Rodent Mark II

[damorgue]

Rodent MK II
Edit: It is a mouse, which I realized I never actually mentioned anywhere below in case it isn't obvious.

I have decided to make an improvement of an old project I made. There were some issues which I have always intended to correct, and with some neat avago sensors available now I might get some help making the internals as well. I will try to piggy back a bit onThe_Ed's project and just use his internals, saving me a bunch of work in a field I ain't very good at. Last time I butchered a G300, but the ability to control the software, liftoff distance, angle snapping, acceleration and such intrigues me.

Process so far: (crash course)
Create a clay model (actually just dough, nothing fancy here) which fits your taste.
Melt vinyl record on top to create a shell > Didn't turn out that great, although it would probably eventually have worked decently but required a lot of effort to get there. Internal structure is a pain with that method.
Remake another clay model because the old one got ruined by previous attempts.
Make a 3D scan of the clay model.
Retopology, adjust shape, add and correct some features etc.
Add structural elements.
Print the computer model.
Butcher an old mouse for internal parts and transplant them into my mouse.
Live with the flaws because you don't bother fixing them, for instance non working scroll wheel.

Thus begins the process of creating a better one, starting out with one of the scans again. Mesh



Things left to do:


-Better mounting for the Omron switches than last time, allow them to be securely fastened while easier replaced (Note to self: remember to use longer cables this time to make assembly easier)
-Move some mouse buttons a bit.
-Fix the scroll wheel which was sort of bugged and never really worked well. This is probably the most annoying and hardest part atm.
Plan better locations for the feet. Should they be on the bottom surface of the shell or on the plate? located on the plate would ensure strength and stability, but that can be accomplished by increased shell thickness at the bottom as well. It is preferable to place them as far out towards the edges as possible. The more bottom surface belonging to the shell, the smaller the hole to assemble/repair though. The sensor to measuring surface distance is what needs to be controlled.
-Smooth out a few dents still present from the clay model. They can be sanded down but might as well fix it now.
-The software/teensy/avago stuff which I hope I won't have to do that much of.
-Make a better name, Rodent was just a prototype name.
-Solder cables and connectors

[damorgue]

Reserved

[damorgue]

I made a far better inner surface this time. The shell is of even thickness on pretty much the entire surface except for at the bottom where it is thicker to meet up with the slot for the bottom plate better. It is also thicker, 2mm now, to account for weaker material. Supports will be added to certain points for structural rigidity as well though. I want to keep the amount of material, cost and weight down. It is somewhat hard to show with a complex organic surface though.  I made it a bit like an x-ray where you can see the inner surface through the opaque shell.






Perhaps this shows it better:

[digi]

That is really cool, get a couple thumb buttons on that bad boy. I can see it now, 250 hand molds getting sent to your house for a group buy, haha.

[Thimplum]

Very intriguing.

[damorgue]

That is really cool, get a couple thumb buttons on that bad boy. I can see it now, 250 hand molds getting sent to your house for a group buy, haha.

Hehe, nope, not likely. Hopefully someone else might be inspired to try and make their own though.

Regarding the buttons. I have placed them on the inside, currently doing a better mounting system for them as well as better buttons and mounting for the moveable plastic part. I will use ribs to make the right and left mouse button bend in the direction I want and behave as I want them to. They will be quite stiff rotation wise so that they won't warp as much if pressed off center.

I have yet to decide how many I want. I have use insides of a G300 in the past because it has a ton of buttons which I can wire siwtches to. Looking at 2 thumb buttons, left, scroll, extra in the middle beneath scrolland right. Then perhaps I will add to the other two fingers. they are a bit excessive though.

[linziyi]

That is quite amazing sir!

[vun]

I'm just wondering why this isn't a bigger thing already. You can get IEMs moulded to your ears, so I don't see why something like you're doing isn't common practice already. Everyone needs their e-mail and their apps and stuff, but there's a frighteningly small amount of attention paid to the equipment that makes creating all that possible in the first place.

[damorgue]

I'm just wondering why this isn't a bigger thing already. You can get IEMs moulded to your ears, so I don't see why something like you're doing isn't common practice already. Everyone needs their e-mail and their apps and stuff, but there's a frighteningly small amount of attention paid to the equipment that makes creating all that possible in the first place.

Exactly. The only mouse I know of (Mad Catz R.A.T 7) which you can customize the shape of, only allows very little change and it looks weird and unergonomic. It is also made by a company I sort of believe make bad products.

[vun]

I'm just wondering why this isn't a bigger thing already. You can get IEMs moulded to your ears, so I don't see why something like you're doing isn't common practice already. Everyone needs their e-mail and their apps and stuff, but there's a frighteningly small amount of attention paid to the equipment that makes creating all that possible in the first place.

Exactly. The only mouse I know of (Mad Catz R.A.T 7) which you can customize the shape of, only allows very little change and it looks weird and unergonomic. It is also made by a company I sort of believe make bad products.

I actually just used my RAT 7 for about a week, switched it out today, and to be fair I don't really know if I'd say they make bad products. Gimmicky, yes, but I find it hard to believe that something so well-built(apart from choice of sensor) and crazy is made by someone who doesn't care. But yeah, the change offered is minimal, although it's far from "unergonomic", it's actually one of the more comfortable mice I have.

Razer also have the Ouroboros which is pretty much their competitor to the RAT mice, although the Ouroboros is ambidextrous. I haven't had a chance to try one yet, so I can't say much more about it.

[mkawa]

actually after some exchanges with folks about the avago optical controllers, i'm like really annoyed about the non-openness of mouse sensors. imo the opticals should just output a several different mildly processed versions of their sensor output raw through a sufficiently wide gpio-based bus that any one of the millions of arm mcus out there can interpret. the lasers should output their raw signals as well in a standard format (duals just use the second to reduce error components on the same signal the singles use). the mcu code should be open and a chip should be produceable by anyone with an arm license. this would give us better mice for cheaper, frankly. the real challenge in making mice should just be the tooling for the plastic/composite/whatever body, the choice and configuration of switches, etc. this idea that there's a logitech specialized mouse driver with stupid flags to turn all the bad features off and a CM storm mouse utility that is accompanied by 1500 different firmwares for the avago MCU and a madcatz etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

just ONE of the benefits of this type of open development would mean more sensor vendors. at the moment there is pretty much just avago and philips. that is completely ridiculous. opticals are just a sensor, collimator and an LED. lasers are a collimated LED and a sensor with substantially different optics. the point is that any company that literally any company that can get optics and housings produced should be capable of marketing a better mouse sensor design. the lack of a standard MCU is the only thing preventing new mouse sensor products.

GRUMBLE

[damorgue]

I too am a proponent of open source software and open source hardware as well. I also strongly believe in users developing products. Companies are further from the usage, source of problems and the situations where the innovative ideas are created. The users are naturally closer, and although the companies try to get in touch and involve them, finding the critical power user is hard. Open source and user development will grow in the future with increased capabilities of users to make their ideas into reality. Kickstarter for financing is just an example a of tools which have risen to fulfill a need.

Standards have their drawbacks though. They certainly makes things easier, which in turn can allows more people to contribute and increase diversity, but there are cases where they have limited progress and caused less diversity because people have been constrained to them. It is sort of a double edged sword.

I will try to look into what internals I will use. Butchering a commercially available mouse like last time means closed source, less control, less support, probably harder to find replacement parts after a while etc.

It seems I have plenty of places to get it printed though. mkawa might do it on his Makerbot, a guy near me has offered me to print it on his Mendel90 and I have a few other options as well. I seem blessed in that regard. This link showcases the results of a technique to smooth out abs with acetone. I will probably try it out.

Edit: In the spirit of open source: I'll hand it out to any who want to print one themselves. Of course, it is sort of designed the way I like it and will probably not suit others very well.

