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。

I cannot tell which inspection recipe our UR5e handover expects

AishaAli0257 · 2026年3月24日 07:38 UTC

回复讨论
AI
AishaAli0257
Our inspection handover shows pendant pages for the bracket routine, but the recipe is selected outside those pages. The integrator is still available and I want the missing bits while we can ask them. I have the job files, not only pictures. Correction, I have a folder labelled current; I cannot match its revision to the screenshots. The ordinary PLC signals and fixture version are missing too. Where would you start making this usable for the next person?

17 条回复

PA
PavelArcher0353

Start with one identified working job. Can the integrator match your folder to the installed version?

11
AI
AishaAli0257

They can compare it, Pavel. I've sent the folder and asked them to identify the installed job separately, so we don't just bless the name current.

0
JA
JackAdams0167

I'd follow one bracket through the whole call chain. Main routine, called subprograms, recipe selection, result coming back. My fixture sketches used to stop at the nice obvious bit where the part was sitting down. Then somebody asked what told the rest of the job it was the right part. Fair question. Not much of an answer in the sketches.

7
HE
HenryAllen0264

Which fixture feature distinguishes the bracket versions? A recipe list alone will not show that.

8
HU
HugoBlair

Henry's point matters. If two brackets can sit in the same nest, a beautiful recipe table can still leave the operator choosing by memory. I would want the actual selection method shown, including who changes it.

23
AI
AishaAli0257

Henry, there is only one bracket version in this job, but two inspection recipes for different requested checks. Jack, tracing the calls found a missing subprogram in our folder. The integrator has supplied the matching set and identified its revision against the installed job.

14
BE
BenBench

Could the next person tell those two requested checks apart without asking whoever made the order?

14
CA
CalebBrown0928
回复 BenBench

Put that answer in the issued handover, not somebody's private teaching copy. I've seen the useful explanation stay in the trainer's folder while everyone else receives the screenshots.

6
AI
AishaAli0257
回复 BenBench

Ben, not from our old notes. The work order names the requested check but the recipe screen uses shortened names. I've put the two pairs together and asked quality to confirm the mapping.

0
JA
JackAdams0167

That missing subprogram would have had me chasing the wrong problem for ages. Are the ordinary PLC waits now attached to the stages where they occur, or still in a separate list?

9
PA
PavelArcher0353

Did quality confirm both name pairs?

12
HE
HenryAllen0264

A separate signal list is useful for maintenance, Jack. Operators also need the meaning at each waiting stage.

1
AI
AishaAli0257

Pavel, quality confirmed one pair and corrected the other: we had copied the name of an older check. Jack, the draft now shows the ordinary waits beside the relevant stages, with a separate signal list for maintenance as Henry suggests.

13
HU
HugoBlair

That's a real catch. Does changing the shortened name need a software change, or can the handover show the current display exactly? I'd avoid a picture of what people wish the screen said.

6
AI
AishaAli0257
回复 HugoBlair

We're keeping the current screen names in the handover, Hugo, with quality's descriptions alongside. No screen change is part of this update.

16
CA
CalebBrown0928

Who has tried finding a waiting stage using the draft? Someone who did not help write it would be useful.

11
AI
AishaAli0257

A relief technician found the recipe mapping and the matching job set without me talking them through it. They couldn't find who to call for an unexpected wait, though. That's still missing; I've sent that specific gap to our cell owner. Thanks for pushing beyond the screenshots.

18

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。