Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by LeifCarrotson 1425 days ago
As a controls engineer who has implemented and assisted with dozens of robotic manufacturing cells, the problem isn't the motion planning or compute, it's legacy product support and ease of onboarding new hires.

Any given cell may be in production for 10 years - some only for 5, but some for 20 or more - and you need <24 hour response times to any mechanical issues that may arise over that duration. Also, one can't expect that the original programmer will be available to diagnose and debug issues that arise in the field after a year or two, so you need a large pool of technicians and maintenance personnel that can understand the software and be productive in the first hour after being introduced to the machine. None of this is valued by academics, instead, the fundamentals of the process of a single lab trying to prove merit as PhD students and, once that credential is acquired, move on to greener pastures is anathema to both of these ideas.

The problem is that academia is working in ROS (now ROS 2), writing Python and VHDL, while the real work in the industry is being done in proprietary vendor tooling that's backwards compatible with training from the 80s. They're proudly advertising touchscreens and full-color 5.7" displays on their teach pendants, as if their customers were still 20 years in the past.

Yes, academia, I do want sub-millimeter repeatability, and flawlessly smooth motion planning. I want collision detection that accommodates both the inertia of the arm itself and any end-of-arm tooling, including cable harnesses with distributed loads. I want automatic singularity avoidance and trivial point and frame manipulation. I want 24-bit encoders for resolution, and I want angular velocities to the moon, and to make those work together I need servo loop rates and high-speed skip responses at 1, 2, or 10 kHz. I want 4D stop position prediction to avoid intersection of the robot arm with complex assemblies and safety zones imported from CAD. I want all these things cheaper and faster, with more storage.

But I need these to be accessible by Billy Joe, whose only credentials that got him the job in the maintenance department is that he helped out his daddy working with a welder and an old clapped-out Bridgeport on the farm growing up. Billy is probably my best tech on 3rd shift, and he's never learned to type on a full-size keyboard, just his smartphone... and on a robot teach pendant.

5 comments

Well said. Robotics is indeed the art of system integration and such remains (and will) one the biggest tech hurdles.

We wrote about this, and raised-funding, and worked for years on it. Hell, we even created an extension of ROS for it called the "Hardware Robot Operating System" (H-ROS) that aimed to address many of these issues you describe using ROS as the common language and Programmable Logic (FPGAs) to deal with physical interfaces. More on this at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8046383.

Problem was that the market didn't really accept it. I still believe on the tech problem landscape in here. I'm just not so sure anymore if there's any real market/business for such a solution. After all, vendor lock-ins are great business, and generate business.

After reading this, I'm persuaded this space would benefit greatly from having a few dominant open-source software frameworks and a few dominant open-source hardware standards, making product support and new-hire onboarding much easier for vendors of all sizes. Alas, I recognize that no established vendor in the space would ever want to see the emergence of industry standards. :-P
It definitely would. RoboDK is one product that is moving in the right direction.

In the PLC space, Beckhoff controllers using commodity x86/64 hardware and standardized IEC 61131 programming languages are gobbling up Rockwell and Siemens' market share.

Given they're perpetually about 20 years behind the times, perhaps this year someone at Fanuc, ABB, Kuka, and Yaskawa will catch up to the year 2002 and read Spolsky's admonition [1] that says:

> Smart companies try to commoditize their products’ complements.

Stop trying to turn every division of your company into its own product center. I loathe paying $800/year to Rockwell for the privilege of reading "update your firmware" (and subsequently bricking my controller as an unwilling beta tester) on TechConnect. They're a PLC vendor, they should focus on selling PLC hardware, not making their customers hate them by nickel-and-diming them for software licenses and support contracts. They were down for FOUR DAYS this weekend for planned maintenance. FOUR DAYS!

Likewise, Fanuc should focus on selling servos and castings - robotic manipulator hardware - and stop trying to get the training division to turn a profit. If, instead of a 40 hour course costing $2,000, it was free, there would be more people able to use their $40,000 robot arms! If Roboguide software was free instead of $2,650, clients could more efficiently build more robot cells, and sell more yellow paint! Gah!

[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

> IEC 61131 programming languages

A very brief search turned up assorted overviews[1][2][3], and a github topic[4]. The PLCopen standard[5] is paywalled - only $400 single user, with low low per-seat multipliers! :/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_61131-3 [2] https://dc-us.resource.bosch.com/media/us/products_13/produc... [3] https://www.controleng.com/articles/which-iec-61131-3-progra... [4] https://github.com/topics/iec61131-3 [5] https://plcopen.org/iec-61131-3

What this field really needs is a massive push. The reason it always fail to deliver is that the incentive system is screwed. We need something like a Manhattan project capital allocation to a few very talented people to make progress. Building endless frameworks and trying to get thousands of people to cooperate on high level decision making dooms the whole endeavor. The risk for product development is too high for private industry to take and academia can't deliver products.
What you describe is ROS. The issue is that industrial manufacturers of things like arms or motion controllers all have their own proprietary stuff.
What I describe is what ROS supporters want it to be. As I wrote, no established vendor in the space wants to see the emergence of commodity industry standards. It seems that for the foreseeable future, we're stuck with the status quo.
I may be misunderstanding your comment, but as I understood it you are talking about industry failures academia can't do anything about. If industry is massively behind on outdated, closed environments and academia work's with different, open tools then that's not academias fault. Like:

> it's legacy product support and ease of onboarding new hires.

I don't see how academia can help with this, this so very much an industry problem.

> But I need these to be accessible by Billy Joe, whose only credentials that got him the job in the maintenance department is that he helped out his daddy working with a welder and an old clapped-out Bridgeport on the farm growing up.

While accessible interfaces and forms of human-computer interactions are researched by academia, they are not building products. Research has to be relevant, but it's still research. Those problems, they might be better addressed by a startup than academia, if that's even realistic. Academia can't solve a problem if it's not a research-problem.

That's what he is saying. ROS is made, lead, by academia. He is saying that ROS isn't terribly useful in industry for the reasons he lists.
Exactly. Advancements and capabilities in university press releases like this don't result in real-world improvements because the two fields are divergent.
you are leaving out a whole host of use cases bro. maybe in the past robotics was just for industrial use cases. but there are orders of magnitude other use cases that a ROS can help solve. simple things around the house , in the neighborhood, and other mechatronic integrations that would not properly called a robot. I would say the ones you are addressing with billy bob on the 3rd shift are like 1 percent of the cases. There are plenty of things you can actuate in the world that dont require sub mm repeatability. like what about tending my hydroponic vertical garden? theres nothing about the ubiquitous robotic future of humankind that needs any of the things you mentioned. thats more of an improvement on current use cases.
What are your thoughts on OPCUA? That's the direction they're trying to get to having different vendors be able to talk to each other as it's all pretty much federated.