Meshless Deformations Based on
Matthias M¨uller, Bruno Heidelberger,
Matthias Teschner, Markus Gross
COMPSCI 715 S2 C - Advanced Computer Graphics
Heiko Voigt, Daniel Flower, Daniel Weisser
14 October 2005
1 Introduction 4
1.1 Problemdescription.............................. 4
1.2 Solutiondescription.............................. 4
1.3 Overview.................................... 5
2 Theoretical background 6
2.1 Physicalbackground ............................. 6
2.1.1 Motionofobjects........................... 6
Distance, velocity and acceleration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Newton’s second law of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2 Particlesystems............................ 7
2.1.3 Handling collisions and gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Gravity ................................ 8
Collisions ............................... 8
Collisions and gravity overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2 Integrationmethods ............................. 11
2.2.1 Explicit Euler Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.2 Implicit Euler Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.3 Explicit vs. Implicit Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3 Stability of Euler integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.1 Forcecalculation ........................... 14
2.3.2 Eulerintegration ........................... 15
2.3.3 Example calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 Stable integration scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4.1 ShapeMatching............................ 16
2.4.2 Extended Euler integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5 Extended shape matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5.1 Rigid body dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5.2 Linear deformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5.3 Quadratic deformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.6 Plasticity ................................... 21
3 Our Problems 23
3.1 Integrationscheme .............................. 23
3.2 Rotation matrix implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.3 Frame rate-independent velocity updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.4 Quadratic deformation of goal points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.5 Plasticity ................................... 24
4 Their evaluation of the algorithm 25
4.1 Stability .................................... 25
4.2 Performance.................................. 25
5 Flaws and limitations 27
5.1 Physicalcorrectness.............................. 27
5.2 Plasticity ................................... 27
5.3 Connectivity information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6 Impact of the paper 28
1.1 Problem description
When objects in the real world have force applied to them, they change shape, i.e.
deform, and then return completely or nearly back to their original shape, even if only a
small amount. Therefore, graphical objects should also be able to change shape, because
having deformable objects in computer games and animated movies, or even scientiﬁc
simulations, would increase the realism a great deal.
However, up until now, most objects in interactive applications are not deformable. The
main reason for this is probably eﬃciency. Techniques which try to simulate physical
reality are very computationally expensive, not to mention diﬃcult to program. Further-
more, having a stable solution (for example ensuring that the volume, mass or energy
of an object stays constant) makes the technique even more computationally expensive.
Finally, the deformation needs to be controllable by the programmer, so that the object
behaves in a way that the developer intended.
The technique that we are studying [M¨uller et al., 2005] claims to solve all the above
problems by using a simple geometric model. The simplicity ensures that the technique
is eﬃcient, easy to program, stable, and controllable by varying certain parameters.
1.2 Solution description
The main point of diﬀerence with this technique compared to others is that rather than
representing the object with a mesh or surface representation, it is represented by a
particle system. The idea is that the normal shape of the object is speciﬁed by some
arrangement of particles, but when forces are applied to the particles they lose this
The main focus of the paper is on ﬁnding the best transformation to describe the change
in location of the particles from their original shape to their deformed shape, which is
called “shape matching”. Each particle is then pulled from its current position towards
its corresponding position in the shape created by the transformation (i.e. towards its
goal position), and the particles eventually return to their original positions. This is
shown graphically in ﬁgure 1.1.
Figure 1.1: Overview of the shape matching algorithm. A shape starts in its normal
shape, as shown in (a). After a force is applied, the particles lose their
shape, as shown in (b). The shape matching algorithm ﬁnds the best trans-
formation which will convert the original shape to the current shape with
the least error, as shown in (c). This step is what makes the goal positions
githat the particles are pulled to. Finally, in (d), the particles move towards
their goal positions. The graphic is derived from [M¨uller et al., 2005]
This report gives a detailed overview on the theoretical aspects of the paper in section
2. After that our problems with the given are described and the algorithm is evaluated.
Section 5 mentions the ﬂaws and limitations that we found, when we tried to implement
the algorithm described in the paper. The concept of clustering, as described in the
paper, is ignored in this report.
For mathematical formulae, where it is necessary to distinguish between vector and
non-vector quantities, the vector quantities are indicated in bold type.
