Hello again, The huge values were due to penetration between the foot and platform: this post helped me : https://simtk.org/plugins/phpBB/viewtopicPhpbb.php?f=91&t=7784&p=0&start=0&view= And despite visually is not touching the platform, I believe the forces are being exerted, the question it would ...

Hi Erica, No it didn't, they are still ridiculous pelvis.PNG pelvissum.PNG And when performing RRA I get strange recommended adjustments, like almost zero and negative... ************************************************************ * Recommended mass adjustments: * Total mass change: -78.5788 * grou...

Hi again,

I have figured it out already the conversion from the FP referencial to the lab was not correct, guess I had just follow the example and didn't change it for my FP!
Now it looks good : I also filtered the marker trajectories and forces


Thank you so much

Hi,

I am simulating a walking trial and the GRF are not where they should be, they are a bit far from the foot...
would my converted data present worse results if I use the Manual method?

Thank you

Thank you so much for the help Tom, I understand that the contact geometries will then replace the need for GRF as input :) And about the previewing of GRF they seem not to be associate to any foot marker but they follow properly the walking motion. But when I did the association between the static ...

Thank you for you help Erica :) I have done that previously but only for the dynamic trial,where the green arrow seem to be a bit dislocated but following the walking properly: dynamic association.PNG But in fact doing for the static pose is totaly wrong ...Do you know how can I fix this? static ass...

Thank you Tom, So you are saying that if I want to preview the contact forces with (Forward Dynamics) I should never at any step give the GRF as inputs?! When I run RRA without external loads and adjusted the model it goes like this: https://we.tl/Jm1XcXeMxy but if I run CMC keeps on giving me error...

Hi everyone, My goal is previewing GRF and compare them with the experimental ones. I am having huge moments and forces when I evaluate my simulation through ID, so I performed ID without GRF to see the residuals at pelvis: When I simply use 2354 model : pelvis residuals with no contact forces.png b...

Hi Erica, Thank you so much for the help ! :) -When I associate the motion data, the GRF vectors dont seem to be associated with any marker, like they are a bit far from the calcaneous, but synchronized in time. -About the ID results, I am having forces at pelvis more than 10 000 N, that cant be rig...

Also, my .trc and .mot files look like this, I compared with reference ones from available models to check the units, but I am still not sure whether or not the units are correct. Using MSL viewer the Forces are in N and Moments in Nmm, but I am still not sure about the header and units trc.JPG mot....