Page 2 of 3
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:28 pm
by barbara50
@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.
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
Posted: Thu Jan 16, 2025 5:33 am
by dchen
@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.
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2025 7:41 am
by zoeanderson
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.
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2025 10:47 pm
by williams84
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.
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2025 9:54 pm
by kwilliams
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.
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2025 7:30 pm
by zoeanderson
@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?
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2025 9:43 pm
by park44
@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.
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2025 6:35 pm
by mia_lars
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.
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2025 4:27 am
by barbara50
@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.
Re: ROS2 vs custom middleware for a full humanoid stack - what do production teams use?
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:09 am
by nicole57
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.