Part number auto-balloon? 1

[purecoda]

I have a co-worker who keeps griping that SW should have an auto-balloon option that inserts the actual file name (our assigned part number) instead of a sequential number that has to be cross referenced with the BOM. Is there any way to do this?

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

I'm not sure at this stage how to do this automatically, but you can change the balloon to show whatever information you want by linking it to a custom property.
Just RMB a balloon & select Properties then select Custom then select Link to property icon (the page with hand & chain-link). Then you can link to a property as you would to a normal note.

 

[rockguy]

If you use Corblimeylimey's method and then select the balloon and "copy" it, then select the part you want to balloon and "paste" the balloon will update automatically with the correct information. So you only have to set up the 1st balloon and then by copying and pasting after selecting the appropriate parts you'll have what you need. That is sort of automated.

 

[purecoda]

I've tried to do this, but can't seem to find a way to link to the part name in the assembly (it keeps giving me the assembly name). Anyone know the PRP code for it? It doesn't really help me if I have to link it to a custom properties field entry, because that's pretty much the same as entering it manually in the assembly drawing.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Actually if you use $PRPMODEL:"SW-File Name" you will not have to create a custom property. It will return the "as-saved" name/number of the part.

Make sure you select the Component to which the annotation is attached radio button, when making the link.

 

[purecoda]

Awesome. That 'll do. Thanks CorB.

 

[TheTick]

question for you, precoda...

Does your department have a standard as to how parts in an assembly drawing should be identified? I would find it of concern that someone is doing this just out of personal preference without consideration for good engineering practice or department standards.

"Customer satisfaction, while theoretically possible, is neither guaranteed nor statistically likely.--E.L. Kersten

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

 

[ctopher]

I agree with Tick. It is way out of drafting standards and unacceptable to do on drawings. Unless it will be used for some unofficial internal document.

 

[purecoda]

Thanks for bringing that up. I agree with both of you that it is outside of standards. It was a question asked by one of our employees who, well, at times just does things his own way. I appreciate some outside opinions that back up what I've thought all along. I've only been working with this group for just over a year now, and didn't have any prior experience, while he has been a drafter for 20+ years. He's been quite resistant to change, especially making the jump from AutoCAD to SW.

Even still, I learned that you can use the PRP codes in balloons, which I didn't really know before. Thanks.

 

[Cryo1]

I'm all for standards but part # in ballons does make life easier. What problems would part# ballons cause?

 

[TheTick]

20+ years as a drafter, he ought to be able to read a BOM.

20+ years as a drafter and never moved onward and/or upward???

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Cryo1 ... It wouldn't cause any real problems ... it's just not the recognized way of doing things.

purecoda ... I've been designing/drafting for 30+ years & have never worked for a company which puts the part number in balloons. IMO, the BOM is the easiest, neatest & best way to go.
Your colleague who "at times just does things his own way", had better adopt standard practices and accept changes now, while still employed, rather than find out the hard way, that most companies want employees who already understand & use standard practice.

 

[ctopher]

If he ever does any drawings for the military, he will learn the right way really fast.

 

[purecoda]

I agree that he needs to follow our companies standard, but its one of these situations where 1. I'm at least 20 years younger than he is (24 as opposed to God only knows, and I'm being generous) not that it should really matter, but it does effect the situation and 2. Its one of those "choose your battles" decisions. Believe me, everyone buts heads with this guy a lot, and I mean A LOT. There's plenty of other things that we've been working together to try and agree on, that it is pretty much a moot point right now. Besides, the machine shop we use doesn't seem to care, so right now, I guess neither do I.

Even if I were to bring it up, its one of those week-long conversations in a day... NO THANK YOU!

 

[ctopher]

If he doesn't know SolidWorks, then tell him it will not do auto balloon the way he likes and he will have to deal with the way it is. Works for me.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

If your company has a standard & wants it enforced, then it's up to whoever has the authority to do so. If that person is you ... roll up your sleeves & tell him it's either the company way or the highway. If that person is not you ... the next time he gripes & complains, tell him to go see whoever is in charge & let them deal with it.
If he's that much of a "butt-head" ... ignore him.

 

[CMcF]

purecoda,
Trust your instincts. I admire your restraint. I once spent 3 hours doing a layout just to prove to an awkward, older colleague that he had made a drawing error. If I hadn't done the layout he would have just argued and argued and arg....
Some times we engineers forget the reasons for standards and doggedly stick to doing things that arn't neccessary.

I would take my time (weeks at least) to compile a list of reasons for ballooning drawings the standard way.

If you do come up with a compelling list of resons to stick to the standards, find a way to get what you want whilst allowing the luddites to save some face!

I am always amazed at how an engineer can be so resistant to change!