The Best Pricing Model for non-FEM Structural Software - KootWare 5

[KootK]

The Mission

While I'm still above grade, I intend to create a suite of pay for play, online structural engineering tools (KootWare). And I feel that a big part of making this questionable venture a success -- or at least improving the odds of a contained failure -- will be arriving at a good pricing model. Frankly, this is something that I feel that other developers have done poorly, to their detriment. As such, I'd like to solicit feedback from the hive with respect to the pricing models that I'll propose below and any possibilities for improvement.

The Basics of What You Need to Know About the Offering

1) 100% online offering. No option for a local, perpetual license version.

2) The goal here is not to get rich. The goal is to extract enough income from this that I can justify pouring a lot of effort into a project that I expect to enjoy a great deal.

3) Spit balling, if I could create enough value that I could convince 1000 SE's to part with $5/month, that would be enough. Or any other combination of numbers that gets to the same place. How many software using structural engineers do we think exist in North America anyhow? Sixteen? Eighty thousand? I really don't know.

4) Think something along the lines of TEDDS, ENERCALC, or Jabacus on steroids. I do have ideas for, in my opinion, greatly improving upon these offerings. I'd like that to be a separate conversation however. For now, make a leap of faith and just assume that it will be awesome.

5) I intend to attach some manner of structural only, online forum to the offering. While it would be a free-form space for conversation, as Eng-Tips is, it's ostensible purpose would be to provide a place for me to provide responsive help to anybody designing stuff utilizing the software. Thus making the whole thing even more fun for me. This would be offered in addition to the usual help guide and verification manuals etc <-- edit added per skeletron's comments.

Some Obvservations that I Have Regarding the Pricing Models of Others

6) For software of this type, I feel that a monthly subscription pricing scheme would not be well received. As a small outfit my self, I loathe taking on any additional "monthlys", no matter how great the ROI seems to be. I'm always afraid that I'll use it twice and forget to cancel. I doubt that I'm the only one who feels this way.

7) I also don't think that a straight "pay per use" model is the way to go either. Design is an iterative process and software licensing needs to reflect that. Sadly, I don't just design a shear wall once. I probably design it half a dozen times before all is said and done. And I can't be losing my shirt on pay per use while going through that process.

8) One has to assume that anything that can be abused, will be abused. This will prevent me from being quite as customer friendly as I would otherwise wish to be. My own IP halo gets a little dirty from time to time so no judgement here.

Pricing Model A

This is my favorite of the two and would appeal to me as a customer. Keep in mind than none of the particular values are set in any way. It's really more about the structure at this point. That said, if anybody has thoughts on what the numbers ought to be, I'd welcome that too. I figure I'll adjust as use data starts to pile up but I'll still have to start somewhere.

1) Create an account at KootWare International and add a credit card, paypal etc.

2) Buy yourself some quantity KootWare credits. $10. $100. Whatever. Little gold doubloons in your digital purse.

3) To access the retaining wall tool for use, you pay $5. After the first run, you have the lesser of 20 additional runs or 60 days to keep using the tool on the original $5. One "run" would represent one execution of a full design with detailed output. <-- added per skeletron's comments.

4) If you want to share your account login and credits with somebody else, that's your prerogative. Share it with your coworker, a school chum in Brisbane, your aunt... retaining walls for everybody on that original $5. But, no matter who's using, it taps out after 20 runs or 60 days.

Pricing Model B

1) Create an account at KootWare International and add a credit card, paypal etc.

2) Buy yourself some quantity KootWare credits. $10. $100. Whatever.

3) You can use any tool your like, for free, but you can't get a detailed printout for your calcs until some money has changed hands. The software would tell you the basics of what passed and what failed and would allow you to save your file to the system for future retrieval. I kind of like this in that it would allow one to essentially do their preliminary design work for free. I could allow folks to printout their inputs in case they were worried about my going bankrupt before they get to IFC.

4) When you've got all your design settled and ready for final calc documentation, it's $5 per print. The trouble with this is, I couldn't let the user see the detailed printout ahead of paying for it. Otherwise, I'll wind up with a bunch of folks just doing screen capture etc.

 

[KootK]

So as not to betray my post history I must ask Why not an open source model?

Your vision of where this would end up is, indeed, a Utopian dream for the structural engineering community. And I would absolutely celebrate it coming to fruition. However, it represents a dystopian nightmare for someone like me because:

1) It means that coding would be a distributed activity shared among us all and, therefore;

2) No one individual would be able to afford to dedicate large swaths of their time to the task as I would wish to.

So your community dream makes it impossible for me to live out my personal one.

I get it if you are going to devote the time and resources to this type of thing why shouldn't you get paid at least cost + a little bit for your efforts

I'd state this differently. It won't be the case that I'll feel that I'm owed anything for my efforts. Rather, I will simply recognize that, without revenue, I'll be unable to continue spending my time how I wish to spend it. You're right, everyone does want to "get theirs". And "mine" will be being able to spend big chunks of time on this adventure.

If I do this, I strongly suspect that two things will be true:

1) There is a significant risk that I'll fail to create something sustainable and will have to abandon the adventure or;

2) If I succeed, it will still likely be to my personal detriment financially relative to remaining focused on providing traditional engineering services.

I'm under no illusions about #2 whatsoever.


HELP! I'd like your help with a thread that I was forced to move to the business issues section where it will surely be seen by next to nobody that matters to me:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=456235

 

[KootK]

So as not to betray my post history I must ask Why not an open source model?

One might also ask why I don't just stick with my day job and satisfy my coding itch on the side through an open source model? And maybe I will. However, in several years of trying, I've managed to contribute nothing at all to any of the options available for this. Work keeps me very busy and, when I've got spare time, I find myself wanting to spend it with my family or exercising. In this respect, perhaps I'm all talk and really do not want this as badly as I say. This is of no consequence at the end of the day however. All that is of consequence, for me, is the takeaway that this model hasn't resulted in me making progress so far. So, until my situation changes, the model will need to change.

HELP! I'd like your help with a thread that I was forced to move to the business issues section where it will surely be seen by next to nobody that matters to me:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=456235

 

[Celt83]

So your community dream makes it impossible for me to live out my personal one.

That makes quite a bit of sense, had not looked at it from that perspective. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Your last post is also relatable, can see how a tangible business model would be a stronger motivator and easier to swallow on the home front vs sacrificing family time to make some free stuff for some folks on the internet.




Open Source Structural Applications:

https://github.com/buddyd16/Structural-Engineering

 

[KootK]

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Sure. Don't get the impression that I don't support your vision though. If I don't do mine, that's surely where I'll be looking to get my kicks. And, if I do do mine, that will probably actually leave me in a better position to make part-time contributions to your yours.

It's to consider this at a whole other level but I've also been spending some time thinking about other macro-threats to the business model. Extinction level events.

1) A group from a developing country latches on to the same idea and blows me out of the water. It's not as though the big software vendors aren't already utilizing this.

2) Your communal, open source model blossoms and obviates the need for what I propose. Good for the world; bad for KootK.

3) Artificial intelligence gets there first and utterly obliterates the need for any of us to create structural software. While I do believe that we're a ways away from having AI be able to do any real structural engineering, the software aspect strikes me as low hanging fruit. After all, computer codes and building codes are very much in the wheelhouse of fairly rudimentary AI's. I could see an industrial designer (GUI) paired up with an AI that can be asked "Loads. Dimensions. Wall please?" and that's pretty much the end of it. It's always dangerous to try to compete at things that machines do well.