2 Theoretical background
2.1 Physical background
2.1.1 Motion of objects
The paper requires a basic understanding of physics. The most important aspects to un-
derstand are the relationship between distance, velocity and acceleration, and Newton’s
second law of motion.
Distance, velocity and acceleration
Although we all know what these words mean, it is important to understand their
relationship with each other. Velocity vdescribes how distance xchanges over time,
and acceleration adescribes how velocity changes over time. In other words, velocity is
the derivative of distance over time x0, and acceleration is the derivative of velocity v0
over time. Integration goes the other way, so integrating acceleration gives velocity, and
integrating velocity gives distance. Mathematically, this can be shown as
v(t) = x0(t)
a(t) = v0(t)
and so also
a(t) = x00(t)
Figure 2.1 explains this connection graphically.
Newton’s second law of motion
Newton’s second law of motion states the relationship between the mass of an object,
its acceleration, and the force applied to achieve this acceleration, which is:
This is an important equation because it allows us to calculate how the velocity of an
object will change when a force is applied to it. Another way to look at it is that
acceleration is equal to force divided by mass, which is important because it shows that
acceleration, and hence velocity, can only be changed when a force is applied.
" # $
Figure 2.1: This illustrates the integration of all three items assuming a constant accel-
eration. (a(t) = 1,v(t) = t,x(t) = t2)
2.1.2 Particle systems
The solution given in this paper requires that the objects be represented as a particle
system. In graphics, objects are generally represented as meshes (i.e. vertices and
information on how the vertices are connected) or by some surface representation.
In a particle system, an object simply has a set of particles. A particle might be a single
point in space, or it may be a shape such as a small sphere. Each particle maintains its
own position, velocity, acceleration and other properties depending on the application.
The meshless deformations solution requires that a particle also keep track of its original
position, goal position, and mass.
The original position is needed to be able to calculate the displacement of a particle,
and the goal position is simply the position that the particle should move to (this is
explained in subsequent sections). The mass is required so that the object’s centre of
mass can be calculated.
At each time step, each particle is updated separately. It’s velocity is incremented by its
acceleration, and its position is updated by its velocity. External forces such as gravity
can also be added by increasing the velocity. Obviously if all particles have the same
velocity and acceleration, then the object will move as if it were a solid object. It is
only when some force disrupts this uniformity of movement, that things begin to get
2.1.3 Handling collisions and gravity
Common sense and basic physics tells us that no object will deform without an external
force acting upon it. At ﬁrst read then, it seems most curious that a paper dealing in
deformations only mentions forces in passing. To understand why such little attention is
given to forces, it is important to understand what exactly is the concern of this paper.
As explained earlier, an object is a group of particles, where each particle has its current
position, and its goal position. When all the particles are in their goal positions, the
object will be in its regular shape, and the method this paper describes simply moves a
particle from its current position towards its goal position. The paper is not concerned
with how a particle became displaced from its goal position, even though without any
displacement no deformations will occur.
There are several sources of deformation, however in this section we will look at just
external, constant forces acting on all particles equally, such as gravity, and the forces
experienced through collisions by individual particles1.
The eﬀects of gravity are introduced in the Integration section2. The term that adds
the force to a single particle is hfext(t)/mi, where his the amount of time passed since the
last update, fext(t) is the external force at that time, which is the same for all particles,
and miis the mass of the particle.
Because force equals mass multiplied by acceleration, this equation can be simply thought
of as the acceleration caused by gravity multiplied by the time step amount. Note that
this equation is completely independent of the shape matching, and so adding grav-
ity becomes the simple task of incrementing the velocity of each particle by a certain
Dealing with collisions in a computer simulation involves two steps: collision detection
and collision response. Collision detection involves determining which, if any, objects are
colliding with each other, and where the collision takes place. Collision response applies
appropriate forces to the colliding objects so that they behave realistically. Although
response obviously comes after detection, we will look at response ﬁrst as this is more
closely related to the preceding paragraphs.
Collision response Collision response involves applying an instantaneous force to a
colliding object. An instantaneous force, as the name suggests, is a force that lasts for
only a very short time, for example when a bat hits a ball, or when you punch your best
friend in the face. Note that an instantaneous force cannot be added in the same way as
a constant force like gravity. This is because an instantaneous force should be applied
during just one time step, and because the time step length changes as the frame rate
changes, depending on the frame rate a diﬀerent amount of force would be added, and
would never be the same amount of force as was requested.
