ISTech Support Forum

ISTech Support Forum
http://www.istechforum.com/YaBB.pl
Evo-ERP and DBA Classic >> Manufacturing >> Print Travelers w/Bar Codes
http://www.istechforum.com/YaBB.pl?num=1172183034

Message started by gtladmin on 02/22/07 at 14:23:54

Title: Print Travelers w/Bar Codes
Post by gtladmin on 02/22/07 at 14:23:54

I've modified the Traveler for our manufacturing area o add a bar code for the part # and the qty. Can you format the bar code fields to make them a certain size? The qty field is awfully long, and I can't seem influence it's size no matter what I try. Also, there seems to be some extra zeros in the field when you scan it , any way to get rid of that?

Also, I remember Tim saying something at the symposium about padding the field with zeros for a carriage return, or something like that? Anyone have good notes on this?

Thanks,

Val

Title: Re: Print Travelers w/Bar Codes
Post by gtladmin on 02/27/07 at 08:34:16

Anybody have any experience with this that would help me here?

Thanks,

Val

Title: Re: Print Travelers w/Bar Codes
Post by gtladmin on 02/28/07 at 13:00:21

Does anybody know anything about formatting the bar code fields you add to the RTMs? People speak to having added them and using them, so you all must know something about formatting them. Help!

Val

Title: Re: Print Travelers w/Bar Codes
Post by JEMM on 03/02/07 at 12:40:48

Val,
The size of the barcode works with the size of the field for which it is generating a barcode. For example, the WO qty in the header of the traveler is defined as a numeric field of 9 places with two decimals places. Thus it can have a maximum value of 999999999.99 which would be 12 characters long (if you count the decimal). The barcode is created with a length of 12 characters even if the qty is for 1.00.

That said, you can play with the barcode properties (Bar Width, Wide Bar Ratio) which would reduce the width of the barcode but....it may cause problems reading the barcodes.

Mike

Title: Re: Print Travelers w/Bar Codes
Post by gtladmin on 03/13/07 at 11:44:38

Hi Mike,

Figured that was the case. Too bad the size isn't dynamic based on the actual value, up to the defined size of the data field....

Oh well!

Thanks,

Val