ISTech Support Forum

ISTech Support Forum
http://www.istechforum.com/YaBB.pl
Evo-ERP and DBA Classic >> Suggestions for Updates >> Unsupress parts/hr
http://www.istechforum.com/YaBB.pl?num=1053451691

Message started by Karen Mason on 05/20/03 at 11:28:11

Title: Unsupress parts/hr
Post by Karen Mason on 05/20/03 at 11:28:11

Would like to see parts/hr restored on routing reports RO-J-A. I had switched defaults to see the affect of Y/N settings on display Long Time prompts. I lost my parts/hr when I said "Y". Although I changed it back, I still do not get parts/hr or time/pt in the 00:00:00 format.

Thanks

Title: Re: Unsupress parts/hr
Post by Tim Keating on 05/21/03 at 10:48:59

I have noticed the same thing. It has also affected the Work Order Traveler. We now get decimal hours instead of parts/hr on the non-graphical traveler. It prints out OK on the graphical form but we don't use that.

Any Clues Lynn? I'd like to get this fixed.

Title: Re: Unsupress parts/hr
Post by Lynn_Pantic on 05/21/03 at 11:05:34

For the non-graphical traveler and some of the reports, go into the Routing Defaults and set the Long Time prompt to N. Of course this assumes you always use HH:MM:SS time format and not the decimal time when entering routings. Karen's request applies to some of the report that are still unaffected when the default is changed; I am going to get them changed.

Just out of curiosity, why don't you use the graphical traveler format? Dot Matrix printers?

Title: Re: Unsupress parts/hr
Post by Tim Keating on 05/21/03 at 11:51:15

I tried changing the default in SD-I like you suggested. I re-entered the sequence time in hh:mm:ss format and issued a new work order for the part. No luck, I'm still missing Parts/Hr.

To answer your second question, we use laser printers for everything but I never saw any benefit to the graphical traveler because I assumed it would print slower and use more toner. We don't need the barcodes and it's also one less RTM to deal with during updates.

Title: Re: Unsupress parts/hr
Post by Lynn_Pantic on 05/21/03 at 12:29:50

OK, let me check into it.