@Grod True. It looks a bit ‘unclear’. But I think it might have been changed just because the end result of ‘low’ resolution on one machine will not look as ‘low’ resolution on the other one and that might missinform the customer. Then again, these numbers now say even less about the quality to the regular customer. So dunno - just guessing
2 Likes
Hi @Grod , thanks a lot for the compliment as well as the fair feedback
Let me check if I understand well, you would need some assistance / info / guidance when setting layer heights is that correct?
Thanks again!
Filemon
2 Likes
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
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!
2 Likes
Agree, maybe with a close up explanatory picture or diagram right beside the microns? But then the customer will think that is exactly how their print is going to be like…
Clear! @TinLegsTommy this one is for you
eckerj
October 10, 2015, 12:23am
8
@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.
2 Likes
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
2 Likes
TypeR
October 10, 2015, 9:29pm
10
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.
2 Likes
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
1 Like
@ - 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.
1 Like
Yes, that would be better - use the same model at different sizes. Would make the prices consistent across all size variables.
The first time I saw the changes, my heart almost stopped. It was very surprising and unsettling, because it was unannounced.
From what I have seen and played with so far, most of the changes are positive, but there are some things that are not logical/unclear to me and some that I’d consider significant.
-I have multiple printers and 10 different materials, each with different colours, on offer at the moment. The new price display system means, that my hub page is really long and confusing right now. The tabulated approach for the different resolutions should be extended to the material level as well, so that the bar with the different model sizes does not have to be repeated for each material.
-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. Useful information for me means stuff like “The old part volume calculation assumed 20% infill and 0.4mm shell”. For example, what happens when somebody would like to place an order below the minimum value? Would my hub just not show up?
When I apply multiple ways of calculating part price, which one will the customer end up seeing? The most expensive?
-Changing the price of individual parts in an order feels even more arbitrary than before. 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. This also does not allow me to make use of 3DHubs as a cost calculation platform, should I choose different cost calculation methods, right? I had already written a small piece of software that would spit out my final price based on slicer and material settings, but it would be much neater to have the 3DHubs calculations at my disposal. Even if this would be just for the sake of transparency.
That’s all folks. For now
Sincerely,
Jonas
3 Likes
0.05mm I would say is fine…i print at this height a lot when the physical print size is very small. I have an Ultimaker 2 and it doesn’t miss a beat at this height! i would agree partially that “Reprap” style printers may struggle at this layer height but the more expensive end of the market should be perfectly ok at this.
1 Like
Filemon
October 12, 2015, 7:08am
17
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
Filemon
October 12, 2015, 7:09am
18
I totally agree with these suggestions and Talk with UX now. Will try to get fat Marvin in
4 Likes
Filemon
October 12, 2015, 12:28pm
19
Hi all! So, I just did a Talk Post on the new pricing features here: https://www.3dhubs.com/talk/thread/feature-update-hub-pricing . I will now also assess and answer all your questions individually. Cheers
Filemon
October 12, 2015, 12:39pm
20
@ Good points! Here I go:
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.
please see: https://www.3dhubs.com/talk/thread/feature-update-hub-pricing
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!
1 Like
Filemon
October 12, 2015, 12:42pm
21
@Oliver_13 I totally agree and I’ve feedbacked this to UX. They seemed to agree as well so I expect a fix soon
