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.
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 »

@mia.weber Genuinely curious - Diffusion policies model the distribution of possible actions and sample from it, which handles multimodal manipulation tasks (multiple valid ways to grasp something) more naturally than a single deterministic action output, at the cost of slower inference.
Opinions my own, not my employer's.
dchen
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2024 6:51 am

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

Post by dchen »

@barbara50 Slight correction, though the overall point stands: Zero Moment Point (ZMP) control keeps the robot's center of pressure within its support polygon and has been the classical backbone of bipedal walking for two decades - it's robust and well-understood, but tends to produce a somewhat conservative, flat-footed gait compared to more dynamic approaches. '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.
zoeanderson
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2024 2:39 am

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

Post by zoeanderson »

Pretty much this. One thing to add: 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.
williams84
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:50 am

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

Post by williams84 »

From what I've seen: 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.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
kwilliams
Posts: 309
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2024 1:57 pm

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

Post by kwilliams »

One nitpick - 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. 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.
he/him
zoeanderson
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2024 2:39 am

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

Post by zoeanderson »

@kwilliams Not to derail, but this reminds me of something adjacent: Diffusion policies model the distribution of possible actions and sample from it, which handles multimodal manipulation tasks (multiple valid ways to grasp something) more naturally than a single deterministic action output, at the cost of slower inference.
park44
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2024 12:03 am

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

Post by park44 »

@zoeanderson This is exactly the kind of context I was looking for. 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. 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.
she/her
mia_lars
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2024 11:00 am

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

Post by mia_lars »

This matches what I've seen too. 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.
Watching this space closely since 2019.
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 »

@mia_lars Ran into exactly this myself. 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.
Opinions my own, not my employer's.
nicole57
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2024 1:29 am

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

Post by nicole57 »

Slight correction, though the overall point stands: 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.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion
Post Reply