Talk:Inverse kinematics

Vandalism

This page was vandalized with the use of weasel words but is fixed.

IK unimportant due to mocap?

Not sure the line saying IK has any less importance due to Motion capture use has any merit at all. Ask any animator or technician for game development and using mocap as a *base* for animation is far, far more common than using raw mocap for animation data. IK is in heavy use to make characters' feet line up with terrain, hands line up with usable objects etc. The line adds nothing to the article, and if anything is disinformative and lacks perspective. Up for someone proving me wrong, but i'm removing it for now.--Decept404 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal

This article and Inverse kinematic animation share a number of redundant facts, and I think they're close enough in subject that they needn't be split into two separate articles.Chaos95 07:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I favor the merge since each on its own is not complete enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.156.106.189 (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'm surprised there are two articles on the same subject. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 11:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I favor the merge, with IK Animation as a sub-topic within the IK article. Two entries are redundant; one would serve us all better 12.206.63.24 (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Morf[reply]

I favour the merge too. The two topics are not the same, just so closely related (see comment above) that they belong together. jujutu | Talk 16 January 2008

I'd favor merging the animation article into this one. (I prefer this title as more general). RJFJR (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles should be merged. These two topics are one in the same. froschhosen 9:28, 23 September 2008

How about mentioning the Adobe Flash CS4 bones animation utility? That's more or less why I'm looking at this page. I'd say that's why a lot of people want to know more about IK. Guinness4life (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed inclusion of some math

I went ahead and included some notes on how to approximate solutions to IK problems. I used the work "Inverse Kinematics With Constraints" by Engell-Norregard, Niebe, and Bonding as well as the kinematics notes from http://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs184/sp13/schedule.html. How can I appropriately cite these sources in the main article? -vk (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only mentioning the pseudoinverse method is a bit misleading since there are various methods that perform better in the proximity of singularities and for unreachable positions, like the transposed method with selective damping and damped least squares. Using the pseudoinverse is actually among the worst jacobian solutions.

See http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~sbuss/ResearchWeb/ikmethods/iksurvey.pdf for a good overview.

Many more recent approaches try to combine analytic and numeric solutions to have a better idea about local minima and to make better use of possible redundancies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.196.43 (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to article

Inverse kinematics is important to robot path planning and control. Prof McCarthy (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the section Robotics and 3D animation and changed its name to Inverse kinematics and 3D animation. I commented out the original version in case anyone is concerned that I left out important material. Prof McCarthy (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inverse kinematics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/60uCFHqC2?url=http://freespace.virgin.net/hugo.elias/models/m_ik2.htm to http://freespace.virgin.net/hugo.elias/models/m_ik2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a visual upgrade.

I don't know if this problem came after the layout update or it was like this earlier, but the 'overview' section has a very large image template which makes a good portion of the first paragraph very unreadable. There are about two words per line approximately. I highly recommend a visual change, maybe use a lower dimension image or move it to some another heading, idk. Just do it! عبدالرحمن بن ركن الدين (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]