I'm conducting a deeper research into additional software methodologies, best practices, and architectural solutions from game development that could be beneficial to robotics and autonomous vehicles. This will include AI decision-making frameworks, real-time physics handling, event-driven architectures, and networking architectures where relevant. I'll provide findings from industry applications, open-source projects, and academic research. I will update you soon with the results!
Game Development Techniques in Robotics and Autonomous Vehicles
Modern robotics and autonomous vehicle (AV) software can borrow many proven techniques from the game industry. Game developers have refined methods for AI decision-making, real-time simulation, event handling, and networking under strict performance constraints – challenges very similar to those in robotics/AV systems. Below, we explore several game development methodologies and architectures and how they can be applied to robotics and self-driving vehicle software.
Advanced AI Decision-Making Frameworks (Beyond FSMs & BTs)
Finite-state machines (FSMs) and behavior trees (BTs) are widely used for AI in both games and robotics, but more flexible and scalable frameworks have emerged in game development. The push for “smarter” game AI with lower design complexity has driven adoption of automated planning and utility-based systems in place of purely hand-scripted FSM/BT logicartemis.ms.mff.cuni.cz. Robotics and AV software can leverage these advances:
-
Goal-Oriented Action Planning (GOAP): Games like F.E.A.R. popularized GOAP, which uses AI planning algorithms (inspired by STRIPS/PDDL planners) to dynamically find action sequences that satisfy goalswww.aiandgames.com. Instead of hardcoding transitions, a GOAP system models the world state, available actions with preconditions/effects, and goals. At runtime the agent plans a sequence of actions to achieve the goal, as was originally done in robotics planning for tasks like rover missionswww.aiandgames.com. This approach allows more adaptive and emergent behavior. A robot or AV could use GOAP to, for example, generate a plan to recover from an obstacle block (e.g. re-route, or call for assistance) rather than following a single scripted contingency plan. (See Figure 1 for an example of a GOAP planner deriving a plan by regressive search through action preconditions.) Figure 1: Example of a GOAP planning process (regressive search) determining a sequence of actions (“Draw Weapon” → “Load Weapon” → “Attack”) to achieve a goal state_stackoverflow.com__stackoverflow.com. Such AI planning techniques, originally used in games, can enable robots to autonomously devise action sequences to reach objectives._
-
Hierarchical Task Networks (HTN): Another planning technique from both academia and game AI, HTN planners break goals into hierarchies of sub-tasks. This was used in games (e.g. Killzone 2) to coordinate long-term NPC behaviors, and can similarly benefit robotics missions by structuring complex tasks into manageable subtasks (mission -> waypoints -> actions). HTNs tend to encode human-designed task decompositions, offering a balance between full planning and scripted behavior.
-
Utility-based AI: Utility AI evaluates all possible actions by scoring them based on the current context and choosing the highest-score action. This technique (used in simulation games and NPC decision-making) offers a very flexible decision framework. “Every possible action is scored at once and one of the top scoring actions is chosen,” making the agent continuously balance competing needsgameaipro.com. For instance, an autonomous vehicle’s AI could use a utility function to weigh multiple objectives (safety, speed, passenger comfort, traffic rules compliance) and pick actions that optimize overall “utility.” Utility-based systems handle nuanced trade-offs better than rigid state machines, since designers can tweak curves or weights for different considerations (e.g. a robot may have a high utility for recharging when battery is low, overriding other tasks). This approach has been studied in robotics as a way to model “needs” and preferences for decision-making, especially in multi-agent settingsarxiv.org.
-
Machine Learning-driven AI: Game developers have begun experimenting with reinforcement learning (RL) and neural networks for game AI (for example, trained racing car AIs or strategy game agents). In robotics and AVs, RL is already used for motion planning and control policies. The game industry’s experience training agents in simulators (like using neural networks to play games) can translate to training robotic policies in simulation. For decision-making, one promising idea is combining learning with planners (as in OpenAI’s recent “Q** approach that mixes learned policies with searchandrewzuo.com) – a robot could use a learned model for low-level skills and a planner for high-level strategy. While ML-based decisions are still less predictable than symbolic planners, off-policy training in game-like simulators and then deploying in real robots is an increasingly viable pathway, bridging game AI and robotics AI techniques. Why these frameworks help: More advanced AI decision architectures from games enable robots/AVs to handle complex, dynamic scenarios with less manual coding of every contingency. Planning systems can solve novel problems on the fly (useful for unstructured environments), and utility systems let them smoothly respond to changing priorities or multi-objective tradeoffs. These approaches improve modularity and reusability of behaviors – a new action or goal can be added to the system without redesigning the entire state machine, since the planner or utility evaluator will integrate it if relevant. Game AI methodology emphasizes data-driven decision logic (facts, world-state, and formulas) over huge if-else trees, which can likewise keep robotic decision code more maintainable and extensibleartemis.ms.mff.cuni.cz.