HELP! I'd like your help with a thread that I was forced to move to the business issues section where it will surely be seen by next to nobody that matters to me:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=456235

 

[XR250]

I'm probably more of a hack than most, and I am never required to submit calcs, but if I had confidence something was giving me the correct result but I had to pay for the detailed output I'd probably be happy w/out the result. I don't print results for 99% of the stuff I have anyway. I'd be careful to not overestimate the percent of people that want a final print for their files. In my mind if I am confident it works then worst case scenario means I have to come back and reproduce it some day.

I've managed to do a relatively complex 1 story steel framed building entirely in risa demo version, 40 nodes. There will always be people doing this kind of thing.

LOL, sounds like we operate the same. Most of my calcs are done on a calculator and never get written down.

 

[IRstuff]

I would argue that the community model still could potentially achieve the same result in possibly less time. Let's say you currently can devote 10 hr/wk to the effort, and let's say that a fully operational software suite will take 2500 hrs, so 250 wks = 4.8-ish years. Let's say you can get 10 people to devote 3 hr/wk each with 50% efficiency, so that's 15 hr/week. And let's say your efficiency goes down to 8 hr/wk because of coordination, etc. That still comes out to 23 hr/wk, instead of 10 hr/wk, so 2.1-ish yr

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[glass99]

One of the things about open source licenses is you can do whatever you want with the code, including commercialize it. MakerBot was developed as open source hardware and became private then sold out to Stratasys for ~$100MM in 2012. The underlying code for NASTRAN is still open source.

 

[Craig_H]

First off, kudos to you on trying to make a valuable tool for the general community. I'm a strong believer that any good business needs to have more of a purpose than making money; in your case, providing good tools for small business SEs. The Scrooge McDucks of the world, with dollar-sign eyes, and ears that hear nothing but cash register bells, generally come up with pretty garbage ideas. The business models that we all hate are thanks to them.

I will admit that personally, I find paying for things painful. I therefore would rather "rip the bandaid off quick" by paying a big chunk annually, or even buying a perpetual license with annual support. The more often I have to pay, the more stress I feel, the more my hairline races toward my back, and the less I enjoy my bike ride home. For that reason, I am not sure that I am your ideal customer (shame, really).

I was initially super excited to see this, as I believe that you are a fellow canuck. I have not used Enercalc or its similar offerings myself, but if I am not mistaken they are largely based on 'murican codes and are therefore of limited use to me without significant tinkering and modification. Having something that is rooted in our Canadian codes/standards would be lovely. The present Canadian offerings, to the best of my knowledge, are SAFI and TEKLA TEDDS. Neither solution is complete for my needs, and the pricing seems prohibitive considering that I would not have a complete software package to lean on. Sure, I could use some 'murican stuff, but I don't care to imagine a practice review or court case where I have to trot out non-code-compliant calculations and start defending them.

Based on the above, I suspect the most difficult proposition for you may be creating a sufficiently large library of tools/calculators that folks like me can say "hey, that's mostly a complete library of calculators that I can lean on". If you have less than that, a lot of us may be inclined to just continue using tweaked spreadsheets, Mathcad, and old-fashioned pen on paper. Getting people to change behaviour is incredibly difficult, so you'll need to offer something pretty complete and attractive to get them to move over to you. I once read a book called Zero to One by Peter Thiel, and if my memory is right, he said that a new product has to be 10x as good as its competitors to get the market to switch.

Worst case, perhaps you can develop some really solid and robust calculators that don't already exist on the market, and one of the "big guys" would buy your tools to incorporate into their own... that pipe dream might keep you coding deep into the night when you start questioning the philosophies of your business venture? I will keep tuned into this, I am interested to see where it goes!

 

[KootK]

For that reason, I am not sure that I am your ideal customer (shame, really).

Don't be so sure. Through the course of this discussion, it's become apparent that I'll probably have to offer a monthly/annual option in addition to whatever else I do.

I was initially super excited to see this, as I believe that you are a fellow canuck.