1Another source of force comes from user interaction, such as dragging a particle with the mouse. This
can be thought of as the equivalent of a collision response.
2Section 3.4, Equation 9 of the SIGGRAPH paper [M¨uller et al., 2005]
While the paper does not mention how to add instantaneous forces, once again because
the shape matching does not take into account any forces, nor the velocity of the particle,
we can simply set the velocity to a new value, and the next time the velocity and position
of this particle is updated, it will be moving with a new velocity. This will cause the
centre of mass of the object, and hence the goal positions, to change, and deformation
One way to calculate the response force vector is to get the normal of the point that
the particle collided with. The response vector is simply the velocity vector reﬂected
on the normal. This can be multiplied by an elasticity value between zero and one to
simulate the energy lost in the collision, where zero means all energy was lost (and so
the particle does not rebound) and one means no energy was lost (and so the particle
will bounce around forever). The response vector can simply be added to the particle’s
Collision detection Collision detection is another area which was glossed over in the
paper. Collisions with the environment and other mesh-based objects are straightfor-
ward. Each particle independently checks whether it is colliding with another object,
and numerous techniques are available for determining the point of impact (for example
there are equations to calculate the distance between a point and a plane, among many
While the paper states that there are no particle-to-particle interactions within an ob-
ject, the particles of two separate objects do need to somehow react to each other. One
possibility is that particles of separate objects simply detect collisions between them-
selves, but because an object is not represented by a surface, there are many empty
spaces where collisions cannot be detected (see ﬁgure 2.2).
Figure 2.2: Because shapes are represented by particles, rather than surfaces, they can
easily pass through each other. In this example, the small, brighter ob-
ject passes right through the larger dark object without colliding with any
There are ways to mitigate this problem. One such way is to add repulsive forces between
particles so that when particles become close they push each other away. However this
can give the unrealistic eﬀect whereby two objects respond to each other without making
any contact, however it does make it more diﬃcult for a particle to travel “inside” another
object. Another possible solution is to simply add more particles, in eﬀect simulating a
surface (see ﬁgure 2.3). Combining these two approaches, particularly having particles
throughout the volume of the object which repulse the particles in another object, makes
it very diﬃcult for two objects to intersect each other.
Figure 2.3: An example of collision detection working only on the particles of the ob-
jects. The particles are large and bunched closely together so that when the
two objects meet, they do not intersect.
A problem with reducing the likelihood of intersection, is that it also reduces the likeli-
hood that two objects that do manage to intersect each other can untangle themselves.
Simple particle-to-particle collisions are not satisfactory when dealing with object-to-
object collisions. In the example simulations shown in the paper (for example where
hundreds of shoes successfully deform each other without intersecting each other) the
objects are loaded as meshes, and a subset of the vertices become the particles used
in the shape matching section. Conventional collision detection techniques can then be
While loading objects as a mesh and using the mesh for collision detection solves the
above problems, it makes irrelevant one of the supposed advantages of meshless defor-
mations, which is that no connectivity information is needed between the points (i.e. no
mesh is needed). It would seem that this claim is only true when there is only a single
deformable object interacting with non-deformable objects3.
Collisions and gravity overview
•Shape matching involves moving a particle from its current, deformed position to
its undeformed position
•Objects only get deformed when forces are applied to them
•Forces and collision detection/response are handled independently of the shape
3The usefulness of not requiring connectivity information is possibly moot anyway due to the fact that
some kind of mesh is needed in order to texture map the object.
•Forces are applied to single particles, rather than the object as a whole, by changing
the velocities of the particles
•Because a particles system does not represent a continuous surface, collisions be-
tween objects can only be properly handled when each object has a mesh deﬁned
2.2 Integration methods
The position x, velocity vand acceleration aare all dependent on each other by being
diﬀerent derivatives (x00(t) = v0(t) = a(t)) in time (see section 2.1.1). We need a method
to numerically calculate the integration from one to another. There is no analytical
solution due to fact that the acceleration at each time step tis only known at runtime.
The acceleration consists of diﬀerent possible forces. For example there are gravity,
shape matching and drag forces.
