G.A. vd. Hoorn
G.A. vd. Hoorn
@matteolucchi wrote: > I am also struggling with some issues related to the use of the `PositionJointInterface`. I will try to tune the PID params, at least for the UR10...
Oh and I almost forgot: #504. As we actually know the tensors, masses and cogs for all robots, we should use those. Perhaps @fmauch could use some help with that...
> until now @fmauch updated the cog of the UR16e in #504, and this should be replicated for all the other models. Whatever we have for the other variants should...
@ipa-nhg: you moved this to `in progress`. As a discussion item, or are you working on the actual changes needed?
The way this change is implemented would seem to be fully bw-compatible, so we could potentially merge this. The PR does however seem to include e586420c2d85b907351c4d9faf68af531dbdbd91, which is part of...
We could probably simplify the PR quite a bit by making use of Jade+ xacro with default arguments (and then making the `hardwareInterface` value a property). That would probably allow...
@nag92: no, this is just for simulation. UR does not expose a joint torque control interface.
`motoman_driver` has a dependency on `industrial_robot_client`, which should be enough to satisfy the dependency of the support pkgs, but the test is still failing. Leaving open for now, but low-priority,...
This is a relatively trivial thing to add: simply add the `link` to `ur_gazebo/urdf/ur_macro.xacro` and attach it to `tool0` using a `fixed` `joint`.