Actionable takeaways: Consider integrating a planner library (several open-source GOAP/HTN implementations exist in ROSgithub.comgithub.com) for high-level action selection in your robot. Use utility functions for things like motion mode switching – e.g. an autonomous car can continuously score “lane-keep”, “change lane”, or “stop” actions based on sensor inputs and choose the highest utility one each cycle, rather than fixed thresholds. Start with simple utility curves (distance to goal, obstacle proximity, etc.) and refine based on observed behavior. These game-derived patterns can complement existing state machines – for example, using a high-level GOAP planner to set targets that a lower-level behavior tree executes, combining deliberative planning with reactive control.
Real-Time Physics Simulation and Control
Modern game engines come with highly optimized physics engines that simulate rigid body dynamics, collisions, vehicles, ragdolls, and more in real time. Robotics and AV developers can leverage these physics systems both for simulation/testing and on-device computation (e.g. physics-based planning):
-
Game Physics Engines for Simulation: Open-source engines like Bullet and ODE (Open Dynamics Engine) have long been used in robotics simulators (e.g. Gazebo) to model robot dynamics. These engines were originally developed for games, meant to simulate “entire worlds” in real-timewiki.arcoslab.org. They handle collision detection, joint constraints, friction, etc., allowing robots to be tested in a virtual world with physical realism. For example, the NVIDIA PhysX engine (popular in many video games) is used in NVIDIA’s Isaac Sim for robotics, providing capabilities like articulated joints and even soft-body interactions in simulationdeveloper.nvidia.com. By tapping mature game physics SDKs, robotics simulators can achieve high fidelity while still running in real-time (or faster). This is critical for AV testing – simulators like CARLA (built on Unreal Engine) provide realistic vehicle physics and traffic scenarios to develop driving algorithmswww.unrealengine.com. Similarly, the driving game engine BeamNG offers a soft-body physics model that can simulate damage and complex vehicle dynamics (e.g. tire blowouts, deformations) beyond what typical robotic simulators dobeamng.tech. Such advanced physics allow AV developers to test edge cases like crashes or severe terrain in simulation safely.
-
Real-Time Control Integration: In games, the physics update is often executed in fixed time-step loops (e.g. 60 Hz) to maintain stability and determinism. Robots can use the same practice – e.g. running a physics simulation at a fixed rate to predict motion or sensor outcomes. Model-predictive control in robotics, for instance, could use a fast internal physics simulation (a “digital twin” of the robot) to evaluate actions. Games also deal with tuning physics for performance vs. accuracy; robotics simulators can adopt game optimizations like level-of-detail physics (simpler models when far away) or sleeping inactive bodies to keep real-time performance. When connecting simulation to real control, careful sync is needed (ensuring the sim doesn’t lag actual robot timing). Game devs solve similar issues when coupling physics to rendering framerates or network updates.
-
Sensor and Environment Simulation: Game engines excel at generating realistic sensor data – rendering scenes for camera feeds, simulating LiDAR via raycasting, etc. Unity and Unreal-based robotics simulators use game graphics to produce photorealistic images and even synthetic data for training perception models. The CARLA simulator, for example, uses Unreal’s rendering and physics to output camera, LiDAR, and GPS signals as if an AV were driving in a real citywww.unrealengine.com. This synergy means robotics teams can rapidly create virtual test environments and get high-quality data without needing to reinvent physics or graphics engines.
