Kr210 kinematics update#124
Conversation
|
This looks like a nice cleanup. Thanks for that @jwhendy. 👍 I'm still a bit foggy on why that offset is needed, but I think I'll just have to re-read your previous explanation(s) to figure that out (again). I think @BrettHemes was more involved here, so perhaps he could also take a look? |
|
@gavanderhoorn I think this is the simplest I've managed to try and explain it:
Here's one more shot... honestly the time between looking at this has me needing to re-remember as well :) It's down to a balance of three factors:
Basically, you can pick any two of the above but you can't have all three. I was under the assumption that re-using the CAD was a definite to include, and all of these questions have been around which to give up among the second two.
Lastly, I admit to being hung up on trying something clever like your suggestion on #98. At this point, I think the PR is held up on me figuring that out in order to avoid a separate, mostly redundant I think I'll just create a separate Edit: also, the guidance from @BrettHemes steered me toward adding the offset and preserving the manual convention, so that's what I did here. The part of this PR that needs review was what folks thought of the probably stupid attempt shown here at adding a parameter to specify the L150 vs. L150-2 without a separate |
|
I just split the L150 and L150-2 into separate
If you liked the One uncertainty: are dashes forbidden in file names? I have |
|
Okay, after fiddling with the usage of an arg on the
I think that's pretty reasonable and a nice compromise (all we give up is one additional non-zero joint offset in the case of the |
|
As with the others, (#117 and #118) I like this approach. When I get some time I will load them up and check them unless @gavanderhoorn gets to it first. Hopefully this weekend. |
BrettHemes-3M
left a comment
BrettHemes-3M
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- Dashes in file names to underscores (i.e., "-2" to "_2")
- "-2" Loads/tests don't use new changes
- Move "variants" file code directly into parent macro.xacro (or rename to avoid confusion)
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | |||
| <launch> | |||
| <param name="robot_description" command="$(find xacro)/xacro --inorder '$(find kuka_kr210_support)/urdf/kr210l150-2.xacro'" /> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This line no loner works with most recent changes.
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | |||
| <launch> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would rename this file to load_kr210l150_2.launch (i.e., no dashes)
| @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ | |||
| <launch> | |||
| <include file="$(find kuka_kr210_support)/launch/load_kr210l150-2.launch" /> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same as above... update to use new variant arguments
| @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ | |||
| <?xml version="1.0" ?> | |||
| <launch> | |||
| <group ns="load_kr210l150-2__"> | |||
| <include file="$(find kuka_kr210_support)/launch/load_kr210l150-2.launch"/> | ||
| </group> | ||
|
|
||
| <group ns="test_kr210l150-2__"> |
| @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ | |||
| <?xml version="1.0"?> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would move this code into the kr210l150_macro.xacro and then delete this file. The variants naming is confusing here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done. Committed/pushed. I had a tricky time figuring out how to get at the arg from the top level file. From looking around xacro:property seemed like the ticket, so that's what I used. Hopefully that's correct? I admit to not knowing precisely why arg vs. param vs. property...
<!-- for the KR210 L150, use ""; for the KR210 L150-2, use "_2" -->
<xacro:arg name="variant" default="" />
<xacro:property name="variant" value="$(arg variant)"/>
| @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ | |||
| <?xml version="1.0" ?> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should have a corresponding kr210l150_2.xacro file as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was thinking not anymore? I apologize as I flopped back and forth on trying to use an argument, then quasi giving up and just making replicate macro/xacro, launch, and test files, then going back to an argument. So I figured the path was either:
- no
_2argument, and duplicate everything. The only difference would be the definition ofjoint_a3per variant - use the
_2argument, but don't replicate all the files with afoo_2.barshadow
| <limit lower="${-210*deg}" upper="${(155-90)*deg}" effort="0" velocity="${112*deg}"/> | ||
| <limit lower="${radians(-61)}" upper="${radians(90)}" effort="0" velocity="${radians(84)}"/> | ||
| </joint> | ||
| <xacro:kuka_kr210l150_a3 prefix="${prefix}" variant="$(arg variant)"/> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As noted above, just put code here (vs separate file)?
| <!--degrees to radians--> | ||
| <property name="deg" value="0.017453293"/> | ||
| <xacro:include filename="$(find kuka_resources)/urdf/common_materials.xacro"/> | ||
| <xacro:include filename="$(find kuka_kr210_support)/urdf/kr210_variants_macro.xacro"/> |
|
I'll look at the reviews more closely tonight; much appreciated. One main question... I see comments on files with I didn't plan to have a I can look into moving the code into the main |
The load/test files for the -2 are still there and as it stands these are broken. If you delete them you can ignore the respective comments. |
I missed that last comment before reading all the reviews. Yes, I intended to do completely away with the Thanks for the insight to just move top level; I agree for a simple |
|
Hi folks, Any further changes since May 2018? What's the best way for me to proceed? Thanks! |
|
Sorry, I'm not sure how to answer. I believe for this, #117 and #118 just need time from @gavanderhoorn . I have not heard anything on these PRs since May 2018, minus similar inquiries. |
4 participants
This surely still needs work, but is a first stab at #98 . Creating the PR so we can talk code instead of theory and pictures! This addresses the kinematics of the original L150 and also attempts to bring in the L150-2, which is the same physical model with different limits/zero position defined for
joint_a3.