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

Update moveit_servo tutorial to release 1.3.x of UR5 #753

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rhaschke
Copy link
Contributor

This attempts to fix #750 in a cleaner way (i.e. actually fix the tutorial).

The UR5 config files have considerably changed since the moveit_servo tutorial was written.
This PR addresses all renamings of files, links, and controllers.

However, it still doesn't work, because the UR repo removed support for the joint_group_position_controller in Gazebo. There is only an effort controller: joint_group_eff_controller. While interface-wise that seems to work (moveit_servo doesn't complain), it eventually fails with:

[ WARN] ros.moveit_servo.servo_calcs: An acceleration limit is not defined for this joint; minimum stop distance should not be used for collision checking
[ WARN] ros.moveit_servo.servo_calcs: Very close to a singularity, emergency stop

Maybe, this is due to the fact that switching controllers from eff_joint_traj_controller to joint_group_eff_controller made the robot fall back to the floor. The robot doesn't maintain its pose!

@AndyZe, @gavanderhoorn, please have a look / comment.

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member

I would suggest @fmauch and/or @RobertWilbrandt actually.

They've taken over / are the main maintainers now.

@AndyZe
Copy link
Member

AndyZe commented Jan 31, 2023

If the UR maintainers can't add support for a Joint Trajectory Controller or a Joint Group Position Controller, then I think we should just merge #750. I wish I had time to update the tutorial properly but I don't.

@gavanderhoorn
Copy link
Member

Maybe give them some time to respond?

@fmauch
Copy link

fmauch commented Jan 31, 2023

The falling robot is actually on our priority ToDo list at the moment. @RobertWilbrandt can say more about this. If it helps I would not see a downside in adding the transmission_interface argument to the ur_gazebo launchfiles and add position-based controllers to the controllers configurations. This way, users could easily choose using position-based controllers if they want to.

@rhaschke
Copy link
Contributor Author

I would not see a downside in adding the transmission_interface argument to the ur_gazebo launchfiles and add position-based controllers to the controllers configurations.

@fmauch: Was this implemented meanwhile?

@fmauch
Copy link

fmauch commented Sep 5, 2024

I would not see a downside in adding the transmission_interface argument to the ur_gazebo launchfiles and add position-based controllers to the controllers configurations.

@fmauch: Was this implemented meanwhile?

I'll check and come back to you tomorrow.

@fmauch
Copy link

fmauch commented Sep 6, 2024

I've made a PR with the relevant changes: ros-industrial/universal_robot#685

With this I can for example start

roslaunch ur_gazebo ur10_bringup.launch transmission_hw_interface:=hardware_interface/PositionJointInterface controllers:=pos_joint_traj_controller stopped_controllers:=joint_group_pos_controller

to get a fully position-controlled robot.

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.

4 participants