Plausible Motion Simulation for Computer Graphics Animation

  • Ronen Barzel
  • John R. Hughes
  • Daniel N. Wood
Part of the Eurographics book series (EUROGRAPH)


Accuracy is the ubiquitous goal of dynamic simulation, in order to yield the “correct” motion. But for creating animation, what is really of interest is “plausible” motion, which is somewhat different. We discuss what we mean by plausible simulation, how it differs from “accurate” simulation, and why we think it’s a worthwhile area to study. The discussion touches on questions of physically plausible vs. visually plausible motion, plausible simulation in a noisy or textured environment, and probability measures for motion, as well as issues for forward and inverse problems.


Motion Path Computer Animation Bidirectional Reflection Distribution Function Collision Normal Target Ball 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Ama84]
    J. Amanatides. Ray tracing with cones. Computer Graphics, 18(3), 1984.Google Scholar
  2. [Bob85]
    Daniel Bobrow. Qualitative Reasoning About Physical Systems. MIT Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. [Bv095]
    Bart Barenbrug and Kees van Overveld. All you need is force: a constraint-based approach for rigid body dynamics in computer animation. In D. Terzopoulos and D. Thalmann, editors, Proceedings: Computer Animation and Simulation’ 95, pages 80–94. Springer Computer Science (Springer: Wien, New York), 1995. ISBN 3-211-82738-2.Google Scholar
  4. [FvDFH90]
    J. Foley, A. van Dam, S. Feiner, and J. Hughes. Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice. Addison Wesley, 2nd edition, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. [FW80]
    Alexander L. Fetter and John Dirk Walecka. Theoretical Mechanics of Particles and Continua. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1980.Google Scholar
  6. [HS92]
    Bernardo A. Huberman and Peter Struss. Chaos, Qualitative Reasoning, and the Predictability Problem. MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. [HU93]
    Colin Howson and Peter Urbach. Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. Open Court Publishing Company, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. [KMS85]
    S. Kerckhoff, H. Masur, and J. Smillie. A rational billiard flow is uniquely ergodic in almost every direction. Bulletin of the Americal Mathematical Society, 13(2): 141–142, Oct 1985.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [KR66]
    C.W. Kilmister and J.E. Reeve. Rational Mechanics. American Elsevier Publishing Company, 1966.Google Scholar
  10. [Rei71]
    Arnold L. Reimann. Physics: Mechanics and Heat. Barnes and Noble, 1971.Google Scholar
  11. [TNM95]
    Diane Tang, J. Thomas Ngo, and Joe Marks. N-body spacetime constraints. Journal of Visualization and Computer Animation, 6:143–154, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [vO91]
    C. van Overveld. An iterative approach to dynamic simulations of 3-d rigid body motions for real-time interactive computer animation. The Visual Computer, 7:29–38,1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronen Barzel
    • 1
  • John R. Hughes
    • 2
  • Daniel N. Wood
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Brown UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations