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>
doesn't seem to be any real gain in changing them, having done more
prints with those settings and with stock settings.
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
also add a blurb about what I believe satisfies the GPLv3 in any
distribution of the object files and/or objects themselves, since I'm
beginning to think about how to send sticks to other people
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
still playing with these a bit, but test prints yields some promising
shapes, just need to do a build with them to confirm I like it
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 is just an aesthetic choice, but I think 2+ tone colorways will
look slightly nicer if the whole side panel color runs along the whole
side rather than stopping at the top/bottom "lip". the actual difference
is arbitrary but I'm going to toy with this for now as I suspect side
colors and panels will be more interesting than top/bottom ones
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
this provides a system for interlocking frame walls as separate pieces,
rather than a whole frame box as one piece. the primary motivation for
this was to improve print quality. these pieces can be printed flat side
down, meaning improvements due to:
1. printing the box required the long, thin bottom to be the side on the
print surface, which meant shrinkage force would curl the corners
with essentially no remedy outside of bed adhesive
2. printing the box bottom up created poor circles for the button holes,
sometimes bad enough to be a visible problem, as well as making small
flow glitches to stand out (especially on non-matte PLA)
3. printing the box also required supports when the frame bottom was
inset-style, leading to an annoying post-print step
4. the outward side is now what rests on the print surface, yielding a
nicer, more consistent surface
the box modules still exist in the event someone wants them, but I
personally will probably be focused on this method going forward. this
also opens up some exciting options regarding color mixing, different
side panel shapes, and the like, so I expect to see more of these even
if the boxes don't go away (especially since these new pieces are all
derived from the boxes anyway).
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
yes I keep going back and forth on this, but I think I'm done now that I
have a better frame approach
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 ed031b9308.
This reverts commit f90fc095e0.
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
not sure why I used this non-line-breaked version of the GPLv3
initially, but this formatted one is easier to read
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>
