What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?
-
scott.andersson5
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:39 pm
Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?
I can speak to this a bit.
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.
Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?
Slightly off-topic, but related:
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.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?
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.
she/her
Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?
@scott21 Pretty much this. One thing to add:
Depth sensing range and reliability both degrade outdoors in direct sunlight for most structured-light and active stereo cameras, since the ambient IR washes out the projected pattern - it's a real limitation for humanoids intended for anything beyond indoor, controlled environments.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
-
williams84
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:50 am
Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?
Ran into exactly this myself.
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. 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.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
-
mohammed64
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2025 9:56 am
Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?
I see it a little differently.
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.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
-
zoeanderson
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2024 2:39 am
Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?
@mohammed64 Tangent, but worth mentioning:
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. 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.
-
emilyperez
- Posts: 246
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2024 8:03 pm
Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?
Thanks for laying this out, genuinely useful.
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.
-
scott.andersson5
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:39 pm
Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?
@emilyperez From hands-on experience,
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.
Re: What sensor fusion architecture do you actually trust for balance control?
Still learning the space, so correct me if wrong -
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.
This whole thread is a good reminder how young this field still is.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."