Curiosity about robot brands

    Hi all


    i am learning to use and programming Fanuc robots but it is a lot of time that i had a question in my head:


    what differences are there between Fanuc robots, kuka robots, kawasaky robots and ABB robots?
    I'm curious about programming and software differences, not about mechanical differences.


    Thanks all who want clear my doubts.

    I'm more familiar w/ ABB S4(+) robots, so I have a bias that I'll try to keep restrained. ABB IF statement can execute any number of statements in the conditional (as opposed to jumping to a label or calling a subroutine). Points can be named, or embedded in the statement (using a *). Tools and work objects can also be named - which gives the option of more than 10.
    I'm not familiar with Karel, so there's probably a "whole 'nuther world" I've missed on Fanucs.

    I have thousands of hours of experience with Fanuc and ABB, so I can only really compare the language differences between those two, but ABB beats Fanuc hands down in terms of flexibility.
    Since we are in the Fanuc forum, I’ll keep it in Fanuc nomenclature.


    Stuff the ABB language can do that Fanuc TP cannot:


      • Unlimited amount of registers, position registers, and string registers.

      • Names of the above can be longer than 16 characters.

      • Names of IO can be longer than 24 characters.

      • Ability to assign string registers directly.

      • Ability to have box or spherical reference positions. Worldzones in ABB nomenclature.

      • Much better control over strings. Find and replace being my favorite.

      • Unlimited amount of payloads, frames, and user frames.

      • Ability to have nice loop functions such as “FOR” and “WHILE”. I know Fanuc has a "FOR" command, but in ABB you can assign custom step values.

      • Case statements. Although the SELECT function in Fanucs is similar.

      • Error handling ability (without an option) when an instruction fails.

      • Ability to check if an optional argument to a function exists or not.

      • Ability to return values (or positions) from a function.

      • Ability to declare local variables.

      • Able to specify if an argument to a function is passed by value or passed by reference. In Fanuc world it is always by value.

      • Ability to change the arm configuration of a point programmatically.

      • Able to write to and read from disk. Useful for logging.

      • Numeric registers are accurate to more than 6 decimal places.

      • Access to higher level math functions such as sin, cos and tan.

      • Ability to load or delete tp programs programmatically.

      • Bitwise functions. Not even Karel has these.


    Debugging on the ABB is far easier as well. There is no need to compile the TP program, as the ABB reads in native text. If you are using the RobotStudio ABB provides for free you can set break points in the program and watches on variables.


    Now granted, the ABB suffers from the fact that it is a programmers robot. In my experience operators seem to have a much harder time getting used to ABBs as opposed to Fanucs. Fanucs are much easier to learn for the lay man.


    Also, in terms of safety, Fanuc’s DCS is lightyears ahead of ABB’s Safemove. Safemove doesn’t even model the arm.

    Check out the Fanuc position converter I wrote here! Now open source!

    Check out my example Fanuc Ethernet/IP Explicit Messaging program here!

    In Fanuc, each point is recorded in the user and tool frame that the controller was in at the time, and you must be ion that same user and tool frame to run the program. In Motoman, the user and tool frame are just used for jogging, and the points are always recorded in a global coordinate system. I can't say one way is overall better than the other, but they are different. In addition, Fanuc allows direct access to the system clock in programming, while motoman only allows you to look at operating times through the cycle time and does not let you use those numbers in the program.

    Fanuc only allows a single undo, while Motoman allows up to five, although they both have very similar rules on what will cut off your ability to undo.


    And the Motoman language is called Inform II, i think.


    Motoman both have a max teach speed of 250 mm/s, but Fanuc's max speed in play is 2500 mm/s and Motoman's is only 1500 mm/s.


    Fanuc monitors for collisions by measuring the current through the servos for sudden spikes, while Motoman measures temperature fluctuations in the grease surrounding the motors. Motoman will also do analysis of the grease periodically to detect traces of metal that would indicate wear and failure in the mechanical parts.

    I have deep experience with Staubli robots. At the time Staubli was using Adept Technology's V+ controller & language which was a derivative of the old Unimation VAL language. Later Staubli developed their own controller and issued the VAL3 language. V+ was tough to beat as a "programmer's robot" language because of functional power and capability. Their market niche was the very sophisticated applications. My minimal experience with ABB Rapid puts them roughly equivalent. The VAL3 language as a programmer's language is a dream, made me think of C++ kind of programming constructs and function. Quite a lot of fun once I mastered it.


    Minimal exposure to Fanuc. The TP programming was OK, easy, not very sophisticated. The Karel language seemed like it had powerful constructs, but was awkward due to system variable naming schemes...something never really jived with my personality. But they sell a bunch of arms, so they must appeal to a significant portion of the market.


    My new favorite is Kawasaki. It has a variant of Unimations' s VAL called AS. AS is very similar to the V+ language, so I picked it right up. I teach a robotics class using Kawasaki arms and the students breezed through it. Still maintains the strong power of programming capability. Additionally it also has a very nice (IMHO) teach pendant language for doing simple point-to-point teaching. And a running program can easily be combined with the two formats. My only complaint is that I get the impression that Kawasaki is a "captive" robot company to two major automotive companies and their management seems to be not so interested in becoming partners with the General Industry crowd.

Advertising from our partners