calculation cost quoted together

[Francesco1973]

I'm looking for a way to get an estimate of the cost of my projects. matching a 'preventive cost' on iproperties at the end in the list parts of the axieme returns me the value of all the components (but does not even take into account the quantities of the individual parts, but problem can be solved so: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/it/s...icles/ita/cost-calculation-in-parts-list.html ).

I needed a slightly more complex thing, which also took into account various phases of processing (e.g. cleaning, galvanic treatments) maybe using some escamotage (type use of axioms or derivative parts and attributing it the cost of processing) but with the list parts setting separate views on struttrata only returns me the last value, setting it on only parts returns me the first.

Is there any way to solve/improves this?

 

[exxon]

depends on how you handle parts, codes and their separate.

for processing, if we have the part "12345 - metal piece", once worked will be "12346 - chromed metal piece". two codes, two costs, the second includes processing.

when you create assemblies, if you use the correct parts, even the final cost will be correct. However, you do not have the assembly costs. Do you need those?

 

[Francesco1973]

at present I only do the "12345-metallic piece" part and I don't care about the subsequent processing that does not alter its shape (cleaning, galvanic etc.. etc.). I use the derived parts only if of an object I have the same shape but different materials (e.g. "12345-pezzo in brass" and then I create the derived part "123456-piece in steel") this because so on the table I write the correct material.
but if I am willing to change the organization of my work according to this then it is worth it.

if I understood correctly, placing that the realization of "12345 - metal piece" costs 1,20€ and the chrome-plated "12346-pezzo" 1,70€ instead of creating the file of the mechanical piece you suggest to create two files, the crude with preventive cost of 1,20€ and the derived part with cost of 2,90€. putting the latter in the axieme returns me a correct value. I don't know how much this system is more 'agile' than making a calculation leaflet on excel, where I can also keep the costs peeled.

to me this thing serves to give a maximum idea of how much the final product costs when I present an object (which to date is done with the empirical way of the 'eye estimate'), then we will think about the production to make the accurate and real costs then calculate profit margins.

because of this the cost of assembly I can consider it apart, but perhaps there is a more elegant system. I think about it.

 

[exxon]

... you suggest to create two files, the raw with pre-emptive cost of 1,20€ and the derived part with cost of 2.90€. ... I don't know how much this system is more 'agile' than making a calculation leaflet on excel, where I can also keep the costs peeled.

Try to see her like this:

you produce 1000 pieces of "12345-metal piece" and send 500 in chrome. The next day you're in stock 500 pieces of one type and 500 of the other. upload them with the same code?

Although they have the same size, they are two different pieces: they have different physical characteristics and different cost, so... two codes.

the part in inventor will also have a different coloring (e.g. " brass" for the first, "chrome" for the second). In this way, controlling the assembly, you have a further visual verification of not entering the wrong part in the axieme.

 

[Francesco1973]

when you create assemblies, if you use the correct parts, even the final cost will be correct. However, you do not have the assembly costs. Do you need those?

to have the assembly cost you can do so: from the assist you use the command creates local component, put the check on virtual component, call it "assembly" from the browser of the parts with iproperties the checks a cost that is returned and counted in the distinct components

 

[Francesco1973]

Try to see her like this:

you produce 1000 pieces of "12345-metal piece" and send 500 in chrome. The next day you're in stock 500 pieces of one type and 500 of the other. upload them with the same code?
.

No, of course. but I do not work in the management part, my work ends when I deliver the tables listed at the workshop for prototyping. then loading of warehouse and advance production takes care of my colleagues of the production. so for me it makes no sense to have two parts, of the same material, in which the only thing that differs is the appearance.

to me this thing only serves to say in reunion product development with marketing/commercial: "This 'what' should cost about 34 euros (or what it is) is interesting as a project? is it simplified? "

 

[exxon]

No, of course. but I do not work in the management part, my work ends when I deliver the tables listed at the workshop for prototyping.

making codes management homogeneous (sharing between departments, board indication, revision management) is one of the qualifying steps of a company. requires commitment, especially at the beginning, but the benefits it brings largely repay the necessary work.

so for me it makes no sense to have two parts, of the same material, in which the only thing that differs is the appearance.

I think this is the main point: It's not just a matter of appearance, those two pieces are two different things. Let's make another example: if you have two pieces of steel, the first simply machined, the second obtained from the first, hardened. they are dimensionally identical, they also have the same appearance, but they are not the same thing: they have different mechanical characteristics. another example: two hexagonal head screws, the first in class 8.8, the second 10.9. do they have the same code? no, they have different codes and different cost.

to me this thing only serves to say in reunion product development with marketing/commercial: "This 'what' should cost about 34 euros (or what it is) is interesting as a project? is it simplified? "

That's exactly what you could do with the code above. even if the problem of assembly costs remains. . .

 

[Francesco1973]

I agree with everything. However, I would be pleased if inventor had calculated the total cost alone, taking the various steps and the corresponding cost of processing.
and for example if I put a set in a set does not take into account the value of the individual parts, but I have to insert it manually.

the problem of assembly can be solved by creating an assembly as 'virtual component' and assigning it a cost.
I'll explain it a little further, I think you missed the post

 

[exxon]

and for example if I put a set in a set does not take into account the value of the individual parts, but I have to insert it manually.

I don't think so. as for the mass, the cost is also brought to the higher level of assembly.

the problem of assembly can be solved by creating an assembly as 'virtual component' and assigning it a cost.

Yes, how escamotage works. However, it is a pity that the cost cannot be associated with processing instead of part.. .

When I wrote, I got an idea: you could create a variable "built cost" to associate only with the assemblies. that field should then be added to the cost parts. I have to try if it works.