Author Topic: [IC] Pitta60 (updated compatibility test)  (Read 15460 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pitta

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 16
[IC] Pitta60 (updated compatibility test)
« on: Mon, 15 June 2020, 19:06:30 »


This is an interest check for a brand new low profile MX mount mechanical keyboard switch and a 60% layout custom keyboard kit that supports the new switches.



Why:

1. I enjoy the feel and sound of my mechanical keyboards. However, most mechanical keyboards are NOT comfortable to type on without a wrist rest due to how high the they are.
Using a wrist rest will make the typing experience much better but it will sacrifice the precious desktop space. 



2. There are some existing mechanical keyboards with low profile switches on the market.
I've tested many of them but I've never found one that the feel and sound are comparable to regular MX switch keyboards.



My 2 cents about some existing options:
  • Kailh Chocolate: feels good but not compatible with MX keycaps. All the existing keycaps and stabs feel awful. 
  • Cherry low profile: scratchy and I don't like the sound.
  • Kailh KH: not that low

What:

1. TTC low profile switches. This is a brand new low profile switch manufactured by TTC. I've been assisted TTC for refining this switch for almost 1 year. It was tailored to my taste but I belive you will love it as well.
Features: low profile, MX stem, smooth, 3.5mm travel




2. 60% TTC low profile switch PCB. I have designed the first PCB for these TTC switches.
Features: QMK/VIA, Costar stab support, USB-C, regular GH60 case support, RGB backlight



3. Pitta 60 keyboard case. I have designed the lowest possible aluminum case for the PCB.   
Features: E-coating/anodizing aluminum, PCB tray mount





The goal

1. I want to make the new TTC low profile switches available to the community at affordable price.
2. The Pitta 60 kit includes everything you need to build your first low profile custom mech. It's probably the best premium low profile switch keyboard to date.



Keycap compatibility:

Fully compatible:
  • DSA
  • XDA
  • DCS
  • MDA
  • Taihao Cublic
  • SA (333333)
  • SA (223333)
  • KAM
  • MT3
  • MG (MelGeek)
  • DSS
  • VSA (Vortexgear)
  • HAS

Not compatible:
  • Cherry
  • SA (112343)
  • OEM

Partially compatible:
  • G20: there are at least two molds of the G20 profile caps. One mold is fully compatible. The another one is not.

I've test most of the keycap profiles on the market. Please let me know what else you want me to test.
The most promising keycap profiles are DCS, DSA, XDA, and Cubic. They are readily available and comfortable to type on.
It doesn't make sense to use high profile keycaps but I've also tested some of them.
Unfortunately, Cherry profile is not compatible whatsoever.
« Last Edit: Tue, 07 July 2020, 15:32:28 by Pitta »

Offline Abec13

  • Posts: 305
If the yellow is available, I'm in.
45-ATS | KBD19X | Volcano 660 PC | Think 6.5 | Iron 165 SE
[/url]

Offline Rejeckted

  • Posts: 98
  • Location: San Diego, California
  • Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum... I smell Kraft dinnah
I like, I like.

Offline tetrasky

  • Posts: 1
Yeah, I like it as well. I will get one if it becomes available in a group buy.

Offline ycanales

  • Posts: 55
  • Location: Chile
    • keybordist
Looks great!

Offline logo4poop

  • Posts: 133
  • Location: Michigan, USA
  • Talk to me on discord @logo4poop#0788
    • logo4poop
Effort in an IC? Is this a dream? GLWIC
LCK75 (in GB)

Offline vosechu

  • Posts: 90
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Where do I sign up? Looks magnificent!

Offline psxndc

  • Posts: 450
The switches have an MX compatible stem, but do their pins fit MX boards? It looks like it, but want to be sure. I love all the work you put in, but I'd personally only be interested in the switches, and obviously those only if they can be used elsewhere.

Offline Pitta

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 16
Where do I sign up? Looks magnificent!

The switches will be available if some vendors want to stock them in the future.
We'll have a GB for the kit. The GB will be long enough that you will see it. We will also order extras if we get enough funds.

Offline Pitta

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 16
The switches have an MX compatible stem, but do their pins fit MX boards? It looks like it, but want to be sure. I love all the work you put in, but I'd personally only be interested in the switches, and obviously those only if they can be used elsewhere.

No but I will provide the footprints.

Offline Zambumon

  • * Esteemed Elder
  • Posts: 1797
  • discord.zambumon.com
    • Keyset projects

Offline thethomaszhou

  • Posts: 9
Damn, this is really pretty.

Offline logo4poop

  • Posts: 133
  • Location: Michigan, USA
  • Talk to me on discord @logo4poop#0788
    • logo4poop
The switches have an MX compatible stem, but do their pins fit MX boards? It looks like it, but want to be sure. I love all the work you put in, but I'd personally only be interested in the switches, and obviously those only if they can be used elsewhere.

No but I will provide the footprints.
When will you release those? If possible can I request some from you so I can do an ergo or something with them?
LCK75 (in GB)

Offline Pyk_

  • Posts: 58
Really nice. Would love to see an ergo or ortho. Too bad the switches canít fit other boards or I would put a boardwalk PCB in that case.

Offline piit79

  • Posts: 343
This looked so promising until I saw that layout with 2u left shift and arrow keys... Will other layouts be available? I'd much prefer a standard 60% layout (with split right shift).

That said I'd absolutely love an ortho version, ideally 5x12 like the Preonic (I know, unlikely) or a 5x15 one (that would fit into the same case).

Offline Findecanor

  • Posts: 4689
  • Location: Koriko
1. TTC low profile switches. This is a brand new low profile switch manufactured by TTC. I've been assisted TTC for refining this switch for almost 1 year. It was tailored to my taste but I belive you will love it as well.
Features: low profile, MX stem, smooth, 3.5mm travel
TTC's data sheet says that the key travel is only 3.2 mm.
Is your orange switch a special variant with more key travel?

The switches have an MX compatible stem, but do their pins fit MX boards?
They will not fit PCBs for Cherry MX, ... but they are very likely to fit PCBs for Cherry MX Low Profile!

I compared the published footprints for both switches, and they are only within fractions of millimetres to one-another. Some PCBs might be tight though.
As Cherry's footprints have been not been publicly published (until someone re-published an emailed file recently), I suspect that TTC would have measured a real Cherry MX Low Profile switch when designing theirs.

Edit: Keycap compatibility could be a little bit worse than Cherry MX Low Profile and Kailh Choc V2, if the schema and renders are to be believed. The top housing is a little bit higher than on Cherry MXLP,  which means that the skirts on the keycaps are more likely to strike the top edges of the housing when you bottom out. On Cherry MXLP, you'd already need keycaps made especially for it or keycaps with thin skirts on a keyboard without a plate. (Kailh Choc V2's housing is just as high as TTC's but the edges are more chamfered to compensate)

You can see this in the switch comparison schema above if you zoom in:
Edit 2: I have overlaid TTC's on top of Cherry's so you can see this more clearly:
245048-0
« Last Edit: Tue, 16 June 2020, 02:57:01 by Findecanor »
Man must shape his tools lest they shape him
-- Arthur Miller

Offline bobdenard

  • Posts: 157
Interesting! You obviously put in a lot of work into this, Iím in.

Offline Shiro

  • Posts: 63
I love everything about this. Really looking forward to see where this goes.

Offline konstantin

  • Formerly constexpr
  • Posts: 1522
  • Location: Serbia
Please add split backspace support. I'm not terribly familiar with Costar stabs as I only have one OEM board that uses them, but hopefully this shouldn't pose a problem for split backspace?

2u right Shift support would be nice to see as well (this layout), but I understand if that's too obscure to be included.
« Last Edit: Tue, 16 June 2020, 14:05:34 by konstantin »

Offline dibkib

  • Posts: 46
Definitely going to follow this more closely

Offline TurboGrinder

  • Posts: 13
Low profile MX compatible switches are kind of in a weird spot. They're trying to be low profile, while the caps themselves don't really allow that to a great extent. I have a Choc Corne that sits at only 15mm high. That's why I prefer Choc switches, even though there's not a lot of options for Choc caps at the moment. This will change very soon with MBK preparing to ship, TEA coming out hopefully within the next few months, and KBD-mini hopefully coming out sometime this year. The plus side to using low pro MX is that people can already use their existing caps. Let's be realistic though - SA caps on a low pro MX switch would still be ridiculously high. Speaking of sculpted caps, your board is using flat profile caps (SA r3?) while the comparison board is using sculpted caps (OEM?), so it's not quite a fair height comparison. To go even a little further your case is flat and the other board's case is angled (granted, most 60+ board cases are angled..), where you could have included the foot on your board. It would have been nice to see an apples to apples comparison instead of an apples to watermelon comparison. A Preonic, or something similar, with the same caps would have been a better comparison.

I'll be waiting for reviews of the TTC low pro MX switches before I blindly try them out though. I have some TTC Gold V2 Browns that are by far the worst switches that I've ever tried due to the crazy spring ping and the sheer amount of scratchiness. That being said I like the concept, and I'm glad that the community and manus are trying new things. I'd like to see how the low pro MX style switches are sometime, but I'll probably be trying the ones that Kailh is coming out with sometime this year first. More out of curiosity than anything else.

Quote
It's probably the best premium low profile switch keyboard to date.
Corne LP, IMK Corne, and Bamboo would like a word.. But I'm biased towards smaller split ergo/ortho boards because that's all I use nowadays. ;)

Offline Pitta

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 16
The switches have an MX compatible stem, but do their pins fit MX boards? It looks like it, but want to be sure. I love all the work you put in, but I'd personally only be interested in the switches, and obviously those only if they can be used elsewhere.

No but I will provide the footprints.
When will you release those? If possible can I request some from you so I can do an ergo or something with them?

I can post the files here within this week.
It's actually the same with Cherry Low profile switches except that a plastic mounting pin has been added. I suggested TTC to add the mounting pin to make it more stable without using a mounting plate.

Offline Pitta

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 16
This looked so promising until I saw that layout with 2u left shift and arrow keys... Will other layouts be available? I'd much prefer a standard 60% layout (with split right shift).

That said I'd absolutely love an ortho version, ideally 5x12 like the Preonic (I know, unlikely) or a 5x15 one (that would fit into the same case).

standard ANSI 60% is also what I've considered. I'll wait and see what other people see in the IC period.
Pitta 60 is just the first project that makes the switches available to public. You'll be surprised how good they feel and sound.
Once the quality of the switches is wildly accepted by numerous people in the community, more developers will design various layouts of the PCBs.

Offline Pitta

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 16
1. TTC low profile switches. This is a brand new low profile switch manufactured by TTC. I've been assisted TTC for refining this switch for almost 1 year. It was tailored to my taste but I belive you will love it as well.
Features: low profile, MX stem, smooth, 3.5mm travel
TTC's data sheet says that the key travel is only 3.2 mm.
Is your orange switch a special variant with more key travel?

The switches have an MX compatible stem, but do their pins fit MX boards?
They will not fit PCBs for Cherry MX, ... but they are very likely to fit PCBs for Cherry MX Low Profile!

I compared the published footprints for both switches, and they are only within fractions of millimetres to one-another. Some PCBs might be tight though.
As Cherry's footprints have been not been publicly published (until someone re-published an emailed file recently), I suspect that TTC would have measured a real Cherry MX Low Profile switch when designing theirs.

Edit: Keycap compatibility could be a little bit worse than Cherry MX Low Profile and Kailh Choc V2, if the schema and renders are to be believed. The top housing is a little bit higher than on Cherry MXLP,  which means that the skirts on the keycaps are more likely to strike the top edges of the housing when you bottom out. On Cherry MXLP, you'd already need keycaps made especially for it or keycaps with thin skirts on a keyboard without a plate. (Kailh Choc V2's housing is just as high as TTC's but the edges are more chamfered to compensate)

You can see this in the switch comparison schema above if you zoom in:
Edit 2: I have overlaid TTC's on top of Cherry's so you can see this more clearly:
[ Attachment Invalid Or Does Not Exist ]



Their document says 3.2+- 0.25. According my my measurement of the prototype linear switches, it's closer to 3.5

The footprints are basically Cherry low profile standard except that an additional mounting pin has been added. The low profile switches can support regular MX caps only without a mounting plate.

I've tested many keycap profiles with both Cherry low profile and TTC low profile switches.  TTC low profiles switches have definitely better keycap compatibility.



I'll post more information later.

