*_upper_leg_back_contact frames

[traversaro]

@gabrielenava defined and added to the simmechanics generated models the (r/l)_upper_leg_contact frames, that are convenient for experiments in which the robot is sitting on its legs. After a day, I suggest to renamed this frames to *_upper_leg_back_contact to avoid confusion.

These frames work fine, but they have been just committed to the robot models contained in yarp-wholebodyinterface , and I will list here the things that need to be addressed to have them properly integrated in the model generation pipeline.

• [x] Document their location in http://wiki.icub.org/wiki/ICub_Model_naming_conventions#URDF_frames,
• [x] Add them to Creo model committed in the hardware repository and regenerate the shrinkwraps for the upper_leg links and then regenerate the simmechanics xml,
• [x] Commit the generated file in icub-model-generator and regenerated all the URDFs ,
• [ ] ~~Copy the generated models in yarp-wholebodyinterface.~~

cc @DanielePucci

[gabrielenava]

I asked for Mechanical engineers support, and they are aware of this issue and our requirements.

[gabrielenava]

The new iCub model contains also the leg contact frames.

[fiorisi]

Updated the documentation in the wiki. As discussed with @gabrielenava, probably yarp-wholebodyinterface is deprecated, so we can close the issue? Or do we have to copy the models in another location?

[gabrielenava]

related issue: https://github.com/robotology/robotology-superbuild/issues/14

[traversaro]

I noticed that this frames are not present in the iCubNancy01 model, differently from the version manually patched in https://github.com/robotology/yarp-wholebodyinterface/blob/master/app/robots/iCubNancy01/model.urdf . However, I do not know if anyone is using those frames, as the controllers in whole-body-controllers does not seem to support anymore iCubNancy01, at least judging from the configuration files.

[gabrielenava]

Yes, at the moment the torque controllers only support icubGazeboSim, iCubGazeboV2_5, and iCubGenova02/04. The idea was to port from WBIToolbox-Controllers only the bare essentials in order to keep an ordered and maintainable structure of the repo, and then to add other robots/features only if necessary. I think for the moment we can proceed without iCubNancy01 and if necessary we can add it later. Or should we ask to the Nancy lab?

[traversaro]

cc @DanielePucci

[DanielePucci]

If it takes too long time to generate a no-battery-pack model with these new frames, we may take the iCubGenova02/04 are remove some torso mass to generate the iCubNancy01 model, right?

[traversaro]

The Creo-generated model without backpack (such as the iCubDarmstadt01) already contains this models (but at the moment the iCubNancy01 robot is still generated with the dh parameters hardcoded in the code because it uses arv v1). However, the question was if we want to have iCubNancy01 configuration files for the controllers. If we don't, I think we can deal with this model problem when we will work in adding back the configuration files to the controllers.

[fiorisi]

So probably we can close this issue?

[traversaro]

I prefer to solve the iCubNancy01 problem before closing this issue, see also https://github.com/robotology/yarp-wholebodyinterface/issues/89 .