skip to main content
research-article

Flexible Motion Optimization with Modulated Assistive Forces

Published:27 September 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Animated motions should be simple to direct while also being plausible. We present a flexible keyframe-based character animation system that generates plausible simulated motions for both physically-feasible and physically-infeasible motion specifications. We introduce a novel control parameterization, optimizing over internal actions, external assistive-force modulation, and keyframe timing. Our method allows for emergent behaviors between keyframes, does not require advance knowledge of contacts or exact motion timing, supports the creation of physically impossible motions, and allows for near-interactive motion creation. The use of a shooting method allows for the use of any black-box simulator. We present results for a variety of 2D and 3D characters and motions, using sparse and dense keyframes. We compare our control parameterization scheme against other possible approaches for incorporating external assistive forces.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Shailen Agrawal, Shuo Shen, and Michiel van de Panne. 2013. Diverse motion variations for physics-based character animation. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation. 37--44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Mazen Al Borno, Martin De Lasa, and Aaron Hertzmann. 2012. Trajectory optimization for full-body movements with complex contacts. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 19, 8 (2012), 1405--1414.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Mazen Al Borno, Michiel van de Panne, and Eugene Fiume. 2017. Domain of attraction expansion for physics-based character control. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 36, 2 (2017), 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Yunfei Bai, Danny M Kaufman, C Karen Liu, and Jovan Popović. 2016. Artist-directed dynamics for 2D animation. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 35, 4 (2016), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ronen Barzel, John R Hughes, and Daniel N Wood. 1996. Plausible motion simulation for computer graphics animation. In Computer Animation and Simulation'96. Springer, 183--197.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Kevin Bergamin, Simon Clavet, Daniel Holden, and James Richard Forbes. 2019. DReCon: data-driven responsive control of physics-based characters. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 38, 6 (2019), 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Danny Chapman, Tim Daoust, Andras Ormos, and Joseph Lewis. 2020. WeightShift: Accelerating Animation at Framestore with Physics. In ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation, showcase proceedings. 1--2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Nuttapong Chentanez, Matthias Müller, Miles Macklin, Viktor Makoviychuk, and Stefan Jeschke. 2018. Physics-based motion capture imitation with deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Motion, Interaction, and Games. 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Erwin Coumans and Yunfei Bai. 2016--2020. PyBullet, a Python module for physics simulation for games, robotics and machine learning. http://pybullet.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Danilo Borges da Silva, Rubens Fernandes Nunes, Creto Augusto Vidal, Joaquim B Cavalcante-Neto, Paul G Kry, and Victor B Zordan. 2017. Tunable robustness: An artificial contact strategy with virtual actuator control for balance. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 36. Wiley Online Library, 499--510.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Kai Ding, Libin Liu, Michiel Van de Panne, and KangKang Yin. 2015. Learning reduced-order feedback policies for motion skills. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation. 83--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Petros Faloutsos, Michiel Van de Panne, and Demetri Terzopoulos. 2001. Composable controllers for physics-based character animation. In Proceedings of the 28th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. 251--260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Sehoon Ha and C Karen Liu. 2014. Iterative training of dynamic skills inspired by human coaching techniques. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 34, 1 (2014), 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Sehoon Ha, Yuting Ye, and C Karen Liu. 2012. Falling and landing motion control for character animation. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 31, 6 (2012), 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Perttu Hämäläinen, Sebastian Eriksson, Esa Tanskanen, Ville Kyrki, and Jaakko Lehtinen. 2014. Online motion synthesis using sequential monte carlo. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 33, 4 (2014), 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Daseong Han, Haegwang Eom, Junyong Noh, and Joseph S Shin. 2016. Data-guided model predictive control based on smoothed contact dynamics. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 35. Wiley Online Library, 533--543.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Nikolaus Hansen. 2016. The CMA evolution strategy: A tutorial. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.00772 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Nikolaus Hansen, Youhei Akimoto, yoshihikoueno, Dimo Brockhoff, and Matthew Chan. 2020. CMA-ES/pycma: r3.0.3. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3764210Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Eric Heiden, David Millard, Hejia Zhang, and Gaurav S Sukhatme. 2019. Interactive differentiable simulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10706 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Sumit Jain, Yuting Ye, and C Karen Liu. 2009. Optimization-based interactive motion synthesis. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 28, 1 (2009), 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Paul G Kry, Cyrus Rahgoshay, Amir Rabbani, and Karan Singh. 2012. Inverse kinodynamics: Editing and constraining kinematic approximations of dynamic motion. Computers & Graphics 36, 8 (2012), 904--915.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Taesoo Kwon, Yoonsang Lee, and Michiel Van De Panne. 2020. Fast and flexible multilegged locomotion using learned centroidal dynamics. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 39, 4 (2020), 46--1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Sergey Levine and Jovan Popović. 2012. Physically plausible simulation for character animation. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation. 221--230.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. C Karen Liu and Zoran Popović. 2002. Synthesis of complex dynamic character motion from simple animations. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 21, 3 (2002), 408--416.