https://robodk.com/forum/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:57:31 +0000 MyBB https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Simulating-an-imported-ABB-robot-program Wed, 22 Jul 2026 23:24:53 +0000 HenryInUtah]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Simulating-an-imported-ABB-robot-program I am using RoboDK in a PySide application and have a couple confusing things that I cannot figure out.  The attached station has a couple small tool change paths.  I have exported both of those as *.mod files that are also attached.

I know that I can simulate them in RoboDK as normal, but there are a lot of steps in our process that happen between authoring the paths and simulating them later.

When I use the Python API to import the mod files, it pops up a couple dialog boxes that get in the way and require user input.  I need to suppress those dialog boxes and work around them somehow.  Here are the two dialogs:

  Import Options.png (Size: 11.72 KB / Downloads: 0)


  Import Summary.png (Size: 10.79 KB / Downloads: 4)

The program seems to import perfectly.  However, the API says that the program is not valid.  If I double click the program in the tree it will run as expected.  If I select the program and press F5 it will update the program and the icon returns to "valid".  But if the script tries to use the Update() method on the program it fails.

If you open the station, there is a "Import Robot Program" script that goes through all of these steps.  I hope that you see the same results that I see :)

Does anyone have some suggestions of what I should try?  Or what I am doing wrong - which is more likely.

Thanks,
Henry

---

Sorry - I attached the wrong station.  
Please use this one instead -> Tool Change Development Simplified.rdk

  SpindleApproach.mod (Size: 2.51 KB / Downloads: 1)

  SpindleRetract.mod (Size: 2.06 KB / Downloads: 2)

  Tool Change Development Simplified.rdk (Size: 3.29 MB / Downloads: 2) ]]> I am using RoboDK in a PySide application and have a couple confusing things that I cannot figure out.  The attached station has a couple small tool change paths.  I have exported both of those as *.mod files that are also attached.

I know that I can simulate them in RoboDK as normal, but there are a lot of steps in our process that happen between authoring the paths and simulating them later.

When I use the Python API to import the mod files, it pops up a couple dialog boxes that get in the way and require user input.  I need to suppress those dialog boxes and work around them somehow.  Here are the two dialogs:

  Import Options.png (Size: 11.72 KB / Downloads: 0)


  Import Summary.png (Size: 10.79 KB / Downloads: 4)

The program seems to import perfectly.  However, the API says that the program is not valid.  If I double click the program in the tree it will run as expected.  If I select the program and press F5 it will update the program and the icon returns to "valid".  But if the script tries to use the Update() method on the program it fails.

If you open the station, there is a "Import Robot Program" script that goes through all of these steps.  I hope that you see the same results that I see :)

Does anyone have some suggestions of what I should try?  Or what I am doing wrong - which is more likely.

Thanks,
Henry

---

Sorry - I attached the wrong station.  
Please use this one instead -> Tool Change Development Simplified.rdk

  SpindleApproach.mod (Size: 2.51 KB / Downloads: 1)

  SpindleRetract.mod (Size: 2.06 KB / Downloads: 2)

  Tool Change Development Simplified.rdk (Size: 3.29 MB / Downloads: 2) ]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Add-KUKA-KR210-R3100-2 Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:42:23 +0000 ALEJANDRO]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Add-KUKA-KR210-R3100-2   Screenshot 2026-07-22 113123.jpeg (Size: 53.21 KB / Downloads: 7)
I have noticed that none of the robot models in the RoboDK library match our KR 210 R3100-2 DH parameters. 
I have followed the instructions to model it ourself but we cannot find a way to save the robot itself as a .robot to a local library to be used in other stations

Also, It might be better to simplify the robot geometry further to ease the collision checking computation or, as it is done on the Gazebo simulator, add an additional fully simplified mesh just for collision checking

