What is the way to go in hobby robotics today? I'm more interested in high level, and want the lower level to 'just work' with minimum efforts from my side. Having mechanical part and vision what would be the right choice for low-middle software to control robotic arm and car, may be attached one to another. ROS2?
I think this is a great idea. It seems like we are entering the phase where the core hardware problems are solved and we now need to:<p>A) bring down cost and expand the design space for the hardware and<p>B) minimise the barriers to working on the "software" problems where there still seem to be huge areas of mostly unaddressed challenges.<p>An open source platform seems like a good thing for both.
I have long assumed that we won’t be getting robot butlers partly because it’s really really hard, but also because most of not all things we want robots for it’s easier to reconfigure the environment than make a flexible humaniod<p>So factories are obvious but the real mass uptake is the home - and honestly I think something that cleans and tidies an hour a day might actually be achievable
As much as I like the concept, 3D printing everything is <i>not</i> the way to lower cost.<p>Mass-produced (stamped / extruded / whatever) mechanical parts + hackable 'brains' is.<p>Robots <i>do</i> lend themselves well w/ respect to that last part. Worst case is rip out its control electronics wholesale & replace with your own motor drivers etc.
the cost-effectiveness/performance factor benchmark is interesting, but it feels slightly misleading - I just don't see how "average peak torque of all actuated DoFs, normalized by the robot's size" is related to measuring "accessibility and customizability" of the robot.
<a href="https://lite.berkeley-humanoid.org/static/comparision.png" rel="nofollow">https://lite.berkeley-humanoid.org/static/comparision.png</a><p>why does it say the Berkeley Humanoid is closed source here? Is it a typo, was this paper peer-reviewed?