PLC Simulator
PLC field notesrobotics

What Is URScript? Universal Robots' Programming Language Explained

URScript is the text-based programming language that runs Universal Robots arms. This guide explains what URScript is, how it relates to PolyScope, the core commands (movej, movel, set_digital_out), variables, functions, and how to start learning it without owning a robot.

PLC Simulation Software9 min read

If you have started looking into Universal Robots, you have probably seen two words that sound like they might be the same thing: PolyScope and URScript. They are not. PolyScope is the touchscreen interface you tap through on the teach pendant. URScript is the actual programming language running underneath it. Understanding the difference is the first real step into robot programming — so let's make it concrete.

URScript in one sentence

URScript is the text-based scripting language used to program Universal Robots collaborative and industrial arms. Every motion, every gripper action, every wait and decision the robot makes can be expressed as a line of URScript. When you build a program in PolyScope by adding waypoints and actions on the touchscreen, PolyScope is generating URScript for you behind the scenes.

That last point is the one that surprises beginners. The friendly drag-and-drop program tree you see on the pendant is a front-end. The robot controller ultimately runs URScript. Learning the language directly gives you control that the graphical tree cannot always express, and it makes you far more productive once programs get complex.

PolyScope vs URScript: two ways to program the same robot

There are two ways to put a program on a UR robot, and they are not rivals — they are layers of the same system.

  • PolyScope (graphical): You build a program tree on the teach pendant by adding nodes — Waypoint, Set, Wait, If, Loop. Great for getting started and for simple, visual pick-and-place jobs. Every node you add corresponds to URScript the controller executes.
  • URScript (text): You write the commands directly, either inside a Script node in PolyScope, as a .script file, or streamed to the controller over a network socket. This is how integrators write flexible, reusable, logic-heavy programs.

A useful mental model: PolyScope is to URScript what a visual form-builder is to HTML. The visual tool is faster for simple things; the underlying language is more powerful and is what actually runs.

What URScript looks like

Here is a minimal pick-and-place written in URScript. Even if you have never seen it before, you can probably read it:

# Define poses (x, y, z in metres; rx, ry, rz in radians)
home   = [0, -1.57, 0, -1.57, 0, 0]
pick   = p[0.40, -0.20, 0.05, 0, 3.14, 0]
place  = p[0.40,  0.20, 0.05, 0, 3.14, 0]

movej(home, a=1.4, v=1.0)      # fast joint move to home
movel(pick, a=1.2, v=0.25)     # straight-line move to the pick point
set_digital_out(0, True)       # close the gripper
sleep(0.4)                     # let the grip settle
movel(place, a=1.2, v=0.25)    # straight-line move to the place point
set_digital_out(0, False)      # open the gripper
movej(home, a=1.4, v=1.0)      # return home

The syntax is deliberately approachable — it looks a lot like Python, which is no accident. URScript uses indentation-free blocks, simple function calls, and readable names. That is part of why Universal Robots is the friendliest place to start learning robot programming.

The core URScript commands

You can do a remarkable amount with a small vocabulary. These are the commands you will use constantly.

Motion

  • movej(q, a, v) — move through joint space. The tool takes whatever curved path gets the joints to the target fastest. Use it for big, unobstructed repositioning moves.
  • movel(pose, a, v) — move linearly, keeping the tool centre point on a straight Cartesian line. Use it near parts, fixtures, and surfaces where the path matters.
  • movep(pose, a, v, r) — move with constant tool speed along a path, blending through waypoints with radius r. Use it for process moves like gluing or dispensing.

The a and v arguments are acceleration and velocity. Choosing movej versus movel correctly is one of the first skills every UR programmer develops — we cover it in depth in movej vs movel vs movep.

Poses, frames, and the TCP

A pose p[x, y, z, rx, ry, rz] describes where the tool tip is and how it is oriented. Two ideas make poses meaningful:

  • The TCP (Tool Centre Point): set_tcp(...) tells the robot where the working tip of your tool is relative to the wrist flange. Get this wrong and every Cartesian move is off by the length of your gripper.
  • Frames / features: poses are expressed relative to a coordinate frame — the robot base by default, but you can define your own (a fixture, a conveyor) so your program reads in the part's coordinates rather than the robot's.

I/O and the gripper

  • set_digital_out(n, True/False) — switch a digital output on or off. This is how you fire a gripper, a valve, or a signal to a PLC.
  • get_digital_in(n) — read a digital input, e.g. a part-present sensor.

Logic

URScript has variables, if/elif/else, while loops, and user-defined functions (def name(): ... end). That is what lets a program react — pick from bin A if a sensor is true, otherwise bin B; loop until a tray is full; count cycles. Real robot work is mostly this logic wrapped around the motion commands.

Where URScript runs

URScript can reach the controller three ways, and knowing them demystifies a lot of online tutorials:

  1. Inside a PolyScope Script node — paste URScript into a program built on the pendant.
  2. As a .script program — a full text file the controller loads and runs.
  3. Streamed over a socket — an external computer sends URScript lines to the robot in real time (port 30002), which is how higher-level systems and research setups drive a UR.

Do you need a real robot to learn URScript?

No — and trying to learn on a physical arm first is usually the slow, expensive way. A UR arm costs tens of thousands, and beginners learn fastest by repeating a task many times and failing safely, which is exactly what you cannot do freely on shared hardware.

The traditional free option is URSim, Universal Robots' official offline simulator. It is genuinely good, but it ships as a Linux virtual machine that many beginners find fiddly to install and run. That install friction stops a lot of people before they have written a single line.

This is the gap we closed. We built a browser-based robot simulator where you write real URScript and run it on a simulated UR arm with live physics — no install, no Linux VM, no robot, free to start. It is the same approach we took with our PLC simulator: practise the real skill in the browser, graded from zero. It is live now — the first lessons are free, and Pro unlocks the full course and a certificate.

Key takeaways

  • URScript is the text language that runs Universal Robots arms. PolyScope is the touchscreen front-end that generates URScript for you.
  • The core vocabulary is small: movej, movel, movep for motion; set_tcp/set_payload for the tool; set_digital_out/get_digital_in for I/O; plus normal variables, conditionals, and loops.
  • The syntax is intentionally Python-like, which makes UR the best on-ramp into robot programming.
  • You do not need a real robot to learn — a simulator lets you practise safely and repeatedly.

Next steps

ShareX / TwitterLinkedIn

From reading to running logic

Practice this yourself in the simulator

Start with guided PLC practice in your browser. No install and no credit card required.

Start practising free

Continue learning

Related field notes

All articles
robotics
urscript

movej vs movel vs movep: URScript Move Commands Explained

The difference between movej, movel and movep is the first thing every Universal Robots programmer has to get right. This guide explains joint vs linear vs process moves, when to use each, blend radius, speed and acceleration, and the classic singularity and overshoot pitfalls — with URScript examples.

8 min read
robotics
universal robots

How to Program a Universal Robot: A Beginner's Guide (2026)

A practical, from-zero guide to programming a Universal Robots cobot: the teach pendant and PolyScope, frames and the TCP, waypoints, your first pick-and-place, digital I/O and grippers, safety and protective stops, and how to practise without owning a robot.

11 min read

Independent vendor-platform field guide

What is URScript: implementation, evidence and troubleshooting

Direct answer

What is URScript becomes useful when it connects robot model, software version, program context, frames, tcp, payload, waypoints, motion, i/o and recovery requirement with script statements through controller state, path generation, robot motion and independent cell feedback, then proves one home, approach, action, depart and return sequence executed with deliberate settings under normal, boundary, fault and recovery conditions. The objective is a repeatable engineering or learning result, not merely activity inside a page or tool.

This guide is written for robot learners moving from PolyScope waypoints into variables, functions, motion commands, I/O, threads and controller-visible behavior. The intended result is specific: the reader can explain where URScript fits, trace a small motion and I/O program and distinguish transferable syntax from controller validation.

Automation engineer comparing PLC and robot programming workflows at a vendor-neutral workstation for Universal Robots scripting concepts
A migration decision is credible when Universal Robots scripting concepts is tested against the same declared behavior and target constraints.

System map / 02

Six concepts that control the result

Treat these as connected checkpoints. Each checkpoint has an expected state, an observable state and a boundary to the next part of the system. That structure prevents a software indication from being mistaken for physical proof.

NODE 01observable

Define the operating contract

robot model, software version, program context, frames, TCP, payload, waypoints, motion, I/O and recovery requirement. For Universal Robots scripting concepts, record the initial condition, actor, requested change, observable result and stopping condition before selecting a tool or implementation.

