Page 3 of 3
Re: What's the realistic detection range for tactile arrays sensing near-contact (not touch)?
Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2025 2:40 am
by emilyperez
@chloe_jack Related question -
A minimum viable sensing suite for safe bipedal walking generally includes joint encoders, an IMU for orientation/angular velocity, and either force/torque sensing or accurate current-based torque estimation at the ankles - everything else (vision, tactile, LiDAR) adds capability rather than being strictly required just to stay upright.
Re: What's the realistic detection range for tactile arrays sensing near-contact (not touch)?
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2025 6:59 am
by carol.robinson
@emilyperez Counterpoint:
Multi-camera calibration drifts over time from thermal expansion, vibration, and mechanical wear, which is why production systems typically run periodic recalibration routines rather than assuming a one-time factory calibration holds forever.
Re: What's the realistic detection range for tactile arrays sensing near-contact (not touch)?
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2025 3:23 am
by jhansen
@carol.robinson Not sure I fully agree here.
Proprioception (the robot's sense of its own joint angles, velocities, and forces) tends to get less attention than flashy vision systems, even though a lot of balance and manipulation failures trace back to proprioceptive noise or miscalibration rather than a vision problem.
Re: What's the realistic detection range for tactile arrays sensing near-contact (not touch)?
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2025 8:01 pm
by choi98
@jhansen I don't think that's quite right, for what it's worth.
SLAM in a working warehouse is harder than in a controlled lab mainly because the map keeps changing - pallets move, people walk through, lighting shifts near dock doors - so a lot of production systems lean on semi-static maps refreshed periodically rather than pure continuous SLAM.
Re: What's the realistic detection range for tactile arrays sensing near-contact (not touch)?
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2025 12:48 am
by yuki71
I'll believe the stronger version of that claim when it's independently verified.
Estimating joint torque from motor current draw is cheap and requires no extra sensor, but it's less accurate than a dedicated torque sensor because it doesn't capture friction losses through the gearbox - good enough for coarse control, not always for precise force-controlled tasks. Unitree's Dex3-1 dexterous hand packs around 33 pressure/tactile sensors per hand across the fingers and palm, capable of sensing pressure roughly in the 10g-2500g range - a useful reference point for what 'production tactile sensing' looks like right now.
Re: What's the realistic detection range for tactile arrays sensing near-contact (not touch)?
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2025 11:41 am
by green28
@yuki71 I'd push back on this a bit.
Sensor fusion mostly earns its keep by covering for each individual sensor's weaknesses - vision struggles with occlusion and lighting, IMUs drift, force/torque sensors are noisy at low loads - fusing them gives a more robust estimate than any one source alone, independent of raw compute.
Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.