Page 3 of 6
Re: What's the honest day-to-day tradeoff between research roles and applied engineering roles?
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2025 4:19 pm
by deborah59
@scott21 This matches something I went through recently.
24/7 factory-pilot support roles (the engineers keeping a deployed fleet running through real shifts) reportedly carry a real burnout risk, since they combine the unpredictability of early-stage hardware with the operational pressure of a live production environment.
Re: What's the honest day-to-day tradeoff between research roles and applied engineering roles?
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2025 2:07 pm
by karen.chen3
@deborah59 This lines up with my experience.
RSS (Robotics: Science and Systems), ICRA, and the IEEE-RAS Humanoids conference are commonly cited as the most directly relevant venues for someone specifically interested in legged locomotion and humanoid control research, as opposed to broader AI/ML conferences. Remote work remains genuinely limited for most hands-on humanoid hardware roles, given the need for physical access to robots and test environments, though software-only roles (simulation, perception algorithms, offline learning) increasingly do offer remote or hybrid arrangements.
Re: What's the honest day-to-day tradeoff between research roles and applied engineering roles?
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2025 8:59 pm
by dchen
@karen.chen3 Respectfully, I think this undersells it a bit.
Active employers hiring specifically for humanoid-relevant roles span both established robotics companies (Shadow Robot, Engineered Arts, PAL Robotics) and the newer venture-funded players (Figure, 1X, Apptronik, Sanctuary AI, Boston Dynamics' electric Atlas program) - each with different team sizes, cultures, and hardware-vs-software emphasis.
Re: What's the honest day-to-day tradeoff between research roles and applied engineering roles?
Posted: Sun May 04, 2025 9:41 pm
by servoken70
Thanks for laying this out, genuinely useful.
A commonly cited skill gap in new-grad applicants is practical systems integration experience - many candidates are individually strong in ML or in mechanical design, but comparatively few have hands-on experience getting perception, planning, and control to work together reliably on real hardware under time pressure. Companies like Figure, 1X, Apptronik, and Agility Robotics are reportedly pulling senior ROS, controls, and learning engineers directly out of warehouse-automation and industrial-robotics roles - a sign of real talent competition between adjacent industries, not just fresh grads entering the field.
Re: What's the honest day-to-day tradeoff between research roles and applied engineering roles?
Posted: Fri May 16, 2025 6:08 am
by kwilliams
Small correction on one detail:
Active employers hiring specifically for humanoid-relevant roles span both established robotics companies (Shadow Robot, Engineered Arts, PAL Robotics) and the newer venture-funded players (Figure, 1X, Apptronik, Sanctuary AI, Boston Dynamics' electric Atlas program) - each with different team sizes, cultures, and hardware-vs-software emphasis.
Re: What's the honest day-to-day tradeoff between research roles and applied engineering roles?
Posted: Sun May 18, 2025 1:10 am
by ethan_fisc
Sorry if this is a basic question, but
Remote work remains genuinely limited for most hands-on humanoid hardware roles, given the need for physical access to robots and test environments, though software-only roles (simulation, perception algorithms, offline learning) increasingly do offer remote or hybrid arrangements. In the UK, base salaries for robotics roles reportedly range from around £50,000 for new graduates up to roughly £200,000 for senior whole-body-control or reinforcement-learning specialists - a notably wide band reflecting how specialized the top end of the field has become.
Re: What's the honest day-to-day tradeoff between research roles and applied engineering roles?
Posted: Wed May 28, 2025 1:46 am
by sarah.santos3
@ethan_fisc Pretty much this. One thing to add:
A whole-body control engineer's day-to-day work is a mix of formulating and tuning constrained optimization problems, debugging why a controller behaves differently on hardware than in simulation, and a surprising amount of time spent on numerical stability and solver performance rather than pure algorithm design. Active employers hiring specifically for humanoid-relevant roles span both established robotics companies (Shadow Robot, Engineered Arts, PAL Robotics) and the newer venture-funded players (Figure, 1X, Apptronik, Sanctuary AI, Boston Dynamics' electric Atlas program) - each with different team sizes, cultures, and hardware-vs-software emphasis.
Re: What's the honest day-to-day tradeoff between research roles and applied engineering roles?
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2025 3:30 pm
by chenperez
@sarah.santos3 Appreciate the detailed answer.
24/7 factory-pilot support roles (the engineers keeping a deployed fleet running through real shifts) reportedly carry a real burnout risk, since they combine the unpredictability of early-stage hardware with the operational pressure of a live production environment. In the UK, base salaries for robotics roles reportedly range from around £50,000 for new graduates up to roughly £200,000 for senior whole-body-control or reinforcement-learning specialists - a notably wide band reflecting how specialized the top end of the field has become.
Re: What's the honest day-to-day tradeoff between research roles and applied engineering roles?
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2025 5:22 pm
by deborah59
Agreed, and I'd add:
Internship competitiveness at the well-known humanoid companies has increased sharply as the field's visibility has grown, with the applicant pool now including not just robotics students but a lot of general CS/ML students drawn in by the sector's high profile.
Re: What's the honest day-to-day tradeoff between research roles and applied engineering roles?
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2025 8:00 am
by ivan22
Slight correction, though the overall point stands:
A commonly cited skill gap in new-grad applicants is practical systems integration experience - many candidates are individually strong in ML or in mechanical design, but comparatively few have hands-on experience getting perception, planning, and control to work together reliably on real hardware under time pressure. A whole-body control engineer's day-to-day work is a mix of formulating and tuning constrained optimization problems, debugging why a controller behaves differently on hardware than in simulation, and a surprising amount of time spent on numerical stability and solver performance rather than pure algorithm design.