简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文；未对原文作自动翻译。
HazelBell0658 · 2025年8月15日 20:55 UTC
Add sections through the filled cartons and both layers. Packaging needs to see where the load actually bears, and tooling needs the release and withdrawal space on the same layout.
17分Packaging has sent the base-strip drawing. Tooling has the finger gap, but only at the moment the carton is placed.
6分Then get the movement after placement. A gap that accepts the fingers isn't automatically a gap they can leave through once another carton is beside them.
24分Keep the packing contents in that review too. We have had two cartons with the same outer dimensions and different internal support, so the outline alone was a very persuasive distraction.
20分I've added the packed section. Packaging is proposing a non-alternating pattern; dispatch dislikes the lower count, tooling hasn't checked the exit route yet.
20分Could a layer sheet be another candidate, if packaging thinks it can provide the needed support? Not saying put any old sheet in there and declare victory.
13分Worth asking, but include placing the sheet and handling its supply in the comparison. Otherwise dispatch gets its carton count back by handing an unpriced task to somebody else.
13分Packaging will assess a specified sheet as a second option. We're keeping the lower-count pattern in the comparison rather than treating the sheet as an agreed fix
14分Tooling has found a withdrawal clash in the original pattern. They've proposed a finger change, now going back to packaging with the revised gaps. Neither option has a filled-load trial result yet.
20分Has dispatch priced the lower-count option now? It may still be less work than revised fingers plus a sheet supply, even if it loses the beauty contest on the drawing.
15分此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .