How do Fanuc Robots compare to others such as Denso, Motoman, Nachi, etc...

I'm also primarily a Fanuc programmer, so I'll give you my opinion on programming ease for the other brands you listed that I have experience with.

Denso-- This programming language is totally different from Fanuc (and other robots I've programmed). It's easy enough once you get it, but you have to retrain your brain. My biggest complaint was that the "grammar" of writing code sometimes changes from command to command (do or don't add a comma in different motion types with the same attributes...). The good part about Denso robots is that the offline programming software (WINCAPS III) is really nice.

Motoman -- MUCH more similar to Fanuc! Also a menus-based programming robot. Everything can be done through the teach pendant. What I don't like about this robot is that in order to download a program update you completed offline for an existing program (let's call it MAINT), you have to either re-name or delete the MAINT program on the teach pendant before it will let you do the download... there is no "overwrite?" option; which is frustrating. The Interference Cubes are the closest thing to Motoman's "DCS" that I could find. I don't trust it as much (but I'm also a big Fanuc DCS fangirl). As for service/support-- it seems to be that they have a lot of software support, but not as much programming support (I got plenty of help with the ladder logic setup, but once was told by a support person that I probably knew more than them about a programming command I wasn't sure if I was using properly).

If you're in automotive, the other robots I generally see are ABBs and KUKAs. Both are European and are stylistically a bit different to program. KUKAs have barely any menu-based programming, and ABBs are kind of in the middle between Fanucs and KUKAs on the menus thing. The more menu-based programming, the less you need to trust your programmers to know what they are doing, but you also somewhat limit the capabilities/control of your robots. If you're going to have a lot of programmers floating in and out of your plant, I would recommend one that is menus-based, so the code is familiar and they don't have to sort it out from scratch every time. If you've got 3 in-house programmers that you plan on keeping around, menu-based programming isn't as vital-- but encourage them to comment all of their code in case they don't stick around forever.

KUKAs are generally more accurate robots (for example, they don't change continuous motion paths nearly as drastically as Fanucs do when increasing speeds), which is part of why their price tag is usually larger than a Fanuc. It depends on your application whether or not the price tag is worth it.

Good luck!

It really depends on what you are comfortable with. I personally like Motoman over Fanuc but that's my preference. They both have safety units now Fanuc id DCS and Motoman has FSU. Programming language is very similar in my opinion. Motoman has more options standard I feel the Fanuc does things like cubes and collision detection. The biggest thing is price. If you just buy them straight up Motoman's are a lot cheaper and perform just as good in my opinion.

Quote from SteamPunkstress

KUKAs are generally more accurate robots (for example, they don't change continuous motion paths nearly as drastically as Fanucs do when increasing speeds)

Not sure if I understand you correctly, but from my experience KUKAs are a PITA when it comes to continuous motion, as the paths change with the override, not with the programmed speed.
With Fanuc, if you program a motion, the robot will move identically in T1 at 10% and in AUTO at 100%. With KUKA - no way, you won't know what the path is until you run the program with override set to 100%.

That thing about being accurate... Well, I can't really agree on that too, especially that it's possible to increase the accuracy of Fanuc robots using "absolute accuracy" option/procedure. The difference here is negligible in most cases.

There is a couple of things that I find as KUKA's advantage:
1. some heavier robots' designs - without the additional arm in the back, which substantially increases the work envelope. On the other hand, the smaller, hollow wrist robots by KUKA are quite bulky and clumsy.
2. easier setup of many functions and options. This is mostly because the controller is Windows-based, which allows it to use many features of a "civilized" OS. But, again, on the other hand - it can be a cause of quite some problems with KUKA controllers (of which being laggy is the tiniest one).

I will throw in that Motoman has some really nice security features. At least in the models we had, they had a removable key in the teach pendant to switch to Teach mode. Passwords came built in. And there was a feature which allowed you to restrict point touchups to a small volume in space, such as +/- 5 mm. This meant that operators or low level techs could adjust weld paths by a very small amount, but could not easily make a path crash.

We have 87 Fanuc robots and 6 Motoman from a previous program launch that was moved into our building at the end of its lifecycle, and i only work the the Fanuc robots at this point, but that was a thing i noticed when i was getting familiar with both.

Couple notes based on personal experience on the path repeat-ability depending on general override speeds: Right out of the box (IE, no special options) I agree the fanuc path varies more than most other companies-kuka included. However, if you purchase the advanced constant path option, they will indeed take the same path regardless of the general override - they then become the best. A very nice feature and well worth the cost in my experience (there are other helpful features included in the package, depending on the configuration).

The fanuc is, from my experience, the "easiest" to program, but also has the most limitations because of it. There are many items in which you need Karel (option) to do which can be done on many other robots for free. Also, when using Karel, you need to have the original source code if you want to modify the program. Only the compiled program resides on the robot. These are tradeoffs that I think are worth it, however.

iRVision is very nice, but not the most powerful out there. I don't think any other robot company really competes with it though. Its easy and relatively cheap.

