revision drawing and reference balloon

[biXel]

Good to all.

in the table of a part that has two revisions (a and b ), is it correct to remove the pallini that indicate the zones that have undergone modification from the rev. to and leave only those contextual to the new revision?
or is it more correct to always leave all the boxes related to previous revisions?

Thank you.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

if the new revision affects the same area of competence as the previous one replaces it, otherwise I personally would leave them both so as to keep visual trace of the changes.
I don't think there's a law that defines the procedure.

 

[Stefano_GS]

I used to tend to leave them all.
on very old drawings and subjected to frequent revisions after a while became a little bit a mess.
at that point I opted for a new issue, I archived the design with the changes I had until then and I share with a more readable sheet.

 

[marcok625]

hi, we in the company have established that in these cases the pals with revision to be eliminated and left only those in b not to confuse the reading of the drawing, while the tabellina of the revisions will have the history of all revisions and therefore still on drawing you will have the information.
the only rule on revisions is asthme y14.35 - 2014, but it does not specify these things, but in chapter 5.5.2 it only says that on the drawings in which the use of revision symbols could be in conflict with other symbols used on the design creating a possible incorrect interpretation, the description of the revision will be sufficient.

 

[biXel]

I was in fact puzzled because I did not find any guidelines or regulations on the subject.
where I work, he tended to leave everything; Today things will change, just to avoid the design becoming a golf course... especially in the drawings rich in revision.
@stefano_g but in that way it means you create a new code part.
Or do I misinterpret?
@marcok625 the description of the change, when you have several areas involved. ..can also become quite long and the dedicated space cannot be exaggerated.
Moreover, when you work with foreign offices (e.g. cina) I do not tell you the translations. . .
therefore it has opted to make optional description.
I don't need a description to tell me the connection goes from 3 to 5.
If I want to know that it really happened, at most I open the previous review, individual balloons and away.
or, in nx, I use the comparison tool between revisions (which is very useful and tells me everything in a single report ).


we say that therefore the persecutable path is a 'business' choice.
thanks for the contribution

 

[Stefano_GS]

Hi.
I did not generate a new part code but the designs were only 2d no derived from a modeling.
it was simply a new issue of the table that "hidden" the older and now "assimilate" changes.
for us was fundamental the description of the changes, so that opening the design who had to make the pieces (our internal production) started reading those and reducing the risk of producing as the previous times losing changes

 

[francescodue]

Hello.
in the office where I was made plastic molds.
It often happened that particulars had to be reviewed.
in general every revision was indicated in the cartiglio (just to understand if the design was new or old) but all previous indications were deleted.
in some cases the date was directly used as a revision index.
Maybe it wasn't formal, but it was quite comfortable and the design remained clean.