I am attaching my robot station for you to compare

  KUKA KR 210 R3100-2.rdk (Size: 9.86 MB / Downloads: 4)

  lvPkvE3faa56CD1wmZyD (2).pdf (Size: 497.65 KB / Downloads: 5) ]]>   Screenshot 2026-07-22 113123.jpeg (Size: 53.21 KB / Downloads: 7)
I have noticed that none of the robot models in the RoboDK library match our KR 210 R3100-2 DH parameters. 
I have followed the instructions to model it ourself but we cannot find a way to save the robot itself as a .robot to a local library to be used in other stations

Also, It might be better to simplify the robot geometry further to ease the collision checking computation or, as it is done on the Gazebo simulator, add an additional fully simplified mesh just for collision checking

I am attaching my robot station for you to compare

  KUKA KR 210 R3100-2.rdk (Size: 9.86 MB / Downloads: 4)

  lvPkvE3faa56CD1wmZyD (2).pdf (Size: 497.65 KB / Downloads: 5) ]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Alternative-way-to-obtain-all-IK-solutions-for-FANUC-CRX-10iA Wed, 22 Jul 2026 04:48:08 +0000 Shigeaki Takatsu]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Alternative-way-to-obtain-all-IK-solutions-for-FANUC-CRX-10iA
I am using a FANUC CRX-10iA with RoboDK 5.6.7.

I found the existing forum threads explaining that multiple configurations are
not currently supported for FANUC CRX robots.

I would like to know whether there is any alternative way to obtain all valid
inverse-kinematics solutions for a given Cartesian pose.

In my test, SolveIK_All() returns only one solution.

However, I confirmed that another valid joint posture exists for exactly the
same Cartesian pose. I verified this using SolveFK(), and the pose difference
was effectively zero.

I also tried SolveIK() with the other valid joint posture provided as
joints_approx, but RoboDK still returned the same single solution.

Is there any alternative API, solver, robot model setting, or recommended
method to obtain all valid IK solutions for the CRX-10iA?

Thank you.]]>
I am using a FANUC CRX-10iA with RoboDK 5.6.7.

I found the existing forum threads explaining that multiple configurations are
not currently supported for FANUC CRX robots.

I would like to know whether there is any alternative way to obtain all valid
inverse-kinematics solutions for a given Cartesian pose.

In my test, SolveIK_All() returns only one solution.

However, I confirmed that another valid joint posture exists for exactly the
same Cartesian pose. I verified this using SolveFK(), and the pose difference
was effectively zero.

I also tried SolveIK() with the other valid joint posture provided as
joints_approx, but RoboDK still returned the same single solution.

Is there any alternative API, solver, robot model setting, or recommended
method to obtain all valid IK solutions for the CRX-10iA?

Thank you.]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Curve-Following-example Tue, 21 Jul 2026 07:36:04 +0000 ALEJANDRO]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Curve-Following-example we are currently learning how the curve following module works for blade cutting. 

We want to cut a rectangle with a blade meaning the toolpath need to retract and reorient between cuts. We have tinkered with the curve following parameters a bit to see if this is possible but the generated path is not wat we intended.

  Screenshot 2026-07-21 092807.png (Size: 45.97 KB / Downloads: 11)

We managed to edit the generated path instructions so that it behaves as intended but this is not feasible for more complex paths.

  Screenshot 2026-07-21 093337.png (Size: 59.34 KB / Downloads: 13)

Is there a way to generate the toolpath automatically just by tweaking the curve following project parameters?

  SawBlade.rdk (Size: 646.93 KB / Downloads: 4) ]]> we are currently learning how the curve following module works for blade cutting. 

We want to cut a rectangle with a blade meaning the toolpath need to retract and reorient between cuts. We have tinkered with the curve following parameters a bit to see if this is possible but the generated path is not wat we intended.

  Screenshot 2026-07-21 092807.png (Size: 45.97 KB / Downloads: 11)

We managed to edit the generated path instructions so that it behaves as intended but this is not feasible for more complex paths.

  Screenshot 2026-07-21 093337.png (Size: 59.34 KB / Downloads: 13)

Is there a way to generate the toolpath automatically just by tweaking the curve following project parameters?