[mkawa]

people have been doing abs smoothing by just vaporizing acetone underneath their objects until it seems smooth enough. not only is this incredibly nasty, but it doesn't give a lot of control over the amount of acetone exposure. stratasys has a smoothing machine based on this mechanism which is kind of ridiculous. basically it produces acetone vapor in a chamber, then releases it and vents it in fixed increments. the entire thing is stainless steel so you can't see the object during smoothing and hence it just smoothes a tiny bit at a time and you're supposed to hand cycle it through the machine until desired smoothness is achieve. kind of silly. ANYWAY

i picked up some parts for a very diy but slightly enlightened design based on the whole acetone vapor principles. basically, two chambers. one is a heated acetone vaporizer that produces vapor at a given pressure (although i haven't even sprung for a pressure reg or dial yet (ho ho ho), and glass vacuum chamber connected to it via check valve and I/O valve. open the valve to start smoothing process, then vent to atmo (OUTSIDE) when object is sufficiently smooth which AS IF BY MAGIC you can see through the 10$ glass bottle. the vapor chamber is currently PMP and the object chamber is just ye ole glass bottle with a wire-based pressure top and a PTFE gasket.

[damorgue]

Yeah, I was going to do a ghetto attempt at it. This guy's results were a bit so so imo. Some people achieve better results, but also use quite simple means. I will experiment a bit with it. The local guy uses nylon atm but will try abs. It all seems to mostly boil:P down to exposure time and acetone concentration. If all else fails, fine grit sand paper. Some people have gotten interesting results by flash heating. It needs to be very hot and very short exposure though, otherwise the entire thing deforms.

Edit: I will also try to mask out areas from the vapor. I most just need it on the outside surface and just barely into the split lines.

[mkawa]

going by the chemistry I understand (which is not a lot), acetone vapor (ideally cooled) depolymerizes the surface at a fixed depth that is a function purely of vapor concentration, pressure and time (assuming you release the vapor into a vacuum). at first order i just have some cheap little pinch-style pressure regulators and a source of vacuum that will allow me to figure out approximately what that function is.

we know approximately the depth of the striations. they are at most 0.4mm on most machines, as that is the standard nozzle output diameter. hence we only want penetration between 0 and 0.4mm, so we just need simple recipes for penetration to those depths. note that the vapor pressure that matters is actually the vapor pressure in the smoothing chamber, NOT the vapor generation chamber, so some amount of calculation needs to be done when generating the vapor. this is why i am just playing around with it by sight at a first order.

that said, FFM is about making things that are usable and mostly represent the solid attempting to be represented, so this whole thing is a second order concern to just extending the precision and capabilities of the machine itself.

[damorgue]

The easiest way to adjust the strength of the switches would probably be something like this:


The upper block is attached to the mouse and the lower is screwed to it. The bump at the far end would be where the button portrudes through a hole in the shell.

This would allow me to select where to fixate the button and a shorter distance from point of attachment to the button of course means a stiffer button and vice versa.

I could have the button be attached directly to the shell and built in one piece, but this also allows me to change the buttons in the future if they break. I can also put a small strip of sheet metal there to act as the deforming part if I feel like it and only have a button at the the end of it.

Currently estimating the forces and elastic deformation of ABS to get a rough idea of what length and thickness I need without it breaking.

[mkawa]

you can't base it on the material properties of the base polymer because FFM parts have such variable and lower density than eg injection molded ABS. further, ABS formulations are all subtly different. it's not surprising to get glass transition temp differentials of > 20C between one color of one vendor and another color of even the same vendor, much less a different vendor.

[damorgue]

you can't base it on the material properties of the base polymer because FFM parts have such variable and lower density than eg injection molded ABS. further, ABS formulations are all subtly different. it's not surprising to get glass transition temp differentials of > 20C between one color of one vendor and another color of even the same vendor, much less a different vendor.

Understandable, but the current size was made to suit titanium, so it would have been a bit off I figure I will get closer simply with taking any generic average polymer properties. As long as I am far from plastic deformation, I'll be able to adjust the stiffness with the different holes. Better to make bending part thick and compensate by making it long rather than a short and thin. This should avoid stress fatigue anywhere.

My mx500 uses a piece of sheet metal which acts as the bending part. I do think that would be a better solution. I'll probably end up there in the end.

[MOZ]

I'm just wondering why this isn't a bigger thing already. You can get IEMs moulded to your ears, so I don't see why something like you're doing isn't common practice already. Everyone needs their e-mail and their apps and stuff, but there's a frighteningly small amount of attention paid to the equipment that makes creating all that possible in the first place.

Agreed, I would get a custom mouse shaped to me liking in a blink. The closest thing is the RAT 7 and only reason I got it.

[The_Ed]

Would you be able to 3D print a part to mount the ADNS-9800 to the ball socket of the Microsoft Trackball Opticals I'm modding? Otherwise I'm currently stumped on how to mount them... Hopefully by the time you have your mouse case figured out my 1.0 code will be finished so that you can get started on the "Rodent Mark II" proper.

[damorgue]

Do you have a drawing for it or not? Someone here should be able to print it for you. I could probably help you design it if you don't already have a model for it but it might be a bit difficult without the actual mouse and chip. Do you have pics?


I will mount all my Omron switches to the shell, and collect the wires from them to a connector. This is one of the good things about my mouse, that it will work with pretty much anything which fits inside. The sensor, controller and such will be mounted to the bottom plate. I collect the wires which will lead to the switches into a connector and attach it to to the socket in the shell, then screw the bottom plate to the shell and it is done. The two are essentially independent though. Although a bit excessive, I could even have a few bottom plates with different sensors and controllers and easily switch them.

I have yet to decide if I should mount the scroll to the shell or the bottom plate.

[The_Ed]

I have absolutely no idea how to make 3D models...

My Dad is a photography guy, he can take any pictures with measurements you would need. I'll try to get on that this weekend.

[damorgue]

I don't think I ever posted vinyl testing. This post should summarize that, as well as some info for the ones interested in casting things. First the tests I mentioned earlier shaping it as a thin surface over my clay model:

This one was heated too much and started boiling a bit on the surface. The inside is smooth though:

One of the better:

I did quite a few:


I also did test casting it. A lot of people seem interested inc asting lately, so here are a few. I just did them for testing, so the molds were just aluminum foil which I shaped into concave surfaces, put some pieces of vinyl in and heated until the vinyl melted. As stated, the vinyl used in old records is fully dense, does not shrink, and is an excellent thermoplastic to use for this.

Here you can see underneath them. Notice that they took the small detailed shapes of the aluminum foil very well.

Here are the top of them, which shows how they flow out and become very shiny. The one to the right has been sandblasted to make it matte.

[Bullveyr]

I'm just wondering why this isn't a bigger thing already. You can get IEMs moulded to your ears, so I don't see why something like you're doing isn't common practice already.

Price

Especially considering that a mouse body also has some function (unlike IEM molds) which would make custom molds much more expensive if they want to compete with the quality of current higher end mice.
 

actually after some exchanges with folks about the avago optical controllers, i'm like really annoyed about the non-openness of mouse sensors. imo the opticals should just output a several different mildly processed versions of their sensor output raw through a sufficiently wide gpio-based bus that any one of the millions of arm mcus out there can interpret. the lasers should output their raw signals as well in a standard format (duals just use the second to reduce error components on the same signal the singles use). the mcu code should be open and a chip should be produceable by anyone with an arm license. this would give us better mice for cheaper, frankly. the real challenge in making mice should just be the tooling for the plastic/composite/whatever body, the choice and configuration of switches, etc. this idea that there's a logitech specialized mouse driver with stupid flags to turn all the bad features off and a CM storm mouse utility that is accompanied by 1500 different firmwares for the avago MCU and a madcatz etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

just ONE of the benefits of this type of open development would mean more sensor vendors. at the moment there is pretty much just avago and philips. that is completely ridiculous. opticals are just a sensor, collimator and an LED. lasers are a collimated LED and a sensor with substantially different optics. the point is that any company that literally any company that can get optics and housings produced should be capable of marketing a better mouse sensor design. the lack of a standard MCU is the only thing preventing new mouse sensor products.

GRUMBLE

Just to make sure I understand you correct.

You would like the sensor to output more raw movement data (less smoothing/corrections by the DSP, no advanced functions like angle snapping or LOD settings) and give the MCU more to do?
So basically shifting some of the processing from the sensors internal DSP to the MCU?

The real problem in the current sensor market is that there is a quasi monopoly.
Avago made a cross licensing deal with PixArt and left the sensor market.
I would love more competition for PixArt than only from Philips but I don't see that happening.
I would also love that they would stop squeezing out more CPI of the same old hardware and concentrate on improving other aspects of a sensor.

Obviously they would like to have that but I don't see how better and more different sensor would change much for the mouse manufacturers. A proper (MCU) firmware to get the most out of a given sensor is very important but the real challenge already is mouse body/switches/wheel/features design.

PS: Funny thing that I had "meeting" with 2 mouse designers when you posted that.

[damorgue]

You would like the sensor to output more raw movement data (less smoothing/corrections by the DSP, no advanced functions like angle snapping or LOD settings) and give the MCU more to do?
So basically shifting some of the processing from the sensors internal DSP to the MCU?

I think the idea is to have less DSP all together. Some anti-jitter and treatment is of course still necessary because as you say, they may have pushed the boundaries a little to far for a given hardware, but I find a lot of the treatments applied to be unnecessary and annoying. Angle snapping, prediction and acceleration are things I generally dislike. It might be because they are sometimes implemented to strongly and I just don't know the difference between the ones who have implemented it with less strength or nor at at all. There might be a setting there which is ideal.

The_Ed seems to be putting some sort of control on LOD at least in his firmware, and if I understand it correctly it will have no angle snapping or such. Ideally, I would like to experiment with how much angle snapping, prediction and acceleration I want. I am open minded and will consider the possibility that I actually still want a little of them, although perhaps not a cubic acceleration but a much lower for example. We'll see if I get to play around a bit with the code at a later date.

[The_Ed]

Angle snapping will be disabled by default, but you can enable it by changing the hexadecimal characters.

[damorgue]

Angle snapping will be disabled by default, but you can enable it by changing the hexadecimal characters.

I will check through your code later. I assume there is an if statement somewhere checking whether the movement is close enough to X or Y axis to snap it to them. I might play around with the "required angle for snapping" or however it is defined. It could be snapped only when very VERY close to either axis for instance. These are some things I intend to play around with. I will probably run with it completely off, but I am not going to decide until I have tried it.

[The_Ed]

It's either ±5 degrees of angle snapping or no angle snapping at all. You can't define the angle, it's just on or off.

[damorgue]

Ok. I guess the only way to try it then would be to have it turned off and treat the data in the teensy? Ouch

 Well, I was leaning towards not using it anyway I suppose.

[The_Ed]

Yes, both having a custom angle_snap angle and having the sensor at an angle would have to be implemented within the teensy. But remember that the calculations would also likely introduce rounding errors, cursor lag (NOT calculation lag), and erratic movement (ESPECIALLY when changing direction or moving slowly).

[damorgue]

I only thought there was a difference in the longevity of different brands of micro switches, and not as much difference in feel and sound. Apparently there is, so I will try a few. The ones I happen to have a spare bag of is actually from TIAIHUA. I am currently getting a few made by Omron and am looking for Cherry ones. I think Photekq proxied some from UK to you The_Ed, I might try some from that UK store or wherever I might find them as close to me as possible. Are there any other major brands which might be interesting?

[The_Ed]

Cherry DG23-B1AA microswitches are the good ones, Photekq was thinking about getting some for himself after he tried the ones he proxied to me. I got them from RS Components -> http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/microswitches/0150798/ You'll need to get them proxied, unless you're fine paying them £20 for international shipping.

Omrons feel like **** once you've tried Cherry DG23-B1AA, plus it's always the Omrons that fail.

[mkawa]

there's definitely a difference in feel between microswitches. fightstick guys are serious about their microswitches. i'm surprised that the cherry b1aas are better than the high end omrons though. i quite like the omrons

[The_Ed]

there's definitely a difference in feel between microswitches. fightstick guys are serious about their microswitches. i'm surprised that the cherry b1aas are better than the high end omrons though. i quite like the omrons

Don't drink the Omron koolaid... Cherry is where it's at, and everyone I know who have personally tried the DG23-B1AA love them. Cherry DG23-B1AA are a bit heavier than the Omrons that most people are used to, but after you get used to them all those Omrons just feel wrong. They're just so CLICKY! They're the buckling spring of microswitches.

[damorgue]

I have heard many praise Omron microswitches, so I will reserve judgement until I have compared them. I believe almost all my mice of the past have used Omrons.

[Bullveyr]

You would like the sensor to output more raw movement data (less smoothing/corrections by the DSP, no advanced functions like angle snapping or LOD settings) and give the MCU more to do?
So basically shifting some of the processing from the sensors internal DSP to the MCU?

I think the idea is to have less DSP all together. Some anti-jitter and treatment is of course still necessary because as you say, they may have pushed the boundaries a little to far for a given hardware, but I find a lot of the treatments applied to be unnecessary and annoying. Angle snapping, prediction and acceleration are things I generally dislike. It might be because they are sometimes implemented to strongly and I just don't know the difference between the ones who have implemented it with less strength or nor at at all. There might be a setting there which is ideal.

The_Ed seems to be putting some sort of control on LOD at least in his firmware, and if I understand it correctly it will have no angle snapping or such. Ideally, I would like to experiment with how much angle snapping, prediction and acceleration I want. I am open minded and will consider the possibility that I actually still want a little of them, although perhaps not a cubic acceleration but a much lower for example. We'll see if I get to play around a bit with the code at a later date.

Classic angle snapping isn't a big deal anymore because usually it doesn't get forced on you nowadays.
Acceleration isn't artificially put in a sensor, it's a problem with the tracking code.

Allthough most people wouldn't use highly adjustable angle snapping and acceleration can be nice feature on a mouse level.

there's definitely a difference in feel between microswitches. fightstick guys are serious about their microswitches. i'm surprised that the cherry b1aas are better than the high end omrons though. i quite like the omrons

Don't drink the Omron koolaid... Cherry is where it's at, and everyone I know who have personally tried the DG23-B1AA love them. Cherry DG23-B1AA are a bit heavier than the Omrons that most people are used to, but after you get used to them all those Omrons just feel wrong. They're just so CLICKY! They're the buckling spring of microswitches.

Judging the qualities of switch manufacturers by comparing a 140/150g force switch to a 75g one seems a bit weird.

[mkawa]

You would like the sensor to output more raw movement data (less smoothing/corrections by the DSP, no advanced functions like angle snapping or LOD settings) and give the MCU more to do?
So basically shifting some of the processing from the sensors internal DSP to the MCU?

I think the idea is to have less DSP all together. Some anti-jitter and treatment is of course still necessary because as you say, they may have pushed the boundaries a little to far for a given hardware, but I find a lot of the treatments applied to be unnecessary and annoying. Angle snapping, prediction and acceleration are things I generally dislike. It might be because they are sometimes implemented to strongly and I just don't know the difference between the ones who have implemented it with less strength or nor at at all. There might be a setting there which is ideal.

The_Ed seems to be putting some sort of control on LOD at least in his firmware, and if I understand it correctly it will have no angle snapping or such. Ideally, I would like to experiment with how much angle snapping, prediction and acceleration I want. I am open minded and will consider the possibility that I actually still want a little of them, although perhaps not a cubic acceleration but a much lower for example. We'll see if I get to play around a bit with the code at a later date.

Classic angle snapping isn't a big deal anymore because usually it doesn't get forced on you nowadays.
Acceleration isn't artificially put in a sensor, it's a problem with the tracking code.

Allthough most people wouldn't use highly adjustable angle snapping and acceleration can be nice feature on a mouse level.

so if you tear a g9x apart and look at it at a block level, it really looks to me like the raw sensor output gets shoved to an arm (freescale MCU 32bit). the very slight negative accel is inherent to the sensor for some reason that probably has to do with weird optical stuff, but everything else is optional because i'm convinced that they're processing the laser receiver output at a DSP level. THIS is why accel, cpi/dpi, and everything else is fully adjustable in their gamer drivers. i haven't torn any of their other mice down, but you really want to buy big quantities of that mcu/sensor combo to deliver at their price points, so i suspect all the gamer mice use this same architecture (and this is why they all share the same really nice driver and utilities).

[mkawa]

in fact, if you can fit any of the logitech gamer pcbs into your rodent design, i would start with that as a base rather than the avago stuff. they seem to use this weird programmable asic that does fast gradient but needs a lot of custom programming to do anything interesting, and it isn't a particularly regular architecture or open at all.

[damorgue]

I still have the guts from a G300, and the shell too somewhere. I picked it last time because it was known for having a good sensor as well as several buttons I could wire my switches to.

[damorgue]

Cool! How do you intend to do the buttons? Cut slits into the body and let the plastic bend each time you press a button, or print individual buttons that fit and slide at the top of the mouse?

Combination I guess, mostly because I am undecided. I have added places where I can place nuts to avoid threads in the plastic. For instance the forward/back thumb buttons can be either printed along with the bending part and screwed there, or put on a small piece of sheet metal and then screwed there. The sheet metal idea is probably best longevity wise.

I am currently doing the left and right mouse button. I always intended for them to just be part of the shell, and a simple slit in a U shape would be sufficient. The problem is that they are really convex, which will make them far stronger than I want them to. I decreased their thickness to 1 mm and they will probably still be too strong. I can always cut them out completely like and have a small piece underneath them which attaches to the shell and bends, but then it would bend on a very small area which is likely to cause problems. I don't think I have space for more nut placement sites as well.

The middle mouse button next to the scroll is so complicated that It has to be printed atm. It is also mounted with screws to some slots where I can secure nuts. The mounting for the switch which belongs to it takes up place, and both sides are occupied by the RMB and LBM and the actual scroll wheel and its rig takes up a lot of space. I am short of space in certain areas.

I am thinking of redoing the nut placement
 This is how they look now. You slide the nut into the slot and it won't be able to rotate. i might fixate it with a small touch of adhesive. Not much though. I don't want it getting into the threads. Another pic of the inside of the shell

I could save a lot of space by doing this instead. The nut would just be placed in the slot with a little bit of adhesive. The hole behind it is required to allow the screw to pass through it a bit. Even with it, I am limited in the length of screws, or will have to use washers so that they don't stick in too far. It would be far weaker as well since the nut isn't behind anything. The only thing holding the nut in place would be adhesive. This is why I was against the idea at the start. However, if done correctly, the bending element screwed there will be screwed against the surface of the  nut and not the surrounding surfaces, hence I can screw really hard without it popping out. The adhesive would not have to resist such a large force as when you could have caused if the benind element would touch the surrounding surface first. The adhesive will just have to resist the forces applied when the button is pressed which is far less. A bit complicated in text, but hopefully it is understandable.

Edit: If I had a longer nut, something like a regular standoff perhaps, it would allow me to use the space behind the nut. That space would otherwise have been wasted as a hole for the screw to have a bit of clearance. Instead, I get a few extra threads, and more surface to put adhesive on. I might go for a female-female standoff instead.

[Bullveyr]

You would like the sensor to output more raw movement data (less smoothing/corrections by the DSP, no advanced functions like angle snapping or LOD settings) and give the MCU more to do?
So basically shifting some of the processing from the sensors internal DSP to the MCU?

I think the idea is to have less DSP all together. Some anti-jitter and treatment is of course still necessary because as you say, they may have pushed the boundaries a little to far for a given hardware, but I find a lot of the treatments applied to be unnecessary and annoying. Angle snapping, prediction and acceleration are things I generally dislike. It might be because they are sometimes implemented to strongly and I just don't know the difference between the ones who have implemented it with less strength or nor at at all. There might be a setting there which is ideal.

The_Ed seems to be putting some sort of control on LOD at least in his firmware, and if I understand it correctly it will have no angle snapping or such. Ideally, I would like to experiment with how much angle snapping, prediction and acceleration I want. I am open minded and will consider the possibility that I actually still want a little of them, although perhaps not a cubic acceleration but a much lower for example. We'll see if I get to play around a bit with the code at a later date.

Classic angle snapping isn't a big deal anymore because usually it doesn't get forced on you nowadays.
Acceleration isn't artificially put in a sensor, it's a problem with the tracking code.

Allthough most people wouldn't use highly adjustable angle snapping and acceleration can be nice feature on a mouse level.

so if you tear a g9x apart and look at it at a block level, it really looks to me like the raw sensor output gets shoved to an arm (freescale MCU 32bit). the very slight negative accel is inherent to the sensor for some reason that probably has to do with weird optical stuff, but everything else is optional because i'm convinced that they're processing the laser receiver output at a DSP level. THIS is why accel, cpi/dpi, and everything else is fully adjustable in their gamer drivers. i haven't torn any of their other mice down, but you really want to buy big quantities of that mcu/sensor combo to deliver at their price points, so i suspect all the gamer mice use this same architecture (and this is why they all share the same really nice driver and utilities).

Yes, all gaming use the same architecture (sensor + MCU) but usually the MCU (or software) doesn't fiddle much with the movement data from the sensor. It depends on the the sensor how much of various corrections are done.
In case of the G9x most of the things are options of the the sensor, CPI, angle snapping and afaik even the acceleration is a sensor level setting that comes with Logitechs special version of the A9500.

If you use a sensor with much less CPI options additional CPI settings are indeed done on a MCU or software level.

in fact, if you can fit any of the logitech gamer pcbs into your rodent design, i would start with that as a base rather than the avago stuff. they seem to use this weird programmable asic that does fast gradient but needs a lot of custom programming to do anything interesting, and it isn't a particularly regular architecture or open at all.

Using the PCB of a mouse certainly makes things easier but also leads to some limitation, although I would rather use a 2 PCB design mouse (Deathadder for example) for its flexibility.

[mkawa]

are you sure that _all_ the sensors output only movement data? in the g9x it looked like the laser receiver camera had a pretty wide bus to the MCU, enough that it could just be a raw image sensor that just scanned its photon wells and dumped the raw charge data onto the MCU. the MCU was certainly fast enough to handle all of that data.

[blueslobster]

… acceleration …

Hi Bullveyr

I was discussing the acceleration of the 9500/9800 with mkawa. For anyone not knowing what kind of acceleration this is, here is a short explanation by Cyro: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18189604

Do you know of any way to find out whether the acceleration is a result of sensor architecture or SROM?

[mkawa]

from what i know, avago sensors don't give direct sensor output, period. you have to go through their controller. so in some ways it's the same thing. the SROM vs IC question is just one of how hard it is to fix. the problem is that the chip and compiler that avago uses for all their sensor controller units is completely closed. not even big vendors are given access.

[blueslobster]

How could fixing for both alternatives look like?

[mkawa]

replace with a philips sensor -- hope it can give you raw camera output

[Bullveyr]

are you sure that _all_ the sensors output only movement data? in the g9x it looked like the laser receiver camera had a pretty wide bus to the MCU, enough that it could just be a raw image sensor that just scanned its photon wells and dumped the raw charge data onto the MCU. the MCU was certainly fast enough to handle all of that data.

Yes, in normal operation mode it outputs Δx/y.
You can capture a single frame and you could use that to get a constant stream of the frames (afaik somebody did that with some older optical sensor).
I don't know if the bus would be wide enough but bear in mind that the SPI is 2 Mhz and the sensor operates with up to 12.000 FPS (images are 30*30 in grey-scale).

… acceleration …

Hi Bullveyr

I was discussing the acceleration of the 9500/9800 with mkawa. For anyone not knowing what kind of acceleration this is, here is a short explanation by Cyro: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18189604

Do you know of any way to find out whether the acceleration is a result of sensor architecture or SROM?

It looks like it's a general problem with the architecture and not a simple SROM bug, it's probably not fixable but Avago never really cared anyway.

replace with a philips sensor -- hope it can give you raw camera output

The twineye works with doppler effect, so there is no raw camera ouput.
Besides, it also just outputs Δx/y

It also has it's own problem in the form of z-axis tracking.

[damorgue]

double post

[damorgue]

I received some questions on how I will attach the bottom plate. I have made the shell swell out in certain areas where I will make through holes. There will also be a hexagonal hole for a nut to be attached there. Placement:



Seen from the inside, this is the shape which will be cut out at removed. The thing illustrated is not a screw, simply what will be removed from the shell.




The screws with  countersunk heads will be screwed from underneath, through the bottom plate and holes in shell and then through the nuts attached on the inside. Hopefully that makes things a bit clearer.

Edit: I now realize that you were asking how I attach the PCB to the bottom plate and shell, not how the plate and shell are attached. D'oh! Well, I haven't fully decided on what sensor to use. It seems like it will be the adns 9800. If so, I will use a similar method: Countersunk screw from underneath the plate, possibly through some shims or washers to adjust height and then through the mounting points in the controller. Circular elongated holes could be used if I want to adjust the rotation of the sensor to align the X and Y to what feels natural. I don't want to leave gaping holes though, so that might be a prototype after which I change the holes to their exact position.

I have tried screws, shafts and little podests.

That does not sound all that different to what I will do.

[MOZ]

I can't wait to see where this leads to.

[mkawa]

are you sure that _all_ the sensors output only movement data? in the g9x it looked like the laser receiver camera had a pretty wide bus to the MCU, enough that it could just be a raw image sensor that just scanned its photon wells and dumped the raw charge data onto the MCU. the MCU was certainly fast enough to handle all of that data.

Yes, in normal operation mode it outputs Δx/y.
You can capture a single frame and you could use that to get a constant stream of the frames (afaik somebody did that with some older optical sensor).
I don't know if the bus would be wide enough but bear in mind that the SPI is 2 Mhz and the sensor operates with up to 12.000 FPS (images are 30*30 in grey-scale).

it operates over SPI? FACEPALM

12000 fps means USE A WHOLE BUNCH OF GPIOS OR DEDICATE A CORE ON A SOC. so backwards i don't even know where to start.

… acceleration …

Hi Bullveyr

I was discussing the acceleration of the 9500/9800 with mkawa. For anyone not knowing what kind of acceleration this is, here is a short explanation by Cyro: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18189604

Do you know of any way to find out whether the acceleration is a result of sensor architecture or SROM?

It looks like it's a general problem with the architecture and not a simple SROM bug, it's probably not fixable but Avago never really cared anyway.

replace with a philips sensor -- hope it can give you raw camera output

The twineye works with doppler effect, so there is no raw camera ouput.
Besides, it also just outputs Δx/y

It also has it's own problem in the form of z-axis tracking.

this is why we need open standards and firmware and to adopt one of the current arm prototyping volume socs (the beaglebone cortex has a SWEET simd unit). hell, it's not that hard to build an optical sensor. you buy up some tiny high speed camera sensors in bulk from sony, you buy some binned LEDs and you go to town with a piece of plastic to aim them. the hardest thing by far is the optics, actually. you can't print that, and you can't build a small injection molding tool for it either. a molded optic would need hand or machine finishing etc. etc. ideally you could reverse engineer the avago sensor protocol and tap into the image feed by force but that's very much easier said than done.
 

[blueslobster]

You can always buy 3rd party lenses, like from Kingsis. Although that can influence tracking.

[mkawa]

yep, mouser has a whole category for led optics. however, it's VERY hard to model these things and basically requires someone to devote a couple months to putting a package together even from premade parts.

[damorgue]

there's definitely a difference in feel between microswitches. fightstick guys are serious about their microswitches. i'm surprised that the cherry b1aas are better than the high end omrons though. i quite like the omrons

Don't drink the Omron koolaid... Cherry is where it's at, and everyone I know who have personally tried the DG23-B1AA love them. Cherry DG23-B1AA are a bit heavier than the Omrons that most people are used to, but after you get used to them all those Omrons just feel wrong. They're just so CLICKY! They're the buckling spring of microswitches.

Judging the qualities of switch manufacturers by comparing a 140/150g force switch to a 75g one seems a bit weird.

They are both around 140g. The Cherry ones with a flat lever are labeled around 45g and the ones with roller lever are at around 60g simply because those are measured on the lever. The actual switch is the same for all of them at 140g though. The lever will be popped off if I get ones with them anyway. They are all actually fairly similar in force.

[damorgue]

The new, although a bit weaker, simpler and smaller sockets for the nuts. Switchmounts etc are hidden.

[Bullveyr]

@mkawa

That just won't happen.
Besides, making a working sensor might be easy but making a competitive high end sensor isn't.

there's definitely a difference in feel between microswitches. fightstick guys are serious about their microswitches. i'm surprised that the cherry b1aas are better than the high end omrons though. i quite like the omrons

Don't drink the Omron koolaid... Cherry is where it's at, and everyone I know who have personally tried the DG23-B1AA love them. Cherry DG23-B1AA are a bit heavier than the Omrons that most people are used to, but after you get used to them all those Omrons just feel wrong. They're just so CLICKY! They're the buckling spring of microswitches.

Judging the qualities of switch manufacturers by comparing a 140/150g force switch to a 75g one seems a bit weird.

They are both around 140g. The Cherry ones with a flat lever are labeled around 45g and the ones with roller lever are at around 60g simply because those are measured on the lever. The actual switch is the same for all of them at 140g though. The lever will be popped off if I get ones with them anyway. They are all actually fairly similar in force.

Although the are also 150g variants of the Omron switches the ones used in mice are 75g.

[damorgue]

Although the are also 150g variants of the Omron switches the ones used in mice are 75g.

Are you absolutely certain that it didn't have a lever? Do you have a link to a spec sheet or something? I have found all the 40-75g ones to have levers and their non-lever counterparts have been in the 130-160 range.

[Bullveyr]

Omron D2F Datasheet

As you can see D2F-01F, probably most common switch people mod into their mouse, has 75g.

[damorgue]

Seems to be true then. I suppose I will still have to get even more and compare them. The ones I got hare D2FC-type and not D2F-
D2FC-F-7N appears to be the most common in mice and also the ones I got.

[The_Ed]

Judging the qualities of switch manufacturers by comparing a 140/150g force switch to a 75g one seems a bit weird.

It's interesting that you are trying to twist my opinion down to being purely based on the actuation force. Have you personally tried the Cherry DG23-B1AA microswitches and compared them to the standard mouse's Omrons in both feel and electrical reliability/longevity? Don't make accusations about people and products you don't even know.

Although the are also 150g variants of the Omron switches the ones used in mice are 75g.

I see you are also lumping all mice that use Omron switches together as using the same actuation force. That is obviously not true since the only reason to make different actuation forces from a manufacturer's prospective is gaining more sales.

Oh and by the way, you measure the force it takes to actuate a switch in cN (centi-Newtons), N (Newtons), or gf (gram-force) as those are measures of force applied.

[damorgue]

Lets all calm down a bit. If anyone has any of these micro switches, I would appreciate it if you would send them to me. That is probably the only way to compare them and find out how they differ. If you know of a good source who sells them in low numbers without an enormous shipping fee to Sweden, let me know. I am having trouble sourcing many of them.

I have:
TIAIHUA ... unknown model#
Omron D2FC-F-7N

Looking for:
Omron D2F-D
Omron D2F-F-D
Omron D2F...
Cherry DG13B1AA
Cherry DG...

[The_Ed]

Why would you look for a DG13-B1AA? DG23 series are what work with mice, and DG23-B1AA is what I recommended and gave a link to.

[damorgue]

Why would you look for a DG13-B1AA? DG23 series are what fit into mice, and DG23-B1AA is what I recommended and gave a link to.

I have listed that I am interested in other Cherry DG series switches as well, chill down. I have particular interest in the DG13B1AA model simply because I have found it. The only difference is that it is rater for higher currents. It fits mice as well.

Edit: To be able to compare the feel of them, I am particularly interested in Cherry DG*3-C*** as well.

Edit2: Are Omron D2FC discontinued? Their specs are harder to find.

[damorgue]

A this point, I don't care all that much about what type of pins they have either. They will work fine for testing to see whether I want them and if it is worth the effort getting the correct ones. I can probably make any of them work if nee be.

[The_Ed]

This is why you can only use DG23: [Contacts: Silver Alloy (DG13, DG43), Gold Flash, Gold (DG23)]

Gold flash is desirable for the small amounts of current that a mouse passes through it. If you use standard silver alloy you will likely run into problems of missed clicks or multiple clicks. Gold flash is reliable for lower (signal) amounts of current, while silver alloy is reliable for larger (power) amounts of current.

Also it should be pointed out that 140gf is not available on DG43, and 75gf is not available on DG13.

Why would you look for a DG13-B1AA? DG23 series are what fit into mice, and DG23-B1AA is what I recommended and gave a link to.

I have listed that I am interested in other Cherry DG series switches as well, chill down. I have particular interest in the DG13B1AA model simply because I have found it. The only difference is that it is rater for higher currents. It fits mice as well.

Edit: To be able to compare the feel of them, I am particularly interested in Cherry DG*3-C*** as well.

Edit2: Are Omron D2FC discontinued? Their specs are harder to find.

I mistakenly put "fit into" instead of "work with" in my last post, I have corrected it.

The C model Omrons are the Chinese ones, but people usually seem to prefer the Japanese ones though.

A this point, I don't care all that much about what type of pins they have either. They will work fine for testing to see whether I want them and if it is worth the effort getting the correct ones. I can probably make any of them work if nee be.

Yes, because you are direct wiring the switches in your custom housing any of the 3 directions of pins should be fine. But the straight ones are usually the cheapest and easiest to find in my experience.

[The_Ed]

By looking at that Omron spec sheet that was linked I found a similar piece of info regarding gold vs silver for current:

Item	D2F	D2F-01
Specification	Crossbar	Crossbar
Material	Silver alloy	Gold alloy
Gap (Standard value)	0.25 mm	0.25 mm
Minimum Applicable Load (See note)	100 mA at 5 VDC	1 mA at 5VDC

Note: Minimum applicable loads are indicated by N standard reference values. This value represents the failure rate at a 60% (λ60) reliability level (JIS C5003).

The equation λ60=0.5 x 10-6/operations indicates that a failure rate of 1/2,000,000 operations can be expected at a reliability level of 60%.

So you'd need a minimum of 100ma at 5v for a silver contact Omron microswitch's actuation to be reliable. Yikes!

EDIT: I found more in that Omron spec sheet

Using Microloads:
Using a model for ordinary loads to switch microloads may result in
faulty operation. Instead, use the models that are designed for microloads and that operate in the following range

{graph below}

[damorgue]

Good to know that the high current ones won't work in the final application. That doesn't matter much now though. Do you know if the 13 and 23 differ in feel? As I said, I have found the 13 and intend to evaluate how they feel if the alloy in the contact doesn't affect it much. I am quite far from using them in mice. You seem to have misunderstood what I meant about pins. Yes, what you say is true, any sort of pins will probably work for me since I will solder wires to them, but frankly, if I could find ones without contact pins whatsoever that would be fine for me as well since the purpose is to test and compare them. After that, I will see if it is worth searching for the exact variant I want of that particular switch. This way, I will have far easier finding candidates locally for now.

[The_Ed]

I would expect different contact materials to affect the feel slightly, even though the actuation force will be the same. But I have only tried DG23-B1AA, so I don't know for sure. If I were you I would just try to find ANY DG23-B*** variant to try out what they feel like.

But yeah, only Cherry DG23 or Omron D2F-01 series will be reliable for mouse operation.

[Bullveyr]

Judging the qualities of switch manufacturers by comparing a 140/150g force switch to a 75g one seems a bit weird.

It's interesting that you are trying to twist my opinion down to being purely based on the actuation force. Have you personally tried the Cherry DG23-B1AA microswitches and compared them to the standard mouse's Omrons in both feel and electrical reliability/longevity? Don't make accusations about people and products you don't even know.

Calm down.

I never tried a Cherry DG23 but I also never said anything bad about them or judged them in any way.
You said the common Omrons are bad compared to the Cherrys but I still think judging the general feeling or clickyness by comparing 2 switches with totally different actuations forces is a bit weird.
Out of curiosity, have you ever tested a 150gf Omron?

Although the are also 150g variants of the Omron switches the ones used in mice are 75g.

I see you are also lumping all mice that use Omron switches together as using the same actuation force. That is obviously not true since the only reason to make different actuation forces from a manufacturer's prospective is gaining more sales.

I don't know of any halfway common mouse that uses 150gf Omrons.
These switches aren't only used in mice, having different actuation forces (and actuator types) opens it up for more applications.

Oh and by the way, you measure the force it takes to actuate a switch in cN (centi-Newtons), N (Newtons), or gf (gram-force) as those are measures of force applied.

Do we really have to go down that road when it's rather common practice (even on this forum)?

[The_Ed]

My mice over the years have taken more or less force than each other, but I haven't opened them all up and written down the part numbers of the microswitches, so I can't be absolutely sure that I have or haven't tried 150gf Omrons.

You seem to think that the most important aspect of feeling is the actuation force for some reason. Why are you hung up on that? The Cherry DG23-B1AA microswitches are the loudest, toughest, most clicky, most tactile, and most crisp to actuate microswitches I have ever had the pleasure of using.

The first 4 DG23-B1AA I got were from the mouse buttons on 2 NIB POS boards.

Just because terms are commonly used wrong does not mean it's OK for those who know better to perpetuate those wrong uses of the terms. It irks me to no end when people use grams for springs and switches, it's not that hard to just put an "f" at the end to make it "gf"...

[Bullveyr]

My mice over the years have taken more or less force than each other, but I haven't opened them all up and written down the part numbers of the microswitches, so I can't be absolutely sure that I have or haven't tried 150gf Omrons.

The shell also has some impact on that.

As I said I don't know a single mouse with high force Omrons.
In the meantime I asked a friend who works in the industry, he also knows none and would find it weirdly speced for a (gaming) mouse.

You seem to think that the most important aspect of feeling is the actuation force for some reason. Why are you hung up on that? The Cherry DG23-B1AA microswitches are the loudest, toughest, most clicky, most tactile, and most crisp to actuate microswitches I have ever had the pleasure of using.

I don't think it's the most important aspect but don't you think that having an actuation force of 75 or 140/150gf has quite some impact on the overall feel of a switch?
I do indeed think because of that the actuation force is one of the first thing to look at when choosing them for a DIY mouse project, although there is nothing wrong with testing some switches with a much higher (or lower) actuation force.
If I would want to test out I Cherry switch I would rather go for a DG23-C1AA because it's in a similar range to what I'm used to.

