I posted a cheerful note after our new UR5e tray locator gave us a decent run with locating pucks. Then we exchanged the tray and the pickup missed again. The replacement feels seated, but its pocket row looks farther from the stop.
I want to update the result honestly. What should I compare before I call the locator useful for one tray and useless for the rest?
My second tray rocked where the first sat flat, so I'd compare them separately before blaming the locator; yours might sit flat and still put the pockets elsewhere
Both sit flat during the static check. The replacement has a different mould mark underneath. Stores calls them the same tray, but that may only mean they fit the same shelf.
A tray replacement once reached our software team as a point-edit request with no hardware change mentioned; attach both tray identities to the miss before that happens here.
Our setter. The second tray is held out of use pending the check, and the first still needs the usual setup verification. I have corrected my update to identify the one tray used in the trial.
Second drawing found: revision C, first tray is A. C moves the pocket row relative to that end. Thank you Pavel, measuring from the stop made the difference much easier to explain.
Could the proposed locator distinguish revisions mechanically, or would the intended setup need separate identification as well? That is a design question for the toolmaker, not another coordinate change.
Sam, stores has split the stock descriptions. Chloe, toolmaker is considering separate locating arrangements but hasn't chosen one. We'll need a clear setup check whichever route they take.
Small correction to my first post: the replacement's row wasn't just looking farther away in a photo. We now have a drawing difference. I haven't yet seen a revised arrangement handle it successfully.
Fair update, Nina. I'd be interested in the changeover result when they settle the design, especially whether you can fit the wrong tray and think you're done