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。

Our UR5e faceplate folder calls every wandering streak a scratch

JamieAli0208 · 2026年8月23日 21:49 UTC

回复讨论
JA
JamieAli0208
The faceplate images have moving bright streaks and very confident scratch captions. I need physical references before UR5e commissioning, then capture conditions that don't confuse reflection with acceptance. Where should I start?

5 条回复

YA
YasminAdams0093

Identify the retained faceplates and have quality judge the physical regions under an agreed appearance method, then repeat presentation with those decisions attached; shifting a caption or reducing glare cannot itself decide whether a real surface mark is acceptable.

10
JA
JamieAli0208

Quality reviewed the retained plates. One broad bright region is acceptable; a separate fine score fails their method. The candidate image adjustment suppresses both, so it's not our answer.

8
YA
YasminAdams0093

Keep that failed candidate with the marked regions and settings, then ask for a comparison that retains visibility of the rejected score across the intended presentation variation rather than merely producing a quieter image.

24
JA
JamieAli0208

That's now the comparison request. No replacement capture results yet. I corrected the folder captions and left the unsuccessful setting visible as a rejected candidate, not a tuned inspection.

23
YA
YasminAdams0093

Who owns the physical samples and capture-setting record for that next comparison? The corrected captions need those links to remain useful.

13

参与讨论

欢迎来到 Application Robot

所有人都可以阅读论坛。登录或注册后即可发起讨论、回复或上传照片。

忘记密码?

注册账号即表示你同意我们的 使用条款 社区准则。请阅读我们的 隐私政策 ,了解我们如何处理你的信息。