I need a fuller offline access review for our UR5e bracket-welding proposal. The simulation shows each seam as reachable, but the torch is a line and the inside clamp fills much of the space where the torch body would sit. Which tool and fixture details should I request?
Use the proposed torch assembly, not a generic pointer. Include the neck, nozzle, mounting parts and cable routing. Put the fixture clamps in their actual states for each seam.
Then that model cannot answer your access question yet. Have the welding and fixture leads agree the required clamp states before the next route review.
The fixture lead has marked which clamps remain closed. Welding has supplied the permitted approach range. The integrator is reviewing those together with the actual torch outline.
Will this comparison identify the fixture revision in the returned model? We have had revised clamp positions discussed against screenshots from an earlier export. It was hard to tell whether the apparent improvement belonged to the new fixture or the old image
Yes, fixture revision C and torch assembly T2 are identified on the returned review. It shows a nozzle clash at the inside corner with the required clamp closed. No usable route agreed there.
Has the fixture designer proposed a lower-profile clamp, or is the torch supplier looking at another neck arrangement? Different changes, different work to check.
The fixture designer is reviewing a different clamp arrangement. Maintenance will check consumable access with it. Thank you for naming the actual tool details; the original line model hid the problem entirely.