ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?

Whole-body control, RL policies, VLA models, sim-to-real, ROS2, and the software stack that makes a humanoid actually walk and act.
emilyperez
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2024 8:03 pm

ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?

Post by emilyperez »

Not sure if this has been discussed before, but here goes. 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. Cross-embodiment training (training one policy across data from multiple different robot bodies) has shown some real transfer benefits for high-level behaviors, but low-level control (exact joint torques, timing) still tends to need embodiment-specific fine-tuning. Let me know if I'm missing something obvious.
barbara50
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2024 12:19 pm

Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?

Post by barbara50 »

I see it a little differently. 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. 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.
jhansen
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:27 am

Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?

Post by jhansen »

Agreed, and I'd add: Whole-body control (WBC) formulates locomotion and manipulation as a single optimization problem across all joints simultaneously, respecting contact constraints and task priorities - it's more general than ZMP-only approaches but is computationally heavier and harder to tune.
deborah59
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2024 9:37 am

Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?

Post by deborah59 »

Not to derail, but this reminds me of something adjacent: Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models like RT-2, OpenVLA, and Physical Intelligence's pi0 unify a vision-language backbone with an action-output head, letting a robot map a camera image and a text instruction directly to motor commands instead of hand-coding separate perception and planning stages.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
scott.andersson5
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:39 pm

Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?

Post by scott.andersson5 »

This matches what I've seen too. 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. Sim-to-real transfer still commonly breaks on contact dynamics - friction, restitution, and deformable/compliant surfaces are the hardest things to model accurately in simulation, so policies trained purely in sim often need real-world fine-tuning specifically around contact-rich tasks.
camila.jackson0
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2024 1:27 am

Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?

Post by camila.jackson0 »

This is a great summary, thanks. OpenVLA is a notable open-source VLA model - roughly 7 billion parameters, trained on hundreds of thousands of real-world robot demonstrations - and has been shown to outperform much larger closed models on some manipulation benchmarks, which says a lot about how much of VLA performance comes from data curation rather than raw scale.
Building > buying.
jhansen
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:27 am

Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?

Post by jhansen »

@camila.jackson0 To answer this directly: '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.
deborah59
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2024 9:37 am

Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?

Post by deborah59 »

Agreed, and I'd add: A lot of what reads as 'full autonomy' in public demos is closer to a mix of scripted state machines, teleoperation for the hardest sub-tasks, and autonomous execution for the easier, well-rehearsed parts - transparency about this mix varies a lot between companies.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
matthew43
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2024 9:18 am

Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?

Post by matthew43 »

@deborah59 Short answer: 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.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
mia.weber
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2024 4:38 am

Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?

Post by mia.weber »

@matthew43 This matches something I went through recently. 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.
Post Reply