added support for R900

[fmauch]

This MR contains meshes and URDF for the kr10r900 model. I'm not that much of a meshing pro, which is why the collision meshes might be further reduced. They currently are the convex hull of the real meshes.

[gavanderhoorn]

Hi, thanks for the PR. Contributing a new model like this is always appreciated.

I'll add some high-level comments in a first review.

[BrettHemes]

Also, FYI... I believe the meshes for the KR6r900 (existing) and KR10r900 are the same.

[gavanderhoorn]

If that is the case then they should probably be wholesale re-used.

Connects: #105.

---

Edit: if these robots are the same except for payload, then we may just skip adding this variant and declare the kr10r900 supported via the kr6r900. If joint limits are different, we might really want to look into parameterising these xacro macros using yaml files.

[fmauch]

in fact, after applying the requested changes, the two xacro files are almost identical except for the kr6 one using the legacy DEG2RAD conversion. I'll adapt the kr6 one then and use the macro for the kr10, right?

[gavanderhoorn]

Hm, yes, that does seem like a good way to do this.

Thanks for staying on top of this and iterating.

This does really connect to the discussion in #105.

[fmauch]

now, there is only one macro left shared by the kr6r900 and the kr10r900.

[fmauch]

Hi there, I had a quick look again and I think all from the list has been integrated into the MR. However, the CI pipeline fails as it is being executed on indigo, which doesn't have the radians capability, for example. @gavanderhoorn do you want to have another look?

[gavanderhoorn]

However, the CI pipeline fails as it is being executed on indigo, which doesn't have the radians capability, for example. @gavanderhoorn do you want to have another look?

Could it be that you missed this bullet in the review?

• Don't forget to add --inorder to your load_...launch file.

That would be needed to enable Jade+ xacro functionality.

---

Edit: hm, strange. The launch file does add that, I'll need to check the CI result.

[fmauch]

well, it is the kr6r900-file that fails. And that doesn't have the --inorder notation. I can change it there, as well.

[gavanderhoorn]

well, it is the kr6r900-file that fails. And that doesn't have the --inorder notation. I can change it there, as well.

Ah. I missed that. Yes, that would be required.

[gavanderhoorn]

Is your @fzi.de address not associated with your GH account? The commits are showing up unattributed to @fmauch.

[fmauch]

Is your @fzi.de address not associated with your GH account? The commits are showing up unattributed to @fmauch.

I'll have to check that...

[gavanderhoorn]

Is your @fzi.de address not associated with your GH account? The commits are showing up unattributed to @fmauch.

I'll have to check that...

Would you want to wait with merging this PR until after you've fixed this?

[fmauch]

Yes, I might have to rewrite history... Thank you.

On Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2018 14:07:27 CET G.A. vd. Hoorn wrote:

Is your @fzi.de address not associated with your GH account? The commits are showing up unattributed to @fmauch.> I'll have to check that...

Would you want to wait with merging this PR until after you've fixed this?

[fmauch]

Please merge it as is.

[simonschmeisser]

What's the status on this PR?

[simonschmeisser]

Oh and do you know if there is a difference between KR10 R900-2 and KR10 R900 sixx? Besides color? I'm getting crazy with the Kuka naming schemes!

---

To answer my own question: KR agilus sixx and KR agilus-2 are different series so KR10 R900-2 and KR10 R900 sixx are not equivalent and I'll open a separate PR once I modeled this

[fmauch]

I totally forgot about that one. I just rebased and squashed it. @gavanderhoorn I think, your requested changes are all in, right?