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.
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.
@ - 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.
True points. Keep in mind that you could add any type of printer, not just FDM. I expect we would do an update soon, linking resolutions to printer types. This is currently not possible just yet
The tabulated approach for the different resolutions should be extended to the material level as well
I understand the issue, will check with UX and Devs what is possible
The new ways of price calculation look really intriguing and are something that I greatly value. But some settings seem quite cryptic to me and I would appreciate some more information on how they actually work.
For example, what happens when somebody would like to place an order below the minimum value?
The price the customer will see, bumps up to your minimum. You will not receive orders below this point
When I apply multiple ways of calculating part price, which one will the customer end up seeing? The most expensive?
They add up, so if you add multiple features, you will increase your price. Of course you can tweak to take a bit of pricing from multiple features.
At this point I still feel like material used is the way to calculate cost, so the fact that I can only change the final price and not the volume may look quite arbitrary to customers.
I’m not sure if I understand this one. Can you elaborate on what you feel is missing? thanks!
