revision drawing and paper mill

[biXel]

Good to all.

I would like to have an opinion on the balloons used to identify quotas that have undergone modification.
if the modification impacts on data contained within the paper mill (e.g. the material of the particular or other information, however, within the paper mill), is exhaustive the only description in the field of the modification that cites 'material modified' or is it also necessary to add the balloon of the new revision within the paper mill, within the field of the material?

I find it 'invading' and I think sufficient note (which then tells me that the material has been modified).

opinions and/or useful indications?

Thank you very much.

 

[320i S]

the change balloon can also be used to identify parts of the modified cartilage.
on the descriptions of the changes, it is good to be as exhaustive as possible, compatibly with the available space (avoiding abbreviations like "mod. qtà" or "mod. sald. perim").

with regard to me changes of material, surface treatments, raw or similar that do not impact on the geometry of the design, the balloon explanatory sign or not present, if the design is not so "densed" to leave the appropriate space around the cartiglio and I am therefore sure that there are no bad interpretations, I also put the balloons.

I assume that before looking at the design, each operator must read the cartilage first in its completeness.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

in my opinion the balloon aims to identify the revision immediately, so within the geometry facilitates reading, but when it is referred to the cartiglio I find it useless because in the description already identifies the modified field

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

you had already opened an equal discussion https://www.cad3d.it/forum1/threads/revisione-disegno-e-balloon-di-riferimento.56559/#post-441675

 

[biXel]

but I was speaking in general (in fact I could continue anyway).
here I specifically asked the involvement of the balloons inside the cartouche.
:unsures:

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

as 320is writes the description must be clear; if you have modified 4 fields (material, color, finish, treatment) and in the description of the revision you are not then put the balloons specifying to look for them in the cartilage (for example: modification of the cartilage in the fields indicated)

 

[biXel]

I agree with you.
is that some colleagues would like to write poems in the description of the changes.
less is written better (if it is absolutely not necessary ).
I've seen Chinese colleagues with texts translated embarrassingly. . .

from my point of view, if the change is eloquent you do not need:
put the balloons on the modified and fine sizes (if you want to see the differences open the previous design ).
with regard to changes in the cartilage, since it does not impact geometry the description is sufficient and necessary.
I'll see if I can convince the office 'dinosaurs'.

thanks for your contribution.

 

[320i S]

it is not the point if to write or not to write, but to be clear and not to leave to free interpretation.
the gift of synthesis is for a few, but if it is not clear, it is in any case the failure of the goal.