These two quotations taken from the different commentaries that were included in that short clip point sit well together, and, particularly the latter, hint at the kind of AI that were are only now beginning to see as the missing link in the success of this kind of machine.
"The strain of thinking about which leg to move next exhausted the operator"
"The interfacing of this technology with a more advanced one will bring us that much closer to the realisation of a mechanical man."
The mechanics have a surprising dexterity and finesse compared to compared to even modern machines that use hydraulics to allow humans to directly control the actuators (think JCB style backhoe digger).
"The mechanics have a surprising dexterity and finesse compared to compared to even modern machines that use hydraulics to allow humans to directly control the actuators (think JCB style backhoe digger)."
Backhoes with good haptic feedback have been built, but never became a product. That's surprising. There was one in the 1980s which was good enough that you could dig around a pipe by feel without breaking the pipe. Great for those jobs where you're working in a water and mud filled hole. Time to look at that problem again.
This is an interesting line of thought. It doesn't actually take much experience on a backhoe before the controls become second nature and an operator just thinks about how the arm and bucket should move rather than how the controls should move. Apparently leg movement controls are not like that...
It reminds me of the two different movement control schemes I've seen for Bobcat-style machines. On older machines I've seen a single-axis lever on each side, to directly control the track on that side, much like some zero-turn riding lawnmowers. On newer machines there is a single two-axis stick that translates fore-aft-turn to the movements of the tracks. Perhaps a similar abstraction would be more suitable for operators of legged vehicles?
I wonder if the strain would have been reduced by redesigning the control scheme. Does it use two human limbs to control four limbs? It could have the operator perched horizontally and control the rear legs with the operator's legs and front legs with arms.
The video says that it uses his arms and legs. It looks like the operator is suspended from a harness, with his legs strapped into force-feedback pedal assemblies.
Deere / Timberjack was beaten out by Ponsse.[1] Four wheels, two caterpillar tracks, and an articulated chassis. Probably lower ground pressure than the six-legged machine, because the heavy loads are on wide tracks.
I can't see this video for some reason, but I remember seeing this beast as a child in the memorable "Science & Vie hors série" "Robots" magazine in 1977, that I still have somewhere :) The article mentioned that only its designer could successfully tame the monster and make it walk (a little bit).
By the way in the very same magazine there was a huge article about SHRDLU and an interview with Terry Winograd, who's been my hero ever since :)
I think it's likely that's just as a precaution in case it's about to topple over so they avoid damaging the equipment. Under normal operation I suspect it provides no support.
On the Wikipedia page, it says "the hydraulic fluid and pressure was supplied through an off-board system" so I assume that those are hydraulic in that bundle.
Walking tanks were a Cold War era DoD thing. Something about forests in Europe. Or maybe the Soviets demo'ed one and now we had to close the walking tank gap.
"The strain of thinking about which leg to move next exhausted the operator"
"The interfacing of this technology with a more advanced one will bring us that much closer to the realisation of a mechanical man."
The mechanics have a surprising dexterity and finesse compared to compared to even modern machines that use hydraulics to allow humans to directly control the actuators (think JCB style backhoe digger).