NOW OPEN SOURCE!!! swill's plate building tool [builder.swillkb.com]

[swill]

Lasergist has a recommended min hole size for various plate thicknesses. 1.5mm has a recommended 4mm min diameter hole.

Min. hole diameter for 1.0mm thickness: 2.5mm
Min. hole diameter for 1.5mm thickness: 3.0mm
Min. hole diameter for 2.0mm thickness: 4.0mm
Min. hole diameter for 3.0mm thickness: 6.5mm

http://lasergist.com/design-guidelines/

Should your tool flag for that?

I will talk to them and see if that is a real issue and not just a guide for randoms. They have a 0.15mm kerf, so I doubt that would actually be a problem.

[swill]

I just pushed a fix for a couple bugs and improved the error handling when lasergist returns an error to me.

The problem of Zero not being a valid Qty is still outstanding, but once that is resolved on lasergist's side, everything will be working correctly again.

Let me know if you guys run into any other issues.  Thanks...

[IBNobody]

I will talk to them and see if that is a real issue and not just a guide for randoms. They have a 0.15mm kerf, so I doubt that would actually be a problem.

Cool. I am interested in hearing why they have the limit. My gut says that it has to do with metal slag.

When I laser acrylic, I've found that if the cutouts are too narrow, the cut material sometimes melts back to the edge.

[lasergist]

I will talk to them and see if that is a real issue and not just a guide for randoms. They have a 0.15mm kerf, so I doubt that would actually be a problem.

Cool. I am interested in hearing why they have the limit. My gut says that it has to do with metal slag.

When I laser acrylic, I've found that if the cutouts are too narrow, the cut material sometimes melts back to the edge.

This stands as a general guideline. You can't imagine what we're seeing daily at lasergist... From scanned drawings to things like 2mm gears in 3mm thick stainless steel....

Some sort of rules must be there for the 90% of applications. In this application this really doesn't apply. For 1.0 and 1.5 mm you can safely have holes of 2mm and up. For 3.0mm, it's better to have holes larger than 3.5mm. The actual reason for having such limitations is the lead-in of the laser. The laser doesn't just start cutting where the path is; it first goes a few mm away, pierces the metal and then goes to the line and follows it.

[lasergist]

I'd love to spec the bottom plate to 3mm and have the holes drilled a little smaller so I can tap them for screws coming in from the top.

This is basically what I did. I tapped all layers for mine, but the middle are wood, so very forgiving. Top and bottom tap would be perfect.

I did 1.5mm for top and 3mm bottom plate in brass and it is great.

One thing to consider with a 3mm bottom plate, there will be no bending it with your hands if it is not perfectly flat. Mine is pretty good, but not perfect.

1.5mm or 2mm of steel would be enough if you are worried about a solid tap.

Don't take this as a reason not to do it. It is a great idea and I am happy with my decision. Just figured I would pass on the experience.

I confirm that 1.5mm and 2mm are totally fine for tapping. If there is interest for this we can do the tapping here... Just saying...

[IBNobody]

This stands as a general guideline. You can't imagine what we're seeing daily at lasergist... From scanned drawings to things like 2mm gears in 3mm thick stainless steel....

Some sort of rules must be there for the 90% of applications. In this application this really doesn't apply. For 1.0 and 1.5 mm you can safely have holes of 2mm and up. For 3.0mm, it's better to have holes larger than 3.5mm. The actual reason for having such limitations is the lead-in of the laser. The laser doesn't just start cutting where the path is; it first goes a few mm away, pierces the metal and then goes to the line and follows it.

Ah, so in that regard your laser setup is like a water jet cutter. Interesting.

[lasergist]

This stands as a general guideline. You can't imagine what we're seeing daily at lasergist... From scanned drawings to things like 2mm gears in 3mm thick stainless steel....

Some sort of rules must be there for the 90% of applications. In this application this really doesn't apply. For 1.0 and 1.5 mm you can safely have holes of 2mm and up. For 3.0mm, it's better to have holes larger than 3.5mm. The actual reason for having such limitations is the lead-in of the laser. The laser doesn't just start cutting where the path is; it first goes a few mm away, pierces the metal and then goes to the line and follows it.

Ah, so in that regard your laser setup is like a water jet cutter. Interesting.

Actually all laser systems for metal cutting (at least the ones that I am aware of) are like this. Acrylic, paper and some times wood do not require this.

[ideus]

This stands as a general guideline. You can't imagine what we're seeing daily at lasergist... From scanned drawings to things like 2mm gears in 3mm thick stainless steel....

Some sort of rules must be there for the 90% of applications. In this application this really doesn't apply. For 1.0 and 1.5 mm you can safely have holes of 2mm and up. For 3.0mm, it's better to have holes larger than 3.5mm. The actual reason for having such limitations is the lead-in of the laser. The laser doesn't just start cutting where the path is; it first goes a few mm away, pierces the metal and then goes to the line and follows it.

Ah, so in that regard your laser setup is like a water jet cutter. Interesting.

Actually all laser systems for metal cutting (at least the ones that I am aware of) are like this. Acrylic, paper and some times wood do not require this.

Very interesting details on how the laser machine works.

[IBNobody]

Actually all laser systems for metal cutting (at least the ones that I am aware of) are like this. Acrylic, paper and some times wood do not require this.

::sigh:: Laser Envy. I have access to a Trotec Speedy 300 which is 80W and is meant for wood and acrylic. The software doesn't let you add lead ins or account for kerf. Oh well. Glad you guys could step in.

[lasergist]

Actually all laser systems for metal cutting (at least the ones that I am aware of) are like this. Acrylic, paper and some times wood do not require this.

::sigh:: Laser Envy. I have access to a Trotec Speedy 300 which is 80W and is meant for wood and acrylic. The software doesn't let you add lead ins or account for kerf. Oh well. Glad you guys could step in.

1300W-4800W  (funnily enough the 1300W is better in thicker materials)

[lasergist]

Hello everybody, we're all set. The zero values now work properly! 
Enjoy and of course if you notice anything please let me know!

[swill]

Hello everybody, we're all set. The zero values now work properly! 
Enjoy and of course if you notice anything please let me know!

Nice work!!!  Thank you for the quick turn around on that. 

[regack]

Hello everybody, we're all set. The zero values now work properly! 
Enjoy and of course if you notice anything please let me know!

Nice work!!!  Thank you for the quick turn around on that. 

 


Thanks to you both!   I think I'll just tap everything and change the bottom plate back down to 1.5mm.

[swill]

Hello everybody, we're all set. The zero values now work properly! 
Enjoy and of course if you notice anything please let me know!

Nice work!!!  Thank you for the quick turn around on that. 

 


Thanks to you both!   I think I'll just tap everything and change the bottom plate back down to 1.5mm.

ya, that is what I did.  i used wooden skewers to make sure the holes where all aligned (and stayed aligned) and then clamped all the layers together while i tapped the whole case.  just take it slow and clean the tap every couple turns.

one thing to note.  you will likely be at the very edge regarding the length of the tap and the distance to tap.  you may want to confirm that your tap is long enough to make it through all the layers in a single tap.  you can't just start tapping from the other side or it will mess up your existing threads.  luckily i had 3 different taps for the size i tapping and i was lucky and had one that was long enough.  check on this because it is very likely that your tap will not be long enough to tap all the layers at once.

i just realized, but what you could do is tap all the holes as deep as you can and then remove the top couple layers and clamp it all together again and then tap the bottom layers by matching the threads you just tapped (partway through the case) down through the bottom.  that will work... 

[duynguyenle]

Hi swill,

I had to generate the plate again for my Dell ISO Alps plate, I think the tool actually generates the stabiliser holes in the wrong orientation
This is the output I got:


It should be the other way around like this photo I took here of another plate I had (i.e. stab holes on the right hand side of the switch


I must've manually corrected it before and forgot about it.

Just for reference, here's the raw output from KLE:
["¬\n`","!\n1","\"\n2","£\n3","$\n4","%\n5","^\n6","&\n7","*\n8","(\n9",")\n0","_\n-","+\n=",{w:2},"Backspace"],
[{w:1.5},"Tab","Q","W","E","R","T","Y","U","I","O","P","{\n[","}\n]",{x:0.25,w:1.25,h:2,w2:1.5,h2:1,x2:-0.25},"Enter"],
[{w:1.75},"Caps Lock","A","S","D","F","G","H","J","K","L",":\n;","@\n'","~\n#"],
[{w:1.25},"Shift","|\n\\","Z","X","C","V","B","N","M","<\n,",">\n.","?\n/",{w:2.75},"Shift"],
[{w:1.25},"Ctrl",{w:1.25},"Win",{w:1.25},"Alt",{a:7,w:6.25},"",{a:4,w:1.25},"AltGr",{w:1.25},"Win",{w:1.25},"Menu",{w:1.25},"Ctrl"]

The stabiliser hole for the Capslock position is a bit peculiar, but I think you're already aware of that. I didn't notice this before because Dell ISO capslocks are stepped so you don't need those stabilisers. I don't know if it's strictly necessary to stabilise capslock key, I think it's probably OK without, but I am unsure what Alps' official recommendation would be.

[emdude]

Hi swill,

I had to generate the plate again for my Dell ISO Alps plate, I think the tool actually generates the stabiliser holes in the wrong orientation
This is the output I got:

Show Image

It should be the other way around like this photo I took here of another plate I had (i.e. stab holes on the right hand side of the switch

Show Image

I must've manually corrected it before and forgot about it.

Just for reference, here's the raw output from KLE:
["¬\n`","!\n1","\"\n2","£\n3","$\n4","%\n5","^\n6","&\n7","*\n8","(\n9",")\n0","_\n-","+\n=",{w:2},"Backspace"],
[{w:1.5},"Tab","Q","W","E","R","T","Y","U","I","O","P","{\n[","}\n]",{x:0.25,w:1.25,h:2,w2:1.5,h2:1,x2:-0.25},"Enter"],
[{w:1.75},"Caps Lock","A","S","D","F","G","H","J","K","L",":\n;","@\n'","~\n#"],
[{w:1.25},"Shift","|\n\\","Z","X","C","V","B","N","M","<\n,",">\n.","?\n/",{w:2.75},"Shift"],
[{w:1.25},"Ctrl",{w:1.25},"Win",{w:1.25},"Alt",{a:7,w:6.25},"",{a:4,w:1.25},"AltGr",{w:1.25},"Win",{w:1.25},"Menu",{w:1.25},"Ctrl"]

The stabiliser hole for the Capslock position is a bit peculiar, but I think you're already aware of that. I didn't notice this before because Dell ISO capslocks are stepped so you don't need those stabilisers. I don't know if it's strictly necessary to stabilise capslock key, I think it's probably OK without, but I am unsure what Alps' official recommendation would be.

Swill mentioned this earlier, you can remove the stab cutouts for that particular key with "{_s:0}."

He mentioned that it would be difficult to remove the stabs for that key by default without disabling stabs for all 1.75u keys.  I've thought about it, and I don't think it would be a bad idea since Tai-Hao do not have their 1.75u keys stabilized.

[duynguyenle]

Inspired by emdude I have made my own ghetto fitment check for my Dell ISO plate, looks fairly positive: https://imgur.com/a/5pV4j

Unfortunately the shop I intend to order plates from is currently swamped with two big commercial contracts, so I will have to wait a bit to confirm on actual hardware. Stay tuned!

[lasergist]

Unfortunately the shop I intend to order plates from is currently swamped with two big commercial contracts, so I will have to wait a bit to confirm on actual hardware.

Hmmm... Hello!

[swill]

Unfortunately the shop I intend to order plates from is currently swamped with two big commercial contracts, so I will have to wait a bit to confirm on actual hardware.

Hmmm... Hello!

If I remember correctly, the pricing he was getting from his local shop was pretty impossible to beat. 

[duynguyenle]

Unfortunately the shop I intend to order plates from is currently swamped with two big commercial contracts, so I will have to wait a bit to confirm on actual hardware.

Hmmm... Hello!

If I remember correctly, the pricing he was getting from his local shop was pretty impossible to beat. 

Dingdingding! Sorry for one-off plates I would definitely consider lasergist but since I am also planning to cut quite a few cherry mx 1800 plates, I can get pretty decent pricing (about £17 for a 60% sized plate)  so it makes sense for me to tack it on to my planned order 

Also the shop is 500m away from the main office I work at, so no postage fee 

[swill]

Small Update

Tonight I pushed the addition of a Top Layer which has cutouts for the keycaps and will make the case not feel so 'low profile'.

I have not added any ability to customize it at this point.  It basically cuts a 19.05mm square hole for each unit of switch drawn.

