Page 2 of 3

Re: Onboard vs cloud inference - latency vs capability tradeoffs in practice

Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2026 6:11 pm
by emma_whit
Small correction on one detail: 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. 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.

Re: Onboard vs cloud inference - latency vs capability tradeoffs in practice

Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2026 8:00 am
by jonathan_tana
Small correction on one detail: '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: Onboard vs cloud inference - latency vs capability tradeoffs in practice

Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2026 9:13 pm
by lukas.singh1
Related question - 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. 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: Onboard vs cloud inference - latency vs capability tradeoffs in practice

Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2026 10:39 pm
by zoeanderson
I'll believe the stronger version of that claim when it's independently verified. 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.

Re: Onboard vs cloud inference - latency vs capability tradeoffs in practice

Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2026 11:24 am
by jonathan_tana
@zoeanderson Agreed, and I'd add: '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: Onboard vs cloud inference - latency vs capability tradeoffs in practice

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2026 6:00 pm
by forgesve15
Sorry if this is a basic question, but 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. 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. Totally unrelated but has anyone else noticed how fast component costs are dropping this year.

Re: Onboard vs cloud inference - latency vs capability tradeoffs in practice

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2026 8:32 pm
by zoeanderson
@forgesve15 Ran into exactly this myself. 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: Onboard vs cloud inference - latency vs capability tradeoffs in practice

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2026 8:32 am
by deborah59
@zoeanderson This matches what I've seen too. 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: Onboard vs cloud inference - latency vs capability tradeoffs in practice

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2026 6:18 pm
by garcia51
I dealt with almost this exact situation. '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. 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: Onboard vs cloud inference - latency vs capability tradeoffs in practice

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by kwilliams
@garcia51 I dealt with almost this exact situation. Whole-body control (WBC) formulates locomotion and manipulation as a single optimization problem across all joints simultaneously, respecting contact constraints and task priorities - it's more general than ZMP-only approaches but is computationally heavier and harder to tune.