I appreciate the reply @Arnoldas !
I’m not sure a bounding box solves the equation. It more or less seems like an alternative way to price based on object size without taking into account the relative size…same way as calculating by sliced volume.
What I’d love to see is a surcharge that would be applied to the slicing volume if the volume exceeds a certain threshold. That way it would take into account the increased likelihood of a failed print and that needs to be factored into the material costs.
Example of current system:
Slice volume price $0.50 per cm^3, setup fee of $5.00, volume of part 10cm^3
In this case the fees are $5.00 + (10 x $0.5) = $10.00
If we increase the volume to 100cm^3 then under the above we get a $55.00 print.
But on a per print basis I am getting more rejects on the larger print due to the increased risk of the longer print time. So what I am proposing is an option to do the following:
Slice volume 0 < 50cm^3 = $0.50
Slice volume >50cm^3 surcharge = $0.10
So under the 100cm^3 case the calculation becomes:
$5.00 + (50 * $0.5) + [(100-50)*($0.5+$0.10)] = $60.00
We could just adjust the formula to apply the surcharge not just to the incremental volume >50cm^3 but to the entire 100cm^3 as that may be easier to explain and implement (though unfair if you have a 51cm^3 part and open to manipulation by Hub operators).
Finally from a competitive perspective, not many have the print volume envelope that I have so there is less supply and it would be nice to capitalize on that instead of charging the same rate regardless of print size.