I didn't use this in a build, but the panels work. there might be some
misalignment with the interconnect, still, but I'm thinking of redoing
that piece anyway. I think these files are good at least.
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
the previous cutout ran the height of the interior, meaning that if you
looked straight down a top panel edge, if the fit wasn't perfect, you
could see some gaps, as the lip that the panel was resting on had gaps
in it. this eliminates that, and makes the pieces with neutrik cutouts a
bit more stable, by just shortening the cutout box and retaining a
little lip for the panels across the whole box
slightly harder to get around with buttons that way, but definitely a
net improvement
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
so, that mount wouldn't have even been printable for anyone else anyway,
that's good, but this breaking out of a piece might as well be committed
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
this is still a very solid piece compared to the old method of a diamond
through the middle, and comes with two benefits:
1. semicircle cut out of the bottom (or top) means that wiring can be
run over rather than through, simplifying some (dis)assembly, and...
2. semicircle on the bottom, and offset from the center, should allow
for designs with a button in the center of the x-axis, rather than
having to leave room for the frame wall. this might facilitate
directional arc layouts where the buttons are combined in one shape
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
the panels had posts that would drive into the frame column (the frame
column needing to be a bit wider at the top and bottom accodringly).
this was an attempt to assist the friction fit of the whole stick in
tandem by having the panels contribute to the position and rigidity of
the frame pieces. in practice I think this didn't really contribute
anything major to that problem, and instead made the panels hard to
connect, and way harder to remove, while also having a visual defect in
that the panels were usually separated slightly due to having to fit
exactly in the frame columns.
this goes back to the old design where the base panel is a flat sheet
and the frame column holes are uniform. everything seems nicer this way,
and the overall build is simpler.
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
replace hardcoded values creating the 45 degree bevel with the parameter
itself, so that htis is a bit more flexible in the future
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
this makes the bottom panels have posts, now that the frame is looking
like it will be composed of parts where printing the column hole in this
fashion is not a problem
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
this undoes my work to simplify the bottom of the frame and move button
holes in the frames accordingly. the top and bottom are now symmetrical
in terms of their bevel, and the buttons are centered. this will make
the print of the frame difficult again, but I have an upcoming change to
modularize the frame walls and that will print far better, so I'm
thinking this is what I want. testing ongoing
This reverts commit ed031b9308b062b8900a40851dafac5f18aaa535.
This reverts commit f90fc095e04b46073f33681b6cbe94b3ac421256.
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
this has two effects:
1. thinner and thicker spacers could be printed to accommodate
preferences without having to reprint panels
2. I'm still testing this a bit, but by not having the spacer and panel
be the same (partially hollow) part, I think the lever clickiness is
a bit more pleasing to the ear
the second point is entirely arbitrary, so the first point is the real
benefit, despite me trying this because of the second
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
this is for the bottom panels to go flush against; without it, there's a
visible gap between the panel edge and the wall cutout space
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
this just chops off the bottom entirely, essentially. this could be done
cleaner but this is the least disruptive change until I'm certain of it
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
mostly an aesthetic choice, but I think it helps mitigate the look of
the front relative to the need to have the case be deeper for some
levers, so (I believe) it's not an arbitrary aesthetic choice.
also maybe there's some benefit to have it be slightly less flush on the
surface, IDK
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
their cutout for the screw nut was giving too much space, which spread
them out too much on the frame walls. this should fix it, the nuts for a
Crown SDB-202 or a Seimitsu PS-14 still fit anyway
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
trying to simplify the print again a bit, I think the roundedness is one
of the causes of prints lifting
since the top is now "sharp" (not that sharp in my printing practice,
but whatever), I added a bevel to the front in an attempt to make it a
bit more comfortable
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
license is still the same, this just saves duplicating the terms and
standardizes with what I've been doing elsewhere, style-wise
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
50mm - 10mm of panels was fine for some levers but not enough for the
LSX-NOBI, which I personally have a number of. I can't vet every lever
in existence, but I know at least that this was a problem that is solved
by adding 5mm, which seems like a fair trade and not a huge difference
in the final product.
this also helps the fact that at 40mm internal, some buttons + wiring
harnesses were getting pretty tight, mostly relevant at the frame
connection point where the inner bottom panel isn't a basin. this should
help that too.
additionally this has us go back to the 45mm M4 standoff recommendation,
which kinda sucks because it seems like 40mm are easier to find, but as
stated in the notes, the difference is somewhat negligible if you just
use 40mm with longer bolts.
this allows for:
include <parameters.scad>
// override a variable such as
frame_z = 60;
include <components.scad>
which will let individual components tweak settings, e.g. the height of
a frame
the horizontal move sends the dir arc closer to the edge, and the
vertical move puts the top back where it used to be before moving the
rest of the layouts down
both of these choices are entirely subjective
this complicates the print, in that now printing the frame requires
supports, but by cutting in on the bottom the same way as the top, we
can center some stuff better and also make the plates a bit more
interchangeable. this also eliminates the slightly unsightly bottom
panel hanging out in the open, so overall I think it's worth the
printing complication
