Update to my CNC cost estimation tool
I’ve just released a major update to my CNC cost estimation tool — and this one is different.
It’s not based on assumptions, theory, or what I think “should work.”
It’s based directly on conversations with machine shop owners and engineers who quote parts every day.
Over the past weeks, I had multiple calls with users from Poland, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Different markets, different setups — but surprisingly similar problems.
The real problem with CNC quoting
For low-volume production (1–30 pieces), quoting is still highly inefficient.
- CAM simulation is too time-consuming (often 2–5 hours)
- Estimation is based on experience or “gut feeling”
- Small mistakes can kill margin
- Many shops don’t even have proper 3D models — just drawings or sketches
In reality, most people are stuck between:
- slow but accurate (CAM)
- fast but risky (manual estimation)
This tool is being built exactly for that gap.
What changed in this update
This release focuses on making the estimation process closer to real-world decision making — not theoretical calculations.
Here’s what’s new:
1. Machine-based estimation
You can now define your own machine and use it as the base for calculations.
This was a key insight: estimation is not universal — it depends on your actual equipment.
2. Material selection (with logic behind it)
Material now influences machining assumptions automatically.
Different materials = different cutting behavior, time, and cost.
3. 3 / 4 / 5-axis selection
Instead of hiding complexity, the tool now reflects it.
Axis selection directly impacts setup and programming time.
4. Programming time as a real parameter
Previously underestimated — now explicitly included.
Especially important for small batches.
5. Setup / changeover time (simple but practical)
Added as an adjustable parameter based on machine type and complexity.
Not perfect — but much closer to reality than ignoring it.
6. Tooling cost input
You can now include tool-related costs in your estimation.
For now, this is a simple manual input (name + cost), but it’s an important step.
7. Additional operations
Grinding, heat treatment, and other post-processing steps are now included.
These are often forgotten in early estimates — and that’s where margins disappear.
What I learned
The biggest lesson so far:
This problem is not about building a “smart algorithm.”
It’s about:
- defining the right inputs
- reflecting real shop constraints
- and making the process fast enough to actually use
One user told me:
“I don’t need perfect accuracy. ±10% is fine. I just need to be fast and consistent.”
Another said:
“I save around 40 hours per month using a similar tool — that’s why I pay for it.”
That completely changed how I think about this product.
Where this is going
Right now, I’m intentionally focusing on a very specific niche:
→ CNC quoting for low-volume production (1–30 pcs)
→ without full CAM simulation
→ for small shops and independent machinists
Next steps will likely include:
- improving input clarity (some fields still need better explanation)
- better UX for non-technical users
- possibly adding PDF drawing analysis (OCR + feature detection) for a more advanced version
But I’m careful not to overbuild.
Every new feature is coming from actual user feedback — not assumptions.
Looking for testers
If you run a small CNC shop or regularly quote parts, I’d love to get your feedback.
Especially if:
- you work with low-volume production
- you don’t always use CAM for quoting
- you rely on experience, Excel, or rough estimation
You can test the tool here:
CNC Price Calculator: Instant STP Quotes in 60 Seconds | Free Tool
And if something doesn’t make sense, is missing, or feels wrong — that’s exactly the feedback I’m looking for.
