I based my _macro.xacro on the existing one for the lwr_iiwa_14_r820 and I couldn't figure out how they calculated their joint limits. For example, joint A1 is +/- 170 deg. 170math.pi/180 in python is 2.967, but 2.9668 was listed in the r820 xacro, which does't match 1703.[14159]/180 with any number of digits. Let me know if there is a common convention for digits/accuracy.

As suggested by @gavanderhoorn in #108, you can use Jade+ expressions in these macros such as ${radians(170)} here.

the Kuka manual (pg 13) was confusing. Note their diagram for joint offsets:

Strange indeed... is link_a6 the same regardless of the flange chosen?

Oh, neat. I'll adjust this and #118 with this newfound macros knowledge and await further input on whether things are actually sane... I'll add one more check to the original question on materials/colors.

the Kuka manual (pg 13) was confusing. Note their diagram for joint offsets:

Have you made any progress on this? Maybe ask Kuka? Is there the same issue with the 14? If so I can measure our physical robot as a sanity check but don't have access to a 7...

@BrettHemes Just emailed them the summary of what I see. In doing so, I think it's an error in the manual.

• the iiwa manual on pg 13 (pic above) shows 1266mm from the base_link to the end of link_6. So the total robot should be 1266 + [media flange thickness]. The CAD measures 1266 from base_link to tool_tip.

• I just noticed that the media flange manual has the same drawing on pg 30, but it shows 1266mm from base_link to tool_tip.

I wonder if the media flange drawing is correct (it matches the CAD) and there's a mistake in the regular iiwa manual.

The issue also exists for the 14. Note the iiwa manual definition of the 1306mm dimension:

And here's the media flange manual definition of the same 1306mm dimension:

It can't be 1306mm from the base_link to the end of link_6 and to tool_0.

I emailed Kuka and received a response:

...the Option_Media_Flange_en.pdf book is correct as is shown below. It includes the basic media flange at 1266mm. Notice how this dimension changes when using a touch flange. I have double checked this on an actual robot.

Looking through the media flange options, it looks like joint_a6 to tool_tip is going to be 126 or 152mm depending on the attachment.

Given this, any guidance on allowing the specification of a flange option in the xacro? As-is, the 126mm is hard-coded in, which isn't correct for the bigger media flanges. Alternatively, joint_a6 to joint_a7 will be fixed, and I could define that translation and a last translation from joint_a7 to tool_tip that would be more conducive to passing a flange option to the xacro.

If this is just a single parameter, you could add it with a default value to the macro.

An alternative might be to actually make the flange a separate xacro macro. Seeing as there are so many of them, and they also all have different shapes, that might even make sense. A parameter for the macro modelling the main robot would then determine which of those gets attached.

Or, robot + flange combinations could be provided in separate xacros that just tie two of them together (ie: a simple macro that combines the base robot with a particular media flange). Consumers of the macros would then use the combinations, instead of having to provide an argument.

There are a few xacros of IIWAs available to the ROS community. It might be an idea to see how they approached this.

@gavanderhoorn or @BrettHemes : could either of you nudge me in the right direction on this?

There are a few xacros of IIWAs available to the ROS community.

I'm not sure what's meant by this... search github? Is this a reference to a package repo I'm not aware of? I'm good on the color/materials and have the CAD for the pneumatic touch flange on both the R800 and R820. Once I have a definitive route on setting up the base robot (base_link through link_6) and the media flange, I think both this and #118 will be set.

Two options from above as I understand them:

• xacro that takes an argument for the eef; defaults to, say, the basic flange, and the user can pass the filename of an alternate media flange if desired, which is loaded as a parameter in the main xacro
• same gist, but would provide a convenience xacro that does this automatically; so we have a xacro per eef, and each one combines the base robot template with the respective eef in the background

Votes for either/or, preference for a different way, or suggestion on where the referenced community solutions are so I could take a look there?

This now matches the framework used in the 14_r820. One note is that the new lbr_iiwa_flanges_macro.xacro will require merging... I propose using it to provide the flange macro for both the r800 and r820. If you merge in #118 , I can rebase and add these to it. Technically the flanges might be identical, but I didn't know so I'm treating them separately in their own foo/meshes stack.

Other than that, these are identical now and can be built upon with additional flanges pretty easily.

If the flange meshes are shared (which I imagine they are), I vote for putting these in a shared common folder a la the Agilus series (i.e., meshes/lbr_iiwa/...)

👍, waiting on #118 before working on getting this all wrapped up

Hey guys,
is there something new in this PR and can I help?

@chiliii I think we just need @gavanderhoorn to get enough time to take a look. I did 3 PRs around the same time and they are all sitting.