Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

In the long term, should we move away from dm_control and use just the mujoco binding for the core simulation? #125

Open
sibocw opened this issue Feb 15, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@sibocw
Copy link
Contributor

sibocw commented Feb 15, 2024

In the long term, should we move away from dm_control and use just the mujoco Python binding, at least for the core simulation?

This would allow us to use GPU/TPU for the physics simulation using MJX that's been available since MuJoCo 3.0.0 (there's no plan on the dm_control side to retrofit MJX into dm_control). I doubt a morphologically complex model like NeuroMechFly can be run efficiently on the GPU (esp. given my experience with Isaac Gym), but I'd be curious to find out.

On the other hand, we can keep using dm_control's nice camera class for projecting from xyz coordinates to row-column coordinates on rendered image, or dm_control.mjcf for modifying the XML files, or add an interactive viewer with dm_control.viewer.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant