Trimloss last updated

17th January 2018

by Julie Moorcroft

Moorcroft Computer Services

Thinking clear       Thinking software

Thinking Trimloss


by Julie Moorcroft

Moorcroft Computer Services


Page Buttons:

Compare Your Current Optimiser


To compare your current optimiser with Trimloss, enter the following 73 single glazed sizes each with a quantity of one.  You should optimise from one stock size of 3210x2100 with 15mm squaring trims.  The minimum trim when breaking out cuts of 2000mm or more, should be set to 10mm.  This can be progressively reduced pro rata  to 6mm for cuts of 300mm or less.  If the minimum trims cannot be reduced pro rata, then all minimum trims should be set to 10mm.  There must also be trims all along the edges opposite the squaring edges.  Only the one best off cut is to be considered re-usable.  



 263 x 1880     697 x  948    408 x 1673    408 x 1673    523 x 1761

 523 x 1761     697 x  953    263 x 1885    413 x 1663    413 x 1663

 521 x 1776     521 x 1776    697 x  938    273 x 1870    411 x 1648

 411 x 1648     521 x 1769    521 x 1769    303 x 1234    303 x  519

 697 x 1136     697 x  518    626 x  898    641 x 1041    641 x 1041

 641 x  518     641 x  518    784 x 1139    784 x  519    854 x 1139

 854 x  519     641 x 1041    641 x 1041    641 x  518    641 x  518

 646 x 1061     646 x 1061    646 x  518    646 x  518    641 x 1046

 641 x 1046     641 x  518    874 x 1144    874 x  519    683 x 1139

 683 x  519     697 x 1041    697 x  518    646 x  898    706 x  939

 636 x 1687     636 x 1687    696 x  926    631 x 1679    631 x 1679

 273 x 1870     697 x  938    408 x 1658    408 x 1658    528 x 1766

 528 x 1766     263 x 1870    697 x  938    411 x 1658    411 x 1658

 523 x 1761     523 x 1761    697 x  938    273 x 1870    406 x 1663

 406 x 1663     523 x 1751    523 x 1751                        



The Trimloss target to aim for is eight stock sheets with a re-usable off cut on the eighth sheet of 2.33 square metres.  Comparing firstly the number of stock sheets used and then the size of the last off cut, is a far more accurate way of comparing different optimisers, since methods of percentage waste calculation can vary widely.  


Because this test batch is 48.68 square metres, then multiply any square metre difference in the two results by 2.05 to get the equivalent percentage difference in performance.  As long as you set up all the orders and parameters correctly as defined above, then we think that you will get a percentage waste difference of 5% or more.  Having said that, we have to say, that although this batch was taken from reality, it is a toughened door batch which is more difficult to optimise.  This batch therefore highlights more starkly, the differences between optimisers.  


It also has to be said however, that many users of other optimisers go into denial when they see how poor their results are, compared to Trimloss.  They have been known to adjust the number of orders pieces, the sizes of the order pieces, the squaring trims and the minimum trims.  Even then they may come back with the comment “Ours was almost as good as yours and the difference isn’t worth bothering about”.  Anyone who cannot bother about 5% or more of their glass costs, is living in cloud cuckoo land.  They may also tell you that it is impractical and labour intensive to work to the Trimloss (Point-to-Point) method of optimisation.  An estimated 20 million sealed units have so far been made this way, by companies who do not agree with our competitors’ negative point of view.  Another deceit sometimes practiced, is to suggest comparisons on a batch of work where there are many pieces of the same or a similar size.  On these unrealistic batches, all optimisers should produce similar results, because there is no possible improvement.  


To see an even bigger difference between the performance of Trimloss and its rivals, try optimising a whole days’ work, specifying only your limits on space for work in progress and your required lead times.  Trimloss will impose no other restrictions on the way you batch therefore enabling larger and even more economical batches in terms of both material and labour costs.  


Print This Trial Input Data

Print The Trimloss Results




Every software company selling glass optimisation claims to be the best.  They can’t all be right can they?  Their definition of “best” may even omit any claims of low waste, low labour costs. or higher profit, but instead want to be judged on their badges of accreditation, available to anyone who applies, or on number of employees.  Higher numbers of employees often means variable lengths of experience in the glass trade, in software writing and in software support.  


To find out which software company is really the best and yields the biggest improvement in your profits, compare their results to the Trimloss performance on this sample batch of real orders.  The Trimloss improvement can be considerable which is why all other contenders are afraid to try, even those claiming to be world leading.  


This challenge to compare with existing optimisers has now been open for four years and the number of replies claiming to better or even come remotely close to these Trimloss results is ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, DIDDLY SQUAT.  


This is why we justifiably claim that TRIMLOSS IS THE BEST GLASS OPTIMISER IN THE WORLD.  


Alan Turing “The father of computing”.  Sometimes it is the people who no one imagines anything of, who do the things that no one can imagine.  


 Alan Turing Web Site





Please click on the two links below to start carrying out a comparison with your current optimiser.  The results link demonstrates that our diagrams use text rather than graphical output.  This is done deliberately because graphical output can lose many of the smallest trim cuts, whereas our text version automatically adjusts the columns and rows where the lines are printed so that there is no clash with ones already drawn.  We never therefore lose any small details, a feature unique to Trimloss.