changing the rules over time, etc.), but in the end it's still going to take a lot of direct creative input in order to get anything out of these systems that anyone will _want_ to see.
and it will be an even longer time before the output from that kind of system will produce anything not directly comparable to graphic work entirely based on photoshop (or GIMP) "filters" - i.e. it will look pre-packaged, cheap, and not terribly distinctive.
while I really appreciate the work that these people are doing (and believe that it will have wonderful applicatons in court cases/medicine/sports), calling physics-based animation a "holy grail" for _storytelling_ is nothing other than to mistake the long term goal of these projects as being to completely remove humans from the creative process of filmmaking.
and I've already seen "Battlefield Earth", thank you.
- jdbo
Faloutsos' work is not actually focused on the physics models, but on the control programs for the virtual actors. This allows dynamic, force-based animation (as opposed to kinematic, position-based animation). Each model has a set of controllers for various tasks like walking, running, jumping forward, moving from a prone position to a standing position, etc. Each controller knows its "competencies" -- the conditions under which it can successfully guide the model. These are used to hand off control from one controller to the next as the model goes through a complex motion or reacts to external forces.
The sample movies that Faloutsos showed were mostly unscripted. They would start with a model in a simple standing state, which would then respond to user-controlled forces like pushing or throwing simulated balls at the model from various angles. Various balance-recovery controllers would take over depending on how the model was displaced; if none of them were succesful then the model would fall down, and then use one of its controllers for returning to a standing position. All of this appeared incredibly realistic and human.
Also, as another poster noted, DANCE is available under a "free for non-commercial use" license (not free under the FSF or Debian definitions, but a good deal in my opinion). He encouraged us to try it out, explaining that research like his has suffered from a lack of common infrastructure, leading to a lot of reinvented wheels. He expressed hope that the DANCE framework would allow more innovative research with less duplicated work.
Sir, I find your ideas interesting and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Everybody knows that the Road Runner cartoons are based almost entirely on quantum physics.
...how much better Jar Jar Binks would be.
My zero-point energy extraction device. I've waited for this moment for years.
Am I the only one who wanted to be the unknown stuntman growing up? Crap, there goes another career option.
http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~pfal/animations.html
Just wanted to point out that the research cited in the article was conducted @ The University of Toronto not UCLA.
You can find his original web page @ http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/~pfal/ before UCLA picked him up...
If you look at the CG in Tkken 3, for example,l a lot of that stuff is done through physics modeling...the balloons are a function of density of the gas inside and the air outside, as is the rate of ascent. This kind of thing has been doen for years.
I think it'd be fun to play with a physics simulator of sorts, but to be honest, I'd rather have a tool where I can change or even invent my own laws of physics. Take Yosemite Sam for a moment: somehow he can survive a shotgun blast in the butt. In reality, his butt'd be missing a few important pieces, but in Toon Town, the unexpected happens.
Physics are.. well.. expected. If I could change the rules around a bit, I could create fun yet silly little movies. Remember that Far Side cartoon where a black hole suddenly formed in that guy's apartment, and everything started getting sucked into it? Heh I could animate that! Let me tweak the physics a bit, and I could really have some fun with it!
"Derp de derp."
A good model to follow would be the kind of cartoon violence in movies like Die Hard, etc. Bruce gets hit with a lead pipe. He reacts with the full *force* of the impact (ie. he gets sent flying to the ground) but he gets up again - limping, with a bit of blood on him, but otherwise OK.
When I shoot a rocket at someone in Quake, I expect them to react to the blast more than by just loosing health. They should be sent flying, or at least knocked over. Same goes for anyone close to them. So as not to affect game-play adversely, the blast radius could be kept unrealistically small (and fall off quickly) but within it I expect realistic reactions!
If I shoot someone in the shoulder with a gun, they should react. They might do a quarter turn on impact, even though the amount taken from their health is the same.
Remember what the goal for FPS is: fun violence. Make the game more realistic but don't go overboard at the expense of fun.
Physics game engines will be creating the next level of gaming experience. For the past few years there have been tremendous advances in the realm of graphics, rendering objects in amazing detail and complexity. However, those verisimilar badboys are merely eye-candy that glosses over a scripted world.
t ml
a vok.com
With the introduction of physics modeling, your victim can die a thousand different deaths, and remove that deja-vue feeling you get after killing the thousandth Strogg.
While many games have incorporated aspects of physical modeling into their games, I believe this stuff is finally about to pop. I know that the Sony PS2 was built on MathEngine's physics SDK, and Seamus Blackley (one of the pioneers of the genre and developer of Trespasser, the first game to incorporate physics into most aspects of gameplay - and was a flop) has been hoisted by Microsoft for the Xbox developement. Maybe soon we'll stop getting that feeling everytime we lock and load that someone is whispering in our ear to "ignore the man behind the curtain!"
Related links:
(2001) http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.08/physics.h
(1999) http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-514530.html
Physics Engine players:
http://www.mathengine.com
http://www.h