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

[swill]

Tapping means creating threads for fasteners

fasteners? or just screw the screw into the thread?

Yes. By fastener, he means screws. Basically, by making the holes smaller in the bottom layer(s) and then tapping them, you can put screws through the top layer holes and screw them into the bottom layer holes. This way the case is held together without the need for any screw heads on the bottom.

Is that clearer?

[tobsn]

Yes. By fastener, he means screws. Basically, by making the holes smaller in the bottom layer(s) and then tapping them, you can put screws through the top layer holes and screw them into the bottom layer holes. This way the case is held together without the need for any screw heads on the bottom.

Oh... so you would make 2.97mm holes on the top and 2mm holes in the bottom, thread the bottom holes, and then do 1.5mm top plate + 1.5mm bottom plate + 12mm space in between = 15mm long M3 screw - correct?
whats in between though? just hollow spacers?

[swill]

Yes. By fastener, he means screws. Basically, by making the holes smaller in the bottom layer(s) and then tapping them, you can put screws through the top layer holes and screw them into the bottom layer holes. This way the case is held together without the need for any screw heads on the bottom.

Oh... so you would make 2.97mm holes on the top and 2mm holes in the bottom, thread the bottom holes, and then do 1.5mm top plate + 1.5mm bottom plate + 12mm space in between = 15mm long M3 screw - correct?
whats in between though? just hollow spacers?

So if you use M3 screws, then the top plates would have holes 3.4mm in diameter and the bottom layers would have holes 2.5mm in diameter which you would tap. The middle layers would be open or closed sandwich layers.

If you want to leave the middle layers open, then you can just do standoffs in the middle like the original JD40 keyboards. But the layers do not need to be threaded for that.

[tobsn]

So if you use M3 screws, then the top plates would have holes 3.4mm in diameter and the bottom layers would have holes 2.5mm in diameter which you would tap. The middle layers would be open or closed sandwich layers.

Why 3.4mm? The diameter of the thread of a M3 screw is 3mm, hence you normally leave a hole 2.97-2.98 and it fits through just fine. 3.4 would add 0.4+mm space.

[swill]

So if you use M3 screws, then the top plates would have holes 3.4mm in diameter and the bottom layers would have holes 2.5mm in diameter which you would tap. The middle layers would be open or closed sandwich layers.

Why 3.4mm? The diameter of the thread of a M3 screw is 3mm, hence you normally leave a hole 2.97-2.98 and it fits through just fine. 3.4 would add 0.4+mm space.

From this: http://www.amesweb.info/Screws/ClearanceHolesMetricFasteners.aspx

If you want a close fit, you could go 3.2mm.  Keep in mind that the accuracy of the tool is at best +/- .1mm, so don't try push it too close...  I would probably do something like 3.3 to be safe...

[tobsn]

From this: http://www.amesweb.info/Screws/ClearanceHolesMetricFasteners.aspx
If you want a close fit, you could go 3.2mm.  Keep in mind that the accuracy of the tool is at best +/- .1mm, so don't try push it too close...  I would probably do something like 3.3 to be safe...

why does then everyone recommend to stay under 3mm? thats odd... alright

[skullydazed]

From this: http://www.amesweb.info/Screws/ClearanceHolesMetricFasteners.aspx
If you want a close fit, you could go 3.2mm.  Keep in mind that the accuracy of the tool is at best +/- .1mm, so don't try push it too close...  I would probably do something like 3.3 to be safe...

why does then everyone recommend to stay under 3mm? thats odd... alright

I'm not sure where you're seeing that recommendation, but keep in mind that the outer diameter of the screw threads on an ideal M3 is exactly 3mm. If you want a shaft that's exactly 3mm in diameter to fit into a hole you need a hole that is larger than 3mm. The most common size to accommodate that is 3.4mm, because that's loose enough to allow the screw to enter when not perfectly orthogonal to the hole, and yet tight enough to not have very much play when inserted.

[swill]

From this: http://www.amesweb.info/Screws/ClearanceHolesMetricFasteners.aspx
If you want a close fit, you could go 3.2mm.  Keep in mind that the accuracy of the tool is at best +/- .1mm, so don't try push it too close...  I would probably do something like 3.3 to be safe...

why does then everyone recommend to stay under 3mm? thats odd... alright

I am not sure why that is.  Hopefully someone can explain that.  I just put a caliper on an M3 screw that I have here (which I am using for my case) and it measures to be 2.9mm diameter.  If I put the space as 3.0mm, it does work well, but I don't know if we can trust the tooling to give us exactly that size.  So I think it is up to you for what you are comfortable with.

[skullydazed]

I am not sure why that is.  Hopefully someone can explain that.  I just put a caliper on an M3 screw that I have here (which I am using for my case) and it measures to be 2.9mm diameter.  If I put the space as 3.0mm, it does work well, but I don't know if we can trust the tooling to give us exactly that size.  So I think it is up to you for what you are comfortable with.

Keep in mind that the spec says 3mm. The vast majority of the time a screw that is too large is useless (or worse, not too big to insert but too big to remove) so designers will typically specify it with only a negative tolerance, such as 3.00-0.20. That means it can be anywhere from 2.80mm to 3.00mm, but if it's 3.01mm it's out of spec and should be rejected. Depending on the manufacturing tolerances for your particular screws you'll probably find a variation if you start measuring a bunch of them.

[swill]

I am not sure why that is.  Hopefully someone can explain that.  I just put a caliper on an M3 screw that I have here (which I am using for my case) and it measures to be 2.9mm diameter.  If I put the space as 3.0mm, it does work well, but I don't know if we can trust the tooling to give us exactly that size.  So I think it is up to you for what you are comfortable with.

Keep in mind that the spec says 3mm. The vast majority of the time a screw that is too large is useless (or worse, not too big to insert but too big to remove) so designers will typically specify it with only a negative tolerance, such as 3.00-0.20. That means it can be anywhere from 2.80mm to 3.00mm, but if it's 3.01mm it's out of spec and should be rejected. Depending on the manufacturing tolerances for your particular screws you'll probably find a variation if you start measuring a bunch of them.

Yes. I expect that as well. Also, we have the competing tolerance of the cutting tool, so if the screw is exactly 3mm and the hole ends up being 0.1mm less than expected, you could have issues if you are trying to be too exact.

I think we have outlined this enough that people can make educated decisions now though. Thanks for the added detail skullydazed.

[tobsn]

I think we have outlined this enough that people can make educated decisions now though. Thanks for the added detail skullydazed.

well, now you can add a dropdown additional to the input field at hole diameter with M2/M3 in it

[swill]

I think we have outlined this enough that people can make educated decisions now though. Thanks for the added detail skullydazed.

well, now you can add a dropdown additional to the input field at hole diameter with M2/M3 in it

No, I will be adding a more comprehensive feature for being able to modify any layer and this functionality will be possible with that feature. 

[duynguyenle]

Just doing a quick catch-up on all the comments, for the bottom plate, if you're planning to tap your bottom plate, it's definitely recommended to drill a small hole. As for the top plate, I think 3.4mm is a bit overkill, you can go as low as 3.02mm if you like, that will be a very tight clearance (forgot what classification of fitment that corresponds to, don't have my handbook with me), and probably doesn't give you a lot of wiggle room on oblique fit, especially if you top and bottom plate don't line up expactly perfect.

Without making any assumptions on the manufacturing tolerances of the drills/taps/operator skill, it's probably a good idea to err on the side of caution and oversize your top plate a little bit, seeing as absolute positioning is not a crucial factor for this particular application. 

[ideus]

What type of Cherry stabs are supported with the cut outs? Plate, PCB mounted, or both types?

[xondat]

What type of Cherry stabs are supported with the cut outs? Plate, PCB mounted, or both types?

Both through my experience

[ideus]

What type of Cherry stabs are supported with the cut outs? Plate, PCB mounted, or both types?

Both through my experience

Thank you for the reference.

[xondat]

I will throw something out there - if the stabilizer is upside down for a PCB mount, and you haven't selected costar cutouts, the stabilizer can't go up all the way therefore you're ****ed. This is if the stabilizer cutout isn't "in" a key hole.

[ideus]

I will throw something out there - if the stabilizer is upside down for a PCB mount, and you haven't selected costar cutouts, the stabilizer can't go up all the way therefore you're ****ed. This is if the stabilizer cutout isn't "in" a key hole.

I am not sure to understand it, do you have a picture of a sample of what you are referring to? I redraw the cut outs a bit, but I am not sure if what I did was enough. I am planning to use PCB mount stabs, but, after a second thought, I am reconsidering if I should leave the cuts as they are to be able to use plate mounted Cherry stabs also.

[xondat]

I will throw something out there - if the stabilizer is upside down for a PCB mount, and you haven't selected costar cutouts, the stabilizer can't go up all the way therefore you're ****ed. This is if the stabilizer cutout isn't "in" a key hole.

I am not sure to understand it, do you have a picture of a sample of what you are referring to? I redraw the cut outs a bit, but I am not sure if what I did was enough. I am planning to use PCB mount stabs, but, after a second thought, I am reconsidering if I should leave the cuts as they are to be able to use plate mounted Cherry stabs also.

Top is with costar, bottom is without.

The PCB mounted stabilizer for the spacebar is like a n, so the wire goes up.

When I try to make the stabilizer go up all the way, it hits the plate and only goes up about half way.

[swill]

I will throw something out there - if the stabilizer is upside down for a PCB mount, and you haven't selected costar cutouts, the stabilizer can't go up all the way therefore you're ****ed. This is if the stabilizer cutout isn't "in" a key hole.

I am not sure to understand it, do you have a picture of a sample of what you are referring to? I redraw the cut outs a bit, but I am not sure if what I did was enough. I am planning to use PCB mount stabs, but, after a second thought, I am reconsidering if I should leave the cuts as they are to be able to use plate mounted Cherry stabs also.

Show Image

Top is with costar, bottom is without.

The PCB mounted stabilizer for the spacebar is like a n, so the wire goes up.

When I try to make the stabilizer go up all the way, it hits the plate and only goes up about half way.

Are you saying that you need the costar + cherry cutout if you rotate the installation of the stabilizer without actually rotating the stabilizer cutout? I wouldn't expect that to work even with the combo cutout. If you want to rotate it, you should rotate the cutout 180°.

[xondat]

How come the holes are often generated at either 14.001, 14.00, or 13.999? I hate having to manually correct them all. I know it doesn't make a difference in practice but I like the peace of mind of knowing they're all the same.

[tobsn]

No, I will be adding a more comprehensive feature for being able to modify any layer and this functionality will be possible with that feature. 

ah very good... btw. why is there now a middle layer on top?

[swill]

How come the holes are often generated at either 14.001, 14.00, or 13.999? I hate having to manually correct them all. I know it doesn't make a difference in practice but I like the peace of mind of knowing they're all the same.

That is because precision of floating point numbers is a huge pain in the ass.

In short, the polygon clipping algorithm (union, difference, intersection, etc) I am using now is far superior to the one I was using before, but it works on integers instead of floats. So I convert the floats to integers by multiplying by 1000 and then round to an int.  Then after the operation, I divide by 1000 to get my float back. In this process, it is possible that the value is +/-0.001 from the original.

I choice of 1000 is a little arbitrary, but there are two competing factors that play into it.
- the result of multiplying by X must still fit in a 64 bit int, so the multiplier can not be excessively large and still work for large values.
- the size of the multiplier determines the final floating point precision. So 1000 results in +/-0.001. If I changed it to 10000 it would be +/-0.0001.

If you are worried about a precision of +/-0.001mm, I could potentially change it to +/-0.0001, but I have to do some math to determine what my largest possible numbers would be then.

I made a judgment call that +/-0.001 was close enough because it is a full decimal point more precise than any of the cutting tools which would be used to cut the part. Keep that in mind...

[regack]

No, I will be adding a more comprehensive feature for being able to modify any layer and this functionality will be possible with that feature. 

ah very good... btw. why is there now a middle layer on top?

It sort of looks like a middle layer, but it's an (optional) layer to add depth to give the appearance of sunken switches.   Swill added that feature a few days ago, but it got kind of buried in the screw-hole-diameter discussion recently.

edit: found the post

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)

[swill]

No, I will be adding a more comprehensive feature for being able to modify any layer and this functionality will be possible with that feature. 

ah very good... btw. why is there now a middle layer on top?

As regack pointed out, this was added recently.  It looks like a middle layer for the 60% cases, but as soon as you do a TKL or 104 layout, you will understand the feature better.

Here is the announcement of the feature: https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=65189.msg2254283#msg2254283

[derezzed]

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.

I tried your suggestion and printed the dxf of the FC660m.  It looks like the cutouts for the switches line up with the openings in the case, but the case is much wider than the plate dxf, has a ridge that the plate sets on, and has 45 degree corners.   To get the plate to fit the FC660M case, it needs extra padding and 45 degree corners of undetermined size, and it needs to line up with a PCB.  At least the layout is accurate, if anyone else wants to take this further. 

[Edde]

Quick question regarding the mount holes

If I want to tap the bottom layer and make sure the 2.5 mm holes line up perfectly with the 3.4 mm holes in the other layers, can I use the following values?

Bottom plate:
diameter of hole - 2.5 mm
width of material in which to place the holes - 5.55 mm

other plates
diameter of hole - 3.4 mm
width of material in which to place the holes - 6 mm

Looking at the question mark it says the third field is the distance from the center to the edge, but you get an error when the value of this is lower than the diameter, how does it really work? It seems like it's the distance from the edge to the part of the hole that's the furthest in so to speak. Or is it that the third field is the diameter of a "ring" around the hole where the material is. If so, that would mean that I need the value in the third field to be the same for both plates, and if I want the holes to be in the middle of the padding, the third field needs to have the same value of the padding.

[swill]

Quick question regarding the mount holes

If I want to tap the bottom layer and make sure the 2.5 mm holes line up perfectly with the 3.4 mm holes in the other layers, can I use the following values?

Bottom plate:
diameter of hole - 2.5 mm
width of material in which to place the holes - 5.55 mm

other plates
diameter of hole - 3.4 mm
width of material in which to place the holes - 6 mm

Looking at the question mark it says the third field is the distance from the center to the edge, but you get an error when the value of this is lower than the diameter, how does it really work? It seems like it's the distance from the edge to the part of the hole that's the furthest in so to speak. Or is it that the third field is the diameter of a "ring" around the hole where the material is. If so, that would mean that I need the value in the third field to be the same for both plates, and if I want the holes to be in the middle of the padding, the third field needs to have the same value of the padding.

Sorry. I think I forgot to update the help text when I reimplemented that functionality.

The center of the holes will be placed in the center of the edge width. So the edge width should be the same for all layers. The edge width is the total width of material which the middle layers will use.

So you could have padding of 10 and an edge width of 6, which would result in the holes being centered 3mm from the edge.  The middle layers will be a 6mm ring, and there will be 4mm of empty space between the middle rings and edge of the layout (where the keycaps would line up with).

So in your example, you would probably want an edge width of 6 everywhere (center of screw holes will be 3mm from the edge).  The padding should be greater than or equal to the edge width of 6. You can then use screw holes of whatever sizes you want and they will line up. I would probably suggest 2.5 and 3.2 for your purposes.

Does that help? Any remaining questions?

[Edde]

Quick question regarding the mount holes

If I want to tap the bottom layer and make sure the 2.5 mm holes line up perfectly with the 3.4 mm holes in the other layers, can I use the following values?

Bottom plate:
diameter of hole - 2.5 mm
width of material in which to place the holes - 5.55 mm

other plates
diameter of hole - 3.4 mm
width of material in which to place the holes - 6 mm

Looking at the question mark it says the third field is the distance from the center to the edge, but you get an error when the value of this is lower than the diameter, how does it really work? It seems like it's the distance from the edge to the part of the hole that's the furthest in so to speak. Or is it that the third field is the diameter of a "ring" around the hole where the material is. If so, that would mean that I need the value in the third field to be the same for both plates, and if I want the holes to be in the middle of the padding, the third field needs to have the same value of the padding.

Sorry. I think I forgot to update the help text when I reimplemented that functionality.

The center of the holes will be placed in the center of the edge width. So the edge width should be the same for all layers. The edge width is the total width of material which the middle layers will use.

So you could have padding of 10 and an edge width of 6, which would result in the holes being centered 3mm from the edge.  The middle layers will be a 6mm ring, and there will be 4mm of empty space between the middle rings and edge of the layout (where the keycaps would line up with).

So in your example, you would probably want an edge width of 6 everywhere (center of screw holes will be 3mm from the edge).  The padding should be greater than or equal to the edge width of 6. You can then use screw holes of whatever sizes you want and they will line up. I would probably suggest 2.5 and 3.2 for your purposes.

Does that help? Any remaining questions?

Nope, just remember to update the description.

[swill]

Quick question regarding the mount holes

If I want to tap the bottom layer and make sure the 2.5 mm holes line up perfectly with the 3.4 mm holes in the other layers, can I use the following values?

Bottom plate:
diameter of hole - 2.5 mm
width of material in which to place the holes - 5.55 mm

other plates
diameter of hole - 3.4 mm
width of material in which to place the holes - 6 mm

Looking at the question mark it says the third field is the distance from the center to the edge, but you get an error when the value of this is lower than the diameter, how does it really work? It seems like it's the distance from the edge to the part of the hole that's the furthest in so to speak. Or is it that the third field is the diameter of a "ring" around the hole where the material is. If so, that would mean that I need the value in the third field to be the same for both plates, and if I want the holes to be in the middle of the padding, the third field needs to have the same value of the padding.

Sorry. I think I forgot to update the help text when I reimplemented that functionality.

The center of the holes will be placed in the center of the edge width. So the edge width should be the same for all layers. The edge width is the total width of material which the middle layers will use.

So you could have padding of 10 and an edge width of 6, which would result in the holes being centered 3mm from the edge.  The middle layers will be a 6mm ring, and there will be 4mm of empty space between the middle rings and edge of the layout (where the keycaps would line up with).

So in your example, you would probably want an edge width of 6 everywhere (center of screw holes will be 3mm from the edge).  The padding should be greater than or equal to the edge width of 6. You can then use screw holes of whatever sizes you want and they will line up. I would probably suggest 2.5 and 3.2 for your purposes.

Does that help? Any remaining questions?

Nope, just remember to update the description.

Ya. Thanks for the heads up. I will update the docs.

[IBNobody]

Just a heads up... If you are using Lasergist, I recommend you pay for the tracking shipping option. They don't tell you that they are shipping out of Greece, and you might wonder why you are on the long end of the 2-7 day delivery window if you are in the USA.

There isn't anything wrong with having shipped from overseas to the USA. It was just a surprise and not stated on their website.

[lasergist]

Just a heads up... If you are using Lasergist, I recommend you pay for the tracking shipping option. They don't tell you that they are shipping out of Greece, and you might wonder why you are on the long end of the 2-7 day delivery window if you are in the USA.

There isn't anything wrong with having shipped from overseas to the USA. It was just a surprise and not stated on their website.

Hi there! I can confirm that most clients in the US receive their order within 3-4 days which is actually in the middle. 6-7 days is more common for Australia, Japan and New Zealand. These dates are based on the tracking nrs of existing clients. (UK, Germany, Sweden, Norway and especially France are the fastest ones with most orders delivered within 48 hours.

[Edde]

Quick question, using the cherry stabliser mount it will work for both pcb and plate mounted cherry stabilisers, right? I just want to make sure so that I don't order the wrong type.

[swill]

Quick question, using the cherry stabliser mount it will work for both pcb and plate mounted cherry stabilisers, right? I just want to make sure so that I don't order the wrong type.

Yes, it works for both... 

[swill]

I am working on a new documentation website for the builder and I would like some help from you guys.

Please list the topics which you would like covered in the builder docs.

Some of my ideas:
- How to cut overlapping switches to offer more than one layout.
- Document all the 'hidden' features that can be done with the layout (rotation, switch selection, stabilizer changing, etc...)

I have more, but I would like your ideas, so please respond with your throughs.

