Green_Baron said:
You probably mean ungulates.

So 4 legged is ungulate, and 2 legged is… still biped? Or is there another name for biped too then? Though, i think in robotics saying quadruped vs. biped is common - never heard ungulate.

The com of animals is high, but only in relation their their body (on top). But for balancing physics the shape of the body is not relevant, only the position of the com in relation to the size of the support polygon. (Ofc. shape affects moment of inertia but that's only another huge plus for the animals)

Animals have very stable balance along front and back, and only left right is unstable. They avoid to swing left and right - they can not do it at all (similar to how humans can not swing forth and back).
So i only meant this physical property, no other related things like evolution and environmental threats which i guess has more affect on how long it takes until creatures can move after birth, admitted.

NikiTo said:
With these long legs, it is not as low as with the short baby legs.

Length of legs is also irrelevent for the same reasons. Babies also have smaller feet, and their huge head is heavy… i guess :D

Biped balancing is done only by the ankles. No other leg stuff involved. And only the summed up mass properties of the whole body affect balance. The shape affects those properties only indirectly with mass distribution. If you wear iron shoes weighting a ton, balancing becomes super easy even if you're tall and thin.

There are other ways to achieve balance, e.g. utilizing a flywheel:

But humans can't do that aside of swinging arms a bit when standing at the edge of an abbyss.

JoeJ said:
Length of legs is also irrelevent for the same reasons. Babies also have smaller feet, and their huge head is heavy… i guess :D

I guess babies just don't want to walk too early, because their bones are too soft. So they should not. Some people say human babies are born not completely developed. They should stay more in the womb, but then they would not be able to get out through that tiny hole.

Or we could try to stimulate a human baby with a fierce lion, so it learns to walk sooner. After 100 trillions of babies thrown at the lions, babies could evolve to directly jump out of the wombs on their feet, and play karate.

JoeJ said:
There are other ways to achieve balance, e.g. utilizing a flywheel:

Rotation is something invented by the humans. No animal use it. We invented it, we were not inspired by an animal. Not like in the case of planes and bird wings.

The exceptional ability to cooperate in conjunction with oversupply and too much time at hand, allows for some individuals to oppose everything just for the lulz of opposing. That's a lifestyle disease. In a group of prehistoric hunters (a time which occupies by far the most of our history) there are (at least) two possibilities to deal with them:

1.) If the group needs every hunter, they'll suggest the opposite right away because they know the angry bird's reaction, thus making it contribute its share to the group's necessities.

2.) Their number is high enough. They stop dragging it along and next when it stops, stamping foot and shouting “no, i want to go that way !” they just leave it be. Unfortunately, it'll soon catch up again, more or less humbly and grumpy.

So, we probably can assume that such a conduct didn't arise in the first place. Before all, those guys and girls at the end of the last cold phase probably were more intelligent than we are and able to foresee the outcome.

:-)

Just because at this given moment of human history the theory of evolution is radically imposed on the weak minds in schools, this doesn't mean evolution is correct.

Remember Giordano Bruno, he was burnt for defending astronomy. Because the majority was having a different opinion.

Believing to the one who gets more likes is savage.

Not to mention, you single handedly, green baron, said that every one on the huge and very populated stackoverflow is a sucker compared to yourself.

It is normal for humans to ignore their own misery and try to point to the misery of other people. It is normal for you to blame me for the sins you commit yourself. Such are humans.

I personally predict that the next undoubtedly proven theory will be "Aliens created humans in a lab".

IMO you don`t need to simulate reality when you create the human model rig. You can make the feet really heavy and keep the body in balance with active hip joint motors that easily keep the upper part of the body straight. If the legs are really really heavy the body will not topple.No one says you can`t cheat.

Calin said:

IMO you don`t need to simulate reality when you create the human model rig. You can make the feet really heavy and keep the body in balance with active hip joint motors that easily keep the upper part of the body straight. If the legs are really really heavy the body will not topple. No need to simulate reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC2De6kncbg

Calin said:
You can make the feet really heavy and keep the body in balance

If you do this, the resulting motion will not look human. That's the reason i do it the hard way. Because human balance is very constrained it dictates how we move all the time, so solving balance alone already guarantees procedural results at the same quality of motion capture. That's my believe at least but i have no doubt in it.

Still, my goal is not really procedural animation just to be able to make a game alone. It's not even about games at all. I want to simulate reality in a way the resulting game feels real and rich on options. Physics is key here. Even if i had perfect animation generated from some machine learning approach i would not be happy, personally. Smoke and mirrors, facade, recorded and static content like a Hollywood movie… it's the current AAA way of doing things more often than not. But i feel fooled. I do not play this game - the game plays me.

I guess many people are like this. They work more on tech than on games. For me, starting work on ragdolls also was the end of working on a game, aside a little mobile one.
That said as a warning. ; )

Evolution theory friendly -

Evolution theory unfriendly -

JoeJ said:
same quality of motion capture.

you have to keep it practical at the same time. hi-res movement (smooth human movement replicating muscle driven/organic movement is an entire universe ) takes a lot of computational resources you need more than just one biped and you will want your `bipeds` to interact in/with a physics driven environment (usually combat situations be it a movie or a game). Also to make it practical in a stand alone engine is probably a lot of work. Any kind of physics in a movie would be a step forward.

[edit] Beside walking you want the character to be in balance when fighting, carrying stuff etc.