You can set the min and max size of the balloon.
max_balloon_radius 0.000000
min_balloon_radius 0.000000
If the values are the same, you will have a consistent balloon.
Just make sure the value fits your intended annotation 
I just tested this with a large balloon.
I set the min and max 1.5" and this is working.
Can you post the file with the problem?
Hi Antonius and Stephen, Thank you for your replies!
In this below view, we can see the size difference between the reference balloon and the normal balloon. This is the main problem facing when I want to place the reference balloon in another view.
- maximum and minimum radii values of balloons
There are 2 "balloons" in Creo.
The "balloons" the config option max/min balloon radius controls are note balloons created under annotations. This option will NOT affect repeat region BOM balloons.
I believe you are referring to BOM balloons that are generated from the TABLE tab under create balloons. These are control by symbols located in the folder "LOADPOINT"\Common Files\MXXX\symbols\report\bomballoon\ .
To correct the size, you will have to edit the symbols.
true.
I've worked where the entire CAD drawing library was sent to contract services in India to incorporate ECOs.
What came back was unsustainable when they tried to bring it back in-house.
It took less than 3 months to create a $1M hole in what was otherwise a pretty solid CAD environment (NX).
If I have 50 part BOMs, it is rare. I also need to create references and manage the quantities on a group basis.
And I have a habit of grouping my component types within a BOM.
In the end, it is faster to just to fill in a table. I know how to check my work. I also know that nothing will change out of the blue.
I certainly am not defending my lack of use of capabilities that we pay good money for.
But as Stephen so rightly suggests, this type of environment requires diligence, enforcement, and sometimes extra resources.
Take your eyes of that, and all goes out the window very quickly.
Lesson learned: don;t send anything important to India...... 
We're running into that on the project I'm on....ugh.....
I used to absolutely hate repeat regions as well. Then, since the companies I worked for insisted on using them, I dug in and became pretty proficient in them, aided by looking at tables very experienced users had set up. I think I learned a lot from looking at their work, and now I actually insist on using them in anything I do, and set them up for companies I've worked for. Yes, there are some things that make you want to tear your hair out (like flexible parts suddenly switching their index # at random...) and other quirks, but there are some really neat trick you can do. I set mine up so that any parts made with certain start parts (for bulk stuff like oil, paint, Loc-Tite, etc., to automatically come in with a Qty of "A/R", or be able to switch that as needed by index to be anything you want (i.e. 1 gallon). I also made "REMOVED" parts that would automatically blank the entire row of a BOM. I was able to automatically sort the tables to have made (in-house) assemblies come in at the bottom, then above that purchased (non-modified) assemblies, then made parts, then sourced (non-modified) parts, then all the weld filler, fasteners, and then bulk parts etc. The employer like a sorted BOM, so I made one. It was fun, and I learned a lot, so, I guess I've switched sides now.
But yes, they CAN be a major PITA, especially with respect to the flexible part (spring) issue switching indexes even if the index was fixed manually. I found a way to FORCE it to stay fixed, but man, what a PITA, and a potentially a major problem. Not sure yet if they've fixed that....
We may have strayed a bit from the main topic
The only other problem with systems like that, although there are work-arounds, is the "model doesn't match the BOM" issues.
Invariably, I had separable part files... meaning I had a, let's say, a switch with the nut and washer as separate items so you can see sections properly. So the solution, before flexible parts in assembly, was to model each part and create the switch assembly within the larger assembly. Now you have 3 parts dedicated to a switch in the using assembly. The only thing the system would understand is putting the switch together in a sub-assembly at the right distance. Meaning, you would have several versions of the same switch floating around on the system. The flexible assembly solves that, but as you rightly noted, it was again poorly implemented, although to the Specification, of course.
In my world, the tool cannot dictate results. If I have to spend 10 hours to save 30 minutes, it is on me. There are so precious few elements that I can automate that usually, the effort has no return. If I cannot reliably put 10 items on a manual BOM at any point in my design cycle, I am in the wrong business.
Yeah, I hear ya! It should be noted that there is a world of difference between the user working for himself for customers, and a user who works directly for a big corporation. Flexibility vs. inflexibility. BUT, if I can spend 10 hours on something that saves every user in the company 30 min each time they use it, then in that case it's well worth it. For the contractor, it's diminishing returns. For the corporate world, it's time-saving automation.
I think in my case, I've gotten to learn a lot about the repeat regions I wouldn't normally have been able to.....and it makes me look good to da boss man.
Now, if only they'd fix the bugs.....
