Our FR5 loading sketch omits the hand and open door. I want the complete brass-blank assembly tied to a real machine survey, including the setter's tasks. Which inputs should be fixed before anyone treats a clear fixture point as an arm-selection result?
Fix the grip depth and orientation with the complete proposed tool, then use the installed machine and door geometry through loading, release and return. The setter's task is a separate use of the same space, so it needs to remain visible throughout that comparison.
Grip depth is defined in the separate tool drawing. Adapter and fingers are identified, but the connection routing is still incomplete. The machine outline in the layout came from a catalogue rather than our survey.
A measured outline or static mock-up may answer an obvious space question cheaply once those dimensions exist. I would not spend on one built around the catalogue's convenient empty areas, though; first find whether it even describes the machine arrangement you have.
Check the drawing references before combining them. We once located a very convincing clash by comparing a detailed assembly with a rough sketch at a different scale.
Our retained machine photographs show a different door arrangement from the catalogue view. Service is checking the installed configuration and the available modification drawing; I have marked the layout geometry unconfirmed.
Have service establish the actual operating door positions, not merely identify which picture looks closer. A configuration record and measured installed geometry should agree before the route reviewer relies on them.
And keep the same reference when the survey arrives. Otherwise fixing the door picture can still leave the tool located against a different machine origin.
Service confirmed a documented door modification and supplied the applicable drawing with survey measurements. Its parked position differs from the catalogue arrangement. Integrator is replacing that input, not describing the old view as conservative.
Has anyone claimed a route clash from the old view, or was it only a reach illustration? I'd withdraw only the conclusions that were actually made, while retaining why the geometry was replaced.
Only reach was claimed, Lin. No complete-tool route had been assessed. The old illustration is retained as superseded; it never established either a collision or usable clearance.
That gives the combined review a clean question. With the surveyed door and specified hand, can the entire loading and departure sequence fit while preserving the required human access? The old reach point is just one input to it.
The supplier has now fixed the connection arrangement. Integrator's revised complete model clears the surveyed door through loading and open-tool departure at the candidate base. No hardware or base change proposed to obtain that result.
That is a useful result from obtaining the missing inputs. I'd still compare the price of the assessed assembly, not the earlier loosely described tool quote; a clear model can be correct while purchasing is looking at a different collection of included parts.
Has the setter reviewed their task against the completed model yet? Their earlier access marks define the requirement, but they do not automatically approve every later arrangement.
Not yet. The marks remain in the model, but the setter's task review and complete-load assessment are outstanding. Purchasing has the exact assembly reference and those open decisions beside the price.