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Libin Liu, KangKang Yin, Michiel van de Panne, Tianjia Shao, and Weiwei Xu. 2010. Sampling-based contact-rich motion control. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2010 papers. 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Zicheng Liu, Steven J Gortler, and Michael F Cohen. 1994. Hierarchical spacetime control. In Proceedings of the 21st annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. 35--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Azumi Maekawa, Ryuma Niiyama, and Shunji Yamanaka. 2018. Pseudo-Locomotion Design with a Quadrotor-Assisted Biped Robot. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO). IEEE, 2462--2466.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Carlos Mastalli, Rohan Budhiraja, Wolfgang Merkt, Guilhem Saurel, Bilal Hammoud, Maximilien Naveau, Justin Carpentier, Ludovic Righetti, Sethu Vijayakumar, and Nicolas Mansard. 2020. Crocoddyl: An efficient and versatile framework for multi-contact optimal control. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2536--2542.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Josh Merel, Saran Tunyasuvunakool, Arun Ahuja, Yuval Tassa, Leonard Hasenclever, Vu Pham, Tom Erez, Greg Wayne, and Nicolas Heess. 2020. Catch & Carry: reusable neural controllers for vision-guided whole-body tasks. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 39, 4 (2020), 39--1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Filipe Figueredo Monteiro, Andre Luiz Buarque Vieira, João Marcelo Xavier Natário Teixeira, Veronica Teichrieb, et al. 2019. Simulating real robots in virtual environments using NVIDIA's Isaac SDK. In Anais Estendidos do XXI Simpósio de Realidade Virtual e Aumentada. SBC, 47--48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Igor Mordatch, Emanuel Todorov, and Zoran Popović. 2012. Discovery of complex behaviors through contact-invariant optimization. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 31, 4 (2012), 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Soohwan Park, Hoseok Ryu, Seyoung Lee, Sunmin Lee, and Jehee Lee. 2019. Learning predict-and-simulate policies from unorganized human motion data. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 38, 6 (2019), 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Xue Bin Peng, Pieter Abbeel, Sergey Levine, and Michiel van de Panne. 2018. Deepmimic: Example-guided deep reinforcement learning of physics-based character skills. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37, 4 (2018), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Xue Bin Peng, Glen Berseth, KangKang Yin, and Michiel Van De Panne. 2017. Deeploco: Dynamic locomotion skills using hierarchical deep reinforcement learning. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 36, 4 (2017), 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Michael Posa, Cecilia Cantu, and Russ Tedrake. 2014. A direct method for trajectory optimization of rigid bodies through contact. The International Journal of Robotics Research 33, 1 (2014), 69--81.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Amir H Rabbani and Paul G Kry. 2016. PhysIK: Physically Plausible and Intuitive Keyframing.. In Graphics Interface. 153--161.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Joose Rajamäki and Perttu Hämäläinen. 2018. Continuous control monte carlo tree search informed by multiple experts. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 25, 8 (2018), 2540--2553.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Paul SA Reitsma and Nancy S Pollard. 2003. Perceptual metrics for character animation: sensitivity to errors in ballistic motion. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2003 Papers. 537--542.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Kwang Won Sok, Katsu Yamane, Jehee Lee, and Jessica Hodgins. 2010. Editing dynamic human motions via momentum and force. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer animation. 11--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Yuval Tassa, Tom Erez, and Emanuel Todorov. 2012. Synthesis and stabilization of complex behaviors through online trajectory optimization. In 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 4906--4913.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Michiel van de Panne and Alexis Lamouret. 1995. Guided optimization for balanced locomotion. In Computer Animation and Simulation'95. Springer, 165--177.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Kevin Wampler and Zoran Popović. 2009. Optimal gait and form for animal locomotion. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 28, 3 (2009), 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Andrew Witkin and Michael Kass. 1988. Spacetime constraints. ACM Siggraph Computer Graphics 22, 4 (1988), 159--168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Jungdam Won, Deepak Gopinath, and Jessica Hodgins. 2020. A scalable approach to control diverse behaviors for physically simulated characters. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 39, 4 (2020), 33--1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Pawel Wrotek, Odest Chadwicke Jenkins, and Morgan McGuire. 2006. Dynamo: dynamic, data-driven character control with adjustable balance. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on Videogames. 61--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. KangKang Yin, Stelian Coros, Philippe Beaudoin, and Michiel Van de Panne. 2008. Continuation methods for adapting simulated skills. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2008 papers. 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Wenhao Yu, Greg Turk, and C Karen Liu. 2018. Learning symmetric and low-energy locomotion. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37, 4 (2018), 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Victor Zordan, David Brown, Adriano Macchietto, and KangKang Yin. 2014. Control of rotational dynamics for ground and aerial behavior. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 20, 10 (2014), 1356--1366.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Victor Brian Zordan and Jessica K. Hodgins. 2002. Motion Capture-Driven Simulations That Hit and React. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation (San Antonio, Texas) (SCA '02). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 89--96. https://doi.org/10.1145/545261.545276Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Flexible Motion Optimization with Modulated Assistive Forces

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques
      Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques  Volume 4, Issue 3
      September 2021
      268 pages
      EISSN:2577-6193
      DOI:10.1145/3488568
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 27 September 2021
      Published in pacmcgit Volume 4, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!