-
Handling Extreme Conditions: Game physics engines have features like particle systems, fluid dynamics (in some engines), and destructible objects. These can simulate scenarios like rain affecting sensor performance or a robot colliding with breakable obstacles. By using these, AV simulators can incorporate weather, sensor noise, and complex collisions in a controllable way. Why it helps: By embracing game physics technology, robotics/AV developers drastically reduce the effort to build reliable simulators. These engines are heavily optimized for real-time performance – ensuring that even complex worlds can be simulated faster than real-world time on modern hardware. This enables rapid iteration and even massive-scale training (e.g. running thousands of simulation instances in parallel for reinforcement learning). As one engineer noted, “robot sims are basically game engines, and distributed simulation is basically a multi-player game”www.reddit.com. In practice, this means techniques like running multiple simulated robots in one physics environment (or even connecting multiple game engine instances) are feasible, akin to how games handle many players. Additionally, using a common physics engine across simulation and on-robot software can improve consistency – e.g. using the same collision detection library in simulation and in a rover’s path planner to predict obstacles similarly.
Actionable takeaways: If you’re not already using a game-based simulator, explore tools like CARLA for AV or Gazebo Ignition (which can use Bullet/ODE/DART physics). Ensure your simulation uses a fixed time-step update (games often use e.g. 20 ms ticks) to mimic real controller loops and avoid physics glitches. You can integrate a physics engine in your control stack for things like predicting robot arm motion or validating a trajectory – for example, use Bullet within a ROS node to simulate a few seconds of a planned path to check for collisions. Also consider using soft-body or advanced physics when needed: if your robot might deal with deformable materials or crashes, a game engine like BeamNG or PhysX (which supports deformables) can provide insight into those conditionsbeamng.tech. Always profile performance and disable unnecessary physics detail (game engines let you turn off features like fluid sims, etc.) to meet real-time needs. The key is to leverage the mature, high-performance physics libraries from gaming rather than writing custom physics – this gives you more time to focus on robotics-specific challenges.
Event-Driven Architectures for Reactive Systems
Game applications and robotic systems both must manage many asynchronous inputs and state changes (user input, sensor readings, AI triggers) without getting bogged down in complex polling loops. Adopting an event-driven architecture – common in modern game engines – can make robotics and AV software more modular, responsive, and easier to scale.In an event-driven design, components communicate by emitting and handling events rather than continuously checking conditions. Game developers often implement a publish-subscribe (pub/sub) model or centralized event bus to decouple subsystems. For example, in Unity or Unreal, when something happens (e.g. an object collides, or an NPC enters a trigger zone), an event is fired and listener scripts handle it. The logic isn’t in the main loop; instead, “event-driven architecture allows you to decouple different parts of your game, making it more modular and easier to manage.”medium.comThis same principle applies to robotics:
-
Sensor-triggered events: Rather than a robot’s main program constantly polling sensor values and checking thresholds, the software can generate events like “obstacle_detected” or “target_acquired” when relevant conditions occur. Subscribers (e.g. the navigation module or mission planner) receive those events and react (stop or re-route on an obstacle event, etc.). This way, if no event occurs, the system can idle or do other tasks, and when an event does occur, the reaction is immediate and localizedwww.reddit.comwww.reddit.com. For instance, a safety monitor node could publish a “battery_low” event once when battery drops below 20%, instead of every module checking battery level each cycle.
-
Decoupling with middleware: Robot frameworks like ROS are inherently event-driven – nodes publish messages asynchronously and others handle them via callbacks. Thus, applying game event-architecture in robotics can build on existing pub/sub middleware. ROS callbacks are essentially event handlers that “are invoked whenever a new message is published on a topic”, enabling responsive and asynchronous processingwww.reddit.comwww.reddit.com. By designing your robot’s software as a collection of loosely-coupled event producers and consumers (rather than a monolithic loop), you improve maintainability. Each component only needs to know about the event types it handles, not about who triggers them, which is the same decoupling games use between engine systems (physics, AI, UI, etc.).
-
Blackboard Systems: The blackboard pattern (originating in AI research) is another architecture used in games to share state among subsystems in a decoupled way. Different game AI modules read/write to a common “blackboard” (a shared data repository) instead of calling each other directlyen.wikipedia.org. This is somewhat analogous to event-driven design – instead of pushing events, modules push state changes to the blackboard and others react to those changes. Robotics can use a blackboard or centralized state estimator that multiple components watch. For example, a robot could have a blackboard with the current goal, target object info, and navigation status; vision and planning systems update and read this as needed, without directly depending on each other’s internal logic. Blackboard and event-driven approaches both aim to decouple features and allow easy addition/removal of components without breaking the whole systemwww.gamedeveloper.com.