[blueslobster]

If anyone has any of these micro switches, I would appreciate it if you would send them to me.

The same switch can feel quite different. Dependant on the production batch and who knows how many parameters. So don’t make a final verdict based on a sample size of two switches. ;P

I have heard that D2F-01F are selected in Japan — but I don’t know if that’s true and I don’t know what they are selected for. Cherry claims to produce in Japan, but they don’t give you detailed information if you ask them directly.

[damorgue]

I think I'll draw the line right there at batches of switches feeling all that different. It isn't that important to me.

[blueslobster]

I understand. I wouldn’t underestimate the degree to which a nice click can enhance the perceived quality of your trackball, though.

[damorgue]

The difference is quite notable. I am still waiting on the Cherries but so far I like Omrons the most when compared at equal forces.

[damorgue]

The TIAIHUA has more of a cheap plastic feel to them, very short, sort of a simple feeling of buckling plastic.
The low force D2F and D2FC felt very similar except that D2FC was crispier and a bit louder. They were both far better than the TIAIHUA


The TIAIHUA, the Omron D2F-series, the Cherry DG-series and pretty much all other micro switches have two holes 2mm in diameter. The Omron D2FC series does however have 1.4mm diameter holes just to mess with the system. I actually preferred the feel to the chinese D2FC but by the looks of it I will go with D2F-01F.

[damorgue]

I have to look into those fancy scroll wheels of Logitech where you can flip an electronic switch and turn free-rolling scroll on and off. If I were to guess I would say that since the switch is electronic and not mechanical they use a small coil and a little magnet which moves in the field created. When the field is off the magnet moves through it without resistance from the coil. It doesn't seem reasonable though that it should draw current through a coil, especially since many of the mice which have this feature are wireless. I think quite a lot of power would be required to create forces strong enough to cause this effect.

Since the switch to turn this feature on and off is electrical, if the actual mechanism is mechanical then it has to have a small motor or solenoid of some sort to engage and disengage a lever of sorts.

I need to get my hands on one or some detailed pictures of an opened one. Ivan linked an image which did mention a motor but there might be several designs for this.

[The_Ed]

You'd have to have the switch change the scroll wheel delta on the teensy from regular (120) to smooth scrolling (as small as 1).

EDIT: Though if you are making a regular scroll wheel into a smooth scrolling scroll wheel you wouldn't have to do that as it's resolution is still the same.

[damorgue]

Yay, just got a sensor. I am also awaiting a delivery of teensy3.0 and 2.0 but I can start working on the mount of the sensor now.

[damorgue]

I recently helped a friend with a project where they used parts from a cheap mouse. They didn't need the scroll so i took it for now. I have to mention how crappy that things was built. I never imagined cheap mice to actually be that badly designed inside, other than using cheap parts. To block out the light from the LEDs which light up the shell they put some black  electrical tape over the sensor chip are. The switches were soldered so bad, and a few of the pin holes where out by the edge and had been intersected by the edge for no reason, there was plenty of space. Probably the worst of all was the scroll assembly. It consists of two components, the scroll wheel and a tiny rotary encoder-like thing. This electrical component is soldered to the PCB and the scroll wheel is inserted into a hexagonal hole. The other side of the scroll wheel where the other end of the axis is just hangs free above a switch unsupported by anything. When you press the wheel, the entire assembly flexes and the free hanging end presses the switch. What actually bends is the tiny parts in the rotary encoder where it shears the axis a bit and causes quite some unnatural stress on it. This is built to fail fast.

I will use the rotary encoder-like component for now, but I will never make such a solution. Elrick seems to speak highly of some Mionix and Roccat scroll mechanisms. I wonder if Mionix would be interested in helping since I believe they are Swedish.

[damorgue]

Teensies have been a bit delayed, but at least I can move forward with the mount for the sensor. I have been worried about the internal construction of the sensor+pcb+lens since the lens is completely loose and can move around a fair bit. John tells me that it supposed to be like that and I suppose I have to trust him on it, but it does seem weird to me.

The distance from the tracking surface to the lens is greater than that between the lens and the sensor.
1/S+1/S=1/f
The above formula would indicate that the tolerances of the sensor to lens distance has to be greater than that between the lens and the tracking surface. Weird

[damorgue]

Some pictures of the switches I have tried: from left to right:
YSA, Huano, TIAIHUA and two different Omron


Some stuff that will be used, a few parts still missing and the scroll assembly will have to be changed to a whatever I decide is best once I have tested some more assemblies:

[damorgue]

Progress is slow, I vote GH get a second printer as has been discussed in the GH tooling thread

I made a quick bottom plate for now:



There will be a circular hole in the middle which will fit a little assembly to hold the lens and chip together as well as allow its position and rotation to be adjusted somewhat.

(I also countersunk the holes on my Ergodox and replaced those portruding allen socket heads while I was at it.)

[MOZ]

Is it possible, to make a ring and index finger rest for the Rat 3/5/7/9 for the right side as an attachment to replace the current replacements.

I really like the RAT 7 overall, but love teh rest on the CM Spawn, the kind of rest in your design

[damorgue]

Is it possible, to make a ring and index finger rest for the Rat 3/5/7/9 for the right side as an attachment to replace the current replacements.

Of course it is. It is just a matter of complexity. I don't own one but if you could take some pictures I might be able to help you. The only pic I could find of its right side is the one below which sort of already has a rest though.

[MOZ]

I'll get some pictures up soon.

[damorgue]

I'll get some pictures up soon.

 

[MOZ]

Been busy with some RL stuff and GBs. Will try to get them next week.

[wasabah]

Man, you're living my dream. Just some weeks ago I considered harvesting an old mouse and somehow creating my own shell. I'm not very good with either my hands nor do I have access to a 3D scanner.
So I basically gave up...

I'll be watching this closely and with great interest. Maybe I'll find a way to do my own after all, somehow.

Oh and btw, new replacements for the RAT3/5/7 is a cool idea too!

[damorgue]

Man, you're living my dream. Just some weeks ago I considered harvesting an old mouse and somehow creating my own shell. I'm not very good with either my hands nor do I have access to a 3D scanner.
So I basically gave up...

I'll be watching this closely and with great interest. Maybe I'll find a way to do my own after all, somehow.

Oh and btw, new replacements for the RAT3/5/7 is a cool idea too!

Not that hard really. You can make decent scans with a camera using camera tracking.

Another way to get the shape you want into the a digital system would be to take Xmm thick cardboard or foam board and stack on top of one another to form a block. Then you shape and sand it to the shape you want after which you separate the layers and label them. Once you scan them, you can build them up in software as Xmm extrusions. You don't need very high accuracy here as you can continue sculpting the digital model once you have a rought draft from the physical world.

Don't give up, just keep trying. I failed a few times as seen in my tests with vinyl but that is another way to go which remains viable although a bit more tedious to get right.

[wasabah]

I'll try camera tracking!

What's the advantage of scanning the several layers separately?

[damorgue]

If you use thin layers and you are able to separate them while keeping their relative position, the data will be very accurate. It is tedious though.

Using a camera and tracking software is easier and the workload is moved to the algorithm which is to analyze it. The resulting data will converge towards a shape with increasing amount of camera data, up until a point where additional images just makes it move back and forth in an interval where you have reached information saturation.

A third option for rather cheap 3D scanning is done through silhouette photography. This can be achieved by submerging the object in a contrasting liquid or drawing lines on it with a laser pointer.

A final option is to take pictures, measure the model and model it yourself from scratch.


Note that my original scan was made with your average cheap-o point and shoot camera.

[wasabah]

Thanks for the explanation!

May I ask how you plan to implement the mouse buttons in your shell?

[damorgue]

There are slots for the switches on the inside where they can be mounted. RMB and LMB will essentially be part of the shell and flex since there are U shaped cuts around them. The side buttons will be small parts which are screwed to the shell and then portrude through holes in the shell. I may exchange parts of them to metal foils in order to avoid fractures in the bending plastic.

