True. Conclusion: We have not tackled this issue yet. I do think specifics is better than “low”, “medium”, “high” but indeed it probably doesn’t mean a lot for customers. Ideas here would be extremely welcome 
Skip to main content
Sorry for my messy explanation. It is not that, layer height is a concept I understand, but I am afraid new clients (I said new users and meant clients) maybe see those headings (75 microns, 200 microns…) and don’t really understand we are talking about final quality. Maybe an infographic of some kind or a brief explanatory text could be enough so they get the idea. I say this because 90% of my clients were newcomers and I think the more intuitive the process is, the better for everybody. Thanks for the support!
@Grod I’m not sure what the reasoning behind the recent change, but it is definitely disturbing and pretty confusing. I’m now unable to enter filament volumes into order pages. I’m also unable to select a printer and resolution for those orders that say “TBD”.
It would make a lot more sense to test things out, or perhaps ask for feedback from Hubs before rolling out drastic changes like this.
Hi,
I like the new possibilitie to set a discount for large orders and the easier administration of different layer heights. But I’am unhappy with the presentation of the prices for the three example products. For me (and maybe most of the customers) it suggests, that the print height is important for the price calculation and not the overall object/slicing volume. Additionally the missing price tags for the price per cm3 and the start up fee let the prices look random and not comprehensible.
Regards
Stephan
Just noticed the update in layer heights, down to a 20 microns.
In theory this sounds very nice, but in reality, any FDM printer, in my experience, will have trouble printing anything below 100 microns, EVEN IF THE MANUFACTURER SAYS IT COULD!
For examply, officially, my printer should be capable of 20 micron layers heights, yet, if selected 20 microns will not get any appreciable better results than 100 microns and often even worse.
These ultra small layer heights might be applicable to SLA-printers, but not, IMHO, for 99% FDM printer that most hubs have.
Again in my opinion, it sends off the wrong message to customers.
Well, that’s exactly right-- And precisely why I like that changed.
It’s pretty annoying see people claiming ultra resolution on a home machine
@ - also, why do the price per object calculations look so odd? 2.5 cm = $11, 10 cm = $13, 15 cm = $113. I’m guessing you have a problem with your formulas!
Yeah it seemed odd to me as well and I changed the price calculation to consider surface area instead… but still looks quite unbalanced. I suggest depicting the same model in 3 different sizes so the comparison is completely fair and coherent. I believe that way people will get a more realistic general idea of the prices.
And I think Marvin is the perfect subject to act as an example because he is pretty solid for his height (I don’t want to say fat…) and most designs will probably be lighter in comparison, so it is likely that the client will get the feeling that the price for his/her piece is cheaper than in the example, which is much better than the other way around!
The Eiffel tower example on the other hand… I think it is not so elegant, because we are counting on a surface full of holes to reach the 10cm height, and the client might not understand why the low price in comparison with the small Marvin.
ps. response from dev “before we allowed Hubs to change the volume of a model on the order page. Because of the advanced pricing we can’t allow that anymore but they can change the price directly instead of the volume”. Does that solve?