Rapid Prototyping — Cost and Time Claim Is the statement accurate that rapid prototyping usually costs about the same as traditional prototyping but takes less time, or is cost highly dependent on geometry, process, and iteration strategy while time is typically reduced dramatically?

Introduction / Context:
Rapid prototyping refers to additive and fast turnaround processes such as fused filament fabrication, stereolithography, selective laser sintering, direct metal laser sintering, and fast soft tooling. These methods are adopted mainly to cut lead time, enable quick learning cycles, and reduce the risk of tooling rework. The claim that cost is about the same while time is lower is an oversimplification that can mislead decisions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Prototype cost depends on material, part size, tolerance, finish, and quantity.
• Time to a testable part is generally much shorter with rapid methods, especially for complex shapes.
• Traditional prototypes may require machining, fixtures, and manual assembly.

Concept / Approach:
While rapid methods often reduce total project cost through faster learning and fewer design iterations, the unit cost of a single printed piece can be lower or higher than a conventionally machined prototype. For complex internal channels or lattice structures, additive is usually cheaper and faster. For simple prismatic parts, a shop can machine a prototype quickly and economically. Therefore the blanket statement about cost parity is not reliable, although time reduction is typically strong.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify geometry, tolerances, and finish requirements.2) Compare lead time and per unit cost across additive and subtractive options.3) Include iteration count; rapid methods shine when multiple design turns are expected.4) Choose the route that minimizes total validation cost and schedule risk, not only unit price.

Verification / Alternative check:
Projects that cycle through several design versions demonstrate far lower total cost using rapid methods because each revision is produced quickly without new tooling, even if the per part price is sometimes higher.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Correct ignores real cost variability. Only true for metals or plastics imposes unjustified material limits. Not enough information is unnecessary because the general principle about cost variability and time reduction is well established.

Common Pitfalls:
Comparing only unit price while ignoring iteration count and tooling amortization; assuming printed properties always match production without validation.

Final Answer:
Incorrect