Isaac Lab vs MuJoCo - which do you actually train on and why?

Whole-body control, RL policies, VLA models, sim-to-real, ROS2, and the software stack that makes a humanoid actually walk and act.
scott.andersson5
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:39 pm

Re: Isaac Lab vs MuJoCo - which do you actually train on and why?

Post by scott.andersson5 »

Same conclusion I've come to. Also worth noting: 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.
yuki71
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2025 1:05 pm

Re: Isaac Lab vs MuJoCo - which do you actually train on and why?

Post by yuki71 »

I'd push back on this a bit. 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. '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.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
pierregreen
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2024 11:01 am

Re: Isaac Lab vs MuJoCo - which do you actually train on and why?

Post by pierregreen »

Slightly off-topic, but related: 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.
she/her
barbara50
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2024 12:19 pm

Re: Isaac Lab vs MuJoCo - which do you actually train on and why?

Post by barbara50 »

@pierregreen One nitpick - Balance-recovery controllers are usually evaluated with push-recovery tests (a known, repeatable lateral push) in demos, but real-world robustness also depends on recovering from unstructured events like uneven flooring, unexpected contact, or a dropped payload shifting the center of mass mid-stride - which is a much harder, less demo-friendly test.
Opinions my own, not my employer's.
noah_pate
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2024 8:25 pm

Re: Isaac Lab vs MuJoCo - which do you actually train on and why?

Post by noah_pate »

This matches what I've seen too. Balance-recovery controllers are usually evaluated with push-recovery tests (a known, repeatable lateral push) in demos, but real-world robustness also depends on recovering from unstructured events like uneven flooring, unexpected contact, or a dropped payload shifting the center of mass mid-stride - which is a much harder, less demo-friendly test.
camila.jackson0
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2024 1:27 am

Re: Isaac Lab vs MuJoCo - which do you actually train on and why?

Post by camila.jackson0 »

I don't think that's quite right, for what it's worth. 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.
Building > buying.
williams84
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:50 am

Re: Isaac Lab vs MuJoCo - which do you actually train on and why?

Post by williams84 »

@camila.jackson0 Pretty much this. One thing to add: 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. 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.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
Post Reply