2.2.1 Explicit Euler Integration
The explicit Euler integration is a linear integration scheme which is based on only one
sample point f(x) plus its diﬀerence 4hf0(x).
f(t+4h) = f(x) + 4hf0(x)
Example: The integration scheme for the velocity of a spring system is based on the
acceleration force f=−k(x(t)−l0). The system is ﬁxed at the origin and the other
point with mass mis free. l0is the length of the spring and its resting state. k is the
spring constant. The acceleration a(t) is the ﬁrst derivative of the velocity v(t) with
respect to time t. This gives
v(t+4h) = v(x) + 4ha(x)
since the acceleration is a=f/m. The explicit Euler integration for the velocity is:
v(t+4h) = v(x) + 4h−k(x(t)−l0)
See [Weisstein, 2005] for Reference.
2.2.2 Implicit Euler Integration
Another approach is the implicit Euler integration. The term looks similar to the explicit
integration but takes the diﬀerence of one step ahead 4hf 0(x+4h) to integrate. This
cannot be explicitly solved and usually leads to linear equations.
f(t+4h) = f(x) + 4hf0(x+4h)
The Example for this equation is
v(t+4h) = v(x) + 4h−k(x(t+4h)−l0)
for the velocity. [Wikipedia, 2005]
2.2.3 Explicit vs. Implicit Integration
To compare both integration methods we take the example function f(x) = x2. The
derivative is f0(x) = 2x= 2pf(x) this leads to the following equations:
f(x+4h) = f(x) + 42pf(x)
f(x+4h) = f(x) + 42pf(x+4h)
0 = f(x+4h)2−4(4h)2f(x+4h) + f(x)2
This is then solved to
The term underneath the square root can not be negative because we are integrat-
ing in the positive direction.
Figure 2.4 shows the comparison of both integration methods.
The calculation of the Implicit Integration is more complex than the Explicit scheme
but provides more accurate results in general. This evaluation scheme was described in
Explicit Euler Integration
Implicit Euler Integration
Figure 2.4: Comparing Euler Integration Methods
2.3 Stability of Euler integration
Stability is a key issue for 3D animation and modelling. It is not acceptable for animated
models to behave physically incorrectly if parameters of it are changed. The Euler
integration is known to be stable just under certain circumstances (see [Weisstein, 2005])
so it is not in general suitable for integrating from the applied forces to the position of
This section describes the ﬂaws of the standard Euler integration with an example where
it can be seen that this integration method is not suitable for modelling animations that
have to follow Newton’s laws.
The example that is used is based on the example of the paper [M¨uller et al., 2005]
but tries to elaborate more on the instability of the Euler integration for a spring. The
physical system that is used is a simpliﬁed mass-spring system. Figure 2.5 shows the
relevant parameters to perform the calculation. The spring is classiﬁed by a resting
length l0and a spring constant k. Physically the spring connects two points. One of the
points is ﬁxed and the other point is free and connected with the mass m.
The free point x(t) is always pulled towards the equilibrium l0of the spring.
For further calculations this is simpliﬁed and the resting length is set to 0 and the block
is initially not moving (v(0) = 0). The described example is an extended version of
[Kesselheim, 2005] and is based on the example found in [M¨uller et al., 2005, Section
Figure 2.5: Overview of the mass spring system
2.3.1 Force calculation
The force F(t) that is applied to the spring is proportional to x(t). By adding the spring
constant to the equation the force can be described as
F(t) = −k·x(t)
Based on Newton’s second law of motion (see section 2.1.1) the acceleration for the
system can be determined.
a(t) = −k·(x(t))
With a(t) = x00(t) (see section 2.1.1) we get the diﬀerential equation
x00(t) = −k·(x(t))
This ordinary diﬀerential equation can be solved analytically4and leads to the following
equation for the position of x.5
x(t) = x0·cos rk
So for this physical system it is possible to calculate the current position for an arbitrary
point in time when the initial position is given.
4The steps are described at http://www.myphysicslab.com/spring1 analytic.html
5For the solving of diﬀerential equations that are derived from Newton’s laws the paper “Ordinary Dif-
ferential Equations (ODEs)” at http://chaos.swarthmore.edu/courses/phys6 2004/QM/ODEs.pdf
provides a good overview.
