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。

The marked scratch changes position between our cover images

LinBell0618 · 2026年3月25日 17:05 UTC

回复讨论
LI
LinBell0618
We have retained accepted and rejected polished covers for the proposed UR5e inspection station. Quality has identified the rejected feature on the physical cover. That part is settled. The image folder is less convincing. The arrow beside that feature moves between captures, following a bright band rather than the same place on the cover. Our presentation notes also say only seated. I want to rebuild this small reference set before anyone adjusts a threshold around the arrows. What should stay fixed, and what variation should we deliberately include in the comparison?

14 条回复

LE
LeoBell0623

Check the seat first. Our spare support once hid the corner we needed to inspect.

12
LI
LinBell0618

The seat exposes the feature. The two captures use the same support, but the cover can rock slightly before it is fully located.

21
BE
BenBrown0892

Then seated needs a better definition. Can the person loading it recognise a properly located cover without looking at the camera image for reassurance?

18
FE
FelixBaker0458

Don't make a perfect seat the whole answer. An accepted polished cover still has reflections. Include that one when the vision person compares lighting, otherwise the reference set teaches an easy problem.

-9
LE
LeoBell0623

Agreed. Locate it consistently, then find out which reflections remain.

11
LI
LinBell0618

We checked loading with the fixture designer. One locating contact was obscured in the instruction photo. A new view shows it clearly, and both loaders can now check the cover is seated. The bright band still moves across the accepted cover with small presentation changes.

7
LU
LuisArcher0434

Who has to make those small changes in the eventual inspection sequence, or are they only part of this comparison?

21
BE
BenBrown0892

Felix, I wasn't claiming the seat would cure reflections. I want the loaders to reproduce a comparison somebody can interpret.

20
FE
FelixBaker0458

Fair enough. Lin, has the vision person seen the originals without arrows? I'd hate to find the entire conversation is about somebody's annotation rather than the captured feature.

13
LI
LinBell0618

Luis, these changes are for comparing the imaging options, not an agreed operator sequence. Felix, yes, the originals are retained. Quality has now corrected the arrow against the physical feature; the old arrow was on the adjacent reflection.

11
LU
LuisArcher0434

Then label the comparison poses as comparison poses; our teaching notes once turned a trial variation into an extra loading instruction.

15
LI
LinBell0618

Done. The revised folder has the identified covers, original captures and the corrected feature mark. The accepted cover with the moving band remains in it. We are comparing two lighting arrangements; neither has been selected for the cell yet.

5
BE
BenBrown0892

Thanks for coming back with the actual arrow error. Did the old marked images get removed from the teaching handout too?

25
LI
LinBell0618

Yes. The tutor opened the revised handout with us and matched its examples to the corrected folder. The imaging choice remains open, but the lesson no longer calls that band a scratch.

15

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。