https://robodk.com/forum/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:51:47 +0000 MyBB 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: 3)

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: 2)

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

  SawBlade.rdk (Size: 646.93 KB / Downloads: 0) ]]> 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: 3)

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: 2)

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

  SawBlade.rdk (Size: 646.93 KB / Downloads: 0) ]]> 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: 6) ]]>
Thanks!

  uFactory 850 Connection Error.png (Size: 23.28 KB / Downloads: 6) ]]> 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: 3)

  Robotic_Cell_Welding_RDK.png (Size: 67.14 KB / Downloads: 4) ]]> 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: 3)

  Robotic_Cell_Welding_RDK.png (Size: 67.14 KB / Downloads: 4) ]]> 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: 5)

  Screenshot 2026-07-15 at 17.38.05.png (Size: 1.15 MB / Downloads: 5)

  98ACBD7B-9AF8-42D3-A818-9127CE8CD8F4.png (Size: 703.57 KB / Downloads: 6) ]]> 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: 5)

  Screenshot 2026-07-15 at 17.38.05.png (Size: 1.15 MB / Downloads: 5)

  98ACBD7B-9AF8-42D3-A818-9127CE8CD8F4.png (Size: 703.57 KB / Downloads: 6) ]]> 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: 6)

  Testing station V4.rdk (Size: 43.72 MB / Downloads: 6)

  Situation_photos.zip (Size: 8.42 MB / Downloads: 4)

  RDK_problem_demonstration.mp4 (Size: 14.85 MB / Downloads: 4) ]]>
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: 6)

  Testing station V4.rdk (Size: 43.72 MB / Downloads: 6)

  Situation_photos.zip (Size: 8.42 MB / Downloads: 4)

  RDK_problem_demonstration.mp4 (Size: 14.85 MB / Downloads: 4) ]]> 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: 21) ]]>
  98ACBD7B-9AF8-42D3-A818-9127CE8CD8F4.png (Size: 703.57 KB / Downloads: 21) ]]> 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.]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Workspace-of-Flexiv-Rizon-4s Wed, 08 Jul 2026 04:53:04 +0000 Vinoth]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Workspace-of-Flexiv-Rizon-4s
When I tried to visualize the Flexiv Rizon 4s Workspace in RoboDK, the workspace points are scattered rather than a usual visualization of sphere. why is that so?

Please help us to understand.


  Screenshot 2026-07-08 101803.png (Size: 168.38 KB / Downloads: 22) ]]>
When I tried to visualize the Flexiv Rizon 4s Workspace in RoboDK, the workspace points are scattered rather than a usual visualization of sphere. why is that so?

Please help us to understand.


  Screenshot 2026-07-08 101803.png (Size: 168.38 KB / Downloads: 22) ]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Demo-version-limitations Tue, 07 Jul 2026 18:16:01 +0000 repc2026]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Demo-version-limitations
  robodk.png (Size: 148.88 KB / Downloads: 33) ]]>
  robodk.png (Size: 148.88 KB / Downloads: 33) ]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Build-Mechanism-Motion-and-CAD-behavior Mon, 06 Jul 2026 16:02:07 +0000 tdutcher319]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Build-Mechanism-Motion-and-CAD-behavior
Attached are the files I used for testing, and photos of the errors.

  Correct motion and cad v5-8-0.PNG (Size: 254.2 KB / Downloads: 16)

  Mech build settings 5-8-0.PNG (Size: 50.97 KB / Downloads: 22)

  RoboDKV5-8-0.PNG (Size: 34.75 KB / Downloads: 20)

  Mech Build Settings V6-4-0.jpg (Size: 89.64 KB / Downloads: 22)

  V6-4-0 incorrect motion.jpg (Size: 237.86 KB / Downloads: 21)

  V6-4-0.jpg (Size: 34.57 KB / Downloads: 17)

  TonysLE_V5-8-0.rdk (Size: 463.25 KB / Downloads: 22) ]]>
Attached are the files I used for testing, and photos of the errors.

  Correct motion and cad v5-8-0.PNG (Size: 254.2 KB / Downloads: 16)

  Mech build settings 5-8-0.PNG (Size: 50.97 KB / Downloads: 22)

  RoboDKV5-8-0.PNG (Size: 34.75 KB / Downloads: 20)

  Mech Build Settings V6-4-0.jpg (Size: 89.64 KB / Downloads: 22)

  V6-4-0 incorrect motion.jpg (Size: 237.86 KB / Downloads: 21)

  V6-4-0.jpg (Size: 34.57 KB / Downloads: 17)

  TonysLE_V5-8-0.rdk (Size: 463.25 KB / Downloads: 22) ]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Build-Mechanism-Frame-and-Axis-Error Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:38:08 +0000 tdutcher319]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Build-Mechanism-Frame-and-Axis-Error

1. When I create a mechanism, the frame is moved, 1000 in the Y direction for my reference frame. I do not want this frame to move, how do i stop this.
   
2. I am creating a 5 axes (generic) mechanism. I have correctly mapped the axes travel direction and pan/tilt when previewing the unit via update. When I click Ok, and create the unit, my axis travel direction changes.
   

  4-incorrect_axis_after_ok.jpg (Size: 341.62 KB / Downloads: 21)

  3-Mech_w_correct_job_before_ok.jpg (Size: 346.43 KB / Downloads: 22)

  2-Tonys_Build_Mech_Settings.jpg (Size: 128.88 KB / Downloads: 22)

  1-Frame_Movement.jpg (Size: 169.24 KB / Downloads: 27) ]]>

1. When I create a mechanism, the frame is moved, 1000 in the Y direction for my reference frame. I do not want this frame to move, how do i stop this.
   
2. I am creating a 5 axes (generic) mechanism. I have correctly mapped the axes travel direction and pan/tilt when previewing the unit via update. When I click Ok, and create the unit, my axis travel direction changes.
   

  4-incorrect_axis_after_ok.jpg (Size: 341.62 KB / Downloads: 21)

  3-Mech_w_correct_job_before_ok.jpg (Size: 346.43 KB / Downloads: 22)

  2-Tonys_Build_Mech_Settings.jpg (Size: 128.88 KB / Downloads: 22)

  1-Frame_Movement.jpg (Size: 169.24 KB / Downloads: 27) ]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Questions-TCP-XYZ-by-plane-method Tue, 30 Jun 2026 10:23:30 +0000 Vince]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Questions-TCP-XYZ-by-plane-method
I have some questions about the TCP calibration by XYZ plane method. I usually use 4 point method with teaching spikes and the controller's builtin calibration method. In order to improve the calibration I am now using a probe and RoboDK however the I am surprised to see the result is worse.

Should the same point on the plane be touched or should the different postions be as far apart as possible?
When using an ABB robot with AbsAcc should poses or joints be used to feed the calibration data to RoboDK? 

Thank you in advance.
Best]]>
I have some questions about the TCP calibration by XYZ plane method. I usually use 4 point method with teaching spikes and the controller's builtin calibration method. In order to improve the calibration I am now using a probe and RoboDK however the I am surprised to see the result is worse.

Should the same point on the plane be touched or should the different postions be as far apart as possible?
When using an ABB robot with AbsAcc should poses or joints be used to feed the calibration data to RoboDK? 

Thank you in advance.
Best]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Vision-Based-Robot-to-Robot-Needle-Handover-Using-OnRobot-Eyes-Camera Mon, 15 Jun 2026 11:05:22 +0000 Muhammad Faizan Ahmed]]> https://robodk.com/forum/Thread-Vision-Based-Robot-to-Robot-Needle-Handover-Using-OnRobot-Eyes-Camera
I am currently working on a robot-to-robot needle handover project in RoboDK using two JAKA cobots (Zu12 and Zu7). I have attached an OnRobot Eyes camera to the end effector of the Zu12 robot alongside a custom two-finger gripper.

The goal is to perform a synchronized needle handover through a narrow opening. I have already implemented the basic handover sequence using predefined targets and synchronization logic, but I am now exploring vision-based decision making.

My idea is that as Robot A approaches the handover position, the camera monitors Robot B and determines when it has successfully grasped the needle. Only then would Robot A release the needle and move away. Later in the cycle, Robot B would return the needle and Robot A would use vision again to determine when the needle is in a suitable position for re-grasping.

I am also considering a second approach where the camera is mounted above the workcell, providing a top-down view of both robots and the handover area, instead of mounting the camera on the robot itself.

My questions are:

• Is this type of vision-guided robot-to-robot handover possible using the simulated OnRobot Eyes camera in RoboDK?
  
• Would an eye-in-hand setup (camera on the robot) or an overhead camera be more suitable for this application?
  
• Can the simulated camera provide useful depth information for detecting successful grasping and object transfer?
  
• If I want to use machine learning or object detection, can RoboDK be used to generate training data from the simulated camera, or would I need to train and validate using images from the actual OnRobot Eyes camera?
  

I am relatively new to RoboDK and still exploring its vision capabilities, so any guidance, recommendations, or examples would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.]]>
I am currently working on a robot-to-robot needle handover project in RoboDK using two JAKA cobots (Zu12 and Zu7). I have attached an OnRobot Eyes camera to the end effector of the Zu12 robot alongside a custom two-finger gripper.

The goal is to perform a synchronized needle handover through a narrow opening. I have already implemented the basic handover sequence using predefined targets and synchronization logic, but I am now exploring vision-based decision making.

My idea is that as Robot A approaches the handover position, the camera monitors Robot B and determines when it has successfully grasped the needle. Only then would Robot A release the needle and move away. Later in the cycle, Robot B would return the needle and Robot A would use vision again to determine when the needle is in a suitable position for re-grasping.

I am also considering a second approach where the camera is mounted above the workcell, providing a top-down view of both robots and the handover area, instead of mounting the camera on the robot itself.

My questions are:

• Is this type of vision-guided robot-to-robot handover possible using the simulated OnRobot Eyes camera in RoboDK?
  
• Would an eye-in-hand setup (camera on the robot) or an overhead camera be more suitable for this application?
  
• Can the simulated camera provide useful depth information for detecting successful grasping and object transfer?
  
• If I want to use machine learning or object detection, can RoboDK be used to generate training data from the simulated camera, or would I need to train and validate using images from the actual OnRobot Eyes camera?
  

I am relatively new to RoboDK and still exploring its vision capabilities, so any guidance, recommendations, or examples would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.]]>