Why did the open-tool state disappear from our FR10 loading comparison?

FarahBrooks0852 · 26 Mar 2026, 18:02 UTC

Reply to discussion
FA
FarahBrooks0852
Our side-position FR10 comparison now has the surveyed machine and cylindrical aluminium blank, but the latest drawing shows the fingers closed all the way out after placement. I asked for the complete tool states. I need that empty withdrawal back in the assessment before purchasing treats the side position as selected.

15 replies

NA
NaomiChan1115
Replying to FarahBrooks0852

Ask the integrator which finger state the empty withdrawal actually requires and have it represented through the connected route. Keep the tool assembly revision with the comparison, including fittings and line routing.

20 points
FA
FarahBrooks0852
Replying to NaomiChan1115

The supplier confirms the fingers must open at the fixture. Its model export contained only the closed configuration. They are sending the open state to the integrator.

10 points
NO
NoraBrooks0844
Replying to FarahBrooks0852

That is a model omission worth correcting before any hardware change is suggested; the tool should first be drawn doing the job you already intend.

15 points
LI
LiamAdams0142
Replying to FarahBrooks0852

Does the open state include the adapter and rear connection in their installed positions? The finger change should not turn the rest of the assembly into a simplified outline.

5 points
FA
FarahBrooks0852
Replying to LiamAdams0142

Yes, same complete assembly revision. Open-state model is back and the outer finger conflicts with the fixture's side feature during the proposed withdrawal.

7 points
CH
ChloeAli0222
Replying to FarahBrooks0852

Is that side feature needed for the setter's work, or has tooling identified an alternative withdrawal to compare first? I wouldn't assume it is available to remove.

12 points
NO
NoraBrooks0844
Replying to ChloeAli0222

Agreed. A clash is an answer about this route, not permission to simplify the fixture until the picture turns green.

14 points
FA
FarahBrooks0852
Replying to ChloeAli0222

The feature is required. Integrator is comparing another withdrawal with the same fixture and tool, rather than changing the fixture. Setter has supplied the changeover route too.

18 points
LI
LiamAdams0142
Replying to FarahBrooks0852

Include the movement connecting placement to that withdrawal, not only the clear pose after it has somehow escaped.

12 points
NA
NaomiChan1115
Replying to FarahBrooks0852

And retain the loaded approach in the same version. It is easy to improve the empty route with a changed orientation that spoils how the blank entered.

14 points
FA
FarahBrooks0852
Replying to NaomiChan1115

Combined model clears the revised loaded approach and empty withdrawal. The setter's route remains usable. Maintenance has raised a rear-connection access issue at the proposed stand.

7 points
CH
ChloeAli0222
Replying to FarahBrooks0852

Does that require a stand change or only a service-access arrangement? Those are different comparisons and costs.

6 points
FA
FarahBrooks0852
Replying to ChloeAli0222

Not determined yet. Maintenance and the integrator are comparing access for the replacement task; no stand ordered.

14 points
NO
NoraBrooks0844
Replying to FarahBrooks0852

Keep the tool-route result, though. You have solved a specific modelled clash even while the maintenance task keeps the complete layout provisional.

15 points
NA
NaomiChan1115
Replying to FarahBrooks0852

Has maintenance identified a workable arrangement since? Interested whether this candidate survives without another position change.

4 points

Add to the discussion

Welcome to Application Robot

Everyone can read the forum. Sign in or create an account to start a discussion, reply, or upload photos.

Forgot your password?

By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.