Let me know what you guys think...

[IBNobody]

Small Update

Tonight I pushed the addition of a Top Layer which has cutouts for the keycaps and will make the case not feel so 'low profile'.

I have not added any ability to customize it at this point.  It basically cuts a 19.05mm square hole for each unit of switch drawn.

Let me know what you guys think...

It seems to work, and it is a nice option... But now you've added an extra layer  to turn off for people who just want a top and bottom. It is confusing because now you call it a top plate, whereas before the top plate was the switch plate. It would be cleaner if you added it as a new type of case, and added a top/bottom only case to boot.

Anyways...What would you customize about it?

[derezzed]

The Keyboard Layout Editor has a preset layout for the Leopold FC660M.


Pasting that into the Plate Builder produces this plate:


Ignoring the need to drill screw holes, will this plate fit a FC660M case or are the dimensions wrong?

[Edde]

Small Update

Tonight I pushed the addition of a Top Layer which has cutouts for the keycaps and will make the case not feel so 'low profile'.

I have not added any ability to customize it at this point.  It basically cuts a 19.05mm square hole for each unit of switch drawn.

Let me know what you guys think...

(Attachment Link)

Looks good, the only problem is that ISO enter generates a small bar, but that's not too big of a deal.

[tobsn]

What would be nice for the front/back and middle layers: Defaults for M2/M3 via drop down and have for the middle layers optional set to M2/M3 hex spacer cut outs. also interesting would be a minimum spacing to edge/baseplate for countersunk screws (2xDiameter on M2/3 screws).

Maybe even automatically suggest a height and send it off to Ponoko for acrylic middle layers?
Also front aluminum and back steel.

Essentially you could then pick the layout, set M3, send off the front and back to lasergist, the middle layers to ponoko and all you need is 8-12mm hey spacers and screws. in case you want countersunk you just need to take the front/back and drill those with a countersink drill bit.

[Charger]

The Keyboard Layout Editor has a preset layout for the Leopold FC660M.
(Attachment Link)

Pasting that into the Plate Builder produces this plate:
(Attachment Link)

Ignoring the need to drill screw holes, will this plate fit a FC660M case or are the dimensions wrong?
(Attachment Link)

I wouldn't trust it to work unless it was tested or confirmed by someone. I seem to recall the default 10 keyless does not make a usable phantom plate.

[swill]

Small Update

Tonight I pushed the addition of a Top Layer which has cutouts for the keycaps and will make the case not feel so 'low profile'.

I have not added any ability to customize it at this point.  It basically cuts a 19.05mm square hole for each unit of switch drawn.

Let me know what you guys think...

(Attachment Link)

Looks good, the only problem is that ISO enter generates a small bar, but that's not too big of a deal.

I will check that tonight. Thanks for the report.

[swill]

What would be nice for the front/back and middle layers: Defaults for M2/M3 via drop down and have for the middle layers optional set to M2/M3 hex spacer cut outs. also interesting would be a minimum spacing to edge/baseplate for countersunk screws (2xDiameter on M2/3 screws).

Maybe even automatically suggest a height and send it off to Ponoko for acrylic middle layers?
Also front aluminum and back steel.

Essentially you could then pick the layout, set M3, send off the front and back to lasergist, the middle layers to ponoko and all you need is 8-12mm hey spacers and screws. in case you want countersunk you just need to take the front/back and drill those with a countersink drill bit.

Honestly, I did not follow you here. Maybe it is too early. Are you asking for a default value of 3mm be entered for the hole if you select sandwich and the padding and edge with and everything will update to reflect that default? Sorry I'm a bit confused.

[swill]

The Keyboard Layout Editor has a preset layout for the Leopold FC660M.
(Attachment Link)

Pasting that into the Plate Builder produces this plate:
(Attachment Link)

Ignoring the need to drill screw holes, will this plate fit a FC660M case or are the dimensions wrong?
(Attachment Link)

Well layout that got drawn is wrong because you are missing the 3 right most keys.

That layout "should" work if drawn correctly, but no one has confirmed if the plate fits into the case, so someone would have to try it. Printing to scale and trying in the case is probably your best bet.

[swill]

The Keyboard Layout Editor has a preset layout for the Leopold FC660M.
(Attachment Link)

Pasting that into the Plate Builder produces this plate:
(Attachment Link)

Ignoring the need to drill screw holes, will this plate fit a FC660M case or are the dimensions wrong?
(Attachment Link)

I wouldn't trust it to work unless it was tested or confirmed by someone. I seem to recall the default 10 keyless does not make a usable phantom plate.

The reason the TKL layout (or 104) does not work is because whoever created the TKL layout on KLE did not actually make it standard. They have the wrong about of space between the keys on the left and the arrow and paging cluster.

That has nothing to do with the tool and is more about the input just being wrong for that layout on KLE. I have not gotten around to figuring out the correct values and sending a PR to KLE.

[IBNobody]

The reason the TKL layout (or 104) does not work is because whoever created the TKL layout on KLE did not actually make it standard. They have the wrong about of space between the keys on the left and the arrow and paging cluster.

That has nothing to do with the tool and is more about the input just being wrong for that layout on KLE. I have not gotten around to figuring out the correct values and sending a PR to KLE.

Hmm... There is no TKL on there anymore, and the ANSI104 appears to have the "proper" spacing. .5U between F keys and numerals, 0.25U between arrow clusters, numpad, etc. Are you saying that the official spacing is not a multiple of U's? Or was the problem corrected?

For reference, I used WASD's image.

http://www.wasdkeyboards.com/index.php/104-key-cherry-mx-keycap-set.html

[swill]

The reason the TKL layout (or 104) does not work is because whoever created the TKL layout on KLE did not actually make it standard. They have the wrong about of space between the keys on the left and the arrow and paging cluster.

That has nothing to do with the tool and is more about the input just being wrong for that layout on KLE. I have not gotten around to figuring out the correct values and sending a PR to KLE.

Hmm... There is no TKL on there anymore, and the ANSI104 appears to have the "proper" spacing. .5U between F keys and numerals, 0.25U between arrow clusters, numpad, etc. Are you saying that the official spacing is not a multiple of U's? Or was the problem corrected?

For reference, I used WASD's image.

http://www.wasdkeyboards.com/index.php/104-key-cherry-mx-keycap-set.html

According to @jdcarpe the spacing between those clusters are not simple fractional unit distances (like 0.25 or 0.5).  I still have to measure and verify what the values should be. I don't think there has ever been a TKL layout on KLE, people use the 104 and remove the numpad to create a TKL.

When I add preset layouts, I will make sure the preset layouts are correct. This is on the short term road map.

I have a universal TKL plate, so I will try to reproduce that. Will take a while with a caliper, but I think it will be useful for people if I add it.

[IBNobody]

According to @jdcarpe the spacing between those clusters are not simple fractional unit distances (like 0.25 or 0.5).  I still have to measure and verify what the values should be. I don't think there has ever been a TKL layout on KLE, people use the 104 and remove the numpad to create a TKL.

When I add preset layouts, I will make sure the preset layouts are correct. This is on the short term road map.

I have a universal TKL plate, so I will try to reproduce that. Will take a while with a caliper, but I think it will be useful for people if I add it.

I just measured my Corsair K95, and it looked like the center-to-center difference between F12 and PrtSc was ~24mm. 1.25U = 23.76mm. What does the ANSI specification say is the official spacing?

[Charger]

The Keyboard Layout Editor has a preset layout for the Leopold FC660M.
(Attachment Link)

Pasting that into the Plate Builder produces this plate:
(Attachment Link)

Ignoring the need to drill screw holes, will this plate fit a FC660M case or are the dimensions wrong?
(Attachment Link)

I wouldn't trust it to work unless it was tested or confirmed by someone. I seem to recall the default 10 keyless does not make a usable phantom plate.

The reason the TKL layout (or 104) does not work is because whoever created the TKL layout on KLE did not actually make it standard. They have the wrong about of space between the keys on the left and the arrow and paging cluster.

That has nothing to do with the tool and is more about the input just being wrong for that layout on KLE. I have not gotten around to figuring out the correct values and sending a PR to KLE.

I didn't mean to make it sound like it was the tool that was the problem I have not had any problems with the tool with 4 keyboards I have made with it.

[swill]

The Keyboard Layout Editor has a preset layout for the Leopold FC660M.
(Attachment Link)

Pasting that into the Plate Builder produces this plate:
(Attachment Link)

Ignoring the need to drill screw holes, will this plate fit a FC660M case or are the dimensions wrong?
(Attachment Link)

I wouldn't trust it to work unless it was tested or confirmed by someone. I seem to recall the default 10 keyless does not make a usable phantom plate.

