geekhack

geekhack Community => Keyboards => Topic started by: etatoby on Tue, 28 May 2013, 16:59:42

Title: Realforce weight layout
Post by: etatoby on Tue, 28 May 2013, 16:59:42
Hello

I'm shopping for a mechanical keyboard and after a long search I've settled on a Realforce. I'd rather buy the silent version, but seeing as they seem to be sold out everywhere, I'll just grab a 104UB (http://www.elitekeyboards.com/products.php?sub=topre_keyboards,rf104&pid=xf11t0). If it's too loud I can always do the foam sheet mod (http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=34972.0). They probably don't even sell a silent 104U anyways.

I was wondering about the key weight distribution. I'm all for ergonomics, but most sources show something like this (http://deskthority.net/w/images/7/7d/Topre87_layout_th0x0.jpg). Which doesn't look right.
Can anybody who owns a variable weight Realforce comment on this? Would you recommend for or against the variable weight models?
Title: Re: Realforce weight layout
Post by: daerid on Tue, 28 May 2013, 17:12:43
Personally, I always thought it was a 45/40/35 distribution, with ring finger buttons weighing in at 40g, but I haven't found any official documentation to support this.
Title: Re: Realforce weight layout
Post by: khaangaaroo on Tue, 28 May 2013, 17:35:18
The Realforces that I've taken apart were more like this:

(http://i.imgur.com/X6g6Y.jpg)

Although there was some variation. Like 30g being used instead of 35g, but you wouldn't be able to tell under normal typing. I think that diagram above is pretty accurate for all the Realforces I've modified: a 86u, two 87u's, and a 108udk

DISCLAIMER: I didn't use any measuring tools to figure out the weighting. I just took the keyboard apart and had all the domes out in front of me to compare how they felt relative to one another.

ANOTHER EDIT: I also wanted to add that I really liked the variable weighting except two things: it sucks for gaming (WASD different weights) and, like you said, the modifiers are the standard 45g weight. Both of those things were enough to make me go uniform.
Title: Re: Realforce weight layout
Post by: tribade on Tue, 28 May 2013, 20:09:14
I know Kangaroo put in most of the work with his post, and I don't know whether posting to Ripster stuff is P.C. or not, but he did some good work on the RealForce if you'd like to take a look!  http://imgur.com/a/eI8Il#0
Title: Re: Realforce weight layout
Post by: 002 on Tue, 28 May 2013, 21:11:50
Early Realforce keyboards such as the 101, 106 and 86 used to only have two weights (excluding Esc). I am not sure if later 86U models had the three weight levels but it's possible.
The first Realforce (LA0100 106) was 45g and 30g. I did measurements on the Realforce 104U which is currently making its way around Europe and these were the results:

(http://i.imgur.com/A1UCM.png)
Title: Re: Realforce weight layout
Post by: rowdy on Tue, 28 May 2013, 21:16:58
Do the variables weights actually help with typing?

My typing style is fairly chaotic, although I can touch type I usually don't as it is usually programming, which is as much symbols as straight alphanumerics.
Title: Re: Realforce weight layout
Post by: 002 on Tue, 28 May 2013, 21:29:07
I would suggest a uniform board for you then. I use a variable at work but mostly I am "talking" (typing) to people so it's fine.
It seems that 55g uniform is the craze here at the moment but I much prefer the 45g uniform boards. 55g is a little too jarring and longer typing sessions were taking their toll on me.
Title: Re: Realforce weight layout
Post by: rowdy on Tue, 28 May 2013, 21:40:01
That's a shame, as I can't get a uniform board here anywhere near as cheap as the variable.
Title: Re: Realforce weight layout
Post by: 002 on Tue, 28 May 2013, 22:05:11
Yes I know that feel :)
PCCG told me via email in April that they were getting different Topre boards in early June.
Title: Re: Realforce weight layout
Post by: rowdy on Tue, 28 May 2013, 22:45:00
Yes I know that feel :)
PCCG told me via email in April that they were getting different Topre boards in early June.

Interesting ... I wonder if it is the FC660C ...