-
Event-driven control loops: In some cases, robotics requires both periodic loops and event handling. A best practice (used in embedded game systems as well) is to keep the high-frequency control loop separate but have it emit events for higher-level systems. For example, a 100Hz motion control thread might emit an “arrived_at_waypoint” event when position error < threshold. The high-level mission planner can sleep or do other work until it receives that event, rather than constantly checking the robot’s location. This hybrid approach ensures time-critical tasks run on schedule (frequency-driven) while decision-making logic remains event-driven and efficientwww.reddit.comwww.reddit.com. Why it helps: Event-driven architecture yields responsive and scalable software. New capabilities can be added as independent event handlers or new event types without modifying a central loop. This is how large games manage complexity: rendering, audio, physics, AI, input all operate on events or messages, avoiding a tangle of interdependencies. For robots and AVs, which are essentially distributed systems of sensors and actuators, an event-driven approach aligns well with their modular hardware – each sensor or actuator can be a publisher/subscriber in the system. This reduces CPU usage (nothing runs unless needed) and improves responsiveness (events propagate immediately). As an example, a user on the robotics forum noted that by treating multi-robot simulation like a multiplayer game with networked events, synchronization became simplerwww.reddit.com. Decoupling also makes it easier to test components in isolation (you can simulate events to a module to unit test it). Moreover, it naturally supports distributed operation: events can be sent over networks (e.g. vehicle-to-infrastructure alerts).
Actionable takeaways: Audit your robot software for any tight coupling or polling loops. Wherever possible, refactor to an event-driven model. For instance, if your navigation code constantly checks for new destinations, change it so that it waits for a “new_goal” event from a higher-level planner. Use ROS topics, services, or actionlib to implement these events (ROS is fundamentally designed for this). Create a central Event Manager or use an existing pub-sub library if not using ROS – this manager can log, filter, and dispatch events (game engines often have a global event queue). Make sure to handle event bursts (use queues to avoid dropping events if produced faster than consumed). Also, document the events in your system clearly (just as game devs document the events their engine sends out) so that team members can hook into them. By following an event-driven design, your robotic system will be more extensible, as new sensors or behaviors can plug in by simply emitting or listening for the defined events rather than rewriting core logic.
Networking and Distributed Systems Architecture
In multi-robot systems or connected vehicle fleets, networking becomes crucial. Game development has produced robust architectures for real-time distributed simulations – essentially what a multi-robot scenario is. Many of the same problems arise: maintaining a consistent world state across nodes, dealing with latency and packet loss, and enabling cooperation. Lessons from multiplayer game networking and distributed virtual environments can directly inform robotics/AV networking:
-
Client-Server World Model: Fast-paced online games often use a client-server model with an authoritative server maintaining the true world state, while clients (players) periodically sync and send their inputs. This prevents divergence and makes sure everyone shares the same view (within network delay). For a team of robots or an AV with cloud support, a similar approach can be used: designate a central node (or distributed database) as the “source of truth” for global state (e.g. a map, positions of all agents, fused sensor data). Each robot sends updates (like its odometry, detections) to the server, which in turn broadcasts the consolidated state to all robots. The academic literature on distributed robot systems echoes this, proposing layered simulations and coordination serverswww.preprints.orgwww.preprints.org. For example, a fleet of warehouse robots could have a central coordination server that tracks all item locations and task assignments; robots request tasks and report status to this server. This avoids inconsistent task allocations or collisions. The server can run much like a game server, resolving conflicts (two robots reaching for the same item) and then multicasting updateswww.preprints.orgwww.preprints.org.
-
State Replication & Sync: Games use techniques like state replication (automatically syncing certain object states to clients) and snapshot interpolation to hide latency. A robot team can use similar publish rates and interpolation: e.g., each robot publishes its pose at, say, 10 Hz to others. Intermediate positions can be predicted (dead reckoning) to smooth motion; this is analogous to how games use dead reckoning to predict where a player will be between network updates, to avoid jitter. In fact, the Dead Reckoning Algorithm comes from distributed simulation standards and is directly applicable to multi-robot formation movement – each robot can broadcast its velocity and let others predict its position until the next update, greatly reducing network load while maintaining a coherent formation. If using ROS 2, the DDS middleware already provides QoS settings for reliability and synchronized topics which can implement these patterns.
