Page 2 of 2

Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2025 2:42 am
by diego.moore6
This lines up with my experience. ROS2 remains common in research and early-stage products for its tooling and ecosystem, but a number of production humanoid companies run custom, more tightly-optimized middleware for their real-time control loops, using ROS2-like tooling mainly for development, visualization, and non-real-time subsystems. 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: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2025 10:23 am
by jhansen
From hands-on experience, 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: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2025 10:21 pm
by barbara50
@jhansen Pretty much this. One thing to add: Domain randomization - varying friction, mass, sensor noise, and even visual textures during training - is one of the more reliable tricks for improving sim-to-real transfer, but overdoing it can make training slower to converge and produce overly conservative policies. 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: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2025 9:11 am
by noah_pate
@barbara50 Follow-up question though - 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. 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: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2025 6:55 am
by ashley_flor
@noah_pate This matches something I went through recently. 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. 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: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2025 4:45 am
by zoeanderson
This lines up with my experience. 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: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 5:55 am
by ivan22
I see it a little differently. OpenVLA is a notable open-source VLA model - roughly 7 billion parameters, trained on hundreds of thousands of real-world robot demonstrations - and has been shown to outperform much larger closed models on some manipulation benchmarks, which says a lot about how much of VLA performance comes from data curation rather than raw scale. ROS2 remains common in research and early-stage products for its tooling and ecosystem, but a number of production humanoid companies run custom, more tightly-optimized middleware for their real-time control loops, using ROS2-like tooling mainly for development, visualization, and non-real-time subsystems. Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.

Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 5:43 pm
by ethan_fisc
Genuine beginner question - 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.