Stay excited please. I am indeed a fellow Canuck and that segment of the market would, of course, be especially dear to me. I'll get down in the muck and fight for my US market share but I fully expect to be able to make a big dent in the Canadian market just by virtue of a) my dedication to it and b) my having a fairly good sense of where the holes are.

I once read a book called Zero to One by Peter Thiel, and if my memory is right, he said that a new product has to be 10x as good as its competitors to get the market to switch.

Let's hope that's hyperbole. I don't see any of my offerings being any better than about 1.5X the best versions of what's already out there. That's part of why I'm hoping to pair it with an attractive pricing model, smooth online delivery, and uncommon technical support.

Based on the above, I suspect the most difficult proposition for you may be creating a sufficiently large library of tools/calculators that folks like me can say "hey, that's mostly a complete library of calculators that I can lean on".

I see the logic in this but, for better or worse, this isn't going to be me. Functionally, I just don't see it being possible for me to be sidelined financially for years while I get fifty tools up and running. And, in part, this is why I'm considering the pricing strategies that I am. I see myself needing to proceed as follows, if I can pull it off:

1) Get the basics of an eCommerce site set up with sort of a "template" for creating new tools.

2) Create a handful of high quality free tools to give folks trolling the web for free tools a reason to check me out.

3) Add individual tools that are so intuitive and well done that they can stand alone as product, absent the suite. This runs contrary to what others have suggested with respect to needing a suite of tools that looks and feels consistent. Certainly, I'll do that as the suite builds up. But I feel that I'll need to build up user trust one tool at a time.

4) Gradually built up the suite.

I know, #3 is a very tall order. However, if I can't pull that off, I think that I'm probably sunk.

As I mentioned previously, much of what informs me here are my own needs as a startup SE. My workload is all over the place and, often, I'd kill for a clean, simple tool to help me fly through something that I know would take me real time by hand (time I just don't have). Maybe I need to submit a calc package on something that I ball parked in a few hours or lock down a shear wall layout by the end of the day. Always, always I'm working with blocks of time no larger than an hour or two.

Another situation that is tough for me as a startup SE is utilizing help effectively. I'm often working with very junior engineers, engineers trained in different industries, or engineers working remotely. I would like it very much if there were standardized, easy to verify tools that I could have these people use so that I could quickly check their work. At the same time though, I can't afford to buy all of these people annual licenses for various toys. If I could check these guys' KootWare output in five minutes rather than their atrocious hand calcs in thirty minutes, that right there would justify the $5 many times over.





HELP! I'd like your help with a thread that I was forced to move to the business issues section where it will surely be seen by next to nobody that matters to me:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=456235

 

[Celt83]

I'm not/wouldn't be overly concerned about the consistency of the tools, being the online system your going for a lot of the consistency will come from your web stylesheet which can evolve as you create more things and apply globally to all the tools without too much headache, you could essentially start with Bootstrap and put minimal extra effort in and have something with better visuals than a lot of stuff currently out there. As with most things investing some decent time on your front end, templates, styling, etc. will pay dividends as you progress thru the actual tool sets.

I think your idea to start with a few free tools and continue individual tool development makes sense, also allows you to put all your available effort into 1 thing at a time vs try to spread it between multiple tools. I'd plan for the income to mirror how substantial the tool set is though, may be awhile before you capture the audience so to speak.

Open Source Structural Applications:

https://github.com/buddyd16/Structural-Engineering

 

[Craig_H]

Let's hope that's hyperbole. I don't see any of my offerings being any better than about 1.5X the best versions of what's already out there.

I agree that competing with the "big guys" is not a good avenue to go down. I'd say you need to be 10x as good as my ramshackle collection of spreadsheets, Mathcad templates, and one-of calculations from past jobs that I can regurgitate and re-run for the current purpose. Based on the amount of time that most of the self-employed folks here have at their disposal, I'd say that most of our spreadsheets are bound to suck pretty hard. I know that mine, at least, vary in robustness and require a good handle on their limitations in order to not screw up!

I would like it very much if there were standardized, easy to verify tools that I could have these people use so that I could quickly check their work.

Good documentation of calculations seems to be a virtue. Laziness in hand-calculations often ends up causing code clause references to be neglected, explanations of assumptions to be omitted, FBDs to go missing, and all of a sudden the calculations are like some ancient language scratched into a rock - it takes an expert a good deal of effort to decode them! I'd say this is one of the ways you become 10x as good as your "competition", which is chicken scratch on coffee-stained graph paper.

 

[Settingsun]

Option B sounds great, but you'd probably never manage to get a penny out of me... In the case of retaining walls (for example), everyone probably just develops their standard designs at your cost.

I don't like the idea of a limited number of runs in option A, but perhaps not a problem if it's as generous as I'm reading it. Depends on how 'visible' the results are. It's nice to run a half-dozen cases to see how sensitive results are to inputs. If all you see is pass/fail until you pay, option A wouldn't be for me unless the # runs was quite high. Option A with only a time limit would be fine. I saw you mentioned that limiting the number of IP addresses per account is beyond your current capability, but probably necessary.

Re your dislike of monthly subscription: if you're hell-bent on almost giving it away, maybe monthly subscription that's only charged for the months the user actually uses the tools? Or 30 day block rather than calendar month. Monthly probably more palatable to medium-large companies and why rule them out even if not the target market?

Worth pondering why you never used that awesome software you signed up for. Your customers will be the same.

 

[KootK]

In the case of retaining walls (for example), everyone probably just develops their standard designs at your cost.

Yes, and that would be the case with many of the tools specifically tailored to design office use. Batch footing designs, batch stud wall designs etc. And I'd do nothing to prevent it other than to provide the tool at a cost so low that I think some folks would not consider it worth the effort to bother. If someone really wants to sit down and spend their time replicating the CRSI manual retaining wall tables on my dime, so be it.

but perhaps not a problem if it's as generous as I'm reading it.

One way or another, it would be set generously enough that it would never feel like paying for the design twice. That would be the goal.

Monthly probably more palatable to medium-large companies and why rule them out even if not the target market?

Yeah, through the course of this discussion, it's become clear that monthly will have to be ONE of the payment models available to those who want it.

Worth pondering why you never used that awesome software you signed up for. Your customers will be the same.

That's easy. It went like this:

1) Signed up at $20/month.

2) Used it twice right away and got what I felt was $10 worth of value out of it.

3) Three months and $60 passed without my using it again because I simply didn't have the need.

4) I felt as though I paid $60 for $10 in value and terminated my subscription.

5) I went back to look into it again later and it was gone.

If I could have used it $5/run, I'd probably still be using it and might even have become so addicted that it did amount to $20/month.



HELP! I'd like your help with a thread that I was forced to move to the business issues section where it will surely be seen by next to nobody that matters to me:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=456235

 

[271828]

I wouldn't consider a "per run" setup. Defining a "run" was necessary in this thread. Life's too complicated to go back and define something that -- prior to KootWare -- I understood. I also tend to iterate God only knows how many times and there's no way I'm keeping up with how many runs I've used up. Also, I don't want to change the way I think and operate to conserve runs.

Option B doesn't work for me because I can't verify the program without a detailed printout. I might go for that option if the free printouts are detailed but have a "Not for Commercial Use" watermark on them until money has changed hands. This option can't have per run pricing, though, because I'd be cringing as I start to pay and think "oh crap, I ran that module 100 times."

You might consider looking into how Qnect charges for their connection design software usage; it seems OK to me.

 

[rotw]

I am setting up a software for calculation online (this is not structural analysis, instead it is oriented towards thermodynamic calculations / niche application) and right now I am defining a pricing model too. Some few things I want to share in regard to my own experience so far with this (insane) venture:

- Developing a software takes a HUGE amount of time, you have no idea. If you sub-contract the task to a professional developer(s) it is going to relieve you from a lot of tasks but it will cost you HUGE amount of money (something from 20 to 60 USD/hour and per developer). Moreover, a LOT of hand holding may be required to explain to the developer what you exactly want. They are programmers at the end and you are technical; except if they are really really smart, they usually have not a single clue of what you are talking about and the worse is that they say "yeah...got the idea"; when you check back a few days later the progress, it is big surprises and rework and frustration. If you prepare specifications, it takes time but you know..people do not read specification anymore nowadays. By read, I mean READ. So hand holding is very time consuming.
If you think of the time you have to invest in all this, this is really something stolen from the quality time you would have spent otherwise playing around / educating your child. Since the project has not taken off yet, what you are spending by now is spent for FREE. I agree with what IRStuff mentioned above: we talk 2~4 years development even for something of small scale, provided there is industrial/commercial purpose at the end.

- Testing the software: I took this one easily too. You have no idea how people are reluctant to invest any effort in helping you testing your stuff. I really mean zero efforts. If you provide incentives they usually are not interested in something that is not proven yet. Some people are nice and out of courtesy they can take a look and give you valuable hints, but it is RARE. So you are on your own.

- Pricing model (the topic): I got in touch with a competitor who is selling a software with features similar to what I intend to provide. I managed to get a quote for their software. They sell a perpetual license for +20000 USD per seat (!). I could hardly imagine a user was going to pay all that money, but apparently they do. When I look back at the pricing model I was going to set up - considering equivalent services - I am really out of words. I do not even need to tell how much they charge "per run". It is outrageous (not for the user, but for me not being able to capture that market share / value!).

I think that putting the mark up very high is not always a bad strategy. The price conveys a signal to the customer of the software quality. If the customer has deep pockets and buys the message, then it can work. For me this is either suicidal or a food for thought.

Until further notice, the alternative pricing model I want to implement is as follows:
- Monthly subscription or perpetual license
- Possible license with limited number of runs. I defined a "run" as follow: When the user saves data, the run counter is armed. When the user hits run, the counter is incremented. This means that within a project that basically does not involve changed input (nothing to save), user can make as many runs as they want. Somehow they are charged for testing new inputs.

- Finding Clients: For now, I do not have any prospective client and building a client base from scratch is VERY HARD. Advertisement is expensive (you could try and check what google could offer). Try also social network, still expensive. I am not saying I give up, but it is tough. For a niche application, you need all planets perfectly aligned so that the right expert pops up, knows the value of the software, professionally needs the feature(s) and is willing to give it a shot. Then you get an impulse. Not easy.

 

[Ron247]

KootWare: now FREE with the purchase of this T-shirt!!

Ok, if no one else is going to say it, I will.

"KootWear by KootWare" or better yet "KootWear X KootWare" and even better "Koot(Wear X Ware)"

And definitely do not misplace the T-shirt and have to inquire where it is.

 

[PT99]

I suggest a payment scheme should be $5.00 per month for each main program group, with unlimited input modifications. Probably this will develop in time into numerous program groups. Some software is commercially out there already, but usually expensive, so there is a market for this also.

Costs have to be realistic to what individual engineers and small offices are prepared to pay.

Developers will never get rich in this scheme, but if they enjoy programming, and problem solving, many developers will just do it for their own satisfactions and earn something each month for their efforts.

 

[Ron247]

I see the main market appeal to me as having access to a design tool that both teaches me how to perform the needed calculations and provides the speed/accuracy of a software solution. There are so many unique design issues we encounter that we have not encountered before. Having isolated tools that we can use and learn from is a big plus especially for those of us who are a 1 or 2 person firm. Large firms have multiple people to bounce ideas and concepts off of and have a more diverse work experience to pull from.

