What does a realistic humanoid control software org chart even look like?
-
sharonschmidt
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2024 7:31 am
Re: What does a realistic humanoid control software org chart even look like?
@mohammed.rossi Counterpoint:
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.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
-
nancy_lewi
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2025 1:11 pm
Re: What does a realistic humanoid control software org chart even look like?
@sharonschmidt Follow-up question though -
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.
"Torque is a lifestyle."
Re: What does a realistic humanoid control software org chart even look like?
@nancy_lewi Here's the relevant bit as far as I understand it:
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.
she/her
Re: What does a realistic humanoid control software org chart even look like?
Speaking from personal experience here,
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.
-
scott.andersson5
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:39 pm
Re: What does a realistic humanoid control software org chart even look like?
@carter42 Not sure I fully agree here.
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.
Re: What does a realistic humanoid control software org chart even look like?
@scott.andersson5 Respectfully, I think this undersells it a bit.
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.
they/them
Re: What does a realistic humanoid control software org chart even look like?
Related question -
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. 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.
Re: What does a realistic humanoid control software org chart even look like?
Just to be precise about one thing:
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.
Re: What does a realistic humanoid control software org chart even look like?
I'd frame this 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.
Re: What does a realistic humanoid control software org chart even look like?
Minor factual note:
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.
they/them