The only thing remaining now is really the scroll wheel where I can't decide how much of it I should do myself, what design to go with and the best way to mount it.

Edit: Found an old 3D scan done with a point n' shoot: http://p3d.in/grQOo

Edit2: It is a good idea, or depending on method even necessary, to include a reference dimension in the scan. The scans will be roughly scaled the same in X, Y and Z but at the very least one scale so that you can ensure that the dimensions are correct. This was you don't need an absolute scan and a relative scan can suffice once you scale everything so that the reference object is correct.

[HotKillerZzz]

is it possible to use mx switches as the left click and right click?

[damorgue]

is it possible to use mx switches as the left click and right click?

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Yes, it is possible, but you will probably not like it. A few have tried and I have yet to hear of anyone who liked it. The throw is too long and the hysteresis is also not suitable for fast precise clicking in my opinion. I don't think that excessive movement and decrease in precision yields any notable benefits other than being able to state a bit gamer-gear-gimmicky: "my mouse has mechanical MX switches"

Feel free to try though.

[damorgue]

5 points to the first one to guess what now works in my mouse.

Edit: Just noticed that there is still a bug in there somewhere as it switches from 00 to 11.

Edit2: Well, I'll just use a library for this anyway, this was just a test to see if it worked. I have confirmed that I will not need a logic level converter for the this particular scrolling mechanism and that it can be used. I will have to check some nicer scroll wheels as well. If anyone has a broken mouse with a nice scroll wheel feel free to PM me.

[damorgue]

Ok, this encoder I found and described above doesn't appear to comply to the usual specs. The output above actually is how it works, which means that no library will work with it and I wrote some of my own. I am still able to sense direction of rotation, but with less redundancy.

[damorgue]

Well, it works just fine, although with less redundancy. The advantage is that I have some code which will work with other encoders if they behave the same. I intend to try a few better more elaborate scrolling mechanisms. I have a certain interest in Logitech and their wheels where you can set them to free scroll or discrete steps. If anyone has any info on those it would be greatly appreciated. Even better if you have a broken one which I can take the mechanism from and save me some work creating it from scratch.

On a second note, I have discovered that most of razers mouse use the same really terrible scroll mechanism as the dirst cheap mouse I investigated. They actually just mount the wheel to the rotary encoder with one side of the axis hanging free above a switch. When you press the wheel, the entire axis bends a bit along with the rotary encoders internal structure as well as the solder joints. That does not give a good impression of their build quality and I bet the encoders aren't built for that type of load.

[damorgue]

That scroll was bad, and it should feel bad.

But honestly, that scroll mechanism was terribly designed, relying mainly on deflections in a critical part not built to deform with an unsupported axis hanging above a switch. Apparently most Razer mice use this mechanism. I am about to buy an MX Revolution which I might be able to get really cheap since it is mislabeled at a local auction site. It even has two scroll wheels and at least one of them is really fancy with the ability to free-spin.'

Edit: It even looks quite nice.

[damorgue]

I now have both a Performance MX and a MX Revolution. The Revolutions does indeed have a electronically engaged bump mechanism for the scroll wheel which allows for free spins through the use of a solenoid. It sounds like the shutter of a camera when it is engaged. The Performance MX has a far simpler mechanical bump mechanism which is engaged directly by a button, is far cheaper and frankly, the Revolution's way of solving it is a bit over the top.

I like over the top and it will be easier to adopt as well.

[damorgue]

Project was delayed by other projects, but is now moving along again.

Model can be seen here in a nifty little tool. A few parts which have been added are missing from it; the mount for the scroll mechanism, the holder for the sensor and pcb,  the mount for right and left mouse switch and the separate buttons.

On another note, I have some old sculpted metal caps which I never intended to sell which I might sell in a fundraiser for this and a few other of my projects.

[damorgue]

Discussion regarding the left and right mouse buttons
I am still a bit undecided which type of cut to use and whether to have them as separate parts or as a part of the hull.

The above left image depicts a few examples of how the cut can be made. The red left part is the button which is pressed downwards.  I originally began by having the buttons as part of a hull with a angled cut, as shown second from the top. I did this to avoid being able to see directly into the mouse as easily. At the right angle, once can still see in however, and when the button is pressed the gap widens. I then moved onto the third type of cut, where the slit appears to be the same size as the button is pressed, and where you can't see in. It is good, but as dirt and grit gets to the slit, it will be collected and might eventually cause problems. The upper right image shows this slit type implemented to give a sense of context. The gap can be increased as shown in the fourth example if the mouse button is allowed to be a bit thicker locally around the slit.

The fifth example is actually the best by far for a few reasons. At first, I wanted to avoid the risk that the button would stop at the case before activating the switch. If done correctly however, it provides durability since the switch won't have to take all of the load if the button is pressed hard. A small indentation also traps dirt and prevents it to enter the gap to some extent. I think I might go with that one. The final question is the whether the button slit should be U- shaped or O shaped, ie will the button be a part of the hull or a separate part mounted to the hull. Ideas?

[imp]

1. Too easy .
2. option might reward you with some "sharp" edges while pressing the buttons, besides this, I would prefer it. It allows the easy travel down and not cause addition friction compared to the first option (which might have the sides sliding against each other if some wrapping occurs).
3. & 4. might cause the button to jam if shifted to the side, so it wont release instant - but this won't be a problem if you make both thicker around the cut. Also might be heavy to clean if needed.
5. You'll be unable to clean the cut, you cannot slip some paper in there to catch the dirt - or you have to lift the button, dunno if the material allows that much flex.

U or O? Going for the O also asks for an smooth and low frictional guiding of the "keycap". The U should be easier since it's attached to the mouse itself, only needing a thinner part before the switch starts - but this will also give you the possibility to add some extra force for pressing the switch.

[damorgue]

I made a tool to help visualise problems during manufacturing and to reveal points of failure to complement the regular wall thickness, maximum angle, non-manifold etc tools.

I found it soothing and harmonious so I added a soundtrack to it

[damorgue]

1. Too easy .
2. option might reward you with some "sharp" edges while pressing the buttons, besides this, I would prefer it. It allows the easy travel down and not cause addition friction compared to the first option (which might have the sides sliding against each other if some wrapping occurs).
3. & 4. might cause the button to jam if shifted to the side, so it wont release instant - but this won't be a problem if you make both thicker around the cut. Also might be heavy to clean if needed.
5. You'll be unable to clean the cut, you cannot slip some paper in there to catch the dirt - or you have to lift the button, dunno if the material allows that much flex.

Hmm. I dislike 2 simply because the gap becomes quite a bit wider when the button is pressed, and it does not provide any sort of stop except the switch and its holder. If I press it hard enough something will break. I have seen mice like this, but I would much prefer a solution where it stops at the hull and the hull can withstand the full force. The only problem then is that it has to have activated the switch, so the tolerances are quite tight. On the other hand, since the switch doesn't have to withstand large forces, it is easier to enable it to be adjusted in position slightly. The issue you mentioned with 5 is solved if I choose to have the button as a separate removable part.

U or O? Going for the O also asks for an smooth and low frictional guiding of the "keycap".

With the O, I would put a flange on it and attach it on the inside of the hull. This flange could have ribs to guide the bending of it in a certain direction a little. With the U, I am forced to let it bend largely according to the shape of the hull, although I can affect it a little by where I end the slits and such.

[damorgue]

Small update, looking for a new sensor. I want a good optical one without angle snapping, acceleration, prediciton or smoothing. I have gotten accustomed to the crisp feeling ones and all lasers and most optical just feel weird.

Does anyone know where I can find this or will I have to butcher a mouse and recycle its guts again. The first mouse I made just used a crappy mouse I found, this time I will do it properly.