Integration of 6-axis manipulator and 2-axis positioner (external axes)

[gavanderhoorn]

I should probably have noticed this earlier, but:

@tdl-ua

I am currently working on setting up a 6-axis welding robot with a 2-axis positioner for wire and arc additive manufacturing (WAAM).

This made me believe you were already working with real hardware, which is not the case.

@tdl-ua

It has actually not been delivered yet but we should have it up and running some time in March. So far, I have been running moveit_planning_execution.launch sim:=true to simulate the robot and that is when I’ve run into the above errors.

The fact that you’re only simulating leads to a very different diagnostic approach.

@tdl-ua

So the question would also be whether the industrial robot simulator has multi-group capabilities since simulating the robot prior to execution is also required.

This is the only question at the moment really.

industrial_robot_simulator does not have multi-group support (or at least, the v1 version doesn’t). And: even if it had, none of the configuration files in the packages would have told it what those groups would be. Only the MoveIt side has information on joints in groups (from the .srdf) and those are not used by anything else.

This is actually the cause of the issues here: no matter how you configure the MoveIt side, there are never two Action servers with the current industrial_robot_client, so this is not going to work.

What you could do is start two instances of industrial_robot_simulator, each with their own set of joints, in two different namespaces (one for each group). That would be similar to how motoman_driver would expose the two groups. If you have that setup, you can start working on the MoveIt side.

@tdl-ua

I have not configured the motoman_driver but will look into that next.

Without real hardware there is no need. Only motoman_driver uses that configuration.

@tdl-ua

@gavanderhoorn: both manipulator and positioner are integrated with a DX200 controller. Here is Eric Marcil’s answer to a similar question:

Could you please – in case of parallel requests for support through different channels – always present/include pertinent information in posts like yours?