  SawBlade.rdk (Size: 646.93 KB / Downloads: 4) ]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-How-do-I-update-the-XarmAPI-version-used-in-RoboDK Mon, 20 Jul 2026 19:25:51 +0000 jheimann]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-How-do-I-update-the-XarmAPI-version-used-in-RoboDK https://github.com/xArm-Developer/xArm-Python-SDK).  I need to update this to version 1.18.0 (latest version).  The reason for this is my gripper I have (uFactory Gripper G2) is not supported in the 1.15 version, but only from 1.16 and above.

Also, I can't seem to get my custom gripper I created (mechanism model mechanism) to work right.  It works fine in the animation, but it will not actually open or close on the robot.  When I open the gripper to 80 (0 is closed) the robot joint 1 moves 80 and the gripper does nothing.

How do I get this custom 2 finger gripper I created to actually run on the robot?  Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!]]> https://github.com/xArm-Developer/xArm-Python-SDK).  I need to update this to version 1.18.0 (latest version).  The reason for this is my gripper I have (uFactory Gripper G2) is not supported in the 1.15 version, but only from 1.16 and above.

Also, I can't seem to get my custom gripper I created (mechanism model mechanism) to work right.  It works fine in the animation, but it will not actually open or close on the robot.  When I open the gripper to 80 (0 is closed) the robot joint 1 moves 80 and the gripper does nothing.

How do I get this custom 2 finger gripper I created to actually run on the robot?  Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Cannot-connect-to-uFactory-850-Robot Mon, 20 Jul 2026 19:09:48 +0000 jheimann]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Cannot-connect-to-uFactory-850-Robot
Thanks!

  uFactory 850 Connection Error.png (Size: 23.28 KB / Downloads: 10) ]]>
Thanks!

  uFactory 850 Connection Error.png (Size: 23.28 KB / Downloads: 10) ]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Guidance-on-PLC-Integration-and-Robot-Control-in-RoboDK Mon, 20 Jul 2026 10:12:44 +0000 pritesh]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Guidance-on-PLC-Integration-and-Robot-Control-in-RoboDK
My objective is to build a complete simulation where the PLC communicates with RoboDK, exchanges input/output signals, and controls the robot's movements and program execution in real time.
I would appreciate your guidance on the following:

• How to connect a PLC with RoboDK.
  
• Supported communication protocols (such as EtherNet/IP, PROFINET, Modbus TCP, OPC UA, etc.).
  
• How to configure communication between the PLC and RoboDK.
  
• How to send and receive I/O signals.
  
• How to control robot movements and execute robot programs using PLC logic.
  
• Any documentation, tutorials, sample projects, or training resources that explain the complete workflow from start to finish.
  

I am eager to learn the entire setup and would greatly appreciate any recommendations or learning materials you can provide.]]>
My objective is to build a complete simulation where the PLC communicates with RoboDK, exchanges input/output signals, and controls the robot's movements and program execution in real time.
I would appreciate your guidance on the following:

• How to connect a PLC with RoboDK.
  
• Supported communication protocols (such as EtherNet/IP, PROFINET, Modbus TCP, OPC UA, etc.).
  
• How to configure communication between the PLC and RoboDK.
  
• How to send and receive I/O signals.
  
• How to control robot movements and execute robot programs using PLC logic.
  
• Any documentation, tutorials, sample projects, or training resources that explain the complete workflow from start to finish.
  

I am eager to learn the entire setup and would greatly appreciate any recommendations or learning materials you can provide.]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Welding-CFP-axis-optimisation-collision-questions Fri, 17 Jul 2026 16:02:51 +0000 Arno.Klocke_Estia]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Welding-CFP-axis-optimisation-collision-questions First of all thank you so much for the RoboDK software it's the best OLP software I have ever tried ! 
I am working on a project that aims to weld bicycle frames in France. 
I am having trouble with finding all the right parameters for Curve follow project and external axis optimization, but I think I have found the right proportion for the welding path I want to achieve. 
My problem comes from the avoid collision algorithm for which there is a +-180 degrees on the Z axis of the tool. 
You will find attached the RDK file with the cell.

The first CFP which does exactly what I need, great algorith with the weight by the way very intuitive !
The second CFP which should avoir collisions turning the tool +-180 degrees and doesnt converge to a solution. 

The third is a manual program I did using joints target from the first CFP programm and manually adjusting the orientation of the torch on the last points to avoid collision. 

Is there something I have done wrong in the parameters ? Did I not understand what avoid collisions does ? Is there a better way to achieve the result from the 3rd program ? 
I would love to have your insights and advice on this problematic ! 
Thank you so much 
Arno Klocke

  Cellule_MILC_17_07.rdk (Size: 25.51 MB / Downloads: 15)

  Robotic_Cell_Welding_RDK.png (Size: 67.14 KB / Downloads: 8) ]]> First of all thank you so much for the RoboDK software it's the best OLP software I have ever tried ! 
I am working on a project that aims to weld bicycle frames in France. 
I am having trouble with finding all the right parameters for Curve follow project and external axis optimization, but I think I have found the right proportion for the welding path I want to achieve. 
My problem comes from the avoid collision algorithm for which there is a +-180 degrees on the Z axis of the tool. 
You will find attached the RDK file with the cell.

The first CFP which does exactly what I need, great algorith with the weight by the way very intuitive !
The second CFP which should avoir collisions turning the tool +-180 degrees and doesnt converge to a solution. 

The third is a manual program I did using joints target from the first CFP programm and manually adjusting the orientation of the torch on the last points to avoid collision. 

Is there something I have done wrong in the parameters ? Did I not understand what avoid collisions does ? Is there a better way to achieve the result from the 3rd program ? 
I would love to have your insights and advice on this problematic ! 
Thank you so much 
Arno Klocke

  Cellule_MILC_17_07.rdk (Size: 25.51 MB / Downloads: 15)

  Robotic_Cell_Welding_RDK.png (Size: 67.14 KB / Downloads: 8) ]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Request-for-Update-robot-kinematics-function-to-be-added-for-Techman Thu, 16 Jul 2026 02:58:51 +0000 westonl]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Request-for-Update-robot-kinematics-function-to-be-added-for-Techman
https://robodk.com/doc/en/Robots-Univers...atics.html

Could a similar feature please be added for Techman robots, so the Techman factory calibration is reflected in RoboDK and I can program offline more accurately?]]>
https://robodk.com/doc/en/Robots-Univers...atics.html

Could a similar feature please be added for Techman robots, so the Techman factory calibration is reflected in RoboDK and I can program offline more accurately?]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Variable-speed-of-movement-for-non-planar-3D-printing Wed, 15 Jul 2026 14:39:30 +0000 concretebox]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Variable-speed-of-movement-for-non-planar-3D-printing I attache the input data what we had as initial curve and what we got when we have 3D printed it MANUALLY changing the speed from 250 mm/s (where you see 10 mm thick layers) to 500 mm/s where you see 4 mm thick layers. The transition is not even because we just pressed the button 50% of initial speed on the FlexPendant :)) 
Any ideas, help is appreciated.

  Screenshot 2026-07-15 at 17.37.49.png (Size: 1.31 MB / Downloads: 12)

  Screenshot 2026-07-15 at 17.38.05.png (Size: 1.15 MB / Downloads: 9)

  98ACBD7B-9AF8-42D3-A818-9127CE8CD8F4.png (Size: 703.57 KB / Downloads: 11) ]]> I attache the input data what we had as initial curve and what we got when we have 3D printed it MANUALLY changing the speed from 250 mm/s (where you see 10 mm thick layers) to 500 mm/s where you see 4 mm thick layers. The transition is not even because we just pressed the button 50% of initial speed on the FlexPendant :)) 
Any ideas, help is appreciated.

  Screenshot 2026-07-15 at 17.37.49.png (Size: 1.31 MB / Downloads: 12)

  Screenshot 2026-07-15 at 17.38.05.png (Size: 1.15 MB / Downloads: 9)

  98ACBD7B-9AF8-42D3-A818-9127CE8CD8F4.png (Size: 703.57 KB / Downloads: 11) ]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Student-License-Request Wed, 15 Jul 2026 07:18:27 +0000 ameskouk.hassan]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Student-License-Request My name is Hassan, and I am a student at ENSET Mohammedia. I am currently working on a robotics solution for Azura as my internship project, and I really like how RoboDK provides all the tools needed to make this work so easy.
However, my 30-day free trial has ended, and I would like to ask if you offer free educational licenses for students.
Thank you,]]> My name is Hassan, and I am a student at ENSET Mohammedia. I am currently working on a robotics solution for Azura as my internship project, and I really like how RoboDK provides all the tools needed to make this work so easy.
However, my 30-day free trial has ended, and I would like to ask if you offer free educational licenses for students.
Thank you,]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Discrepancy-with-nominal-model-problems-importing-factory-calibration Wed, 15 Jul 2026 03:16:46 +0000 westonl]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Discrepancy-with-nominal-model-problems-importing-factory-calibration
This situation is captured in the RDK file I attached, and my goal is to make the RoboDK flange position and TMFlow flange position as close as possible.

Joint position (same for both RoboDK and TMFlow controller):
[3.530000, 19.860000, 134.880000, 27.370000, -88.410000, -179.450000]

RoboDK end flange position:
[377.529, -128.543, 51.950, 92.109, -0.491, 91.921] 

TMFlow controller end flange position:
[376.04, -129.14, 50.51, 92.49, -0.89, 91.95]

How could it be that the joints are the same, but the end flange positions are so different? I estimated that the discrepancy was because of the difference in DH parameters. When they make the robot, Techman does a factory calibration so their simulation in TMFlow is accurate. So, my goal is to have a model representative of this factory calibration in RoboDK.

To start I used the command "get kinematic signature" while connecting to the robot, which produced the following:

D_Theta,D_Alpha,D_a,D_d,D_Beta
Joint 1: 0.0000404,0.0179395,0.0165720,0.0000000,-0.0000246
Joint 2: 0.0733208,0.0259537,0.0041697,-0.0224419,-0.0247371
Joint 3: 0.2353199,0.1616824,0.0040169,-0.0224523,-0.0232760
Joint 4: -0.0959575,0.0439753,-0.1085193,-0.0224715,-0.0962841
Joint 5: 0.0340569,-0.0535858,0.0452030,-0.0297354,0.0338707
Joint 6: 0.3494795,0.2145668,-0.0680398,-0.0248465,0.2242535

But wait, what is this D_Beta term?? The table in RoboDK only has the usual four DH parameters, and the D_Beta term seems significant. I couldn't find any documentation about this term online, so I went to other methods for representing the factory calibration - if anyone knows how I can easily put this Delta_DH table into RoboDK in its entirety, please let me know.

My next goal was to get a URDF/.xacro that I could import using RoboDK's "Import URDF" app.

The first step was getting my specific robot's URDF. I achieved this using Techman's dedicated github repo, which provided me with a step by step guide. The end result of this was both a .URDF and .URDF.xacro, both of which I have attached as a zip. I have had success importing the .xacro and selecting the tm_description folder when prompted.

However, this is where my progress has halted. I expected the .xacro to import the full robot, in a working state but it imported the TM7S in separate links (1000x too big at first due to meter to mm conversion so I applied a 0.001 scale XD ). 

When I tried making them into a "collaborative robot" mechanism, it did not achieve similarity to the TMFlow numbers (seen above in colour, the current state of the RDK mechanism in the RDK file demonstrates those joint angles so you can see it is not correct). I used as many of the factory-calibrated values from inspecting the .xacro as the mechanism builder would allow, but still there is a discrepancy.

When I tried rotating each of the joints, I can see that they haven't been joined correctly as they wiggle. I have attached a video of me rotating the joints to demonstrate this. My best guess would be that this discrepancy is closely related to the "D_Beta" values, as the value of D_Beta goes up for each joint which is what is observed in the video I sent. 

Does anyone have experience with getting a factory calibrated model into RoboDK? Would it be possible to have a robot created using my URDF?

***Further research indicates this could be fixed by adding another term onto the end of the current transformation matrix - to the best of my knowledge a usual joint transformation matrix is:
T = Rz(theta) * Tz(d) * Tx(a) * Rx(alpha)
And according to Techman directly, "The D_Beta means “Compensation value for rotation about the y-direction for each axis”."
So this would mean that the joint transformation matrix could be:
T = Rz(theta) * Tz(d) * Tx(a) * Rx(alpha) * Ry(Beta)

Does that make sense? Is that correct? Would it be possible to implement this into RoboDK lickety-split so my boss doesn't fire me? Let me know in the comments below!

---

I would attach the latest version of my RDK station here, but I got the following error:

There has been an error due to your post data being empty. This could be due to a browser page refresh or direct access to this page. We recommend you press the browser back button and begin again.

So I uploaded it to a file sharing service, here is the link:
https://limewire.com/d/sbdDL#AkPJi6HldD

  URDF and xacro.zip (Size: 7.09 MB / Downloads: 10)

  Testing station V4.rdk (Size: 43.72 MB / Downloads: 12)

  Situation_photos.zip (Size: 8.42 MB / Downloads: 10)

  RDK_problem_demonstration.mp4 (Size: 14.85 MB / Downloads: 12) ]]>
This situation is captured in the RDK file I attached, and my goal is to make the RoboDK flange position and TMFlow flange position as close as possible.

Joint position (same for both RoboDK and TMFlow controller):
[3.530000, 19.860000, 134.880000, 27.370000, -88.410000, -179.450000]

RoboDK end flange position:
[377.529, -128.543, 51.950, 92.109, -0.491, 91.921] 

TMFlow controller end flange position:
[376.04, -129.14, 50.51, 92.49, -0.89, 91.95]

How could it be that the joints are the same, but the end flange positions are so different? I estimated that the discrepancy was because of the difference in DH parameters. When they make the robot, Techman does a factory calibration so their simulation in TMFlow is accurate. So, my goal is to have a model representative of this factory calibration in RoboDK.

To start I used the command "get kinematic signature" while connecting to the robot, which produced the following:

D_Theta,D_Alpha,D_a,D_d,D_Beta
Joint 1: 0.0000404,0.0179395,0.0165720,0.0000000,-0.0000246
Joint 2: 0.0733208,0.0259537,0.0041697,-0.0224419,-0.0247371
Joint 3: 0.2353199,0.1616824,0.0040169,-0.0224523,-0.0232760
Joint 4: -0.0959575,0.0439753,-0.1085193,-0.0224715,-0.0962841
Joint 5: 0.0340569,-0.0535858,0.0452030,-0.0297354,0.0338707
Joint 6: 0.3494795,0.2145668,-0.0680398,-0.0248465,0.2242535

But wait, what is this D_Beta term?? The table in RoboDK only has the usual four DH parameters, and the D_Beta term seems significant. I couldn't find any documentation about this term online, so I went to other methods for representing the factory calibration - if anyone knows how I can easily put this Delta_DH table into RoboDK in its entirety, please let me know.

My next goal was to get a URDF/.xacro that I could import using RoboDK's "Import URDF" app.

The first step was getting my specific robot's URDF. I achieved this using Techman's dedicated github repo, which provided me with a step by step guide. The end result of this was both a .URDF and .URDF.xacro, both of which I have attached as a zip. I have had success importing the .xacro and selecting the tm_description folder when prompted.

However, this is where my progress has halted. I expected the .xacro to import the full robot, in a working state but it imported the TM7S in separate links (1000x too big at first due to meter to mm conversion so I applied a 0.001 scale XD ). 

When I tried making them into a "collaborative robot" mechanism, it did not achieve similarity to the TMFlow numbers (seen above in colour, the current state of the RDK mechanism in the RDK file demonstrates those joint angles so you can see it is not correct). I used as many of the factory-calibrated values from inspecting the .xacro as the mechanism builder would allow, but still there is a discrepancy.

When I tried rotating each of the joints, I can see that they haven't been joined correctly as they wiggle. I have attached a video of me rotating the joints to demonstrate this. My best guess would be that this discrepancy is closely related to the "D_Beta" values, as the value of D_Beta goes up for each joint which is what is observed in the video I sent. 

Does anyone have experience with getting a factory calibrated model into RoboDK? Would it be possible to have a robot created using my URDF?

***Further research indicates this could be fixed by adding another term onto the end of the current transformation matrix - to the best of my knowledge a usual joint transformation matrix is:
T = Rz(theta) * Tz(d) * Tx(a) * Rx(alpha)
And according to Techman directly, "The D_Beta means “Compensation value for rotation about the y-direction for each axis”."
So this would mean that the joint transformation matrix could be:
T = Rz(theta) * Tz(d) * Tx(a) * Rx(alpha) * Ry(Beta)

Does that make sense? Is that correct? Would it be possible to implement this into RoboDK lickety-split so my boss doesn't fire me? Let me know in the comments below!

---

I would attach the latest version of my RDK station here, but I got the following error:

There has been an error due to your post data being empty. This could be due to a browser page refresh or direct access to this page. We recommend you press the browser back button and begin again.

So I uploaded it to a file sharing service, here is the link:
https://limewire.com/d/sbdDL#AkPJi6HldD

  URDF and xacro.zip (Size: 7.09 MB / Downloads: 10)

  Testing station V4.rdk (Size: 43.72 MB / Downloads: 12)

  Situation_photos.zip (Size: 8.42 MB / Downloads: 10)

  RDK_problem_demonstration.mp4 (Size: 14.85 MB / Downloads: 12) ]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Controlling-RG6-gripper-using-digital-output-command Mon, 13 Jul 2026 22:19:56 +0000 Muhammad Faizan Ahmed]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Controlling-RG6-gripper-using-digital-output-command
I'm currently controlling Jaka Zu7 using Python script, running directly in RoboDK. Now, I want to control the OnRobot RG6 gripper which is attached to the robot. I tried to use the following command but it did not work.

Command: robot.setDO(0,1) # first value represents the digital ouput while second shows the control value

I also tried program.setDO(0,1) command and program = RDK.AddProgram(ProgramName) but it also did not work. Kindly guide me how can I control the gripper using python code. Looking forward to hearing from you all. Thank you]]>
I'm currently controlling Jaka Zu7 using Python script, running directly in RoboDK. Now, I want to control the OnRobot RG6 gripper which is attached to the robot. I tried to use the following command but it did not work.

Command: robot.setDO(0,1) # first value represents the digital ouput while second shows the control value

I also tried program.setDO(0,1) command and program = RDK.AddProgram(ProgramName) but it also did not work. Kindly guide me how can I control the gripper using python code. Looking forward to hearing from you all. Thank you]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Nonplanar-Curve-Follow-Project Sun, 12 Jul 2026 15:14:38 +0000 concretebox]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Nonplanar-Curve-Follow-Project
  98ACBD7B-9AF8-42D3-A818-9127CE8CD8F4.png (Size: 703.57 KB / Downloads: 25) ]]>
  98ACBD7B-9AF8-42D3-A818-9127CE8CD8F4.png (Size: 703.57 KB / Downloads: 25) ]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-curve-follow-project--8931 Wed, 08 Jul 2026 17:08:27 +0000 weisseran]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-curve-follow-project--8931 I opened the STEP file in another CAD software and was able to see the line.
I tried many configurations of Tool- Options- CAD/Display but still nothing shown.]]> I opened the STEP file in another CAD software and was able to see the line.
I tried many configurations of Tool- Options- CAD/Display but still nothing shown.]]>