NODE 02observable

Map the evidence path

script statements through controller state, path generation, robot motion and independent cell feedback. Separate request, internal state, output or service, physical or user-visible result and independent feedback so each boundary can be inspected.

NODE 03observable

Prove normal operation

one home, approach, action, depart and return sequence executed with deliberate settings. Run more than one cycle from a known state and retain the values, timings or artifacts that demonstrate repeatability.

NODE 04observable

Exercise a boundary case

frame mismatch, pose, singularity, blend, payload, lost I/O, thread state, interruption and restart. Choose minimum, maximum, simultaneous, delayed or restart conditions that reveal assumptions hidden by the happy path.

NODE 05observable

Diagnose a controlled fault

a syntax, state, frame, path, motion, handshake, payload or recovery mismatch. Preserve the first symptom, divide the system at a measurable boundary and change one condition only after predicting the result.

NODE 06observable

Transfer and hand over

the program recreated from current official documentation and validated in URSim, controller and safeguarded cell. Restore normal state, remove temporary changes, repeat affected checks and document which claims remain limited to the learning environment.

Procedure / 03

A six-step practice and commissioning workflow

Run the steps in order the first time. Later, the same structure becomes a diagnostic loop: define the expected condition, observe the boundary, interpret the difference and choose one proving action.

  1. 01

    Write the acceptance case

    Convert robot model, software version, program context, frames, tcp, payload, waypoints, motion, i/o and recovery requirement into initial conditions, one stimulus and observable pass criteria.

    Evidence: Another person can repeat the case without guessing the intended result.

    Avoid: Using page completion or an animation as the acceptance criterion.

  2. 02

    Build the map

    Document script statements through controller state, path generation, robot motion and independent cell feedback and name who owns each state or decision.

    Evidence: Every request and result has a source, destination and useful inspection point.

    Avoid: Using the same value as command, status and independent feedback.

  3. 03

    Run the baseline

    Apply one home, approach, action, depart and return sequence executed with deliberate settings from a clean start and record the expected evidence.

    Evidence: Repeated runs produce the same bounded result.

    Avoid: Changing several parameters before a baseline exists.

  4. 04

    Challenge assumptions

    Test frame mismatch, pose, singularity, blend, payload, lost i/o, thread state, interruption and restart without changing the acceptance contract.

    Evidence: Limits, timing and restart behavior reach defined states.

    Avoid: Testing only one ideal sequence.

  5. 05

    Isolate one failure

    Introduce or analyse a syntax, state, frame, path, motion, handshake, payload or recovery mismatch and locate the first disagreement.

    Evidence: The proving action distinguishes the leading hypotheses.

    Avoid: Resetting, forcing or replacing before evidence is retained.

  6. 06

    Close the evidence loop

    Complete the program recreated from current official documentation and validated in ursim, controller and safeguarded cell and repeat the affected regression cases.

    Evidence: Transfer is complete only after the example is recreated, compiled and tested in the official engineering environment and on the intended controller family.

    Avoid: Treating an acknowledged message or one successful rerun as handover.

Diagnostic matrix / 04

Symptoms, proving points and next actions

The table is a reasoning aid, not a parts-replacement chart. Preserve the initial symptom, inspect the named boundary and use the interpretation to choose the next controlled test. Site safety procedures and equipment manuals remain authoritative.

Diagnostic symptoms, inspection points, interpretations and next actions for What is URScript: implementation, evidence and troubleshooting
Observed symptomInspectInterpretationNext proving action
The expected result is unclearRequirement, initial state, actor, stimulus, units and pass conditionThe learner, maintainer and target-platform reviewer may be solving different versions of the task.Rewrite one observable acceptance case before continuing.
Internal state changes but the outcome does notRequest, final owner, output or service boundary and independent feedbackA software or interface indication proves intent at one layer, not the complete outcome.Trace the first boundary after the changing state.
Normal case passes but an edge case failsLimits, timing, simultaneous events, reset and restart assumptionsThe implementation contains a hidden assumption exposed by the changed condition.Add the failed boundary as a permanent regression case.
The failure disappears after resetOriginal symptom, histories, diagnostics, timestamps and active causeReset changed evidence or state without proving the initiating cause.Reproduce under a controlled condition and preserve pre/post-event data.
Simulator and target disagreeModel boundary, software version, task timing, I/O behavior, data types and configurationA learning model and the intended target do not share one of the recorded assumptions.Reduce the case and verify against current target documentation.
The result cannot be explainedPrediction, observation, proving action, alternative hypotheses and limitationsActivity occurred but the evidence is not yet transferable or reviewable.Have the learner defend the signal path and repeat a changed case.

Product evidence / 05

What the browser practice can actually demonstrate

The browser material teaches transferable control behavior and vendor-oriented terminology while keeping project files, firmware and exact runtime behavior outside the claim.

Where simulation stops

The browser trainer does not run a UR controller, PolyScope, safety configuration or production motion dynamics.

Commissioning notebook / 06

Six cases that turn the concepts into evidence

Use these as written briefs rather than click-through instructions. For every case, state the expected condition before acting, retain the first useful observation and explain why the final result proves the requirement. A different program or component choice can still be correct when it produces the same bounded behavior and evidence.

Case 01

predict → observe → prove

Prove define the operating contract

Engineering context. robot model, software version, program context, frames, TCP, payload, waypoints, motion, I/O and recovery requirement. For Universal Robots scripting concepts, record the initial condition, actor, requested change, observable result and stopping condition before selecting a tool or implementation. Begin with a written normal condition and identify which request, state, physical result or communication value will provide independent confirmation. Do not begin by changing the configuration; the initial state is part of the evidence and should remain reproducible.

Controlled setup. Use the “Write the acceptance case” stage of the workflow: convert robot model, software version, program context, frames, tcp, payload, waypoints, motion, i/o and recovery requirement into initial conditions, one stimulus and observable pass criteria. The acceptance record should show this result: another person can repeat the case without guessing the intended result. Record initial conditions, the exact stimulus and the observation point so another learner can repeat the case without relying on your memory.

Fault challenge. Introduce or analyse “The expected result is unclear” as one bounded deviation. Inspect requirement, initial state, actor, stimulus, units and pass condition The working interpretation is that the learner, maintainer and target-platform reviewer may be solving different versions of the task. The next proving action is to rewrite one observable acceptance case before continuing. Change only one condition before observing the result, and preserve timestamps or measurements where timing matters.

Review and recovery. The most common trap here is using page completion or an animation as the acceptance criterion. After restoring the cause, repeat the normal case and at least one stop, timeout, disconnect or restart boundary relevant to this topic. Remove temporary forces and bypasses, return the model to a known state and retain the evidence that both operation and recovery are deliberate.

Explain it aloud: What should I learn first about Universal Robots scripting concepts? A defensible short answer is: Start with the operating contract and evidence path: robot model, software version, program context, frames, tcp, payload, waypoints, motion, i/o and recovery requirement, followed by script statements through controller state, path generation, robot motion and independent cell feedback. Add advanced features only after the baseline is predictable.

Case 02

predict → observe → prove

Prove map the evidence path

Engineering context. script statements through controller state, path generation, robot motion and independent cell feedback. Separate request, internal state, output or service, physical or user-visible result and independent feedback so each boundary can be inspected. Begin with a written normal condition and identify which request, state, physical result or communication value will provide independent confirmation. Do not begin by changing the configuration; the initial state is part of the evidence and should remain reproducible.

Controlled setup. Use the “Build the map” stage of the workflow: document script statements through controller state, path generation, robot motion and independent cell feedback and name who owns each state or decision. The acceptance record should show this result: every request and result has a source, destination and useful inspection point. Record initial conditions, the exact stimulus and the observation point so another learner can repeat the case without relying on your memory.

Fault challenge. Introduce or analyse “Internal state changes but the outcome does not” as one bounded deviation. Inspect request, final owner, output or service boundary and independent feedback The working interpretation is that a software or interface indication proves intent at one layer, not the complete outcome. The next proving action is to trace the first boundary after the changing state. Change only one condition before observing the result, and preserve timestamps or measurements where timing matters.

Review and recovery. The most common trap here is using the same value as command, status and independent feedback. After restoring the cause, repeat the normal case and at least one stop, timeout, disconnect or restart boundary relevant to this topic. Remove temporary forces and bypasses, return the model to a known state and retain the evidence that both operation and recovery are deliberate.

Explain it aloud: How do I practise Universal Robots scripting concepts effectively? A defensible short answer is: Use short cases with known initial conditions, a written prediction, one action and an observable result. Then alter a boundary or fault and explain why the evidence changed.