-
Peer-to-Peer and Decentralized: Some games (especially older RTS games) used peer-to-peer lockstep networking – every client runs the simulation exactly and they exchange only inputs. This requires strong synchronization but minimizes bandwidth. For robots, peer-to-peer might be relevant in ad-hoc networks or V2V (vehicle-to-vehicle) communication where there is no central server. In such cases, algorithms from games for consensus (to avoid divergence) could be used. For instance, two autonomous cars approaching an intersection might share their planned paths peer-to-peer; using a deterministic algorithm (like each car simulating both plans and agreeing on right-of-way via timestamps, similar to lockstep), they can avoid collisions without infrastructure. More generally, if you have an architecture of multiple processors (say a drone swarm without a leader), consider distributed consensus algorithms (Paxos, Raft) which are used in some large-scale game backends0fps.net. These can ensure even a decentralized network of robots agrees on critical state (like which robot will cover which area).
-
Bandwidth Management and QoS: Multiplayer games aggressively optimize network usage – sending compressed state, prioritizing important updates (ex: player position vs cosmetic info), and using UDP for speed. Autonomous systems can take a page from this by prioritizing network messages. For example, a connected car system might treat safety messages (emergency stop, collision alert) with highest priority, using a fast channel, whereas less critical data (like detailed sensor readings) can be sent slower or only on demand. Using a message schema that supports partial updates (only send what changed, like game protocols do) will reduce load. Also, games often implement interest management – clients only get updates for nearby or relevant objects to save bandwidthwww.preprints.orgwww.preprints.org. Similarly, a robot only needs certain data from peers (a ground robot might not care about two drones flying far above). Designing topic channels or filters so each node subscribes only to relevant events is essential for scaling to many robots or high sensor counts. Why it helps: Without good architecture, multi-robot or vehicle networks can suffer lag, conflicts, or even crashes due to inconsistent data – the same problems that cause glitches in online games. By using game-proven solutions, robotics systems can achieve robust real-time collaboration. The analogy “distributed simulation is basically a multi-player game” is very aptwww.reddit.com– both need to keep entities in sync and reacting to each other in real time. For example, a distributed robot simulation framework used Unreal Engine’s multiplayer session mechanics to synchronize clients in one virtual worldwww.preprints.org. The result was a unified scenario for all robots, as in a multiplayer game level. This shows that using existing game engine networking (RPCs, replication, etc.) can jump-start building a distributed robot sim or operation platform. Additionally, game networking solutions often come with tools for debugging (packet loss simulators, lag compensation techniques) that can be re-used to test network resilience in robotic systems. Employing these can make a big difference given real-world wireless unreliability.
Actionable takeaways: If you’re building a multi-robot system, decide early on if you’ll use a central coordinator (recommended for simplicity, like a game server). Design your messages or ROS topics akin to game state updates – e.g., a common message that contains the robot’s pose, velocity, and key status that is published at a fixed rate. Implement basic prediction on subscribers to smooth the data. Use sequence numbers or timestamps to handle out-of-order packets (games do this to drop outdated data). Also consider using existing game networking libraries (some robotics projects have integrated game engines for this reason). If security is a concern (as it is in games to prevent cheating0fps.net), ensure your robots validate important commands (e.g. only accept navigation commands from authorized sources) similar to how game servers validate client actions. Finally, simulate network conditions in testing – drop packets, add latency – and ensure your system handles it gracefully (no crashes, just perhaps degraded performance), borrowing ideas like graceful degradation from online games.
Other Software Best Practices from Games
Beyond the specific areas above, several software engineering approaches from game development can benefit robotics and AV projects:
-
Entity-Component-System (ECS) Architecture: ECS is a data-driven design where systems process entities composed of reusable components, rather than deep inheritance hierarchies. This pattern, common in modern game engines, yields highly modular and parallelizable codewww.simplilearn.comwww.simplilearn.com. In an ECS, an “entity” might be a robot or even each sensor/actor; components are data like “Position”, “Velocity”, “LidarSensor”, “DrivingController”, and systems operate on all entities that have certain components (e.g. a “PhysicsSystem” updates all entities with a RigidBody component). Robotics software can use ECS to improve code reuse and clarity – for example, having a generic “Wheel” component that physics and control systems use, regardless of which robot it belongs to. ECS also naturally supports multi-threading (each system can run in its own thread or jobs, since data is separated)www.simplilearn.com. This is valuable for robotics where multiple subsystems (perception, planning, control) could run in parallel on different cores. Notably, ECS isn’t limited to games: “Yes, it can and has been used in non-gaming projects.”www.simplilearn.comIntrinsic (an Alphabet robotics firm) has even presented on ECS for robotics simulation, showing interest in the community. To adopt ECS, you don’t necessarily need a game engine – you can structure your C++ or Python code in ECS style, or use frameworks (there are C++ ECS libraries) to manage entities and components.
-
Data-Oriented Optimization: Game devs often use profiling and data-oriented design to ensure cache-efficient, real-time performance. For robotics algorithms (which can be computationally heavy, like point cloud processing), applying data-oriented techniques can yield big gains. This might mean storing sensor data in contiguous arrays of structs (or struct of arrays) to leverage SIMD instructions, much like a game engine does for thousands of physics objects. Also, games emphasize minimizing memory allocations and copying in the main loop – robotics control loops similarly benefit from avoiding mallocs or Python GCs during operation to prevent hiccups. Using tools like Valgrind or Unity’s profiler equivalents on your robotic code can identify bottlenecks. Treat your 10ms or 20ms control cycle like a frame in a game that must hit 50 or 100 FPS; this mindset will enforce writing efficient code.
-
Continuous Integration & Testing in Simulation: In game development, automated testing is often done via scripted bot playthroughs or unit tests for subsystems (collision, AI, etc.), sometimes in the game engine itself. Robotics can do the same by leveraging simulation. For instance, set up a CI pipeline that spins up your robot sim (perhaps headless) and runs regression tests: e.g., spawn the robot in known scenarios and verify it reaches the goal or avoids obstacles. Game AI tests might ensure an NPC can navigate a maze; similarly you can test that your AV’s planner successfully handles a virtual roundabout scenario. Open-source projects like CARLA even provide APIs to programmatically set up scenarios and check outcomes, which you can incorporate into tests. This automated simulation testing catches issues early (before deploying to a real robot or car) and ensures new code doesn’t break previous capabilities – a practice borrowed straight from game QA processes.
-
Visualization and Debugging Tools: Game engines have powerful visualization – robotics should exploit this to debug and tune systems. For example, use Unreal or Unity to create a dashboard HUD for your robot: display sensor rays, planned paths, detected objects in the 3D scene, much like game devs visualize AI decision logic (showing an NPC’s vision cone, etc.). This can significantly speed up development, as you can literally “see” what the robot is thinking. Some teams have integrated VR/AR debugging tools (standing in a virtual scene with the autonomous car’s sensor view). Even simpler, recording gameplay-style replays of robot operations (similar to how you can replay a match in a game) can help analyze failures. ROS bags are one way to record data, but coupling that with a game-like 3D replay viewer makes it far more intuitive to understand.
-
Scenario and Level Design Methodologies: Game designers create levels that systematically introduce challenges; in robotics, one can apply a similar approach to design test scenarios or training curricula. For AVs, think of roads and traffic situations as “levels” – you might start testing on a simple level (straight road, light traffic) and progress to harder ones (complex city intersections), akin to game difficulty progression. Using game engine tools, you can rapidly prototype these levels (e.g. blocking out a city in Unreal) and reuse assets. Some companies have employed ex-game designers to craft challenging scenarios for AV testing, which underscores how valuable game design thinking can be for uncovering corner cases.
-
Human-robot interaction and UI: The polish of game UIs can inspire better human-robot interfaces. For example, AR overlays for what the car is “thinking” (as some concept cars show) take cues from video game HUDs. If your robot is operated or supervised by humans, applying game UX best practices (clear feedback, intuitive controls, maybe even gamepad support) can make a big difference in safety and user satisfaction. In summary, virtually any area where game software excels – real-time performance, modular architecture, rich simulation, user experience – can provide ideas for robotics and autonomous vehicles. Many concepts like ECS, event buses, or AI planners are not gaming-specific, but game development has refined them under pressure to achieve high performance on limited hardware. By studying both industry applications (e.g. how AAA games build AI and networking) and academic research at the intersection (like papers on using game engines for multi-robot simulationwww.reddit.comwww.preprints.org), robotics engineers can find ready-made solutions to common problems.