Isaac Lab vs MuJoCo - which do you actually train on and why?
-
scott.andersson5
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:39 pm
Re: Isaac Lab vs MuJoCo - which do you actually train on and why?
Same conclusion I've come to. Also worth noting:
Physical Intelligence's pi0 pairs a smaller pretrained vision-language backbone with a separate flow-matching 'action expert' module, which is one way to get fast, high-frequency action output without needing the whole giant language model to run at control-loop speed.
Re: Isaac Lab vs MuJoCo - which do you actually train on and why?
I'd push back on this a bit.
Model predictive control (MPC) is still very much alive in production humanoids, often working alongside or underneath learned policies - MPC handles short-horizon dynamically-consistent trajectory optimization while learned components handle perception, task-level decisions, or recovery behaviors that are hard to hand-model. 'Zero-shot sim-to-real' rarely means literally zero real-world tuning in practice - it usually means the policy transfers well enough to be usable with only calibration and minor safety-limit adjustments, rather than needing a full additional training phase on hardware.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
-
pierregreen
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2024 11:01 am
Re: Isaac Lab vs MuJoCo - which do you actually train on and why?
Slightly off-topic, but related:
ROS2 remains common in research and early-stage products for its tooling and ecosystem, but a number of production humanoid companies run custom, more tightly-optimized middleware for their real-time control loops, using ROS2-like tooling mainly for development, visualization, and non-real-time subsystems.
she/her
Re: Isaac Lab vs MuJoCo - which do you actually train on and why?
@pierregreen One nitpick -
Balance-recovery controllers are usually evaluated with push-recovery tests (a known, repeatable lateral push) in demos, but real-world robustness also depends on recovering from unstructured events like uneven flooring, unexpected contact, or a dropped payload shifting the center of mass mid-stride - which is a much harder, less demo-friendly test.
Opinions my own, not my employer's.
Re: Isaac Lab vs MuJoCo - which do you actually train on and why?
This matches what I've seen too.
Balance-recovery controllers are usually evaluated with push-recovery tests (a known, repeatable lateral push) in demos, but real-world robustness also depends on recovering from unstructured events like uneven flooring, unexpected contact, or a dropped payload shifting the center of mass mid-stride - which is a much harder, less demo-friendly test.
-
camila.jackson0
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2024 1:27 am
Re: Isaac Lab vs MuJoCo - which do you actually train on and why?
I don't think that's quite right, for what it's worth.
Isaac Lab (the successor to Isaac Gym) is widely used for large-scale parallel RL training thanks to GPU-accelerated physics, while MuJoCo is often used as a secondary 'sim-to-sim' validation step because its contact dynamics are generally considered more realistic than Isaac's, even though it trains slower at scale.
Building > buying.
-
williams84
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:50 am
Re: Isaac Lab vs MuJoCo - which do you actually train on and why?
@camila.jackson0 Pretty much this. One thing to add:
Physical Intelligence's pi0 pairs a smaller pretrained vision-language backbone with a separate flow-matching 'action expert' module, which is one way to get fast, high-frequency action output without needing the whole giant language model to run at control-loop speed. Domain randomization - varying friction, mass, sensor noise, and even visual textures during training - is one of the more reliable tricks for improving sim-to-real transfer, but overdoing it can make training slower to converge and produce overly conservative policies.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."