cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

User defined bubble number using BOM table

that_guy
3-Visitor

User defined bubble number using BOM table

I think a lot of people, myself included need a BOM table which will display user defined balloon numbers. I don't want the index numbers in the balloons. Ideally, I need a table that I can have the BOM plus a column in which I can define the balloon number required. This would save a lot of time from having to manually create balloon notes with my desired number. Thx

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
StephenW
22-Sapphire III
(To:that_guy)

Fix index is definitely the fastest, easiest method. If I was doing it regularly, I would make a set of mapkeys to get me most of the way there.

The component parameter method I mentioned would be way more upfront work and would be much less user friendly (more training).

View solution in original post

12 REPLIES 12
Dale_Rosema
22-Sapphire I
(To:that_guy)

If you want your suggestion to be voted on post in the first link below. The ideas were searched with the following results:

 

https://community.ptc.com/t5/Creo-Parametric-Ideas/idb-p/creoparametric

 

Found one for balloon numbers instead of dimensions for quality/checking:

https://community.ptc.com/t5/Creo-Parametric-Ideas/BOM-Balloons-for-Drawing-Dimensions/idi-p/470671

 

Fixing indices numbers.

https://community.ptc.com/t5/Creo-Parametric-Ideas/Fix-BOM-Indecies-for-all-Representations/idi-p/46...

 

Or post your idea in the first link.

I posted in the idea section. Thanks.

StephenW
22-Sapphire III
(To:that_guy)

I would use a component parameter and set that in your repeat region bom instead of the index.

You would need to make a custom bom balloon to use that instead of the index number.

Search for component parameters bom index or something similar.

It's completely do-able

 

We are concerned that a component parameter makes you check out that part, then assign it a specific item number and that number would have to be the same every time. This wouldn't work for us because that part may have a different item number each time. Plus, if you have a big enough BOM, checking out all those parts would suck.

whoops, I guess I replied to the wrong message. That was meant for the reply above. Anyway, for the unfixing - fixing of the index numbers this works but is a little cumbersome and difficult to use especially if you don't understand repeat regions. I suppose my only gripe is hard to use. 

 

Thanks for the reply.

Patriot_1776
22-Sapphire I
(To:that_guy)

Did you know you can not only lock the items individually (assigning whatever numbers you want to each), or lock the entire region at a time (to whatever numbers are currently show)?  If you simply MUST have part "A" as index 1, and part "B" as index 2, then, yes, you have to assign them one-by-one.  I don't find it tedious, how ELSE would you do it one-by-one?

StephenW
22-Sapphire III
(To:that_guy)

Specifically a "component parameter" is only in the assembly and is assigned to that component within that assembly. It is not a part parameter which exists in the part.

If you are of the opinion that fixing the index is cumbersome, then using component parameters would be a much higher level of cumbersome and would require much more work and much more effort but it would provide much more flexibility.

Patriot_1776
22-Sapphire I
(To:StephenW)

I dunno it it would add flexibility, you'd be stuck with that index number no matter what dwg the part showed up in, leading to possibly having 2 different parts with the same index #.  To me, fixing the indexes per each repeat region BOM allows more flexibility.  Or, at least the flexibility I find more useful.  Me, I just lock the indexes of the entire region at once and move on.  Flexible parts USED to wreak havoc in BOMS, requiring me to lock each index individually, THEN lock the entire region to get them to stay the same index #.  Doing either or didn't work for some weird reason.  I had to do both.

Patriot_1776
22-Sapphire I
(To:that_guy)

I'm curious as to why simply using a repeat region box, then FIXING the index numbers to what you want doesn't work for you.  You realize you can re-order the indexes of your BOM to have any part be any number, and it locks it that way, right?  For reference, you should always fix your repeat region anyway to keep the index numbers from changing and messing up note references to them.

BenLoosli
22-Sapphire III
(To:that_guy)

Explain your rational as to why a custom BOM number is preferred over a system generated number that is propagated to related items automatically?

Fixing the BOM table locks the numbers so they don't change, unless you unfix the table and resort it. Even then, BOM numbers will update, but item numbers in a note will not.

We don't publish BOMs (with part numbers) on drawings, we only item number (bubble number). Our BOMs contain item number, part number, and also sequence numbers. Our assemblers don't like that we don't publish BOMs with part numbers on our drawings. So what they have to do is match the item number on a print to the item number in the MRP. This definitely has it's pros and cons. Unfortunately, I can't change the process. 

 

That being said, we can still "put" a BOM on the drawing but it would be placed outside of the drawing template and not be printed as a contained item. This BOM could be used to bubble quickly because you can bubble by parts in a view. As mentioned, if this table had all the normal index/part number stuff from the model tree but also a bubble number column that can be quickly edited as a text item and be associated/linked this would be a little easier to manage. If we have to change bubble numbers in the future this would be arguably harder to screw up by some other engineer that's never messed with repeat regions. 

 

Anyway, repeat region - select - select - unfix - fix - edit - whatever - whatever, does work.

StephenW
22-Sapphire III
(To:that_guy)

Fix index is definitely the fastest, easiest method. If I was doing it regularly, I would make a set of mapkeys to get me most of the way there.

The component parameter method I mentioned would be way more upfront work and would be much less user friendly (more training).

Announcements