# RobotStudio not always representing correct position of robot

**URL:** <https://tech-community.robotics.abb.com/t/robotstudio-not-always-representing-correct-position-of-robot/6370>\
**Category:** RobotStudio\
**Created:** [November 10, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://tech-community.robotics.abb.com/t/robotstudio-not-always-representing-correct-position-of-robot/6370 "2014-11-10T19:53:30Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pollux](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/tech-community.robotics.abb.com/pollux/32/4028_2.png) [@pollux](https://tech-community.robotics.abb.com/u/pollux)\
**Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://tech-community.robotics.abb.com/t/robotstudio-not-always-representing-correct-position-of-robot/6370/1 "2014-11-10T19:53:30Z")

</div>

Hi,

I think I saw this somewhere in the manual, but am I right that the simulation is not always 100% a correct representation of the last position I moved the robot to? I’m sending positions to a robot (in RobotStudio) over a socket and printing the positions using TPWrite. I’m using 2 tasks with WaitUntil to synchronise. It looks that when I add a WaitTime just after the Move\* instructions the visualisation is correctly updated.

Am I right with this?

p

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Henrik\_Berlin](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/tech-community.robotics.abb.com/henrik_berlin/32/1011_2.png) [@Henrik\_Berlin](https://tech-community.robotics.abb.com/u/Henrik_Berlin)\
**Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 9:07pm UTC](https://tech-community.robotics.abb.com/t/robotstudio-not-always-representing-correct-position-of-robot/6370/2 "2014-11-10T21:07:31Z")

</div>

It is probably because the move instruction executed before you read the position are not so-called stop points, but are using zones of type z100, z200 or something. This means that the program pointer runs ahead and starts to execute the next instruction when the motion instructions has reached some convergence criteria. If you use fine instead of zXXX for the motion instructions, you will see the robot waits until the robot has stopped at the programmed position before it reads the current value and continues. You can read more about stoppointdata and zonedata in the Technical reference manual  
RAPID Instructions, Functions and Data types, that is included with RobotStudio.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pollux](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/tech-community.robotics.abb.com/pollux/32/4028_2.png) [@pollux](https://tech-community.robotics.abb.com/u/pollux)\
**Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 10:20pm UTC](https://tech-community.robotics.abb.com/t/robotstudio-not-always-representing-correct-position-of-robot/6370/3 "2014-11-10T22:20:43Z")

</div>

Ah thanks! I think that was is it. I was using **z0** but it seems that **fine** gives me a different, more accurate result.

p.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Neily03](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Neily03](https://tech-community.robotics.abb.com/u/Neily03)\
**Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 9:55am UTC](https://tech-community.robotics.abb.com/t/robotstudio-not-always-representing-correct-position-of-robot/6370/4 "2014-11-11T09:55:14Z")

</div>

> [@pollux](#):
>
> Ah thanks! I think that was is it. I was using **z0** but it seems that **fine** gives me a different, more accurate result.
> 
> p.

Think this trips alot of people up, if i remeber correctly from the training courses i’ve been on z0 is actually a zone of 0.3mm…