How do you handle sensor firmware updates without breaking calibration?
-
jonathan.rao1
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2024 7:58 pm
How do you handle sensor firmware updates without breaking calibration?
This came up in a Discord I'm in and I wanted a more permanent place to discuss it.
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. 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.
Genuinely not sure where I land on this, so discuss.
Currently: 3D printing my way to bankruptcy.
Re: How do you handle sensor firmware updates without breaking calibration?
@jonathan.rao1 Same conclusion I've come to. Also worth noting:
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. 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: How do you handle sensor firmware updates without breaking calibration?
@kim37 Respectfully, I think this undersells it a bit.
SLAM in a working warehouse is harder than in a controlled lab mainly because the map keeps changing - pallets move, people walk through, lighting shifts near dock doors - so a lot of production systems lean on semi-static maps refreshed periodically rather than pure continuous SLAM.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion
Re: How do you handle sensor firmware updates without breaking calibration?
@george92 This is exactly the kind of context I was looking for.
Force/torque sensors near the ankle give a direct read on ground reaction forces, which is valuable for balance control, but they add cost, a failure point, and routing complexity right at a joint that already takes the most mechanical abuse.
Watching this space closely since 2019.
Re: How do you handle sensor firmware updates without breaking calibration?
@choi98 Just to be precise about one thing:
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.
-
robertmiller
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2026 4:05 pm
Re: How do you handle sensor firmware updates without breaking calibration?
Counterpoint:
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. 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.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
Re: How do you handle sensor firmware updates without breaking calibration?
I dealt with almost this exact situation.
A minimum viable sensing suite for safe bipedal walking generally includes joint encoders, an IMU for orientation/angular velocity, and either force/torque sensing or accurate current-based torque estimation at the ankles - everything else (vision, tactile, LiDAR) adds capability rather than being strictly required just to stay upright. 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.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
Re: How do you handle sensor firmware updates without breaking calibration?
@jlefebvre Not to derail, but this reminds me of something adjacent:
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.
Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
-
chloe_jack
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2024 12:42 pm
Re: How do you handle sensor firmware updates without breaking calibration?
Related question -
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.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
Re: How do you handle sensor firmware updates without breaking calibration?
Here's what I know on this:
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. 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.