Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
-
ronald.clark
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2026 9:05 am
Re: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
New to this, so forgive me if this is obvious -
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. 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.
-
kwameivanov
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2026 8:53 pm
Re: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
Just to be precise about one thing:
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.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
-
scott.novikova7
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2025 1:06 am
Re: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
This raises a question for me -
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.
Re: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
Just to be precise about one thing:
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: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
@scott21 This matches what I've seen too.
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. 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.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
Re: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
Short answer:
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.
Re: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
@carter42 Thanks for laying this out, genuinely useful.
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. 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.
Watching this space closely since 2019.
Re: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
Ran into exactly this myself.
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.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
Re: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
This matches what I've seen too.
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.
-
arjunsanchez
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2025 3:20 am
Re: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
@noah_pate Slightly off-topic, but related:
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.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days