G.A. vd. Hoorn

@Jmeyer1292 changed the license to Apache 2 so licensing would no longer seem to be an issue.

Did you observe the "low performance" that @JeroenDM was complaining about some time ago?

@simonschmeisser wrote: > @gavanderhoorn how do we get started with the migration? We'd need "someone" to extract all the required parameters and/or update/check @JeroenDM's work to extract them from the...

As much as I like extracting the parameters from urdfs -- as it would mean less work for users -- it might be best to actually do the work manually...

Can you describe a bit the way you want to approach this? New packages? A `.yaml` file in the respective robot support pkgs? Something else?

> WIP replace ikfast plugin with opw_kinematics for supported robots > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - Update the `kinematics.yaml` files for the supported robots. > - I can leave the original yaml...

> @gavanderhoorn right now kinematics.yaml is a "standalone" file and we can simply load the file from a robot specific (eg fanuc-experimental) generic (debian)package in the planning_context.launch of a site/project/installation...

Just as an example: I'm essentially suggesting we store these parameters in variant-specific files (from [here](https://github.com/JeroenDM/moveit_opw_kinematics_plugin/blob/2c35b662d0f5e2af4a9cbe0716951e5d894e7a5f/test/kinematics.yaml#L4-L12 )): ```yaml kinematics_solver_geometric_parameters: a1: 0.025 a2: -0.035 b: 0.000 c1: 0.400 c2: 0.315 c3:...

I'll respond to the rest later, but: @JeroenDM wrote: > I have generated parameters for all supported fanuc robots already and tested some of them. could you make those available...

Thanks. I'll take a look when I have some time. --- Edit: > Although the the joint sign convention and offset seems to be the same for most of the...