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

Introducing Gazebo support for Staubli TX90 family #6

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Introducing Gazebo support for Staubli TX90 family #6

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

MuriloMartins
Copy link

Adding Gazebo-related files to simulate the Staubli TX90 family.

Please note that this PR depends on PR #5 .

@MuriloMartins
Copy link
Author

@gavanderhoorn I split the old PR into two PRs.

I got things a bit muddled up, but I think it looks tidy now...
(I need to tidy up our fork now)

<!-- Gazebo-specific link properties -->
<gazebo reference="${prefix}base_link">
<material>Gazebo/Yellow</material>
<turnGravityOff>true</turnGravityOff>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We may have discussed this before, but why is turnGravityOff set to true here?

@MuriloMartins
Copy link
Author

I cannot remember exactly (it is disabled in the xacro files for the RX160 models).

I vaguely remember something related to testing, perhaps before I had the masses, coms, and inertia matrices from SolidWorks.

@MuriloMartins
Copy link
Author

@gavanderhoorn leave it consistent with RX160 models for now?

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member

Yes, that would make sense for now.

<launch>
<arg name="paused" default="false"/>
<arg name="gui" default="true"/>
<arg name="remap" default="false"/>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just wondering: should we perhaps rename this argument to something like rosi_compat or rosind_compat?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sounds good!
Shall we do that for the RX160 family too?
I'll address this soon-ish.

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member

@MuriloMartins: did you still want to make some changes to this PR?

If not, I can merge it in manually, as I've done with #5.

@MuriloMartins
Copy link
Author

Hi @gavanderhoorn !
No I don't have any changes in mind for this PR at the moment.
Perhaps just renaming the argument... would it be OK to keep this as it is and then I can rename the argument for both TX90 and RX160 families on a separate PR (to keep both robot models consistent)?

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member

@MuriloMartins wrote:

Perhaps just renaming the argument... would it be OK to keep this as it is and then I can rename the argument for both TX90 and RX160 families on a separate PR (to keep both robot models consistent)?

yes, that makes sense. See #7.

I'll put this PR on my merge-TODO list then.

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member

@MuriloMartins: just merged this manually (to resolve the conflicts after I merged #5). See 5d12ff4.

Thanks again for contributing, much appreciated :).

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants