Revision history [back]

If you're using fanuc_driver (you don't state which package you're using, but I assume it's that one), then it overrides the velocity commands. That's a limitation of that driver.

gavanderhoorn/fanuc_driver_exp tries to do better, and it will not override anything, but motion performance will still not be perfect.

There is a lot of existing Q&A and discussions on the issue tracker of both ros-industrial/fanuc and gavanderhoorn/fanuc_driver_exp which I don't want to repeat here. Summarising: except J519, there is no Fanuc motion interface which allows you to execute trajectories exactly as they are planned on the ROS side. That's both in time and in space. Off-line generation of TP programs based on ROS trajectories is possible (and has been done), but of course comes with its own disadvantages (limited length, programs need to be uploaded, delays before execution, etc).

If you're using fanuc_driver (you don't state which package you're using, but I assume it's that one), then it overrides the velocity commands. That's a limitation of that driver.

gavanderhoorn/fanuc_driver_exp tries to do better, and it will not override anything, but motion performance will still not be perfect.

There is a lot of existing Q&A and discussions discussion on the issue tracker of both ros-industrial/fanuc and gavanderhoorn/fanuc_driver_exp which I don't want to repeat here. Summarising: except J519, there is no Fanuc motion interface which allows you to execute trajectories exactly as they are planned on the ROS side. That's both in time and in space. Off-line generation of TP programs based on ROS trajectories is possible (and has been done), but of course comes with its own disadvantages (limited length, programs need to be uploaded, delays before execution, etc).

If you're using fanuc_driver (you don't state which package you're using, but I assume it's that one), then it overrides the velocity commands. That's a limitation of that driver.

gavanderhoorn/fanuc_driver_exp tries to do better, and it will not override anything, but motion performance will still not be perfect.

There is a lot of existing Q&A and discussion on the issue tracker of both ros-industrial/fanuc and gavanderhoorn/fanuc_driver_exp which I don't want to repeat here. Summarising: except J519, there is no Fanuc motion interface which allows you to execute trajectories exactly as they are planned on the ROS side. That's both in time and in space. Off-line generation of TP programs based on ROS trajectories is possible (and has been done), but of course comes with its own disadvantages (limited length, programs need to be uploaded, delays before execution, etc).

If you're using fanuc_driver (you don't state which package you're using, but I assume it's that one), then it overrides the velocity commands. That's a limitation of that driver.

gavanderhoorn/fanuc_driver_exp tries to do better, and it will not override anything, but motion performance will still not be perfect.

There is a lot of existing Q&A and discussion on the issue tracker of both ros-industrial/fanuc and gavanderhoorn/fanuc_driver_exp which I don't want to repeat here. Summarising: except J519, there is no Fanuc motion interface which allows you to execute trajectories exactly as they are planned on the ROS side. That's both in time and in space. Off-line generation of TP programs based on ROS trajectories is possible (and has been done), but of course comes with its own disadvantages (limited length, programs need to be uploaded, delays before execution, etc).

An alternative could be a driver based on R912 (or Remote Motion Interface, RMI). That would essentially be a "drip-feed" of a TP program. I'm not aware of any publicly available implementation based on R912 though.

And note that again except with J519, you can never actually directly control velocity nor acceleration on a Fanuc. You only ever constrain maximum velocity, and can indirectly set the steepness of the acceleration curve.