Filemon
October 12, 2015, 6:06pm
17
I admit this is unclear. I went into the order an found the cause. If you hover over the “i” it says that typical FDM volume is 3,1cm3 and for most other printers it’s 5.7cm3. It shows the latter where it should have shown the first (bug).
Taking the 3,1cm3. We have 4 parts, so 4 x 3,1 = 12,4 cm3, multiplying this by 0.75 / cm3 gives $9.3, which is correct (there’s some rounding off in the shown volume so minor variation is possible).
So, admittedly, we need to fix the bugs, but you can be reassured that the pricing system itself is correct. Hope this solves!
Filemon
October 12, 2015, 6:08pm
18
Could be a server issue then, that the calculations don’t come through quickly enough. Will check that hypothesis
NoNaym
October 12, 2015, 6:21pm
19
This is still very counter-intuitive, and taking away the Hubs’ abilities to adjust part volume just seems crazy. Like others have noted in this and other threads, I have had to adjust the part volume on pretty much every order I have received (20+ orders) because the 3D Hubs estimate was not matching up with my part volume estimates (which come from my slicing software that I set up for my printer). This new system makes this kind of adjustment much more difficult and confusing, not only for your Hubs, but for customers who want transparency in their orders. Sorry, but these changes all just seem so sloppily implemented…
2 Likes
Cool, thanks. One feature I’d still like is to be able to offer “rush processing.” Right now, I just list my printers as multiples. Some with smaller lead-times but higher startup prices. Also, it is often confusing for people when I tack on fee for “parts cleanup.”
We should have “additional services.” Be a prompt at time of order.
2 Likes
eckerj
October 13, 2015, 6:44pm
21
Hi Filemon,
Is it possible to provide hooks into the back-end slicing engine that 3D Hubs uses for estimating product sliced-volumes?
I imagine it would require a bit of work, but if you were able to do this, we could enter in our default slicing parameters on our printer pages and at least have the 3D Hubs estimate come closer to our own individual estimates.
It would also be nice to have an option for support material generation estimates, either by a checkbox or an automatic guess by the slicer.
In any event, we’ve lost an important functionality when we are no longer allowed to enter in our own sliced volume into orders.
Thanks much
3 Likes
Yes, we need to be able to manually enter values. Basically, all of my prints I end up manually reorienting and building support. So, an automated “support cost estimator.” Wouldn’t be super accurate either.
2 Likes
Dane
October 13, 2015, 7:03pm
23
I agree with over 30+ order I am consistently getting volume underestimated on all of my orders to the point where I think 3Dhubs is doing it intentionally to make order go through and slip it by hubs. I have ALWAYS cross-checked it with several programs including Simplify3D and Netfabb and they’ve always underestimated the volume by maybe 20%. Its horrible in terms of business because customers get a price and then get disappointed when the new price comes through and understandably so. Why can’t we just get accurate volume measurements that we can adjust?
1 Like
Dane
October 13, 2015, 7:08pm
24
I agree with over 30+ order I am consistently getting volume underestimated on all of my orders to the point where I think 3Dhubs is doing it intentionally to make orders go through and slip it by hubs. I have ALWAYS cross-checked it with several programs including Simplify3D and Netfabb and they’ve always underestimated the volume by maybe 20%. Its horrible in terms of business because customers get a price and then get disappointed when the new price comes through and understandably so. Can’t we just get accurate volume measurements that we can adjust?
4 Likes
Filemon
October 13, 2015, 7:54pm
25
Jep, I can see your frustration. I’m taking this up with the dev guys and will report back shortly. It will take a bit to make adjustments. Please let me know if other issues arise
Joerg_4
October 14, 2015, 12:22pm
27
@
A lot of downsides of the update have been discussed already and I think there will be some improvement in the future.
From my point of view there are two important things that should be subject to change:
1. Editing materials, colors and the related prices take much more effort than before. It would be nice if there were an improvement that protects the hubs from doing more work than before.
2. The color listing should show real colors instead of names. It doesn’t matter if a customer reads ‘sunlight flare’, ‘bright orange’ or just ‘orange’. He will never have the correct expectation and it is always better to see colors instead of reading their names. Most relevant filament manufacturers can provide us images of their products and they will help you with this for sure (I actually asked 2 manufacturers and they were pleased to help).
Just my 2 cents
Cheers,
Joerg
1 Like
Filemon
October 14, 2015, 1:38pm
28
Thanks @ will definitely use this feedback! Cheers
1 Like
Filemon
October 14, 2015, 1:38pm
29
got it! will put it on the list
I would like to see a time-based option as well. I usually charge my non-3dhubs clients by the hour. This makes far more sense for me, since I am not all that fussed about the plastic content; some jobs use little plastic but take ages to print, especially if I am using a 0.15mm nozzle.
1 Like
Hi, why we are still missing grams as price calculation. SLA, Poly printers they using grams not cm. material is sold in kg not meters? As you know 1cm of one material (glass) is different than other (Tango)
This is a great improvement- thank you!
What about pricing for support material? That seems like it would be difficult to determine but a useful feature nonetheless. I know i have lost jobs when i quoted the extra $ for support used.
same with pricing via time. Large prints, complex objects, extra tall prints can have a small surface or volume but take a long time to print due to z height thinking about this would be useful.
1 Like
+1 rush would be really useful
I imagine this would be really hard, but if 3hubs ran a web version of say cura or simplify that picked optimal orientation for object based on our submitted profiles inc support, infill etc then we could have option to dl the gcode in addition to stl . Obvs we all have our fine settings and preferred slicers but it could be interesting approach.
1 Like
Filemon
October 15, 2015, 8:23am
35
This sounds awesome! Fear that it’s a bit ahead of us indeed, but can’t hurt to look forward, right?
It would be great having pricing details based on the print height. With DLP printers like B9Creator and Autodesk Ember the printing time only depends on layer thickness and the height of the print. For example, if you have to print a long and thin part that must be oriented vertical it would take a very long time with a minimal volume.
An xy resolution parameter could be interesting as well because limits a lot the number of parts that can be printed at once, but this can be configured only in a few printers like B9
1 Like
