简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文；未对原文作自动翻译。
ClaraCarter0959 · 2026年6月21日 09:21 UTC
Show the whole tool holding the blank against the installed opening, including the parked door, and follow its proposed orientation through withdrawal. One reachable point isn't the route.
17分The supplied sketch ends at the fixture point. I can ask for a sequence of positions, but should the open fingers on the return be included too?
8分Yep, if that's their intended return state. My tooling drawings show different envelopes with the fingers open and closed. Has the supplier actually defined which fingers and adapter this proposal uses?
11分I'd also have the setter look at the proposal. Not to approve the robot motion, but to identify access they still need for setup and faults. Who is representing that side of your mill cell?
21分Pavel's if matters. Don't invent an open-finger return just because it is easy to draw; have the integrator define the intended sequence and assess that.
14分Pavel, the adapter is listed but the fingers aren't defined. Yasmin, our setter hasn't seen the sketch. I'll include both gaps in the review request.
-1分Then I'd want the blank's grip position defined with those fingers. Otherwise the tool designer can draw something perfectly plausible that carries more of your blank through the doorway than anyone expected.
17分Amara, agreed on the sequence. I'd want any proposed recovery or setup access described separately too, so the setter isn't promised space that exists only while everything is running normally.
17分The integrator has acknowledged that the tool arrangement is incomplete and will define it before assessing access. No revised route yet. Thank you Pavel for connecting finger definition to where the blank actually projects.
11分That leaves arm choice open, which is the right status for the evidence you have. Acknowledging missing geometry hasn't established either a collision or a workable route.
13分