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.
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
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.
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.