Our setup uses Fairino FR10 for tray-to-fixture transfer with a rigid molded spacer in a small fixture loading area, with 22 planned.
I wrote a pick, place and advance sequence that completes uninterrupted runs, but stopping between those actions can leave the saved pocket inconsistent with the physical state.
I need a recovery design before relying on it for normal production.
Can you locate the index update against the placement confirmation in the recorded sequence? The actual ordering will help identify what the saved value represents at an interruption.
It advances before placement confirmation. So after a stop, the number can describe the next intended pocket rather than a transfer we know finished. That's on my sequence.
Map the transfer stages offline, with an agreed completion confirmation. Have your integrator define how saved state is reconciled with tool and pocket conditions; unknown conditions need an explicit recovery route.
@MinaBrooks0859 Would correcting the position of the index update fully address this? I had hoped the problem was limited to that single sequencing error.
@MinaBrooks0859 Updating a stage after an action doesn't eliminate the interval between the physical event and persistence. An interruption there can leave the saved stage inconsistent with reality.
You're right; saving stages alone doesn't guarantee recovery. The saved stage guides reconciliation, and the physical conditions still need confirmation before an approved next action.
On my setup, one index could mean either 'still carrying' or 'already placed'. Giving those states names made the design discussion much less circular.
We've identified a sequencing issue in the index update, but recovery still needs a reviewed response to uncertain tool and pocket conditions. The job remains short of production readiness.