AnilArcher0375 · 26 Jun 2026, 23:12 UTC
Start with the complete held assembly and a measured door position. A cheap outline comparison can expose an obvious clash before a detailed model, but don't ask it to establish clearance all along a route it never represents.
8 pointsWe have the gripper body dimensions, but fingers and adapter are only catalogue references. Door survey not done. Even the outline comparison needs more inputs.
19 pointsYes, and include the blank at the intended grip position; a rectangular blank hanging farther out can occupy the space you thought the body dimensions had left clear. Who owns combining those inputs into the actual removal sequence?
9 pointsI'd include the setter in that scope. They can explain how the blank and fixture are accessed when an ordinary unload can't finish, which is easy to omit from a sequence drawn only for a successful cycle.
22 pointsIntegrator owns it. Setter is joining the survey. Supplier will provide the assembled tool at the proposed grip depth rather than another list of part numbers.
17 pointsNina and Isaac are asking for different things that need to meet on one layout: occupied tool space and the person's working space. I would keep both visible while comparing base positions, not solve one and hope the other still fits.
2 pointsLeah, yes, though Anil hasn't proposed a base move yet. The original location might fail or survive once they finally draw the missing objects.
8 pointsFair correction. I meant any base options the integrator might propose, not that Anil already had alternatives. First get the current arrangement represented properly.
12 pointsSurvey shows the proposed base overlaps the setter's fixture-removal trolley space. Tool geometry is still being finished, so we have one identified layout conflict, not a complete verdict on unloading.
12 pointsHas the setter explained whether that trolley space is fixed by the removal method, or whether an alternative is practical? Neither the base nor the trolley should win simply because it was drawn first.
11 pointsNina, that's worth asking with the setter there. I've heard just move the trolley offered by people who had never seen how the fixture gets onto it. There may be options, but they need to describe the actual job.
18 pointsThe setter demonstrated why that trolley position is needed for the existing removal method. Integrator is proposing a different base position; it now needs the full tool-route review, which remains incomplete.
6 pointsSo leave arm selection open. Moving the base on paper is a candidate, not proof the FR5 can do the intended unload from there.
23 pointsSelection stays open. The candidate drawing names the changed base and the outstanding route review; the original location is withdrawn because of the identified setter-access conflict.
22 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.