The reason the TKL layout (or 104) does not work is because whoever created the TKL layout on KLE did not actually make it standard. They have the wrong about of space between the keys on the left and the arrow and paging cluster.

That has nothing to do with the tool and is more about the input just being wrong for that layout on KLE. I have not gotten around to figuring out the correct values and sending a PR to KLE.

I didn't mean to make it sound like it was the tool that was the problem I have not had any problems with the tool with 4 keyboards I have made with it.

That's great to hear.

I really just want people to be aware that KLE may not be correct, so double check it. I think I remember someone mentioning that it did not work, but I am not sure.

[kyle7333]

I am trying to make a sandwich case for a planck and I am having trouble saving the SVG file. Actually it doesn't even let me save it at all. Can someone tell me how to save it as a .SVG so I can combine the files in Inkscape all on the p2 template? If it makes a difference I am using a mac.


EDIT: I got it figured out. All you have to do is right  click on the SVG button then it lets you save it properly.

[derezzed]

I am trying to make a sandwich case for a planck and I am having trouble saving the SVG file. Actually it doesn't even let me save it at all. Can someone tell me how to save it as a .SVG so I can combine the files in Inkscape all on the p2 template? If it makes a difference I am using a mac.


EDIT: I got it figured out. All you have to do is right  click on the SVG button then it lets you save it properly.

That's a lot simpler than my solution.  I clicked the SVG button to generate the SVG.  Then, I right-clicked the webpage and selected View Page Source.  Then I typed Ctrl A, then Ctrl C to copy the XML.  Then, I opened Notepad ( I don't know what the Mac equivalent of Notepad is) and pasted the XML into Notepad.  Then I selected Save As from the Notepad menu, changed the file type to All Files.  Then I saved the file with a .SVG file extension.

[swill]

I am trying to make a sandwich case for a planck and I am having trouble saving the SVG file. Actually it doesn't even let me save it at all. Can someone tell me how to save it as a .SVG so I can combine the files in Inkscape all on the p2 template? If it makes a difference I am using a mac.


EDIT: I got it figured out. All you have to do is right  click on the SVG button then it lets you save it properly.

That's a lot simpler than my solution.  I clicked the SVG button to generate the SVG.  Then, I right-clicked the webpage and selected View Page Source.  Then I typed Ctrl A, then Ctrl C to copy the XML.  Then, I opened Notepad ( I don't know what the Mac equivalent of Notepad is) and pasted the XML into Notepad.  Then I selected Save As from the Notepad menu, changed the file type to All Files.  Then I saved the file with a .SVG file extension.

What browsers are you using on which OS?  I thought I had click to download working in all browsers, but apparently not.  Thanks for reporting this...

[derezzed]

What browsers are you using on which OS?  I thought I had click to download working in all browsers, but apparently not.  Thanks for reporting this...

Firefox on Win 7.

[swill]

What browsers are you using on which OS?  I thought I had click to download working in all browsers, but apparently not.  Thanks for reporting this...

Firefox on Win 7.

OK. I will see if I can install a windows VM to do some testing. Thx...

[tobsn]

What would be nice for the front/back and middle layers: Defaults for M2/M3 via drop down and have for the middle layers optional set to M2/M3 hex spacer cut outs. also interesting would be a minimum spacing to edge/baseplate for countersunk screws (2xDiameter on M2/3 screws).

Maybe even automatically suggest a height and send it off to Ponoko for acrylic middle layers?
Also front aluminum and back steel.

Essentially you could then pick the layout, set M3, send off the front and back to lasergist, the middle layers to ponoko and all you need is 8-12mm hey spacers and screws. in case you want countersunk you just need to take the front/back and drill those with a countersink drill bit.

Honestly, I did not follow you here. Maybe it is too early. Are you asking for a default value of 3mm be entered for the hole if you select sandwich and the padding and edge with and everything will update to reflect that default? Sorry I'm a bit confused.

I was suggesting it would be handy to have M3 and M2 presets for 1.97/2.97mm holes or whatever generally fits best for M2/M3 screws. Then based on the M2/M3 have the middle layers instead of holes be able to have hex spacer cutouts fitting M2/M3 hex spacers.

