This is mostly just stream-of-conscious and/or me being forced to make up names for things ("inverse kinematics post-processing") because I'm not sure if anyone else has named them before.
Thoughts:
Kyle Davis 07:06, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Jellocube27 18:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Removed claim that prescripted animation uses less memory than a ragdoll physics animation. A prescripted animation must have bone locations for every key frame at the very least. Ragdoll physics only require the current state of the bones to remain in memory. -- MidoriKid 01:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
GamaSutra requires registration, it would be better to link to the article somewhere else. Is this the article in question? -- GalFisk 21:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
This needs some work. 1) Verlet integration is just an integration method, like Runge-Kutta, Euler, or the implicit methods. It's only part of a "ragdoll physics" system. 2) The two basic approaches are "spring-damper" methods and "impulse-constraint" methods. Early systems, like Trespasser, used spring-damper, but badly. We (www.animats.com) did a spring-damper ragdoll system that worked in 1997, but it wasn't real time. Most newer systems, like Havok's, use impulse-constraint methods. See Dave Baraff's SIGGRAPH papers for those. Jacobson's approach is spring-damper again. 3) The hard part in all this is keeping the system from going unstable. Most serious work revolves around maintaining numerical stability during collisions. This leads into discussions of solution methods for stiff systems of differential equations, a difficult subject worth an article of its own.
Should new technical material in this area go in "game physics" or "ragdoll physics"? Right now, "ragdoll physics" has more technical detail than "game physics", which is a stub. -- Nagle 20:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Added a picture from one of our first ragdoll simulations, from 1997. This introduced what is now a cliche of ragdoll physics, falling downstairs. This may be the first successful ragdoll. If anyone knows of anything earlier than 1997, please note that. -- Nagle 03:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Adding names of games that use this technology is probably unnecessary. It's so widespread that the full list would be huge and would clutter the article. I've removed a short list. -- John Nagle 18:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The current list of games using ragdoll physics is getting rather long. I propose that, instead, we list engines that have ragdoll physics, plus a short (-ish) list of titles using them. For instance :
At the moment there are a lot of titles (some quite famous ones) for which there's no engine listed. It might be better to only add a title if detail about its engine can also be added. Anyway, just a thought. Cheers, -- Plumbago 12:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that we need a list of all the games so far that have rag dolls. Ragdolls in games are becoming very popular. Pixels and truely 3d graphics were rare at the time of quake, but by the time Half-Life came out a list games with true 3d graphics would be overwhelming. I feel as if that is the direction we will be headed if the list of ragdoll-games is left. If there are objections to this, please say so now. Jellocube27 17:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
All right, then we are going to need some defining qualities of what makes a landmark in the development of ragdoll physics. I, personally, am not knowledgable on the subject of physics simulations. If anyone is, please post what you know about the development stages of ragdoll physics-- obviously the tecniques used in Tresspasser aren't used in the newest Half-Life 2 expansion. Jellocube27 17:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I think someone should try to list some more-- DogPHman 11:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see much useful information in the Tetka article that we need here. It'll just clutter up a perfectly good article with junk about some internet meme. SteveBaker 14:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC) OH noes I was the author of that article :( -- 212.139.60.238 17:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (Importancenn)
I'm under the impression, for some reason I'm not sure of, that Verlet integration is quite a common way of implementing 2D ragdolls. At the very least, I'm 95% sure Rag Doll Kung Fu uses it. If anyone knows a bit more about this, it probably deserves a mention. -- 203.206.183.160 19:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
this is wikipedia and we still need to cite sources, remember? i've added back the Thomas Jakobsen article. -- Witchinghour 15:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The third paragraph includes the phrase "...leading to a character with a nip collapsing much like a toy rag doll...". What the heck is a nip in this context? This needs to be explained (perhaps via a link) or changed. Herostratus ( talk) 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I added some info on procedural animation tech, i.e. Euphoria et al, but this page still needs some references to ACTUAL papers on the subject, rather than more examples of new game tech from GTA IV fanboys (i.e, moi). Ho Hum. Better than pretending it doesn't exist, I guess. Would love to see someone expand on it. :-) love from some anonymous dousche — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.77.211 ( talk • contribs)
Someone changed "polar" to "popular" regarding the Trespasser section. "Polar" was intended. Some reviewers wrote good things about the game. Other reviews had lines like "worst game I ever played". The GDC Postmortem made it clear that the game physics was badly broken. Things would go flying off into space. This was spring/damper physics before means were found to make it stable. -- John Nagle ( talk) 23:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"Recent procedural animation technologies, such as those found in NaturalMotion's Euphoria software, have allowed the development of games that rely heavily on the suspension of disbelief"
What does suspension of disbelief have to do with anything? How do any of those games listed rely heavily on it? This sentence seems weird and redundant. 70.71.234.123 ( talk) 22:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is mostly just stream-of-conscious and/or me being forced to make up names for things ("inverse kinematics post-processing") because I'm not sure if anyone else has named them before.
Thoughts:
Kyle Davis 07:06, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Jellocube27 18:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Removed claim that prescripted animation uses less memory than a ragdoll physics animation. A prescripted animation must have bone locations for every key frame at the very least. Ragdoll physics only require the current state of the bones to remain in memory. -- MidoriKid 01:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
GamaSutra requires registration, it would be better to link to the article somewhere else. Is this the article in question? -- GalFisk 21:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
This needs some work. 1) Verlet integration is just an integration method, like Runge-Kutta, Euler, or the implicit methods. It's only part of a "ragdoll physics" system. 2) The two basic approaches are "spring-damper" methods and "impulse-constraint" methods. Early systems, like Trespasser, used spring-damper, but badly. We (www.animats.com) did a spring-damper ragdoll system that worked in 1997, but it wasn't real time. Most newer systems, like Havok's, use impulse-constraint methods. See Dave Baraff's SIGGRAPH papers for those. Jacobson's approach is spring-damper again. 3) The hard part in all this is keeping the system from going unstable. Most serious work revolves around maintaining numerical stability during collisions. This leads into discussions of solution methods for stiff systems of differential equations, a difficult subject worth an article of its own.
Should new technical material in this area go in "game physics" or "ragdoll physics"? Right now, "ragdoll physics" has more technical detail than "game physics", which is a stub. -- Nagle 20:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Added a picture from one of our first ragdoll simulations, from 1997. This introduced what is now a cliche of ragdoll physics, falling downstairs. This may be the first successful ragdoll. If anyone knows of anything earlier than 1997, please note that. -- Nagle 03:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Adding names of games that use this technology is probably unnecessary. It's so widespread that the full list would be huge and would clutter the article. I've removed a short list. -- John Nagle 18:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The current list of games using ragdoll physics is getting rather long. I propose that, instead, we list engines that have ragdoll physics, plus a short (-ish) list of titles using them. For instance :
At the moment there are a lot of titles (some quite famous ones) for which there's no engine listed. It might be better to only add a title if detail about its engine can also be added. Anyway, just a thought. Cheers, -- Plumbago 12:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that we need a list of all the games so far that have rag dolls. Ragdolls in games are becoming very popular. Pixels and truely 3d graphics were rare at the time of quake, but by the time Half-Life came out a list games with true 3d graphics would be overwhelming. I feel as if that is the direction we will be headed if the list of ragdoll-games is left. If there are objections to this, please say so now. Jellocube27 17:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
All right, then we are going to need some defining qualities of what makes a landmark in the development of ragdoll physics. I, personally, am not knowledgable on the subject of physics simulations. If anyone is, please post what you know about the development stages of ragdoll physics-- obviously the tecniques used in Tresspasser aren't used in the newest Half-Life 2 expansion. Jellocube27 17:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I think someone should try to list some more-- DogPHman 11:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see much useful information in the Tetka article that we need here. It'll just clutter up a perfectly good article with junk about some internet meme. SteveBaker 14:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC) OH noes I was the author of that article :( -- 212.139.60.238 17:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (Importancenn)
I'm under the impression, for some reason I'm not sure of, that Verlet integration is quite a common way of implementing 2D ragdolls. At the very least, I'm 95% sure Rag Doll Kung Fu uses it. If anyone knows a bit more about this, it probably deserves a mention. -- 203.206.183.160 19:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
this is wikipedia and we still need to cite sources, remember? i've added back the Thomas Jakobsen article. -- Witchinghour 15:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The third paragraph includes the phrase "...leading to a character with a nip collapsing much like a toy rag doll...". What the heck is a nip in this context? This needs to be explained (perhaps via a link) or changed. Herostratus ( talk) 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I added some info on procedural animation tech, i.e. Euphoria et al, but this page still needs some references to ACTUAL papers on the subject, rather than more examples of new game tech from GTA IV fanboys (i.e, moi). Ho Hum. Better than pretending it doesn't exist, I guess. Would love to see someone expand on it. :-) love from some anonymous dousche — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.77.211 ( talk • contribs)
Someone changed "polar" to "popular" regarding the Trespasser section. "Polar" was intended. Some reviewers wrote good things about the game. Other reviews had lines like "worst game I ever played". The GDC Postmortem made it clear that the game physics was badly broken. Things would go flying off into space. This was spring/damper physics before means were found to make it stable. -- John Nagle ( talk) 23:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"Recent procedural animation technologies, such as those found in NaturalMotion's Euphoria software, have allowed the development of games that rely heavily on the suspension of disbelief"
What does suspension of disbelief have to do with anything? How do any of those games listed rely heavily on it? This sentence seems weird and redundant. 70.71.234.123 ( talk) 22:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)