SLAM in dynamic warehouse environments - what's actually working in 2026?
-
emilyperez
- Posts: 246
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2024 8:03 pm
Re: SLAM in dynamic warehouse environments - what's actually working in 2026?
@ashley_flor Can I ask a dumb follow-up -
Proprioception (the robot's sense of its own joint angles, velocities, and forces) tends to get less attention than flashy vision systems, even though a lot of balance and manipulation failures trace back to proprioceptive noise or miscalibration rather than a vision problem. A minimum viable sensing suite for safe bipedal walking generally includes joint encoders, an IMU for orientation/angular velocity, and either force/torque sensing or accurate current-based torque estimation at the ankles - everything else (vision, tactile, LiDAR) adds capability rather than being strictly required just to stay upright.
Re: SLAM in dynamic warehouse environments - what's actually working in 2026?
@emilyperez Appreciate the detailed answer.
A minimum viable sensing suite for safe bipedal walking generally includes joint encoders, an IMU for orientation/angular velocity, and either force/torque sensing or accurate current-based torque estimation at the ankles - everything else (vision, tactile, LiDAR) adds capability rather than being strictly required just to stay upright. LiDAR gives reliable, lighting-independent range data but is heavier, pricier, and gives sparser point clouds up close than stereo or depth cameras, which is why a lot of humanoids lean on stereo/depth cameras for near-field manipulation and reserve LiDAR (if present at all) for longer-range navigation.
Re: SLAM in dynamic warehouse environments - what's actually working in 2026?
@noah_pate Counterpoint:
Force/torque sensors near the ankle give a direct read on ground reaction forces, which is valuable for balance control, but they add cost, a failure point, and routing complexity right at a joint that already takes the most mechanical abuse.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
Re: SLAM in dynamic warehouse environments - what's actually working in 2026?
@yuki71 Slight correction, though the overall point stands:
A minimum viable sensing suite for safe bipedal walking generally includes joint encoders, an IMU for orientation/angular velocity, and either force/torque sensing or accurate current-based torque estimation at the ankles - everything else (vision, tactile, LiDAR) adds capability rather than being strictly required just to stay upright.
-
larrysokolov
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2025 4:23 pm
Re: SLAM in dynamic warehouse environments - what's actually working in 2026?
Still learning the space, so correct me if wrong -
Tactile skin arrays have improved a lot, but 'good enough to matter' really depends on the task - coarse contact detection across a large area is fairly mature, while fine, high-resolution force distribution sensing (like a human fingertip) is still the harder problem. A minimum viable sensing suite for safe bipedal walking generally includes joint encoders, an IMU for orientation/angular velocity, and either force/torque sensing or accurate current-based torque estimation at the ankles - everything else (vision, tactile, LiDAR) adds capability rather than being strictly required just to stay upright.
he/him
Re: SLAM in dynamic warehouse environments - what's actually working in 2026?
Follow-up question though -
Estimating joint torque from motor current draw is cheap and requires no extra sensor, but it's less accurate than a dedicated torque sensor because it doesn't capture friction losses through the gearbox - good enough for coarse control, not always for precise force-controlled tasks.
Anyway, good thread - following for more.