our ur5e handover pictures stop where the subprogram starts

WillBaker0487 · 1 Jul 2026, 12:27 UTC

Reply to discussion
WI
WillBaker0487
I want an actual handover for our reference-plate verification job while the integrator is still available. At present I have UR5e pendant pictures with no revision, mostly the main routine. Called programs, fixture assumptions and ordinary PLC conditions are all elsewhere, apparently. How do I join this up without making another decorative folder?

7 replies

SA
SaraChen1157
Replying to WillBaker0487

Can the integrator identify the installed project and show which files the pictured routine calls? I'd start with that link, not spend time describing screenshots from an unknown revision.

18 points
SA
SarahAli0241
Replying to WillBaker0487

I'd have the person inheriting it find one real wait condition using the proposed pack, with the equipment stopped. That exposed a missing interface note in a handover I helped read; the author could explain it instantly, but the folder couldn't.

16 points
WI
WillBaker0487
Replying to SaraChen1157

The integrator checked the installed copy. Our pictures are from an earlier main routine and omit the current verification subprogram. They've supplied the matching project export and call list. Sarah, I'll use a wait condition to check the pack once the interface notes are joined to it.

11 points
SA
SaraChen1157
Replying to SarahAli0241

Sarah's reader test sounds useful once those links exist. Include the fixture state the wait assumes; a named signal still needs an agreed meaning.

4 points
SA
SarahAli0241
Replying to SaraChen1157

Yes, and don't make the test a memory quiz. Let them use the material they'd actually have on shift. If they need the integrator to translate a label, that's something to fix in the handover, not a mark against the reader.

16 points
WI
WillBaker0487
Replying to SarahAli0241

We tried it with our maintenance deputy. He found the installed revision and called routine, then got stuck on fixture ready. The interface note meant the identified fixture was located, while our quick guide made it sound like any empty fixture. Both authors are correcting that wording against the agreed condition.

5 points
SA
SaraChen1157
Replying to WillBaker0487

That is a useful finding from the reader check. Has the deputy repeated it with the corrected pack using their own normal access, rather than the integrator's account?

19 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.