Version 7.4 Release October 2014

2 Version main content Measurement system Virtual Teach Epic 2 Enable performing alignment during the automatic process based on features measured by the measurement system or by external gage Calculation acceleration based on RAM Drive capabilities Acceleration of Surface analysis Display CAD Wireframe Fixed Sensor Integration Rename features in CoreView Pro New Message queue between the Unify and the DataServer New event for clear calibration status Support for TCP\IP communication with Fanuc ISA Improve display of shared dimensions Integration Integration of latest Module of Data server and Automation server

3 Measurement Process Breakdown preparestart ready Grab RC Measurement FCMC prepare Wait for start Go To HP prepare Cycle N Cycle N+1 t

4 7.2 – 7.4 Performance Comparison 7.2 Start to RCRC to FCStart to FCRC to MCStart to MC AVG1:110:241:402:263:37 STD0:010:03 0:10 MAX1:140:291:452:514: Start to RCRC to FCStart to FCRC to MCStart to MC AVG1:100:141:301:503:00 STD0:010:03 0:06 MAX1:120:231:382:093:22 % Start to RCRC to FCStart to FCRC to MCStart to MC AVG1%38%10%24%16% STD---33%32% MAX3%23%6%24%16%

5 7.2 to 7.4 Performance Comparison

6

7 Conclusions We can see that there is about 38% improvement in the average cycle time and we can see that the process is more stable. Our tests show clearly that the RAM Drive is effective when the cycles computation processes overlap. We expect that the Cycle stability will behave differently in a system with SSD drive. In the tests we verified that the hard drive is no longer the process bottleneck More work can be done to improve the process depending on what we would like to achieve. One of the likely candidate is the CPU usage and tasks priority.

8 Shared Alignment Shared alignment functionality was tested in Turin. All major issues were resolved. Testing using an external gage for alignment was limited to the Metrel sensor simulated by the Supervisor. We are considering some GUI changes in the assembly wizard to make the process easier for the user. The Assembly process which was developed for the shared alignment can be used in the future as the bases for a unified cell Teach process. Following are features repeatability test results which were done to make sure that the new process didn’t affect the repeatability We compared system repeatability with and without Alignment in assembly process.

9 Shared Alignment – Features Repeatability Comparison Test Following are features repeatability test results which were done to make sure that the new process didn’t affect the repeatability We compared system repeatability between two sets of cycles, with and without Alignment in assembly process. The features were measured using the “Feature by Feature” method The test was done a door assembly measuring mostly surface points. As we are not testing the feature detection repeatability, if there is a process issue, it will be manifested in the surface points. The test was conducted as 30 cycles static (the part was not moved between measurements), for each set. Calibration and TCO we done before each set. This was done in order to isolate the alignment process.

10 Shared Alignment Range – Without Alignment

11 Shared Alignment Range – With Alignment

12 Shared Alignment – Test Results We can see that the repeatability in both cases are within the system spec. When using alignment there is some degradation in the Repeatability. This is expected in this type of testing. The alignment features get zero deviation but their repeatability affects all other features. This test shows that the new alignment process doesn't cause degradation in feature repeatability

13 ISA –Two feature Dimension

14 QA report and Open Items TCP\IP robot connection delays – This happens sporadically we are trying to reproduce. IPS side: When IPS build back the setups for 2 robots -> there is an overlapping between features IPS: Teach -> import robot program -> if program contains via-points -> read failed QA Coverage Report: