1. Plausible motion: conclusion Ronen Barzel John Hughes

2. What you’ve heard today Freedom in models Allows you to achieve various goals: –measuring plausibility –constructing desired motion –efficient simulation …all physically “correct”

3. Choice of model… …is just a choice CG has adopted models from engineering disciplines –But properties of interest to engineering are different from those of interest to animation. –We can choose models that meet our needs: visually observable plausibility, ease of control, efficiency of computation

4. If observable phenomena are important… Can use phenomenological models rather than physical: –Faking Dynamics (Slinky dog), CG&A 1996 –Structural Modeling of Flames, Siggraph 2002 Continuum between: Physical model that captures features of interest Phenomenological model of features of interest

5. Not just animation… Same principles can apply to rendering: –engineering problem of light transport, vs. –creating a plausible image

6. Open Questions Making user interfaces for plausible- motion specification and exploration Find the right spectrum of models and search algorithms for wide classes of problems

7. Other things to see Today 10:15  –Efficient Synthesis of Physically Valid Human Motion, Fang, Pollard. Today 5:45pm –“Evaluating the Visual Fidelity of Physically Based Animations” O’Sullivan, Dingliana, Giang –“Perceptual Metrics for Character Animation” Reitsma and Pollard Thursday, 8:00am –“Keyframe Control of Smoke Simulations” Treuille, McNamara, Popović

8. We hope we’ve… Conveyed a new world view about simulation Inspired future research and development Made you think

9. Thanks to our speakers: Stephen Chenney, University of Wisconsin Jovan Popović, MIT Ronald Fedkiw, Stanford University