You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The ABB server side(rapid) driver(abb_common) sometimes takes a long time to
execute the first trajectory point. This occurs because the joint trajectory
action node (industrial_robot_client) tolerance for a finished motion is 0.01
radians. When the joint trajectory action node reports the motion as finished,
the last reported joint position is taken as the beginning of the next motion.
On subsequent motions, the initial point differs from the true end of the last
motion by more than 0.002 radians (or 0.1 degrees) as hard coded in the ABB
server. Because the move duration is set to zero for the first point, the
robot interprets the first motion as a really slow move (there's probably more
explanation but I don't know what it is).
A workaround to this is to override the joint trajectory action in the launch
file as follows:
<node pkg="industrial_robot_client" type="joint_trajectory_action"
name="joint_trajectory_action_server" output="screen">
<param name="constraints/goal_threshold" value="0.001"/>
</node>
Original issue reported on code.google.com by shaun.ed...@gmail.com on 23 Feb 2013 at 1:41
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
A possible fix to this problem is to simply implement the robot status message
that reports the motion state. The joint trajectory action is already set up
to to use the robot status to determine the end of a move by default (when this
message isn't published the method looks for a close enough distance).
Original comment by shaun.ed...@gmail.com on 23 Feb 2013 at 1:44
That's a good short-term solution.
I think the "better" fix long-term is to correct how we calculate the motion
durations. See issue 38 for more details.
Original comment by jz...@swri.org on 25 Feb 2013 at 4:01
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
shaun.ed...@gmail.com
on 23 Feb 2013 at 1:41The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: