Page 5 of 6
Re: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by freya.smith
Thanks for laying this out, genuinely useful.
Event cameras (which report per-pixel brightness changes rather than full frames) are still more of a research curiosity than a production sensor for humanoids, mainly because the software ecosystem and processing pipelines around them are far less mature than for standard frame-based cameras.
Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.
Re: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by forgesve15
Sorry if this is a basic question, but
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: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by william.moreau6
@forgesve15 Agreed, and I'd add:
Depth sensing range and reliability both degrade outdoors in direct sunlight for most structured-light and active stereo cameras, since the ambient IR washes out the projected pattern - it's a real limitation for humanoids intended for anything beyond indoor, controlled environments. 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: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by jwang
@william.moreau6 I dealt with almost this exact situation.
IMU drift over time (bias instability) is usually the real culprit behind slowly diverging state estimates, not noise - it's typically handled with sensor fusion against other references (visual odometry, joint kinematics) rather than trying to eliminate drift at the source.
Re: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by jlefebvre
@jwang Agreed, and I'd add:
Vibration is one of the most underrated sources of noisy IMU and tactile readings - mounting matters as much as sensor quality, and a poorly isolated mount can add more noise than the sensor's own datasheet specs would suggest.
Re: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by mary.taylor6
@jlefebvre Slightly off-topic, but related:
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. 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: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by servobre20
This matches something I went through recently.
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. Force/torque sensors near the ankle give a direct read on ground reaction forces, which is valuable for balance control, but they add cost, a failure point, and routing complexity right at a joint that already takes the most mechanical abuse.
Re: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by amandawhite
@servobre20 Worth being a little skeptical of the marketing angle here.
Vibration is one of the most underrated sources of noisy IMU and tactile readings - mounting matters as much as sensor quality, and a poorly isolated mount can add more noise than the sensor's own datasheet specs would suggest. LiDAR gives reliable, lighting-independent range data but is heavier, pricier, and gives sparser point clouds up close than stereo or depth cameras, which is why a lot of humanoids lean on stereo/depth cameras for near-field manipulation and reserve LiDAR (if present at all) for longer-range navigation.
Re: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by servosan90
@amandawhite Here's what I know on this:
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: Anyone tracking sensor cost trends the way we track actuator cost trends?
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by thomasmitchell
Small correction on one detail:
LiDAR gives reliable, lighting-independent range data but is heavier, pricier, and gives sparser point clouds up close than stereo or depth cameras, which is why a lot of humanoids lean on stereo/depth cameras for near-field manipulation and reserve LiDAR (if present at all) for longer-range navigation.
Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.