6 ms·
Is this a competitor to physX?
by KaoruAoiShiho 5y ago
Is this a competitor to physX?
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y agoNope. PhysX is all about realtime and gaming is the end use it was designed around. TFA has a section about why that’s bad. The different end uses mean there are miles of differences between them even though they’re both physics simulators.
- sailingparrot 5y agoA lot of RL problems can be adequately simulated in either Mujoco or PhysX. So even though as you pointed out they have key differences, there is a pretty big overlap in use cases. So in that sense, I believe it still does qualify as competition.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y agoI have personally spent tons of time dealing with models exploiting physics issues. It’s a major issue. It’s true that either can adequately simulate the setups, but is it true that either can be equally exploited? I genuinely don’t know. I kinda assumed physx is more exploitable.
- tiborsaas 5y agoWhat kind of exploits are you talking about? Cheating in games for example?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- lostdog 5y agoSay you're teaching a robot to walk, but the joint constraints in the simulator aren't quite right. It would be possible for the policy to exert more torque on the joint than it's supposed to be able to in real life. Take that policy and put it on a real robot and it won't work.
- hacoo 5y agoI think this is referring to inaccuracies of simulation which the RL model can learn to exploit. Sort of a local minimum that doesn't exist in the real world.
- sailingparrot 5y agoI agree with you that PhysX is definitely easier to exploit, and you will lose time because of that. But on the other hand, for many problems, the gain in training time using PhysX is just so massive (2 or 3 orders of magnitude), that you can then train with a much more aggressive sim2real policy to mitigate that to some extent, or even spend time debugging manually and still ending up more productive.