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>
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>
the bottom panel had a basin or tray to make room for taller levers,
namely the Seimitsu LSX-NOBI that I really like. per its specs, the
lever needs 43.70mm internally, and the old values were too tight (55mm
- 19mm from panels - 2mm from lever plate = 43) so the bottom panel was
arbitrarily given a sunken portion (somewhat arbitrarily 2.5mm) to
compensate at the time, because I already had frames printed.
adding 2mm to the frame Z covers the difference (57mm - 10mm - 2mm =
45mm) and thus we don't need the bottom panel hack anymore. I also
suspect the bottom panel basin was slightly affecting it structurally,
so this may help that.
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
this is a crazy one since I tried to fill the corners by hand.
interesting, but I don't know if I'm actually going to use it... but it
works so committing it
Signed-off-by: Brian S. Stephan <bss@incorporeal.org>
Brian S. Stephan