baloon for parts

[Rangav7]

in drafting i have to show baloon like the image attached.

is thier any option in inventor. please comment.

[Rangav7]

in drafting i have to show baloon like the image attached.

is thier any option in inventor. please comment.

[swalton]

Use the Balloon tool in a drawing file (.idw or .dwg).  See attached screenshot.

Also look in the help files.  Here is a link for IV 2014. 

http://help.autodesk.com/view/INVNTOR/2014/ENU/?guid=GUID-5230919F-4700-4282-8EF1-65F6DD6AF903

[swalton]

Use the Balloon tool in a drawing file (.idw or .dwg).  See attached screenshot.

Also look in the help files.  Here is a link for IV 2014. 

http://help.autodesk.com/view/INVNTOR/2014/ENU/?guid=GUID-5230919F-4700-4282-8EF1-65F6DD6AF903

[mcgyvr]

---

@Rangav7 wrote:

in drafting i have to show baloon like the image attached.

is thier any option in inventor. please comment.

---

After you place one balloon as shown by swalton above you can right click on it and select "attach balloon from list" which will allow you to attach any other balloon to the first one.

No default option to show "or" and frankly I can't think of a situation where "or" would ever be allowed on an assembly drawing..

How do you maintain proper inventory levels and consistency if you allow assemblers to "pick" one part or another to use in an assembly?

[mcgyvr]

---

@Rangav7 wrote:

in drafting i have to show baloon like the image attached.

is thier any option in inventor. please comment.

---

After you place one balloon as shown by swalton above you can right click on it and select "attach balloon from list" which will allow you to attach any other balloon to the first one.

No default option to show "or" and frankly I can't think of a situation where "or" would ever be allowed on an assembly drawing..

How do you maintain proper inventory levels and consistency if you allow assemblers to "pick" one part or another to use in an assembly?

[jtylerbc]

---

@mcgyvr wrote:

No default option to show "or" and frankly I can't think of a situation where "or" would ever be allowed on an assembly drawing..

How do you maintain proper inventory levels and consistency if you allow assemblers to "pick" one part or another to use in an assembly?

---

The way we called it out in the drawing was a little different, but at my previous company we did something that may be a decent example of where it would make sense.  We had a shim (used for adjusting bearing endplay) that was available in three thicknesses.  Only one shim was used in a unit, but which thickness was selected varied by the assembly tolerance stackup.

Inventory was dealt with by giving each unit a fractional quantity of all three shims in our MRP system.  For example, if SHIM-2 was more commonly used, the quantities might be:

SHIM-1:  0.25

SHIM-2:  0.50

SHIM-3:  0.25

Obviously incorrect on a per-unit basis, but it averaged out to be reasonably close over time.

[jtylerbc]

---

@mcgyvr wrote:

No default option to show "or" and frankly I can't think of a situation where "or" would ever be allowed on an assembly drawing..

How do you maintain proper inventory levels and consistency if you allow assemblers to "pick" one part or another to use in an assembly?

---

The way we called it out in the drawing was a little different, but at my previous company we did something that may be a decent example of where it would make sense.  We had a shim (used for adjusting bearing endplay) that was available in three thicknesses.  Only one shim was used in a unit, but which thickness was selected varied by the assembly tolerance stackup.

Inventory was dealt with by giving each unit a fractional quantity of all three shims in our MRP system.  For example, if SHIM-2 was more commonly used, the quantities might be:

SHIM-1:  0.25

SHIM-2:  0.50

SHIM-3:  0.25

Obviously incorrect on a per-unit basis, but it averaged out to be reasonably close over time.

[jyager]

We have situations like this where it's an item not tracked like shims on a bearing or counterweights on a dampper blade that don't require tracking becuase it's fractional pieces of metal cut from a larger sheet.

There's no reason to lock down the craft with a certain type or thickness of material, that could very well be adjusted several times due to stack up or mild deformations through welding, before everything is dialed in.

Typically rather than create some "or" situation which would crowd up the BOM as well as added part balloons which may be interpretted wrong I would create one line item for a "shim" with the thicknesses and materials types as req'd.

[jyager]

We have situations like this where it's an item not tracked like shims on a bearing or counterweights on a dampper blade that don't require tracking becuase it's fractional pieces of metal cut from a larger sheet.

There's no reason to lock down the craft with a certain type or thickness of material, that could very well be adjusted several times due to stack up or mild deformations through welding, before everything is dialed in.

Typically rather than create some "or" situation which would crowd up the BOM as well as added part balloons which may be interpretted wrong I would create one line item for a "shim" with the thicknesses and materials types as req'd.

[mcgyvr]

@jtylerbc @jyager

Thanks for the information... Both great examples of when an "or" could be used on a balloon.. 

And yes.. I'd probably do Jasons "single line item" and an "as required" notation vs the dual balloons.. 

[mcgyvr]

@jtylerbc @jyager

Thanks for the information... Both great examples of when an "or" could be used on a balloon.. 

And yes.. I'd probably do Jasons "single line item" and an "as required" notation vs the dual balloons.. 

[jtylerbc]

I believe we did it that way as well. I was just offering an example of where the logic applied, not necessarily saying we called it out the same way shown in this thread.

[jtylerbc]

I believe we did it that way as well. I was just offering an example of where the logic applied, not necessarily saying we called it out the same way shown in this thread.

[mcgyvr]

---

@jtylerbc wrote:

I believe we did it that way as well. I was just offering an example of where the logic applied, not necessarily saying we called it out the same way shown in this thread.

---

yep.. I gotcha 

[mcgyvr]

---

@jtylerbc wrote:

I believe we did it that way as well. I was just offering an example of where the logic applied, not necessarily saying we called it out the same way shown in this thread.

---

yep.. I gotcha