Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study presents a preliminary geometric modeling workflow for a robotic station planned for an existing production hall. An iPad Pro 13 with LiDAR and RobotStudio AR Viewer captured the surroundings; RobotStudio and ATOS Professional supported data exchange, local scan comparison, and placement of the station CAD model. Six scans were acquired. Scans 1–4 covered restricted passages because stored product boxes obstructed the area; scans 5 and 6 provided broader coverage. At ten selected points, the wall comparison yielded a mean distance of 15.6 mm, a root mean square (RMS) of 19.3 mm, and a maximum of 39.1 mm. A separate floor-prioritized comparison yielded 2.9, 3.7, and 8.4 mm, respectively; these cases do not constitute a controlled comparison of registration methods. Six Leica AT960 point measurements and corresponding scan 6 coordinates were additionally examined using point 4 as the origin. For the five non-origin points, the three-dimensional coordinate discrepancy RMS was 48.62 mm and the maximum was 61.80 mm. The contribution is an application workflow with explicit separation of local inter-scan agreement, reference-coordinate comparison, and future validation. The model supports preliminary layout visualization; a functioning digital twin, verified clearances, and collision-free robot operation remain outside the demonstrated scope.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kurc et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: