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。
JamieAllen0295 · 2026年6月28日 08:58 UTC
The complete loaded tool moving through the measured opening, with its connections and the real parked door, then the empty return (not two attractive endpoint pictures).
15分Grip depth too. A tool outline floating beside a blank doesn't define the carried assembly. I've got an access question waiting on exactly that missing detail, so I'd pin it down before comparing paths.
9分I'd keep the access review and arm loading assessment separate but tied to the same assembly revision. A route can have room without the proposed arm being an acceptable choice.
-2分Gabriel, the grip depth is defined on our tool drawing; it simply never reached the machine sketch, and I've asked the supplier to combine those with the door survey rather than send another reach circle
-2分Then include the connection service access in that combined view, Jamie, since nobody enjoys discovering that replacing a line requires removing the fixture.
3分Have they found a route yet? I would be interested in whether the door or the tool body sets the limit once both are present.
-4分The first complete view shows the tool's rear connection passing through the parked door, not a fingertip problem; moving the base farther out loses the intended pickup approach in their assessment
5分So a bigger reach number alone isn't the answer. Any other position needs the same full assessment. Don't let the rear connection disappear again because someone is now drawing a different robot.
11分We aren't proceeding with this machine-unloading purchase: the two available base positions failed the complete access review and production won't allocate another position; keeping the manual operation is a decision we can actually staff
17分That makes the handover fairly straightforward, keep those rejected positions with their reasons so the next enquiry doesn't spend a fortnight rediscovering the same door.
0分