Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kenneth Barns (27 Oct 2014 13:21 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (27 Oct 2014 16:57 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (27 Oct 2014 17:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kenneth Barns (27 Oct 2014 19:52 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2014 02:54 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kenneth Barns (28 Oct 2014 07:58 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2014 22:19 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kenneth Barns (29 Oct 2014 00:30 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2014 05:23 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (04 Nov 2014 23:18 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (05 Nov 2014 02:28 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (05 Nov 2014 19:09 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Ian Whitchurch (05 Nov 2014 21:51 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Ian Whitchurch (05 Nov 2014 22:22 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (06 Nov 2014 00:43 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 Nov 2014 22:29 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Bruce Johnson (05 Nov 2014 23:09 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (06 Nov 2014 00:36 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (06 Nov 2014 00:26 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kelly St. Clair (06 Nov 2014 01:19 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (06 Nov 2014 09:00 UTC)
[TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Alex Goodwin (06 Nov 2014 12:24 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Ian Whitchurch (06 Nov 2014 13:27 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Ian Whitchurch (06 Nov 2014 21:05 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Bruce Johnson (06 Nov 2014 21:28 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Ian Whitchurch (06 Nov 2014 22:53 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Freelance Traveller (07 Nov 2014 01:31 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Ian Whitchurch (07 Nov 2014 02:56 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Ian Whitchurch (07 Nov 2014 07:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Bruce Johnson (07 Nov 2014 16:21 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Richard Aiken (08 Nov 2014 01:42 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Freelance Traveller (06 Nov 2014 13:33 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (06 Nov 2014 13:31 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (09 Nov 2014 08:59 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (09 Nov 2014 18:16 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Ian Whitchurch (10 Nov 2014 02:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (10 Nov 2014 02:47 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kelly St. Clair (10 Nov 2014 03:01 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (10 Nov 2014 06:44 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Bruce Johnson (10 Nov 2014 18:51 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (10 Nov 2014 22:55 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (10 Nov 2014 06:45 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Thomas Jones-Low (10 Nov 2014 13:27 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (10 Nov 2014 22:55 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Bruce Johnson (10 Nov 2014 23:10 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (05 Nov 2014 19:11 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 Nov 2014 06:26 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Grimmund (05 Nov 2014 12:31 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 Nov 2014 17:01 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 Nov 2014 20:22 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Eris Reddoch (05 Nov 2014 21:50 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 Nov 2014 22:19 UTC)

Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Grimmund 05 Nov 2014 12:31 UTC

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:26 AM,  <xxxxxx@comcast.net> wrote:

> The customer's total
> budget included the cost of my friend's plans and the
> cost of building the home.

Yes.  These are different line items.

> My understanding of the rules is that a budget is set
> prior to asking an architect to draw a set of plans for
> a new design.

That would be sensible.  Although in the real world we frequently see
huge cost over-runs and multiple design revisions.  (and the design
revisions are generally what drive the over-runs, but that's another
story...)

> The plan created by the architect includes the costs of
> the components. The total cost of the finished plan,
> hopefully within the original budget, is used to calculate
> the architect's fee. The fee is paid from the established
> budget.

Yup.  Design fees and build costs are separate items.

> If the hull is not built the only budget cost is the architect's fee.

Exactly.  Although that seems kind of silly, no?  Why would you buy a
design without budgeting money to build it?

> If the hull is built both the architect and shipyard are paid
> for the work done from the budget.

That's an aggregate cost again.  You pay the design fee regardless of
whether you build the ship or not.

>  A second hull is constructed by the same shipyard and
> receives the cost of the hull and components, which is
> taken from the budget.

If pay for the design work, you own the design.

If *you* order a second ship at the same shipyard, there would be no
additional design fees.  (which is silly, because if you order a
second ship, there WILL be design changes from the first one, tweaks
to improve performance, handling, ease of maintenance, etc.)

If someone else sees your ship, says "oooh, shiny, I want one" and
goes to the shipyard, AND YOU PAID FOR THE DESIGN, the shipyard will
direct them to you to buy a license.   Or direct them to a qualified
naval architect to design something similar.

If the shipyard did the design themselves, and sells it under license
as a "standard design", you pay their nominal license fee and they
start building.

Or to put in in housing terms, if you pay someone to design a house,
the cost is (design cost x1), regardless if you build it.

If you design and build a house, cost is (design cost x1) + (build cost x1).

If you decide you like it so much, you build two more copies for
vacation homes, cost is (design cost x1)+(build cost x3).

If you decide to go build a housing development with 30 cookie cutter
copies of that house, the cost is (30x build cost)+(1x design cost)
for the neighborhood.

Dan

--

"Any sufficiently advanced parody is indistinguishable from a genuine
kook." -Alan Morgan