Case 03

predict → observe → prove

Prove prove normal operation

Engineering context. one home, approach, action, depart and return sequence executed with deliberate settings. Run more than one cycle from a known state and retain the values, timings or artifacts that demonstrate repeatability. Begin with a written normal condition and identify which request, state, physical result or communication value will provide independent confirmation. Do not begin by changing the configuration; the initial state is part of the evidence and should remain reproducible.

Controlled setup. Use the “Run the baseline” stage of the workflow: apply one home, approach, action, depart and return sequence executed with deliberate settings from a clean start and record the expected evidence. The acceptance record should show this result: repeated runs produce the same bounded result. Record initial conditions, the exact stimulus and the observation point so another learner can repeat the case without relying on your memory.

Fault challenge. Introduce or analyse “Normal case passes but an edge case fails” as one bounded deviation. Inspect limits, timing, simultaneous events, reset and restart assumptions The working interpretation is that the implementation contains a hidden assumption exposed by the changed condition. The next proving action is to add the failed boundary as a permanent regression case. Change only one condition before observing the result, and preserve timestamps or measurements where timing matters.

Review and recovery. The most common trap here is changing several parameters before a baseline exists. After restoring the cause, repeat the normal case and at least one stop, timeout, disconnect or restart boundary relevant to this topic. Remove temporary forces and bypasses, return the model to a known state and retain the evidence that both operation and recovery are deliberate.

Explain it aloud: What counts as proof of competence? A defensible short answer is: A repeatable artifact or system result plus an explanation of the signal path is stronger than time spent, screenshots or a copied answer. Physical competence requires separate supervised evidence.

Case 04

predict → observe → prove

Prove exercise a boundary case

Engineering context. frame mismatch, pose, singularity, blend, payload, lost I/O, thread state, interruption and restart. Choose minimum, maximum, simultaneous, delayed or restart conditions that reveal assumptions hidden by the happy path. Begin with a written normal condition and identify which request, state, physical result or communication value will provide independent confirmation. Do not begin by changing the configuration; the initial state is part of the evidence and should remain reproducible.

Controlled setup. Use the “Challenge assumptions” stage of the workflow: test frame mismatch, pose, singularity, blend, payload, lost i/o, thread state, interruption and restart without changing the acceptance contract. The acceptance record should show this result: limits, timing and restart behavior reach defined states. Record initial conditions, the exact stimulus and the observation point so another learner can repeat the case without relying on your memory.

Fault challenge. Introduce or analyse “The failure disappears after reset” as one bounded deviation. Inspect original symptom, histories, diagnostics, timestamps and active cause The working interpretation is that reset changed evidence or state without proving the initiating cause. The next proving action is to reproduce under a controlled condition and preserve pre/post-event data. Change only one condition before observing the result, and preserve timestamps or measurements where timing matters.

Review and recovery. The most common trap here is testing only one ideal sequence. After restoring the cause, repeat the normal case and at least one stop, timeout, disconnect or restart boundary relevant to this topic. Remove temporary forces and bypasses, return the model to a known state and retain the evidence that both operation and recovery are deliberate.

Explain it aloud: Why test faults and restart behavior? A defensible short answer is: Because a syntax, state, frame, path, motion, handshake, payload or recovery mismatch or frame mismatch, pose, singularity, blend, payload, lost i/o, thread state, interruption and restart can expose assumptions that never appear during ideal startup and steady operation.

Case 05

predict → observe → prove

Prove diagnose a controlled fault

Engineering context. a syntax, state, frame, path, motion, handshake, payload or recovery mismatch. Preserve the first symptom, divide the system at a measurable boundary and change one condition only after predicting the result. Begin with a written normal condition and identify which request, state, physical result or communication value will provide independent confirmation. Do not begin by changing the configuration; the initial state is part of the evidence and should remain reproducible.

Controlled setup. Use the “Isolate one failure” stage of the workflow: introduce or analyse a syntax, state, frame, path, motion, handshake, payload or recovery mismatch and locate the first disagreement. The acceptance record should show this result: the proving action distinguishes the leading hypotheses. Record initial conditions, the exact stimulus and the observation point so another learner can repeat the case without relying on your memory.

