It took them a long, long time to bring it to market. They were showing it at the Hobby show last Fall, and have had it displayed at RoboSpot for months.
IMHO, it's nice, though I still can't get past the robo-cat face image of the body.
Quote:
I wonder if this will fit on the khr-1HV also, or if something is in the works...
You might be able to hack it to fit, though the geometry is different. If you're going to go to that much trouble, then it might be more effective (and satisfying) to roll your own the way a lot of the builders here have. The KHR Perfect book by Iwaki and Ishii has lots of good examples and explains the techniques they use. _________________ ---------------------
Latest robotic news, information, reviews, hacks, photos, and videos - with special onsite coverage from Japan
http://www.robots-dreams.com
Joined: 19 Jan 2007 Posts: 153 Location: West Mids, United Kingdom
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:30 pm Post subject:
The KHR-1 and KHR-2HV are very different, the mods would be extensive...
The KHR-1HV has a different leg geometry to the 2HV so the lower legs covers would require changing, also the abdomen of KHR-1HV is must deeper as it has rotated and upgraded servos in the shoulder.
It would be too much of a hack to get it to fit nicely.
On the other hand, I think its the Manoi that has essentially the same construction as a 1HV and its body shells would be much less of a hack
##EDIT##
Just checked something in 2HV to 1HV, Legs are more or less same geometry, the rotatong hips wouldnt be a problem as the leg shells dont cover that area, the arms though are different as they are longer. Still the chest depth would be an issue.
The KHR-1 and KHR-2HV are very different, the mods would be extensive...
The KHR-1 and KHR-2HV geometry is very close - to the point that a KHR-1 upgraded to the RCB3 controller can run KHR-2HV motion sequences with just a minimum of conversion.
The KHR-1HV is a totally different kettle of fish - as you pointed out.
Quote:
The KHR-1HV has a different leg geometry to the 2HV so the lower legs covers would require changing, also the abdomen of KHR-1HV is must deeper as it has rotated and upgraded servos in the shoulder.
It would be too much of a hack to get it to fit nicely.
Exactly.
Quote:
On the other hand, I think its the Manoi that has essentially the same construction as a 1HV and its body shells would be much less of a hack
I'm not sure whether that's true or not. The AT01 uses KRS-4024SHV servos in all positions, so the frame dimensions are different. And the KHR-1HV has the additional hip servos. I think that would require having to hack the parts that attach the shells to the frame quite a bit. _________________ ---------------------
Latest robotic news, information, reviews, hacks, photos, and videos - with special onsite coverage from Japan
http://www.robots-dreams.com
Joined: 19 Jan 2007 Posts: 153 Location: West Mids, United Kingdom
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:19 pm Post subject:
tempusmaster wrote:
I'm not sure whether that's true or not. The AT01 uses KRS-4024SHV servos in all positions, so the frame dimensions are different. And the KHR-1HV has the additional hip servos. I think that would require having to hack the parts that attach the shells to the frame quite a bit.
One of theManoi style bots uses exactly the same brackets as the 1HV so servo heightis the same and the servo length is identical so I think it would be a close call.... The width may be what kills it....
As to the 4024 servos, I dont see what is so good about them, they are noisy, the spindle is sloppy and apart from the fact they are 270 deg I'm not that impressed...
I'm not sure whether that's true or not. The AT01 uses KRS-4024SHV servos in all positions, so the frame dimensions are different. And the KHR-1HV has the additional hip servos. I think that would require having to hack the parts that attach the shells to the frame quite a bit.
One of theManoi style bots uses exactly the same brackets as the 1HV so servo heightis the same and the servo length is identical so I think it would be a close call.... The width may be what kills it....
As to the 4024 servos, I dont see what is so good about them, they are noisy, the spindle is sloppy and apart from the fact they are 270 deg I'm not that impressed...
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. _________________ ---------------------
Latest robotic news, information, reviews, hacks, photos, and videos - with special onsite coverage from Japan
http://www.robots-dreams.com
Sorry, that was a little blunt and rude. I shouldn't post late at night. I apologize.
As for the 'noise' and spindle, that doesn't match my experience, but I definitely respect your opinion. _________________ ---------------------
Latest robotic news, information, reviews, hacks, photos, and videos - with special onsite coverage from Japan
http://www.robots-dreams.com
Joined: 19 Jan 2007 Posts: 153 Location: West Mids, United Kingdom
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 12:48 am Post subject:
No offence taken TM, I know the feeling. I have the 1HV and have discussed the similarity of construction with a couple of AT owners.
The width is the major difference, the height and length being almost identical means that the leg geometry is almost the same. I believe Orac has said several times that it is possible to run the same sequences on both AT and 1HV.
As to the 'clothes' fitting though, I dont think there is any hope whatsoever. Would be nice though.
On the 1HV, the 4024's are in the shoulder and it may be the plastic surrounds and bearings that make them appear sloppy and noisy.
To be honest, I have not seen what a standard servo runs like, the 788's (when you can keep them working) are incredibly powerful and it seems a waste to put something even more powerful in the shoulder. I suspect the real reason for using 4024's is to give a more realistic degree of movement as they never come under any real strain.
The ones that could do with beefing up are the ones around the hip area, just below the rotate. They suffer some real strain when doing any sort of fancy legwork. The ankles do as well.
I have the 1HV and have discussed the similarity of construction with a couple of AT owners.
The core technology and basic design was all done by Kondo, primarily by Yoshimura who also did the original KHR-1. I just finished upgrading my KHR-1 to the RCB3 and have converted KHR-2HV motions to run on it since the basic geometry is the same.
For the AT01, which I also have, many of the servo channel assignments are the same (the arm servo channels are slightly different, but the leg channels are identical.) It would be interesting to compare the actual geometry, especially the legs.
Quote:
The width is the major difference, the height and length being almost identical means that the leg geometry is almost the same. I believe Orac has said several times that it is possible to run the same sequences on both AT and 1HV.
How about trying some AT01 sequences on the 1HV? I could send you some test motions, if you want to give it a go.
Quote:
As to the 'clothes' fitting though, I dont think there is any hope whatsoever. Would be nice though.
True.
Quote:
On the 1HV, the 4024's are in the shoulder and it may be the plastic surrounds and bearings that make them appear sloppy and noisy.
I'll make a point of checking it out next time I visit RoboSpot - hopefully next weekend.
Quote:
To be honest, I have not seen what a standard servo runs like, the 788's (when you can keep them working) are incredibly powerful and it seems a waste to put something even more powerful in the shoulder. I suspect the real reason for using 4024's is to give a more realistic degree of movement as they never come under any real strain.
The Kondo folks, especially Shibata, wanted to make the 1HV as realistic as possible, and picked the 4024s for the increased rotation angle. Here's a 1HV that we ran during the RCB3 firmware upgrade demo-
Quote:
The ones that could do with beefing up are the ones around the hip area, just below the rotate. They suffer some real strain when doing any sort of fancy legwork. The ankles do as well.
The leg pitch servos need as much torque as possible. The 788s are okay, but the problem is you have no easy upgrade path. If you need more torque, the brackets have to be redesigned. It's one of the main reasons they went with the 4024s for the AT01 since the 4013s and 4014s are basically drop-in replacements with no body/frame changes at all. _________________ ---------------------
Latest robotic news, information, reviews, hacks, photos, and videos - with special onsite coverage from Japan
http://www.robots-dreams.com
Its to good robot of new century No offence taken TM, I know the feeling. I have the 1HV and have discussed the similarity of construction with a couple of AT owners
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
£98.11 inc. VAT
I shouldn't post late at night. I apologize.
