Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

corrected dimensions and positions of inertias #426

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 2, 2019

Conversation

fmauch
Copy link
Contributor

@fmauch fmauch commented May 29, 2019

I'm by far not an expert in working with gazebo or inertias, but it seemed wrong to me:

  • The upper arm inertia of the ur10 is not centered in the visual arm segment
  • CoM in the wrist links don't sit inside the correct links. E.g. wrist1 has its CoM inside the end of the forearm for all robots.
  • Because of the second point the inertia's geometry of wrist3 is matching wrist2 instead of the actual moving part of wrist3.
  • Wrist dimensions of ur5 were completely off.
  • On the ur5e the arm inertias weren't centered in the visuals.

I'm by far not an expert in working with gazebo or inertias, but it seemed wrong to me:

- The upper arm inertia of the ur10 is not centered in the visual arm segment
- CoM in the wrist links don't sit inside the correct links. E.g. wrist1 has its CoM inside the end of the forearm for all robots.
- Because of the second point the inertia's geometry of wrist3 is matching wrist2 instead of the actual moving part of wrist3.
- Wrist dimensions of ur5 were completely off.
- On the ur5e the arm inertias weren't centered in the visuals.
@fmauch fmauch mentioned this pull request Jun 3, 2019
Copy link
Member

@miguelprada miguelprada left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure how meaningful these changes are, since the UR simulation only exposes a position interface which should mostly disregard the inertial parameters.

This anyways seems somewhat better than before, so I'd vote for a merge so we can move forward to #414, which is actually quite important.

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member

@miguelprada wrote:

Not sure how meaningful these changes are, since the UR simulation only exposes a position interface which should mostly disregard the inertial parameters.

true, but moving to effort controllers is on (my personal) todo/wish-list, so this would be important.

@gavanderhoorn gavanderhoorn merged commit 4dc0549 into ros-industrial:kinetic-devel Jul 2, 2019
@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the PR @fmauch 👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants