Add UR12e support#220
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please perform the following check
- get the kinematics from the robot through a client script
- perform forward kinematics (if you're using golang this is model.transform on some inputs)
- get the current end effector postion through the arm api
- calculate the delta
delta should be on the order of 1-500 microns for position
| {"base_link", "wrist_3_link", "shoulder_link", "forearm_link", "upper_arm_link", "wrist_1_link", "wrist_2_link"}}); | ||
| // URCL maps "ur12e" to RobotType::UR10 (per URCL helpers.h), so the | ||
| // urcl_category here is "ur10". | ||
| t.push_back({"ur12e", "ur10", {}}); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
third list cannot be empty.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thought about it, I think that it can be empty since the get3d models endpoint is not implemented for this arm model as it is new.
please file a ticket as a todo and add it as a comment here that the third list will need to be updated the day that the relevant glbs are added.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
JohnN193 - Curious for your take on this. If UR10 is the "real" model, should all of this be getting placed in under a UR10 identifier then we just map ur12e to that? I can't remember exactly what the desired arrangement would be.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the current setup matches what we did for the ur5e & ur7e. technically the geometry might be different, but i haven't looked into how different it will be
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looking closer at the UR's ros descriptions it does seem like they just reuse the ur5e/ur10e, so maybe we should just treat this all as a ur10
|
Joseph Borodach (@JosephBorodach) - Could you please file a ticket for this, so that we can track what release support lands in? |
Andrew C. Morrow (acmorrow)
left a comment
Andrew C. Morrow (acmorrow)
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This LGTM when Nick Franczak (@nfranczak) is happy with it. Please do file a ticket, and include the ticket on the commit message like [RSDK-ABCDE] Add UR12e support.
|
lets also add a urdf file for the ur12e |
|
| {"base_link", "wrist_3_link", "shoulder_link", "forearm_link", "upper_arm_link", "wrist_1_link", "wrist_2_link"}}); | ||
| // URCL maps "ur12e" to RobotType::UR10 (per URCL helpers.h), so the | ||
| // urcl_category here is "ur10". | ||
| // TODO(RSDK-XXXXX): populate the mesh-link list here once ur12e GLBs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This can now say RSDK-14279
| @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This file should be getting generated, not checked in.
| @@ -0,0 +1,250 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the provenance of this file / the values it contains?
| @@ -0,0 +1,222 @@ | |||
| <?xml version="1.0" ?> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the provenance of this file / the values it contains?
| {"base_link", "wrist_3_link", "shoulder_link", "forearm_link", "upper_arm_link", "wrist_1_link", "wrist_2_link"}}); | ||
| // URCL maps "ur12e" to RobotType::UR10 (per URCL helpers.h), so the | ||
| // urcl_category here is "ur10". | ||
| t.push_back({"ur12e", "ur10", {}}); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
JohnN193 - Curious for your take on this. If UR10 is the "real" model, should all of this be getting placed in under a UR10 identifier then we just map ur12e to that? I can't remember exactly what the desired arrangement would be.
4 participants
Adds
viam:universal-robots:ur12e, mapping to URCL'sUR10category. Kinematics from UR's official ROS2 description (config/ur12e/default_kinematics.yaml).Manual Testing
Validated against a real UR12e