This is a pretty long post, but I ran a few different scenario tests on the nesting extension, and it doesn't seem to be working. There are multiple large errors, and those errors point in different directions. Has anyone been able to figure this extension out?
I'm running four different tests. Two are with costs =1, and two have relative costs with the largest size set to 100. I have photos of my setup at the very bottom.
The high-level summary is that nesting software:
- Gets the final nested sheet wrong and selects the wrong packaging (Test #1, #2, #3)
- Sometimes doesn't select the right packaging at all (test #2)
- The solution that fixes the problem (Test #4) makes the same problem worse when you slightly change the inputs ( Test #3)
Settings for all tests:
- Remnant Optimization: Minimize Length x Width
- Packaging Method Used: Best Mix
Tests with No Costs:
Test #1:
- Packaging:
- Size = 120in x 60in || Cost = 1
- Size = 120in x 58in || Cost = 1
- Results:
- 120 x 60 = 16
- 120 x 55 = 2
- Total Sheets = 18
- Problems:
- Last sheet selected should be 120 x 58
- Nested area of final sheet only 32 x 62
- Chose the least efficient sheet in a fairly obvious situation
- Last sheet selected should be 120 x 58
Test #2:
- Packaging:
- Size = 120in x 60in || Cost = 1
- Size = 120in x 55in || Cost = 1
- Results:
- 120 x 60 = 18
- 120 x 48 = 0
- Total Sheets = 18
- Problems:
- There are two sheets where 120 x 48 would be more efficient
- Doesn't use 120 x 48 for any of the sheets
- Last sheet is still wrong. Final nested area only 32 x 62
Test with relative costs included:
- Since all material is the same thickness and stainless is priced by the pound, I can set the area of the largest sheet to 100 and calculate the price based on % difference in the area relative to the largest sheet.
Test #3:
- Packaging:
- Size = 120in x 60in || Cost = 100
- Size = 120in x 58in || Cost = 91.67
- Results:
- 120 x 60 = 7
- 120 x 58 = 11
- Total Sheets = 19
- Problems:
- Last sheet still wrong: This final sheet only has a nested area of 32 x 32, but it still chose the least efficient sheet
- Least efficient nest by far - both total plate area and remnant area are the highest in this one
Test #4:
- Packaging:
- Size = 120in x 60in || Cost = 100
- Size = 120in x 48in || Cost = 80
- Results:
- 120 x 60 = 9
- 120 x 48 = 8
- Total Sheets = 17
- Problems:
- None with nest - this is the most efficient setup. Lowest total plate area and remnant area.
- However, it makes no sense that it works in this one situation and doesn't in any others.
- If this was working correctly and this pricing workaround does work, then the 120x58 setup with pricing should have been the 2nd most efficient setup.
The big issue with this is that the errors are all over the place and not in the same direction. I did one test adding in the price, and it was the worst, and then another, and it was the best. I did one test with no price but a slightly different size, and it kind of worked but didn't calculate the last one correctly. I did another test with no price but a larger size difference, and it doesn't work at all.
Photos of Reports:
Does anyone know what's going on here?
