What sensor placement mistake have you seen repeated across multiple designs?

IMUs, force/torque sensors, depth cameras, LiDAR, tactile skin, SLAM, and state estimation.
karen_kim
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2025 11:18 pm

Re: What sensor placement mistake have you seen repeated across multiple designs?

Post by karen_kim »

Can I ask a dumb follow-up - Vibration is one of the most underrated sources of noisy IMU and tactile readings - mounting matters as much as sensor quality, and a poorly isolated mount can add more noise than the sensor's own datasheet specs would suggest. Sensor fusion mostly earns its keep by covering for each individual sensor's weaknesses - vision struggles with occlusion and lighting, IMUs drift, force/torque sensors are noisy at low loads - fusing them gives a more robust estimate than any one source alone, independent of raw compute.
diego.moore6
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu May 08, 2025 8:48 am

Re: What sensor placement mistake have you seen repeated across multiple designs?

Post by diego.moore6 »

Side note that might be relevant: IMU drift over time (bias instability) is usually the real culprit behind slowly diverging state estimates, not noise - it's typically handled with sensor fusion against other references (visual odometry, joint kinematics) rather than trying to eliminate drift at the source.
Building > buying.
rossi30
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2025 7:49 am

Re: What sensor placement mistake have you seen repeated across multiple designs?

Post by rossi30 »

@diego.moore6 One nitpick - 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.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
karen.chen3
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:30 pm

Re: What sensor placement mistake have you seen repeated across multiple designs?

Post by karen.chen3 »

@rossi30 I dealt with almost this exact situation. Vibration is one of the most underrated sources of noisy IMU and tactile readings - mounting matters as much as sensor quality, and a poorly isolated mount can add more noise than the sensor's own datasheet specs would suggest.
they/them
wei_ross
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2025 2:40 am

Re: What sensor placement mistake have you seen repeated across multiple designs?

Post by wei_ross »

@karen.chen3 Thanks for laying this out, genuinely useful. Event cameras (which report per-pixel brightness changes rather than full frames) are still more of a research curiosity than a production sensor for humanoids, mainly because the software ecosystem and processing pipelines around them are far less mature than for standard frame-based cameras. 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.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
jonathan.rao1
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2024 7:58 pm

Re: What sensor placement mistake have you seen repeated across multiple designs?

Post by jonathan.rao1 »

@wei_ross I dealt with almost this exact situation. Unitree's Dex3-1 dexterous hand packs around 33 pressure/tactile sensors per hand across the fingers and palm, capable of sensing pressure roughly in the 10g-2500g range - a useful reference point for what 'production tactile sensing' looks like right now. IMU drift over time (bias instability) is usually the real culprit behind slowly diverging state estimates, not noise - it's typically handled with sensor fusion against other references (visual odometry, joint kinematics) rather than trying to eliminate drift at the source.
Currently: 3D printing my way to bankruptcy.
olga_lind
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2024 12:11 pm

Re: What sensor placement mistake have you seen repeated across multiple designs?

Post by olga_lind »

Thanks for laying this out, genuinely useful. 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. Latency between a perceived event (like a slip) and a corrective control response matters enormously for balance - even 50-100ms of extra perception latency can be the difference between a smooth recovery and a fall, which is part of why a lot of balance-critical sensing is proprioceptive rather than vision-based. Kind of makes me think about how different this all looked even three years ago.
scott21
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:57 am

Re: What sensor placement mistake have you seen repeated across multiple designs?

Post by scott21 »

@olga_lind I see it a little differently. Multi-camera calibration drifts over time from thermal expansion, vibration, and mechanical wear, which is why production systems typically run periodic recalibration routines rather than assuming a one-time factory calibration holds forever.
she/her
dchen
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2024 6:51 am

Re: What sensor placement mistake have you seen repeated across multiple designs?

Post by dchen »

I'll believe the stronger version of that claim when it's independently verified. 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.
barbara50
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2024 12:19 pm

Re: What sensor placement mistake have you seen repeated across multiple designs?

Post by barbara50 »

@dchen Thanks for laying this out, genuinely useful. Unitree's Dex3-1 dexterous hand packs around 33 pressure/tactile sensors per hand across the fingers and palm, capable of sensing pressure roughly in the 10g-2500g range - a useful reference point for what 'production tactile sensing' looks like right now. 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.
Opinions my own, not my employer's.
Post Reply