Calculating one complex connection that you have never done before is expensive in the learning curve for a hand-calc. If you decide to write your own program for that isolated connection, you will spend over $500 in time (at your billable rate). So Koot's pricing scheme is probably worth it from the Al A Carte menu for sure. I can live without the graphics but would want the printed calcs for both education and project documentation. If I had one process or isolated design issue I needed to resolve that I was not familiar with, I would easily pay $50 for software that would both design it and teach me the basics of the design direction. We spend $50 in billable time just internet searching the issue.

 

[KootK]

@271828: thanks for your input.

I also tend to iterate God only knows how many times and there's no way I'm keeping up with how many runs I've used up. Also, I don't want to change the way I think and operate to conserve runs.

1) This outcome would be precluded. I would track usage and adjust as necessary to ensure that 99% of the time: one run = one design (and often more) including requisite iteration.

Defining a "run" was necessary in this thread. Life's too complicated to go back and define something that -- prior to KootWare -- I understood.

2) I don't think that there's any reason to get hung up on semantics. Per #1, I may wind up effectively charging "per design" rather than per run, and presenting it that way. I'm a decent communicator in my native language. One way or another, I'll find a way to present the pricing model(s) such that they are easily understood.

Option B doesn't work for me because I can't verify the program without a detailed printout.

This would seem to be easily resolved by one or both of these options:

3) I provide detailed output for the verification designs that I provide.

4) If a customer wants to run a few of their own verification designs, I let them. Or run them for them.

Given that the crux of this strategy would be exchanging payment for detailed output, I can't see giving away the detailed output for free even with a watermark. Additionally, this would lead to folks saving the detailed output for their own records and truly only paying for designs getting submitted to other parties. I feel that this would shrink my revenue pool unacceptably.

Option B .... this option can't have per run pricing, though, because I'd be cringing as I start to pay and think "oh crap, I ran that module 100 times."

I think that this would be a non-issue as, with option B, you'd have unlimited runs and only need to pay once your design was finalized and ready to be exported for documentation purposes. That was really the motivation for considering this option: infinite iteration easily policed (by not policing it other than the detailed output).

You might consider looking into how Qnect charges for their connection design software usage; it seems OK to me.

I will consider it and thank you very much for the suggestion. You're right, there seem to be many parallels with what I want to do and, therefore, much to learn. Additionally, more good reasons for me to probably stay away from steel connection design except perhaps, as free, loss-leader tools for very simple cases.

HELP! I'd like your help with a thread that I was forced to move to the business issues section where it will surely be seen by next to nobody that matters to me:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=456235

 

[KootK]

I am setting up a software for calculation online...

Thank you for your valuable input rotw. Some additional thoughts:

1) It sounds as though you are creating something pretty fancy that may not already exist elsewhere. In that space, per glass99's previous comments, you've basically got a monopoly of sorts and I'd expect pricing (low) and effort (high) to reflect that. My situation is much different. I'll be creating fairly simple tools that do in fact already exist in various forms. Something along the lines of this on steroids: www.jabacus.com. As such, I expect effort to be a bit less and pricing to be much lower.

2) I do actually intend to create something of my own that is fancy that doesn't already exist. I want to make a graphics bases strut and tie modelling tool of such ease of use as does not currently exist to my knowledge. This would be something that I do at the end of my adventure, however, rather than the beginning.

I've little doubt that I will indeed find myself underestimating the time required for this. That said, I feel as though it may not be as bad as others are thinking. As a test case, how long do we think it would take for me to accomplish this:

1) Delivery platform much like this: www.jabacus.com

2) I create three simple tools. Say wind, snow, earthquake modules.

3) I generate some basic verification examples for the above.

I feel as though this could be comfortably accomplished in six months or less of concerted effort. After which, I feel that I could probably generate a new, simple tool every two to three weeks. If anybody disagrees, I would really like to hear about it.

HELP! I'd like your help with a thread that I was forced to move to the business issues section where it will surely be seen by next to nobody that matters to me:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=456235