Revision history [back]

Do you need synchronised motion between the two MH5s?

Based on your answer to this, there will be two comparable, but slightly different answers (note: I'm assuming you want to use motoman_driver, if not, please clarify your question or ignore my answer):

1. If synchronised motion is not required: you don't need to connect them to the same FS100.

   As to the motoman_driver setup (I assume you're going to use that): you can run two instances of the driver in separate ROS namespaces. Each motoman_driver instance would connect separately to each FS100. You would get two FollowJointTrajectory action servers, one for each controller.

2. If synchronised motion is required: you should probably connect them to the same FS100 and configure them as two motion groups on the controller.

   There would be a single motoman_driver instance that connects to the controller. No ROS namespaces would be necessary. You would see three FollowJointTrajectory action servers: one for each motion group and one for the combination of all joints. Sending trajectories to the per-group action server would result in async motion (ie: each manipulator is controlled individually). Sending trajectories to the "whole robot" action server would result in synchronised motion across all joints.

Do you need synchronised motion between the two MH5s?

Based on your answer to this, there will be two comparable, but slightly different answers (note: I'm assuming you want to use motoman_driver, if not, please clarify your question or ignore my answer):

1. If synchronised motion is not required: you don't need to connect them to the same FS100.

   As to the motoman_driver setup (I assume you're going to use that): you can setup: you run two two instances of the driver in separate ROS namespaces. Each motoman_driver instance would connect separately to each FS100. You would get two FollowJointTrajectory action servers, one for each controller.

2. If synchronised motion is required: you should probably connect them to the same FS100 and configure them as two motion groups on the controller.

   There would be a single single motoman_driver instance that connects to the controller. No ROS namespaces would be necessary. You would see three FollowJointTrajectory action servers: one for each motion group and one for the combination of all joints. Sending trajectories to the per-group action server would result in async motion (ie: each manipulator is controlled individually). Sending trajectories to the "whole robot" action server would result in synchronised motion across all joints.