How to calculate shipping based on number of items?

[reiddg]

V1.3.9h
Upgrading from 1.3.9c to 1.3.9h - in testing now
Marco's USPS shipping module installed along with 1.3.9h
No real customization (yet)
VERY new to zencart

I've searched the forums and tutorials and couldn't find an answer so I'm posting the question here.

The products we're selling all have the same weight, size, etc. We've found that USPS flat rate is the cheapest with the only variable dictating the use of medium flat rate or large flat rate is the number of items purchased. If we select large and medium flat rate in the shipping options, the customer will see both options and may just select the cheapest method, which would be medium flat rate. However, if the number of items exceeds the medium box maximum, we have to use large, which would make the shipping costs incorrect.

Does anyone have a suggestion for how to present the shipping options available based on the number of items purchased?

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

[RixStix]

Marco's latest revision has the option to filter by volume which would essentially do what you ask.

Since all your products are the same size,

• you could figure how many items will fit within a MED flatrate box
• divide that number into the cubic inches of the MED flatrate box
• use that number as the volume of each item in cubic inches.

Then, follow the directions for adding that volume to the weight of each item in digits 6-11 of the weight.

We had a similar issue and have been using that filtering option for almost a week now. When customers add the quantity that exceeds what will fit within a small flatrate box, that option is removed from the available shipping options that the customer sees. If they exceed the small flatrate, then that option is also removed.

The module will also allow insurance and other USPS options to be added to the shipping charges. It allow separate handling charges to be used for Domestic and International.

[reiddg]

Excellent! I had been reviewing all of the updates and had not gotten completely through his new shipping module. Thanks so much for the tip. I'll set it up and start testing right away. Thanks again!

[reiddg]

Marco's latest revision has the option to filter by volume which would essentially do what you ask.

Since all your products are the same size,

• you could figure how many items will fit within a MED flatrate box
• divide that number into the cubic inches of the MED flatrate box
• use that number as the volume of each item in cubic inches.

Then, follow the directions for adding that volume to the weight of each item in digits 6-11 of the weight.

We had a similar issue and have been using that filtering option for almost a week now. When customers add the quantity that exceeds what will fit within a small flatrate box, that option is removed from the available shipping options that the customer sees. If they exceed the small flatrate, then that option is also removed.

The module will also allow insurance and other USPS options to be added to the shipping charges. It allow separate handling charges to be used for Domestic and International.

RixStix, In looking over Marco's updated module, I see the package dimensions config to which I added the med & lrg flat rate dimensions and the max item weight in each. However, I do not see the directions for adding the results of the volume calculation of each item in digits 6-11 of the weight. Please advise.

Thanks again.

Dennis

[RixStix]

The latest copy is in post 36 of the support thread The volume(s) for the flatrate boxes are embedded within the code. If there are two different sized flatrate boxes, the larger of the 2 volumes is assumed.

There's also a sql patch to apply which is listed in post 23. That patch allows for additional decimal places in the product weight.

Marco is still working on the final update.

If you're using volume based filtering, you can leave the dimension specs default because those parameters only apply to weight-based filtering.

[reiddg]

Thanks RixStix. I'll look at those.

Regards,

Dennis