2.3.2 Euler integration
In order to compare the exact result to the Euler integration a modiﬁed Euler integration
scheme is applied. The modiﬁcation states that for integrating the position the velocity
of the next time step is used instead of the current velocity (v(t+h) instead of v(h)).
v(t+h) = v(t) + h·a(t) = v(t) + h·−k·x(t)
x(t+h) = x(t) + h·v(t+h)
2.3.3 Example calculation
In this example two diﬀerent parameters for the time step are used to perform the
numerical integration. Both calculations are based on the same spring system (i.e.
spring constant k= 1, mass m= 1 and original point x(0) = 10).
The ﬁrst calculation is done with time step h= 0.1. Here it can be seen in table 2.1 and
in ﬁgure 2.6 that the Euler integration is approximating the real values quite accurately.
t0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
correct x(t) 10.00 9.95 9.80 9.55 9.21 8.78 8.25
calculated x(t) 10.00 9.90 9.70 9.40 9.01 8.53 7.97
calculated v(t) 0.00 −1.00 −1.99 −2.96 −3.90 −4.80 −5.66
Table 2.1: Example integration with h= 0.1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Calculated x(t) with h=0.2
Figure 2.6: Diﬀerences in positions for h= 0.1
For the second calculation the time step is set to h= 2.0. The calculations (table 2.2
and ﬁgure 2.7) show that the Euler integration explodes and calculates values far away
from the correct ones.
t0.00 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
correct x(t) 10.00 −4.16 −6.54 9.60 −1.46 −8.39 8.44
calculated x(t) 10.00 −30.00 50.00 −70.00 90.00 −110.00 130.00
calculated v(t) 0.00 −20.00 40.00 −60.00 80.00 −100.00 120.00
Table 2.2: Example integration with h= 2.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Calculated x(t) with h=2.0
Figure 2.7: Diﬀerences in positions for h= 2.0
The overshooting can be especially seen for the ﬁrst calculated value of v. The value
is here bigger than the maximum that the real velocity will ever reach. The maximum
velocity is the point where x(t) = 0. This point is reached at t=π
2with a velocity
2) = x0(π
2) = −10). So the energy of the system increases which is physically
2.4 Stable integration scheme
The proposed algorithm extends the explicit numerical integration by introducing shape
matching. The shape matching step allows a more exact calculation of the actual desti-
nation for an animation step. Another advantage is that it does not overshoot like the
method shown in section 2.3.
2.4.1 Shape Matching
The idea for the calculation of the target points is based on a multiple-step calculation.
A graphical overview on the idea can be seen in ﬁgure 2.8.
•An object is divided in diﬀerent particles that are not linked to each other. Then
the physical simulation based on Newton’s laws are performed and calculated.
•The positions for the particles are now taken and the algorithm tries to match the
shape of the new object with the shape of the original object.
•Based on the diﬀerence to the original shape the velocity of the particle is altered
and the object tries to regain its original shape.
Figure 2.8: Idea of shape matching of particles
In order to solve the problem it is formulated mathematically. Therefore the basic idea
of shape matching is restricted to two translations and a rotation. The restrictions can
be easily explained, by translating the original object to the zero-point, rotating it and
then translating it to the destination point (see ﬁgure 2.9).
Figure 2.9: Shape matching (rotation, translations)
For the given set of original points (x0
n) and the set of deformed points (xn) of the
restricted problem we can now formulate an optimization problem. We try to ﬁnd a
rotation matrix Rand two translation vectors tand t0which minimise the following
wiallows one to give the diﬀerent particles diﬀerent importance. The natural choice for
wiis to take the mass miof a particle so the formula that will be used later is reformed
i−t0) + t−xi)2
In order to solve the optimisation problem we start with ﬁnding the translation vectors.
For ﬁnding the translation vectors the partial derivatives with respect to tand t0are
calculated. Due to the fact that we look for the minimum the solution for the two vectors
have to give the result 0 when they are inserted in the ﬁrst derivatives.
Therefore we get the solutions
cm and t=Pimixi
Physically this is the logical choice because the object will be rotated around its center
In order to minimize Rthe solutions for tand t0are put back into the equation. This
can be seen as a rotation around the relative coordinates qiand pi, with
As a result we now try to minimize
Finding the solution to this problem is simpliﬁed. Instead of just allowing a rotation R
an arbitrary linear transformation Ais allowed.
For ﬁnding the solution the same approach is used that has been used for ﬁnding the
translation vectors. So the derivatives for the entries of the matrix Aare set to 0.
The solution for this is
The rotation matrix Rcan now be found by polar decomposition. Every invertable
matrix Acan be decomposed to an orthogonal matrix Rand a symmetric positive
deﬁnite matrix Sso that A=RS. The following applies
√ATAcan be calculated with the help of diagonalization with Jacobi rotations.
After having calculated the rotation matrix Rand the translation vectors tand t0the
goal positions gican be calculated (see ﬁgure 2.9)
The matrix calculations in the implementation use the library developed at [Davies,
2.4.2 Extended Euler integration
Based on the calculated goal position the Euler integration scheme is altered. An ad-
ditional velocity is added that changes the velocity so that the shape tries to regain its
original shape (see ﬁgure 2.10).
vi(t+h) = vi(t) + α·gi(t)−xi(t)
xi(t+h) = xi(t) + h·vi(t+h)
Figure 2.10: Integration extension based on goal positions.
2.5 Extended shape matching
With the “basic” shape matching explained above, we can only allow for translations and
rotations. The authors give several techniques to extend the shape matching algorithm,
three of which will be explored in this section.
2.5.1 Rigid body dynamics
Rigid bodies, or non-deformable objects, can be simulated by simply setting the value
for αto 1. This value controls how quickly a particle reaches its goal position, where
setting it to a small value will cause it to slowly return, while a larger value will speed it
up. The maximum value allowed is 1, which means each particle will instantly reach its
respective goal position, i.e. the object is never deformed, so it acts like a rigid body.
2.5.2 Linear deformations
Linear deformations allow the shape to scale and shear while they undergo deformation.
In the basic shape matching, only the rotation is taken from the best matching lin-
ear transformation, while this extension involves calculating the entire transformation.
Along with translation and rotation, a linear transformation can also express scaling
Because the goal positions are calculated using the transformation, the introduction of
scaling and shearing means that the shape created by the shape matching algorithm
will be deformed from the original shape. In other words, the shape will never return to
its original shape. To control the amount of inﬂuence the linear transformation has on
the shape matching, the parameter βis used, and so the equation to calculate the goal
position for a particle becomes:
gi= (βA+ (1 −β)R)x0
By using a smaller value for β, the ratio of rotation-to-pure deformation will increase,
and so the goal positions will more closely match the original, undeformed shape of the
2.5.3 Quadratic deformations
The linear transformation is described using a 3 by 3 matrix. A transformation using
a matrix of this size is restricted to only translations, rotations, scaling and shearing,
however there are more kinds of deformations an object can undergo, such as twist-
ing and bending. By moving from a linear to a quadratic transformation, these extra
deformations can be simulated.
As with the linear transformation, once again the equation to calculate the goal positions
needs to be updated. This time, the transformation matrices are a lot larger (3 by 9) in
order to allow greater freedom of movement, and once again the βparameter is used to
control the amount of deformation.
Figure 2.11 shows the diﬀerent deformations techniques based on the same particle sys-
tem. For all pictures the β-value has been set to 0.8. In the ﬁrst picture the deformation
method (rigid body) tries to approximate the deformed shape by rotating the original
shape. For the second picture linear deformation was used. Here it can be seen that
the shape is approximated better by the goal positions but still not close enough to the
deformed object. For the last example quadratic deformation was used and here it can
be seen that with this method the deformed shape can be approximated very closely.
Figure 2.11: Comparison of the calculation of goal positions, where the spheres are par-
ticles in their current positions, and the red cubes show the goal positions
Imagine that you have a 30 cm metal ruler, that when bent returns to its original,
ﬂat shape. You are able to bend this ruler because it is elastic, and your bending is
equivalent to the forces as described in section 2.1.3, while the return to the original
shape corresponds to the shape matching problem.
Now imagine bending the ruler again, this time applying so much force that the ruler
does not return to its original shape. This is the idea behind plasticity: when the amount
of force exceeds some threshold, the shape of the object will be permanently changed.
An object’s propensity to undergo a permanent change in shape is referred to as that
In a linear deformation, the linear transformation is made up of a rotational matrix
multiplied by another matrix S. In other words, Sis the deformation that takes place
before the particles are rotated, and because a rotated object is not deformed (for exam-
ple turning a book on its side does not change the book’s shape), we are only interested
in S, which represents the actual deformation.
The idea is that an object will keep track of the permanent change in shape in the matrix
Sp, this matrix transforming the original position of each particle relative to the original
centre of mass. This matrix is initialised with the identity matrix, and of course when
you multiply a vector by the identity matrix, you are left with the original vector, and
so to begin with there is no change in the shape due to plasticity.
The matrix Spis only updated when the squared determinant of S−Iexceeds some
threshold cyield. A small value for cyield means the object will undergo plastic defor-
mations with only a small force applied; a large value will mean a lot of force will be
Once it has been determined that plastic deformation should take place, the matrix
Spneeds to be updated. If we simply set Spto be Sthen all deformations would be
permanent. However, we probably only want to update it by a small amount, hence
we multiply it by the parameter ccreep, and by multiplying it by the time step it means
we change the shape no more than to where the actual particles have moved to at the
current time. Because we only want to change it a small amount, the new value of Sp
should be near to the identity matrix, but if ccreep and the time step are small, then
the new matrix will be close to 0. Therefore, we subtract the identity matrix from S,
multiply this by ccreep and the time step, and then add the identity matrix back. Finally,
we multiply this result with the previous value of Sp, as plasticity accumulates over time.
By adjusting the values of cyield and ccreep, we are able to control the plasticity of an
object. For example, to simulate the bendy metal ruler used in the example above, we
would set cyield to be a relatively high value so that only a large force could permanently
change its shape, and ccreep to a small value, so that when the shape changed, it would
only change a small amount relative to the amount that the ruler was bent. Conversely,
to simulate a piece of wire which would stay in the shape that it was bent to, cyield would
be close to zero so that even a small amount of force altered its shape, and ccreep would
be close to one so that its shape would be permanently changed to very closely match
the shape it was bent in.
3 Our Problems
3.1 Integration scheme
Unfortunately the integration scheme the authors present is not working in exactly the
way they describe. We had to modify our integration scheme into two parts so they
would be stable. The derived formulae term letters are related to the ones in the paper:
v(t+h) = v(t) + g(t)−¯x(t)
¯x(t) = x(t) + h¯v(t),¯v(t) = v(t) + hfext (t)/mi
x(t+h) = x(t) + hv(t+h)
¯x and ¯v are intermediate calculations which are used to calculate the goal positions gi.
The formulae for these are assimilated accordingly: pi=¯xi−xcm,xcm =imi¯xi
The authors used the same identiﬁer for calculating the goal positions and decribing the
integration scheme. This is basically only a ﬂaw in their notation and does not violate
their mathematical proves of stability.
3.2 Rotation matrix implementation
The mathematics behind the calculation for the rotation matrix to match the goal po-
sitions with the actual shape is not easily understandable. We understand roughly that
they try to ﬁnd a optimal linear transformation matrix with least square optimization.
After this step the square root of AT
pqApq is used to extract the rotational part of Apq.
This part of the calculation is not understood by our group.
3.3 Frame rate-independent velocity updates
The authors state that the velocity update as they presented it1depends on the time
step taken. They state that this can be solved by making α=h/τ where τ≤his a
“time constant”. Aside from the fact that this would cause αto be greater than one,
which is not desirable, this would cause the value of αto not be controllable in the
program. It is also unclear what kind of value this constant should be.
3.4 Quadratic deformation of goal points
In section 4.3 of the paper the author introduces quadratic deformation of the goal
points. This way the goal points can be matched along cubic curves. The object then
deforms along these curves. It is unclear how the 9x3 transformation Matrix along with
the 9 element vector ˜qis achieving this goal.
It is understandable that an object would experience plastic deformations when the
force applied exceeds a certain threshold, but it is unclear exactly why it is the squared
determinant of S−Ithat is used2. While the determinant gives information about the
volume of the object, and hence this equation is probably a measurement of the change
in volume, it is unclear to us exactly how this works. Similarly, it is unclear why dividing
Spby the cube root of its determinant conserves its volume.
1Equation 9 in their paper [M¨uller et al., 2005]
2Equation 15, Section 4.5 in the SIGGRAPH paper [M¨uller et al., 2005]
4 Their evaluation of the algorithm
The evaluation the authors give can be divided into stability and performance.
The unconditional stability of this technique was an important improvement over pre-
vious techniques. To illustrate the success of this aspect, a completely squashed duck
reforms to its original shape. While in the duck’s case the technique appears to be
stable, it is hardly a convincing proof of stability in all situations.
Fortunately, earlier in the paper we are shown a mathematical proof which convincingly
proves the stability.
The performance is another very important section because the ability to use this tech-
nique in interactive applications was one of its main strengths. Consequently, the authors
provide a more detailed analysis of the performance.
They supplied several diﬀerent tests, for example animating 100 objects each with 100
particles (i.e. 10,000 particles altogether) and they reported that it ran at a respectable
50 frames per second. An important ﬁnding in those tests is that the time complexity is
linear in respect to the number of particles used. More interesting is when they included
collision detection and more objects. In this example, over 55,000 particles were used,
and without collision detection the frame rate was around 25 frames per second, but with
collision detection and response the scene could not be animated in real time (they do
not give the frames per second achieved). This shows that the deformation calculations
are more eﬃcient than collision detection and response.
To illustrate that this technique is suitable for interactive applications, an example was
shown where a human head with 66 particles could be manipulated with the mouse
while handling collisions in real-time. They consider this situation “typical for games”,
however not many games consist of a single human head sitting inside a white box. They
do not give the amount of processing power used in the example which would be useful
to see how much computation time would be required if, for example, in a game which
took place in a complex environment the main character was deformable.
Overall though, their evaluation clearly shows that the performance achieved in this
technique is very good.
5 Flaws and limitations
5.1 Physical correctness
The authors speciﬁcally said that they had games in mind when developing this tech-
nique. A common mantra in games is that correctness - whether it be in graphics,
artiﬁcial intelligence, or physics etc - can be compromised as long as it appears correct.
It would seem that this technique follows that rule, with its aim to be visually pleas-
ing rather than physically correct. The beneﬁt is of course eﬃciency, so this point is a
limitation only if an exact physical representation is required.
Objects permanently change their shape only when the force applied to them exceed a
certain value. Real objects also change their shape when a smaller force is applied for a
long time (for example the indentations left on a sofa after sitting on it for a long time).
The method given is unable to handle this type of plasticity.
5.3 Connectivity information
One of the advantages of this technique given was that an object could be a particle sys-
tem where no connectivity information between particles is required. While technically
this is true, without connectivity information, texture mapping and collision detection,
and hence most useful applications for this technique, are at best problematic and at
Indeed, in their own examples it appears that they have loaded objects as a mesh and
then used the vertices from that mesh to be the particles. This could be seen as an
advantage though, because in graphics using meshes is very common and so this could
be said to show how easy it is to extend a normal mesh to be a deformable object.
6 Impact of the paper
It is inevitable that in the competitive games industry, having deformable objects will
become an important aspect of many games. Until now, the diﬃculty in implementation
and the computational expense of deformations has stunted the use of these in games,
and it may just be that the technique outlined in this paper will become very popular
as a result of its ease of implementation and eﬃciency.
For these same reasons, deformable objects may be used in other applications, such as
animations, where they were not used before.
Davies, Robert: Newmat C++ matrix library.http://www.robertnz.net/
nm intro.htm. Version:2005. – [Online; accessed 15-October-2005]. Newmat is a
powerful matrix C++ library that allows to perform the necessary operations that
the algorithm of the paper needs.
Kesselheim, Thomas: Meshless Deformations Based on Shape Matching. 2005. –
A German presentation on the paper given at a seminar at ’Lehrstuhl f¨ur Informatik
VIII, RWTH Aachen’. This presentation contains better explanations on the problems
of Euler integration in comparison of solving the diﬀerential equation.
[M¨uller et al. 2005]
uller, Matthias ; Heidelberger, Bruno ; Teschner, Matthias ; Gross,
Markus: Meshless deformations based on shape matching. In: ACM Trans. Graph.
24 (2005), Nr. 3, S. 471–478. – This is the original paper of SIGGRAPH 2005 and it
is described in this report.. – ISSN 0730–0301
Weisstein, Eric W.: Euler Forward Method.http://mathworld.wolfram.com/
EulerForwardMethod.html. Version: 2005. – [Online; accessed 15-October-2005]
Mathworld contains a lot of useful mathematical background knowledge. For this
report we had a look at the diﬀerent Euler integration schemes.
Implizites Euler-Verfahren. Version: 2005. – [Online; accessed 15-October-2005]