Mechanically, the new iD series (lrmates) leave a bit to be desired- i have seen and heard of a lot of mechanical failures. The previous iC series were much better.

I have worked with ABB quite a bit. They (in my experience at least) seem to be more reliable and generally better built, at the expense of space. Their programming language is pretty easy and much more structured than a fanuc. The control panel is also better laid out (fanuc's is not very impressive), and the pendent (and cable) seem to be much higher quality (I see burn-in often on fanuc displays). I do not like the motion planner in the ABB as much though, as it is not near as fluid as the fanuc.

I have worked with Kuka only a bit. Coming from Fanuc and ABB, I don't find it nearly as intuitive, although it is getting easier as I go (I only touch our robot once every 6-7 months, as it is at our other facility). It is a well built and reliable robot though. Support here in the U.S. is limited though.

As a whole, I prefer the Fanuc. They are becoming very cost competitive as well, as they are (or appear to be) going after market share in the U.S. Importantly, support (both manufacturer and field) is about the best there is.

Quote from bidzej

Not sure if I understand you correctly, but from my experience KUKAs are a PITA when it comes to continuous motion, as the paths change with the override, not with the programmed speed.
With Fanuc, if you program a motion, the robot will move identically in T1 at 10% and in AUTO at 100%. With KUKA - no way, you won't know what the path is until you run the program with override set to 100%.

That thing about being accurate... Well, I can't really agree on that too, especially that it's possible to increase the accuracy of Fanuc robots using "absolute accuracy" option/procedure. The difference here is negligible in most cases.

There is a couple of things that I find as KUKA's advantage:
1. some heavier robots' designs - without the additional arm in the back, which substantially increases the work envelope. On the other hand, the smaller, hollow wrist robots by KUKA are quite bulky and clumsy.
2. easier setup of many functions and options. This is mostly because the controller is Windows-based, which allows it to use many features of a "civilized" OS. But, again, on the other hand - it can be a cause of quite some problems with KUKA controllers (of which being laggy is the tiniest one).

Guess we need to clarify one thing - many features, that are an option in the US, are standard in (most?) European markets. Like Karel for example, where the only thing you need to do is change $KAREL_ENB to TRUE. Looks like some path related options might also be treated differently.

Quote from bidzej

Guess we need to clarify one thing - many features, that are an option in the US, are standard in (most?) European markets. Like Karel for example, where the only thing you need to do is change $KAREL_ENB to TRUE. Looks like some path related options might also be treated differently.

I don't think I've ever installed a FANUC robot that would behave differently based on set speeds or overrides...and we never ordered any special features aside from what we generally needed. I was actually confused as to why people were having this issue with FANUC, but if it's different for the US than EUROPE, then it makes sense.

Quote

Not sure if I understand you correctly, but from my experience KUKAs are a PITA when it comes to continuous motion, as the paths change with the override, not with the programmed speed.
With Fanuc, if you program a motion, the robot will move identically in T1 at 10% and in AUTO at 100%. With KUKA - no way, you won't know what the path is until you run the program with override set to 100%

It is not true. It is related to your programming method. We install a lot of KUKA robot almost with all application package. There is no problem here and this contrary to motion control liteature.

Our experience based ABB, KUKA, Fanuc, Motoman

ABB:

- Programming language (RAPID) is more flexible and easy than other brands. You can use NotePad or Ultraedit or 3rd part applications for offline edit.
- Menu arrangement is good and you can access what you want to quickly.
- If you want to use option you must be pay it.
- Spare part is problem. Part code version etc are changing frequently and incompatible with each other.
- Mechanic is very fast but motors and cable groups as weak.
- Spare parts is too expensive.
- Application library is more rich then other brands.
- Offline and online tools are great. (Robot Studio)
- Pendant joystick is nightmare.
- Service network is great.
- Controller dimension is normal.

KUKA:

- Programming language (KRL) is flexible but you must be type a lot of commands in HMI. There is no menü for enter the commands.
- Menu arrangement is good and you can access what you want to quickly but a lot of command is not shown in menü.
- Spare part prices is normal and probably compatible with each others.
- KUKA mechanics is great but not too fast. It have long life, repeatibility and smooth than other robot brands.
- Software running on Windows and realtime tasks are using VxWin operation system and have standart PC configuration. You can use such as standart PC.
- Application library is enough.
- KUKA Sim must be improve for offline programming and simulation. On the KRC4 WorkVisual is enough for online programming and commissioning. You can use NotePad or Ultraedit or 3rd part applications for offline edit.
- Options as cheaper than other brands. If you have technology installation package for one robot you can use this for other robots. I don't know is legal or not.
- Boot is taking a lot of time.
- 6 DOF joystick is great.
- Service network is great.
- Controller dimension is normal.

Motoman:

- I don't like to use Motoman but programming language and general condition is enough.
- If you want to use option you must be pay it.
- Some menü is not logical and you need to effort to make change on line.
- Program Shift, Mirror options is great.
- Welding units are great.
- Control units part placements is not practical. You must be remove some parts to reach other parts.
- Mechanic is too fast but I don't think is have long life. I have encountered a lot of motor and cable problem on production.
- If you buy new robot you can see forgotten items. For example I buy 40 robots as new but some cable is not mounted, some option is not loaded etc. Yaskawa give support this.
- Service network is not good for some country.
- Offline edit is problem with standart programs. (E.g. Notepad). Controller does not accept changed program without some hack. You must be use Yaskawa programs. (E.g. Jobedit)
- Controller is too big.

Fanuc:

- Fanuc electronics is great.
- Programming and specifications more complex than other robots. Im not talking about basic programming. Menu arrangement is good and you can access what you want to quickly.
- Spare part prices is normal and probably compatible with each others.
- If you want to use option you must be pay it.
- Mechanics is great and speed is enough.
- Application library is good but you must be pay for all options.
- Roboguide simulation is good but there is no online tool like RobotStudio.
- If you don't have ASCII Upload option on robot you can't see or change the program with Notepad etc.
- Service Network is good.
- New control units is small and there is no included a lot of parts.

Quote from fluke

It is not true. It is related to your programming method. We install a lot of KUKA robot almost with all application package. There is no problem here and this contrary to motion control liteature.

Well, what I've written is not only my opinion, but also what I've heard from quite a number of KUKA's own robot programmers, some with experience counted in tens of years...

Quote from bidzej

Well, what I've written is not only my opinion, but also what I've heard from quite a number of KUKA's own robot programmers, some with experience counted in tens of years...

May be you are right. I know KUKA have only problem on circular motion teaching. Because it is using two point and some times is going to crazy during teach mode. But if you correctly teaching them you can not see any problem on automatic mode or speed change. Approximation for continuous motion have a few switch and it must be use correct method. It mean must be know what will robot to do.

Are you and bidsej from Europe then? I am curious about this.

Here in the U.S., we need to pay for nearly every Fanuc option. The advantage is that a base model robot is almost cost competitive with many "cheaper" brands, but it is cumbersome to those who are "not in the know."

Quote from ClaudiuA

I don't think I've ever installed a FANUC robot that would behave differently based on set speeds or overrides...and we never ordered any special features aside from what we generally needed. I was actually confused as to why people were having this issue with FANUC, but if it's different for the US than EUROPE, then it makes sense.

Yep, Europe here. Currently Germany, previously Poland.

Yep, Romania here. I've worked with quite a few FANUC robots so far and the issues mentioned on this topic are basically news to me. Even the older models of FANUC that I service from time to time - RJ3s mostly - don't have path issues even if the factory where they were installed is on the poorer side.

Quote from bagged2drag

Here in the U.S., we need to pay for nearly every Fanuc option.

That's pure politics. Fanuc Europe and Fanuc America are separate subsidiaries of Fanuc, they have their own policies. They don't even share most of the robot documentation.

Fanuc America also sends flash drives with the Core Software Backup with the new robot, Fanuc Europe does not seem to do so. Also E-Stop boards are different even between the same model controllers, and they are not compatible. There is an option with parameters that is also different between the two.American robots get the R650 FRA Params option, European instead have the R651 FRL Params option.

I don't know if I would call the path changes "issues" per se, but if you are not aware that the path can change, well, then I guess it can become a bad day. The path difference isn't always that huge, but in tight spaces it can be an issue. I just try to spec the robots with certain options automatically to make life easy.

Quote from ClaudiuA

Yep, Romania here. I've worked with quite a few FANUC robots so far and the issues mentioned on this topic are basically news to me. Even the older models of FANUC that I service from time to time - RJ3s mostly - don't have path issues even if the factory where they were installed is on the poorer side.

Interesting. I know safety regulations differ between the two regions, so that could be part of the hardware differences. U.S. is generally considered more lax on safety than EU, but many of our standards are moving toward EU standards now.

Quote from Robo_Eng_13

Fanuc America also sends flash drives with the Core Software Backup with the new robot, Fanuc Europe does not seem to do so. Also E-Stop boards are different even between the same model controllers, and they are not compatible. There is an option with parameters that is also different between the two.American robots get the R650 FRA Params option, European instead have the R651 FRL Params option.

Ok dudes, i will bring you some light in the dark....

There are 2 basic software options in the system software
FRL PARAMS for Europe (R651)
FRA PARAMS for AMERICA/USA (R650)
(Not sure which one they will use in Asia or other countries)

Content of FRL PARAMS (EUROPE)
J886 Servo Gun High Speed Option
R696 Extended User Frames
J541 Password Function
J609 Space Check
J770 PC Interface
J775 Robot Simulator
R626 Web Enhancements
PRXY HTTP Proxy Server
IPNL Soft Panel
R553 HMI Device (SNPX)
R663 Constant Path
R666 Arc Advisor
R528 Disp 2nd analog port

Content of FRA PARAMS (AMERICA/USA)
J547 RIA Standard Safety
R665 Diagnostics
R664 Help
J886 Servo Gun High Speed Option
R696 Extended User Frames

As you can see we get much more basic options in europe. Constant Path is one of this!

This example is for R30iA!!!