ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
@mia.weber Genuinely curious -
Diffusion policies model the distribution of possible actions and sample from it, which handles multimodal manipulation tasks (multiple valid ways to grasp something) more naturally than a single deterministic action output, at the cost of slower inference.
Opinions my own, not my employer's.
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
@barbara50 Slight correction, though the overall point stands:
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.
-
zoeanderson
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2024 2:39 am
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
Pretty much this. One thing to add:
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.
-
williams84
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:50 am
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
From what I've seen:
Model predictive control (MPC) is still very much alive in production humanoids, often working alongside or underneath learned policies - MPC handles short-horizon dynamically-consistent trajectory optimization while learned components handle perception, task-level decisions, or recovery behaviors that are hard to hand-model.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
One nitpick -
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. 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.
he/him
-
zoeanderson
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2024 2:39 am
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
@kwilliams Not to derail, but this reminds me of something adjacent:
Diffusion policies model the distribution of possible actions and sample from it, which handles multimodal manipulation tasks (multiple valid ways to grasp something) more naturally than a single deterministic action output, at the cost of slower inference.
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
@zoeanderson This is exactly the kind of context I was looking for.
Sim-to-real transfer still commonly breaks on contact dynamics - friction, restitution, and deformable/compliant surfaces are the hardest things to model accurately in simulation, so policies trained purely in sim often need real-world fine-tuning specifically around contact-rich tasks. Cross-embodiment training (training one policy across data from multiple different robot bodies) has shown some real transfer benefits for high-level behaviors, but low-level control (exact joint torques, timing) still tends to need embodiment-specific fine-tuning.
she/her
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
This matches what I've seen too.
A lot of what reads as 'full autonomy' in public demos is closer to a mix of scripted state machines, teleoperation for the hardest sub-tasks, and autonomous execution for the easier, well-rehearsed parts - transparency about this mix varies a lot between companies.
Watching this space closely since 2019.
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
@mia_lars Ran into exactly this myself.
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.
Opinions my own, not my employer's.
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
Slight correction, though the overall point stands:
Sim-to-real transfer still commonly breaks on contact dynamics - friction, restitution, and deformable/compliant surfaces are the hardest things to model accurately in simulation, so policies trained purely in sim often need real-world fine-tuning specifically around contact-rich tasks.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion