-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 112
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
Wrong forward kinematics? #115
Comments
Hi @orrkrup, recently we have added kinematics calibration to our product, thus the actual kinematic parameters will be a little different from the nominal DH parameters we provide. The results from If you need to extract the calibrated parameters, please download the following python script and run Inside the yaml file, there is the extracted calibrated parameters of your robot arm. Please note the form will not be DH any more, it is the 6DOF ( |
Thank you, the script works as described. Should I expect these parameters to vary between different Lite 6 robots? Or is this kinematics calibration identical for all Lite 6 instances? |
Calibration parameters are different from any other robot, due to the mechanical part and assembly error are not the same for each arm. |
@penglongxiang We have older and newer Lite 6 robots. The script didn't work on one of the older robots. Could you tell me what S/N have the calibration and which ones don't? |
Hi, The older robots may not do the kinematics calibration, it can't distinguished by SN, you can send the SN to [email protected], and we will help you check. |
I'm using the xArm Lite6, and it seems like I am getting wrong kinematics calculations when calling
get_forward_kinematics()
.For example, if calling
get_forward_kinematics([0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0])
I expect to get the TCP position of (87, 0, 70.6), given the kinematic parameters here, and the TCP offset of 83.6 mm. This can be verified by manual calculation, using the DH parameters (both from the link above and by callingget_dh_parameters()
).However, the API returns (90.1, 0.6, 69.8), which is also what appears on Studio.
Is this a bug in the forward kinematics function? Or is there an inherent offset in the joint angles?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: