search

aremazeilles / eurobench_documentation

Description of some Eurobench Benchmarking Software mechanisms
5 stars 3 forks source link

WIP: Add model page #25

Closed aremazeilles closed 3 years ago

aremazeilles commented 4 years ago

Fix #20

aremazeilles commented 4 years ago

ping @DavidPintoFernandez @m-lancini

As discussed in #20, I create this file, model.adoc, and copied in it all figures related to human model. @m-lancini, if you are not confortable with adoc format, feel free sending me word file that I could insert myself in here.

Once advanced, I will remove the model-related content form the data format file, and refer to this new file.

m-lancini commented 4 years ago

ping @DavidPintoFernandez @m-lancini

As discussed in #20, I create this file, model.adoc, and copied in it all figures related to human model. @m-lancini, if you are not confortable with adoc format, feel free sending me word file that I could insert myself in here. Once advanced, I will remove the model-related content form the data format file, and refer to this new file.

I think it now works. If it's ok with everybody you can merge them.

aremazeilles commented 4 years ago

Thanks @m-lancini for your contribution, very appreciated! I made some simple adjustment (since the angles are defined in file model.adoc, I removed them from file data_format.adoc.

We may need some further adjustments although:

  1. In data_format.adoc, we define the human anthropometric file, and we provide a table of body segment and joints. I think we should now refer to the model file, section 2, where the same table is provided.

  2. The joint angle file, the joint torque file and the joint center 3D trajectory file should refer to the joint description in the model file.

Would you agree with these changes ? If yes, I can do them. Do you think I would be missing other connection/ cross references in between model.adoc and data_format.adoc?

aremazeilles commented 4 years ago

From #20, @m-lancini mentioned:

I tried to update at least the definition of the segments. Now it seems to me it's more coherent. The only issue is the definition of the "w" key labels. Why is that a suffix and "r" and "l_" are prefixes?

I guess your refer to the body segment table, is it correct? Effectively there we see pelvis_w, torso_w and back_w. If this is a standard (i.e. frequently used) label I would leave as is. What is your opinion?

From the discussion we had in the issue page #20, are there any extension of the current version needed? Are we happy with the current figure? ping @DavidPintoFernandez

m-lancini commented 4 years ago

The only issue is the definition of the "w" key labels. Why is that a suffix and "r" and "l_" are prefixes?

I guess your refer to the body segment table, is it correct? Effectively there we see pelvis_w, torso_w and back_w. If this is a standard (i.e. frequently used) label I would leave as is. What is your opinion?

I think it's not at all common, but manageable. Generally I find it more common the _r l suffixes instead of r l_ prefixes. It was just a suggestion to have either all suffixes or prefixes.

From the discussion we had in the issue page #20, are there any extension of the current version needed? Are we happy with the current figure? ping @DavidPintoFernandez

aremazeilles commented 4 years ago

OK so you would rather use suffixes, like knee_r instead of r_knee, which would be aligned with the one using also _w as suffix, is that correct?

@DavidPintoFernandez diegotorricelli, would this make sense?

Note that the 2 figures in model.adoc should be edited to contemplate that change then

aremazeilles commented 3 years ago

I would suggest to merge this and eventually to open an issue for discussing on the prefix/suffix point appart.

Would you agree?

m-lancini commented 3 years ago

I agree

DavidPintoFernandez commented 3 years ago

Thanks @m-lancini for your contribution, very appreciated! I made some simple adjustment (since the angles are defined in file model.adoc, I removed them from file data_format.adoc.

We may need some further adjustments although:

  1. In data_format.adoc, we define the human anthropometric file, and we provide a table of body segment and joints. I think we should now refer to the model file, section 2, where the same table is provided.
  2. The joint angle file, the joint torque file and the joint center 3D trajectory file should refer to the joint description in the model file.

Would you agree with these changes ? If yes, I can do them. Do you think I would be missing other connection/ cross references in between model.adoc and data_format.adoc?

I agree on this changes

m-lancini commented 3 years ago

Thanks David. I agree with the changes. I don't see any other connection right now.