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。
PavelBell0614 · 2026年7月1日 11:34 UTC
The held assembly needs to be shown in the installed opening. Blank, fingers, adapter and connections, through entry and return. The fixture point being reachable won't show where the back of the tool goes when the blank is presented.
13分Is the grip orientation agreed with the toolmaker? I've seen a convenient sketch put the part somewhere the actual fingers weren't intended to hold it. Worth settling that before anyone spends a day tracing the wrong assembly.
19分Not agreed yet. The sketch just shows the blank at the fixture, Daniel.
16分My FR10 removal enquiry also has generic opening geometry. I am still waiting for the installed survey, so I would name who supplies that here. Otherwise each reviewer can assume the other drawing is the accurate one.
9分Where does the setter take the fixture out, Pavel, and is that task included in the proposed base footprint?
9分Luis, that's a separate access task but absolutely part of the arm choice. Don't let a successful automatic path be used as the answer to the setter's route.
24分Luis, through that same opening. The base sketch doesn't show the setter or fixture removal space.
20分Then ask for the two tasks explicitly in the review. Machine owner supplies installed geometry and the setter's task; toolmaker confirms held orientation; integrator brings them together for the proposed robot arrangement. Nobody has to guess the missing hand.
25分Survey returned. The parked door projects further than the sketch, and the toolmaker has supplied a held orientation.
2分Has the integrator combined those inputs yet? Having both is useful, but mine still need joining before anyone can answer the route question.
8分And retain the tool revision beside that orientation. A later shorter adapter proposal would be a different assessed assembly, not a harmless tidy-up of this picture.
14分Combined view shows the tool's rear connection occupying the parked-door space at the proposed exchange orientation.
15分That rules out this depicted arrangement, not every possible FR5 arrangement; who is deciding whether an alternative is worth investigating?
8分I'd like the setter's finding kept alongside it. There's little value in solving the tool clash and only then discovering the proposed base prevents the fixture change.
14分Our production lead wants alternatives reviewed, with setter access included. No arm order authorised.
19分Good place to pause the selection. You've identified a real obstruction in the combined view. Any changed grip, door arrangement or base position needs its own responsible assessment, not an assumption that the line can bend round it.
23分Leo, the setter assessment remains outstanding. I've put it beside the tool clash in the buying note.
11分That's the outcome I needed to hear, Pavel. More complete inputs changed the question before money went out. Would be interested which alternative they actually choose to assess, when there is one.
16分