Thanks...

[IBNobody]

Dimensions, Dimensions, Dimensions! How big the cutouts are... Why you used 19.05mm/.750" vs 19mm... Etc...

Examples of the use of wall thickness and screw placement.

Plate thickness for aluminum and SS, and how they affect the snap-in retention of Cherry / Matias switches.

When I get my board from Lasergist (still waiting), I planned to give you some feedback on how to make it easy for people to create bent plates.

[swill]

Dimensions, Dimensions, Dimensions! How big the cutouts are... Why you used 19.05mm/.750" vs 19mm... Etc...

Examples of the use of wall thickness and screw placement.

Plate thickness for aluminum and SS, and how they affect the snap-in retention of Cherry / Matias switches.

When I get my board from Lasergist (still waiting), I planned to give you some feedback on how to make it easy for people to create bent plates.

thank you sir.  btw, the way i am building the site, if you want to contribute documentation or use cases, you will be able to add to the docs. 

[IBNobody]

thank you sir.  btw, the way i am building the site, if you want to contribute documentation or use cases, you will be able to add to the docs.

I will do that. I appreciate community driven documentation.

[swill]

Documentation site launched!!!
builder-docs.swillkb.com

Right now it is only the first pass, so it is still very light on content.  I tried to write enough to get the basic structure in place and make it clear how to contribute.

Let me know if you have any questions.  I will try to get some more documentation written over the next week or so.

Edit: I have not linked from the builder yet until I have real content written.

[IBNobody]

Got my plate from Lasergist, finally. Yay.

1. Looks like the 2U Cherry cutouts work with Lasergist...



2. The only thing that didn't make it through is some of the shape markings on the edge of the board.



They may be good enough though, because I put those marks in to tell me where to bend my plate lengthwise. (12.5mm) Any tips, Lasergist?

3. In the picture above, you will see that a 1mm rounded corner radius is not enough to blunt the corners.

4. There were minor hairline scratches on part of the keyboard plate that my LED indicators go. Maybe I should have gone with a brushed coating?





I would definitely order from them again for round two... But next time, I will not ship to my house. The plate came slightly bowed because it was crammed into my mailbox. That should go away when I bend the edges. Regarding my shipping and tracking, I am not sure if I would request a tracking number again. Since it went registered airmail, I didn't know where it was for 10 days, and the Hellenic post tracking only showed when it was put on a airplane.

[timmah]

Hi,

never built a keyboard myself, but your tool + KLE makes me curious. Just some suggestions for your tool and your documentation

-when building the CAD, you get a "switch layer" which I believe is the plate? This may be confusing for absolute beginners
-the explanations (Question mark Box) are good. This could be improved by adding a model or a real life picture pointing to what the specific options change. Visual aids help a lot imo
-example picture of some cases built with the tool

Things which are probably a lot of work:
-option for bottom side cutouts for rubber feet
-inclination for top/bottom plate
-offset for the holes (5th and upward)

[swill]

Its an honor to have your first post be in my thread. 

Thank you for the feedback.  This is really valuable insight.  When you are so close to the tool, it is hard to see some of these things.  I am actually, at this very moment, writing the documentation for exactly those features.    Good timing...

Hi,

never built a keyboard myself, but your tool + KLE makes me curious. Just some suggestions for your tool and your documentation

-when building the CAD, you get a "switch layer" which I believe is the plate? This may be confusing for absolute beginners

Yes, I should put 'Plate' in the switch layer title.  Nice addition...

-the explanations (Question mark Box) are good. This could be improved by adding a model or a real life picture pointing to what the specific options change. Visual aids help a lot imo

I can take screenshots of the different key transform options to make it clearer to the users.  This will likely be in the docs and not the tool as it is harder to maintain in the tool. 

-example picture of some cases built with the tool

Like actual photos taken with a camera right?  I have a case which was built with this tool, so I can take pictures of it.

Things which are probably a lot of work:
-option for bottom side cutouts for rubber feet
-inclination for top/bottom plate
-offset for the holes (5th and upward)

I am currently working on a new set of features which are very flexible and will let the user do all of these.  Basically, you are able to specify custom polygons which can either be cut or added to any or multiple layers.  This will let you make different sized holes in different layers, etc...  This will will add a huge amount of flexibility to the tool.

It is a little ways off still.  I am still working out how I am going to make the UI update as the different options change.  The options are dynamically built by adding polygons.  Here is an early screenshot as I try to work through placement and management.

[timmah]

I can take screenshots of the different key transform options to make it clearer to the users.  This will likely be in the docs and not the tool as it is harder to maintain in the tool. 

Like actual photos taken with a camera right?  I have a case which was built with this tool, so I can take pictures of it.

I agree, the screenshots could clutter the tool.

As for pictures. Personally I know little to nothing about keyboards. So I would have no idea what to expect from a keyboard based on your tool. I found some pictures  in the thread which obviously helped. It would be a great addition to the tool and/or documentation though.

[IBNobody]

I'm going to have to reorder my plate from Lasergist. Not only did I specify a hole wrong, I also ruined the plate by bending it. Even with a finger break, I guess I underestimated how much force it takes to bend stainless steel.

[KHAANNN]

I'm going to have to reorder my plate from Lasergist. Not only did I specify a hole wrong, I also ruined the plate by bending it. Even with a finger break, I guess I underestimated how much force it takes to bend stainless steel.

aluminium is really easy to bend tho, even with bare hands

By the way, thanks for sharing the pictures

[timmah]

I do not know the actual jargon for the different types of keyboard designs.

Is it possible to have the keys sunk into the top layer? As I see it right now, the tool only supports the keys "on top" (switches visible)- correct?

[KHAANNN]

No, I will be adding a more comprehensive feature for being able to modify any layer and this functionality will be possible with that feature. 

ah very good... btw. why is there now a middle layer on top?

As regack pointed out, this was added recently.  It looks like a middle layer for the 60% cases, but as soon as you do a TKL or 104 layout, you will understand the feature better.

Here is the announcement of the feature: https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=65189.msg2254283#msg2254283

I do not know the actual jargon for the different types of keyboard designs.

Is it possible to have the keys sunk into the top layer? As I see it right now, the tool only supports the keys "on top" (switches visible)- correct?

I think the above feature addresses that

[swill]

I'm going to have to reorder my plate from Lasergist. Not only did I specify a hole wrong, I also ruined the plate by bending it. Even with a finger break, I guess I underestimated how much force it takes to bend stainless steel.

That sucks dude. You can't take it somewhere and get it flattened again?

[swill]

No, I will be adding a more comprehensive feature for being able to modify any layer and this functionality will be possible with that feature. 

ah very good... btw. why is there now a middle layer on top?

As regack pointed out, this was added recently.  It looks like a middle layer for the 60% cases, but as soon as you do a TKL or 104 layout, you will understand the feature better.

Here is the announcement of the feature: https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=65189.msg2254283#msg2254283

I do not know the actual jargon for the different types of keyboard designs.

Is it possible to have the keys sunk into the top layer? As I see it right now, the tool only supports the keys "on top" (switches visible)- correct?

I think the above feature addresses that

Yes. This should address this.

[KHAANNN]

I really want to get a custom-swill made, I personally just use the builder for plates, I use 60% cases, drill PCB's to support non-standard layouts, but I want to try completely custom layouts and hand-wired keyboards, as the builder is intended to produce, for an outsider, the challenges are:

1) Screws, bumpons (Especially challenging for people outside US, especially the screws, they really determine the quality of the keyboard in a custom-produced keyboard)
2) Producers, materials, quality (Like BigBlueSaw, lasergist, different materials, different challenges)

A proposed solution: Builder blog -or- builds-only-thread - Where every post, or entry, in this thread/blog is a keyboard, with every screw, every component linked(source), so others can purchase/acquire the same materials, use the same production companies too

If I was in US, this wouldn't be much of an issue, I could just go ahead and try once, then retry, then retry, but as someone not in U.S., even one try will cost me more in terms of time and money, considering customs, ordering efforts etc. - so basically I want to do it once and do it right (for each layout, idea) - and It's super challenging to find information, such a collective would solve the issue