[swill]

What would be nice for the front/back and middle layers: Defaults for M2/M3 via drop down and have for the middle layers optional set to M2/M3 hex spacer cut outs. also interesting would be a minimum spacing to edge/baseplate for countersunk screws (2xDiameter on M2/3 screws).

Maybe even automatically suggest a height and send it off to Ponoko for acrylic middle layers?
Also front aluminum and back steel.

Essentially you could then pick the layout, set M3, send off the front and back to lasergist, the middle layers to ponoko and all you need is 8-12mm hey spacers and screws. in case you want countersunk you just need to take the front/back and drill those with a countersink drill bit.

Honestly, I did not follow you here. Maybe it is too early. Are you asking for a default value of 3mm be entered for the hole if you select sandwich and the padding and edge with and everything will update to reflect that default? Sorry I'm a bit confused.

I was suggesting it would be handy to have M3 and M2 presets for 1.97/2.97mm holes or whatever generally fits best for M2/M3 screws. Then based on the M2/M3 have the middle layers instead of holes be able to have hex spacer cutouts fitting M2/M3 hex spacers.

So you want to put a hex spacer inside the middle layers?  Why would you do that?  If you did that, it would increase the bezel size a lot and I don't see what the benefit of doing that would be.  Maybe I don't understand the purpose of putting a hex spacer inside the case.

Edit: That came across as rude.  Sorry, I don't mean to belittle the idea, just trying to understand why we would do it.

[skullydazed]

What would be nice for the front/back and middle layers: Defaults for M2/M3 via drop down and have for the middle layers optional set to M2/M3 hex spacer cut outs. also interesting would be a minimum spacing to edge/baseplate for countersunk screws (2xDiameter on M2/3 screws).

Maybe even automatically suggest a height and send it off to Ponoko for acrylic middle layers?
Also front aluminum and back steel.

Essentially you could then pick the layout, set M3, send off the front and back to lasergist, the middle layers to ponoko and all you need is 8-12mm hey spacers and screws. in case you want countersunk you just need to take the front/back and drill those with a countersink drill bit.

Honestly, I did not follow you here. Maybe it is too early. Are you asking for a default value of 3mm be entered for the hole if you select sandwich and the padding and edge with and everything will update to reflect that default? Sorry I'm a bit confused.

I was suggesting it would be handy to have M3 and M2 presets for 1.97/2.97mm holes or whatever generally fits best for M2/M3 screws. Then based on the M2/M3 have the middle layers instead of holes be able to have hex spacer cutouts fitting M2/M3 hex spacers.

So you want to put a hex spacer inside the middle layers?  Why would you do that?  If you did that, it would increase the bezel size a lot and I don't see what the benefit of doing that would be.  Maybe I don't understand the purpose of putting a hex spacer inside the case.

Edit: That came across as rude.  Sorry, I don't mean to belittle the idea, just trying to understand why we would do it.

This is something I've considered doing in my fork. The bezel has to be wider, yes, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Consider the skeleton case, where you have a top plate and a bottom plate held together by spacers. Wouldn't it be nice to put a middle layer there instead, but still have flat screws on top and bottom for an overall flat profile?

And in the grand scheme you don't need a particularly wide bezel. Mine is around 10mm which accommodates a #8 screw very nicely. An M3 would be slightly smaller, and work just as well.

[swill]

Why wouldn't you just make all the layers have 3.5mm screw holes except the bottom which would have 2.5mm and then tap the bottom layer?  Then you can just screw the bottom plate onto the case from the top and you have no screw heads on the bottom.  If you want, you could even counter sink the holes on the top if that is important to you.

Edit to add references:
- http://www.amesweb.info/Screws/ClearanceHolesMetricFasteners.aspx
- http://www.shender4.com/metric_thread_chart.htm

[skullydazed]

Why wouldn't you just make all the layers have 3.5mm screw holes except the bottom which would have 2.5mm and then tap the bottom layer?  Then you can just screw the bottom plate onto the case from the top and you have no screw heads on the bottom.  If you want, you could even counter sink the holes on the top if that is important to you.

Edit to add references:
- http://www.amesweb.info/Screws/ClearanceHolesMetricFasteners.aspx
- http://www.shender4.com/metric_thread_chart.htm

That's another approach, yes. It depends on the aesthetics and functionality you're going for. I'm currently tapping the bottom plate and counter sinking the top plate, but that means that when a keyboard is taken apart I have 3+ layers to deal with. Some people may want to be able to remove the bottom plate without separating the rest of the layers, and this would allow them to do that. (There are others way to do that for sure, like tapping all layers or tapping the top layer and countersinking the bottom, but they each have their own tradeoffs.)

That being said, even if this does provide enough use cases that you decide it's useful, I would still put it pretty low on the priority list. This could be done afterward in CAD for one-offs, or by using your polygon functionality. It's not as convenient as having a preset available, but it will get the job done.

[swill]

Why wouldn't you just make all the layers have 3.5mm screw holes except the bottom which would have 2.5mm and then tap the bottom layer?  Then you can just screw the bottom plate onto the case from the top and you have no screw heads on the bottom.  If you want, you could even counter sink the holes on the top if that is important to you.

Edit to add references:
- http://www.amesweb.info/Screws/ClearanceHolesMetricFasteners.aspx
- http://www.shender4.com/metric_thread_chart.htm

That's another approach, yes. It depends on the aesthetics and functionality you're going for. I'm currently tapping the bottom plate and counter sinking the top plate, but that means that when a keyboard is taken apart I have 3+ layers to deal with. Some people may want to be able to remove the bottom plate without separating the rest of the layers, and this would allow them to do that. (There are others way to do that for sure, like tapping all layers or tapping the top layer and countersinking the bottom, but they each have their own tradeoffs.)

That being said, even if this does provide enough use cases that you decide it's useful, I would still put it pretty low on the priority list. This could be done afterward in CAD for one-offs, or by using your polygon functionality. It's not as convenient as having a preset available, but it will get the job done.

Yes the polygon feature will make this easy once it is available.

I currently have all layers of my case tapped, but if I did it again, I would just tap the bottom plate.  Or maybe the bottom 2 plates so I could take the bottom off without everything coming apart.

If you use her middle layers then they will all come apart when you take the bottom off, so that does not solve that problem because those layers are not held by anything but the tension of the screws between the top and bottom screws (unless I am missing something).

[skullydazed]

If you use her middle layers then they will all come apart when you take the bottom off, so that does not solve that problem because those layers are not held by anything but the tension of the screws between the top and bottom screws (unless I am missing something).

If the hole+kerf is specified carefully you could press fit the hex spacer. Or glue it in.

[tobsn]

Why wouldn't you just make all the layers have 3.5mm screw holes except the bottom which would have 2.5mm and then tap the bottom layer?  Then you can just screw the bottom plate onto the case from the top and you have no screw heads on the bottom.  If you want, you could even counter sink the holes on the top if that is important to you.

Edit to add references:
- http://www.amesweb.info/Screws/ClearanceHolesMetricFasteners.aspx
- http://www.shender4.com/metric_thread_chart.htm

That's another approach, yes. It depends on the aesthetics and functionality you're going for. I'm currently tapping the bottom plate and counter sinking the top plate, but that means that when a keyboard is taken apart I have 3+ layers to deal with. Some people may want to be able to remove the bottom plate without separating the rest of the layers, and this would allow them to do that. (There are others way to do that for sure, like tapping all layers or tapping the top layer and countersinking the bottom, but they each have their own tradeoffs.)

That being said, even if this does provide enough use cases that you decide it's useful, I would still put it pretty low on the priority list. This could be done afterward in CAD for one-offs, or by using your polygon functionality. It's not as convenient as having a preset available, but it will get the job done.

Yes the polygon feature will make this easy once it is available.

I currently have all layers of my case tapped, but if I did it again, I would just tap the bottom plate.  Or maybe the bottom 2 plates so I could take the bottom off without everything coming apart.

If you use her middle layers then they will all come apart when you take the bottom off, so that does not solve that problem because those layers are not held by anything but the tension of the screws between the top and bottom screws (unless I am missing something).

can you explain the "tapping" of the bottom layer? i don't know what's you mean with that - thanks!

[duynguyenle]

can you explain the "tapping" of the bottom layer? i don't know what's you mean with that - thanks!

Tapping means creating threads for fasteners

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tap_and_die

[tobsn]

Tapping means creating threads for fasteners

fasteners? or just screw the screw into the thread?