Fault challenge. Introduce or analyse “Simulator and target disagree” as one bounded deviation. Inspect model boundary, software version, task timing, I/O behavior, data types and configuration The working interpretation is that a learning model and the intended target do not share one of the recorded assumptions. The next proving action is to reduce the case and verify against current target documentation. Change only one condition before observing the result, and preserve timestamps or measurements where timing matters.

Review and recovery. The most common trap here is resetting, forcing or replacing before evidence is retained. After restoring the cause, repeat the normal case and at least one stop, timeout, disconnect or restart boundary relevant to this topic. Remove temporary forces and bypasses, return the model to a known state and retain the evidence that both operation and recovery are deliberate.

Explain it aloud: Can browser practice replace official software or hardware? A defensible short answer is: No. It can build concepts and diagnostic reasoning. Exact firmware, I/O electrical behavior, networking, safety and commissioning require current official tools, documentation and target equipment.

Case 06

predict → observe → prove

Prove transfer and hand over

Engineering context. the program recreated from current official documentation and validated in URSim, controller and safeguarded cell. Restore normal state, remove temporary changes, repeat affected checks and document which claims remain limited to the learning environment. Begin with a written normal condition and identify which request, state, physical result or communication value will provide independent confirmation. Do not begin by changing the configuration; the initial state is part of the evidence and should remain reproducible.

Controlled setup. Use the “Close the evidence loop” stage of the workflow: complete the program recreated from current official documentation and validated in ursim, controller and safeguarded cell and repeat the affected regression cases. The acceptance record should show this result: transfer is complete only after the example is recreated, compiled and tested in the official engineering environment and on the intended controller family. Record initial conditions, the exact stimulus and the observation point so another learner can repeat the case without relying on your memory.

Fault challenge. Introduce or analyse “The result cannot be explained” as one bounded deviation. Inspect prediction, observation, proving action, alternative hypotheses and limitations The working interpretation is that activity occurred but the evidence is not yet transferable or reviewable. The next proving action is to have the learner defend the signal path and repeat a changed case. Change only one condition before observing the result, and preserve timestamps or measurements where timing matters.

Review and recovery. The most common trap here is treating an acknowledged message or one successful rerun as handover. After restoring the cause, repeat the normal case and at least one stop, timeout, disconnect or restart boundary relevant to this topic. Remove temporary forces and bypasses, return the model to a known state and retain the evidence that both operation and recovery are deliberate.

Explain it aloud: How should progress be documented? A defensible short answer is: Keep the requirement, initial state, program or configuration, observed values, fault hypothesis, proving action, recovery result and a concise limitations statement.

Answer surface / 07

Questions people ask about What is URScript

These concise answers define the operating, training and product boundaries most often missed in broad summaries. The full workflow and diagnostic table above provide the evidence behind them.

What should I learn first about Universal Robots scripting concepts?

Start with the operating contract and evidence path: robot model, software version, program context, frames, tcp, payload, waypoints, motion, i/o and recovery requirement, followed by script statements through controller state, path generation, robot motion and independent cell feedback. Add advanced features only after the baseline is predictable.

How do I practise Universal Robots scripting concepts effectively?

Use short cases with known initial conditions, a written prediction, one action and an observable result. Then alter a boundary or fault and explain why the evidence changed.

What counts as proof of competence?

A repeatable artifact or system result plus an explanation of the signal path is stronger than time spent, screenshots or a copied answer. Physical competence requires separate supervised evidence.

Why test faults and restart behavior?

Because a syntax, state, frame, path, motion, handshake, payload or recovery mismatch or frame mismatch, pose, singularity, blend, payload, lost i/o, thread state, interruption and restart can expose assumptions that never appear during ideal startup and steady operation.

Can browser practice replace official software or hardware?

No. It can build concepts and diagnostic reasoning. Exact firmware, I/O electrical behavior, networking, safety and commissioning require current official tools, documentation and target equipment.

How should progress be documented?

Keep the requirement, initial state, program or configuration, observed values, fault hypothesis, proving action, recovery result and a concise limitations statement.

What should I do when the answer differs from a guide?

Check assumptions, version, units and initial state first. Reduce the case, compare one boundary at a time and prefer current primary documentation for target-specific behavior.

When is a Universal Robots scripting concepts exercise finished?

Transfer is complete only after the example is recreated, compiled and tested in the official engineering environment and on the intended controller family.