Page 6 of 6
Re: How do you validate depth camera accuracy at typical grasp distances?
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by barbara50
To answer this directly:
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.
Kind of makes me think about how different this all looked even three years ago.
Re: How do you validate depth camera accuracy at typical grasp distances?
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by nicole57
@barbara50 One nitpick -
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. 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: How do you validate depth camera accuracy at typical grasp distances?
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by dubois35
I'd frame this differently.
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. 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.
Totally unrelated but has anyone else noticed how fast component costs are dropping this year.
Re: How do you validate depth camera accuracy at typical grasp distances?
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by rebecca_lefe
New to this, so forgive me if this is obvious -
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. 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.