Offline Pitta

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 16
Low profile MX compatible switches are kind of in a weird spot. They're trying to be low profile, while the caps themselves don't really allow that to a great extent. I have a Choc Corne that sits at only 15mm high. That's why I prefer Choc switches, even though there's not a lot of options for Choc caps at the moment. This will change very soon with MBK preparing to ship, TEA coming out hopefully within the next few months, and KBD-mini hopefully coming out sometime this year. The plus side to using low pro MX is that people can already use their existing caps. Let's be realistic though - SA caps on a low pro MX switch would still be ridiculously high. Speaking of sculpted caps, your board is using flat profile caps (SA r3?) while the comparison board is using sculpted caps (OEM?), so it's not quite a fair height comparison. To go even a little further your case is flat and the other board's case is angled (granted, most 60+ board cases are angled..), where you could have included the foot on your board. It would have been nice to see an apples to apples comparison instead of an apples to watermelon comparison. A Preonic, or something similar, with the same caps would have been a better comparison.

I'll be waiting for reviews of the TTC low pro MX switches before I blindly try them out though. I have some TTC Gold V2 Browns that are by far the worst switches that I've ever tried due to the crazy spring ping and the sheer amount of scratchiness. That being said I like the concept, and I'm glad that the community and manus are trying new things. I'd like to see how the low pro MX style switches are sometime, but I'll probably be trying the ones that Kailh is coming out with sometime this year first. More out of curiosity than anything else.

Quote
It's probably the best premium low profile switch keyboard to date.
Corne LP, IMK Corne, and Bamboo would like a word.. But I'm biased towards smaller split ergo/ortho boards because that's all I use nowadays. ;)

If I understand correctly, your point is 1) low profile switch keyboards are not that low compared to regular MX switches 2) it's not as low as choc switches and 3) you're concerned about the quality of the switches

For 1 and 2, it's exactly what I want, something between regular MX and Choc.
I've seen many custom keyboard designers that try to push the limit of the height of keyboards with regular MX switches. It's really difficult when the front of the case is lower than 19mm. And when the keyboard is as low as that, every millimeter counts. Unarguably, the TTC low profile switches can make the keyboard even lower based on that.
I also own several keyboards with Choc switches. It's subjective but I don't like how they feel. I'm happy to see if more spherical or cylindrical Cho keycaps become available in the future. It's always good to have more options. I've put a lot of effort on providing an option that I like.

For 3, I've tested the switches in person and I was blown away on how good they are. Again, it's subjective. I will post a typing test later when I'm available. I can also ask TTC to send switches to some reputable reviewers if needed.


Edit:

A fair height comparison between regular MX and TTC low profile

« Last Edit: Tue, 16 June 2020, 15:04:54 by Pitta »

Offline konstantin

  • Formerly constexpr
  • Posts: 1522
  • Location: Serbia
I can also ask TTC to send switches to some reputable reviewers if needed.

This would be great.

Offline Slavfot

  • Posts: 53
  • Location: Sweden
I would love to buy these switches and design my own keyboard for them!

Offline grundlemere

  • Posts: 216
  • Location: Washington, DC
Cool travel board! Very interested to try the switches.

Offline Findecanor

  • Posts: 4689
  • Location: Koriko
Their document says 3.2+- 0.25. According my my measurement of the prototype linear switches, it's closer to 3.5

The footprints are basically Cherry low profile standard except that an additional mounting pin has been added. The low profile switches can support regular MX caps only without a mounting plate.

I've tested many keycap profiles with both Cherry low profile and TTC low profile switches.  TTC low profiles switches have definitely better keycap compatibility.
That's interesting. I don't see the additional pin in your renders. Please do publish the updated footprint if you decide to sell them separately.
Man must shape his tools lest they shape him
-- Arthur Miller

Offline Harke

  • Posts: 10
  • Location: Perth, Western Australia
What's going to be the availability of these switches and stabilisers after the GB? I definitely want to use some of these in personal projects.
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness" - Oscar Wilde

Offline myyrddraal

  • Posts: 61
Low profile MX compatible switches are kind of in a weird spot. They're trying to be low profile, while the caps themselves don't really allow that to a great extent. I have a Choc Corne that sits at only 15mm high. That's why I prefer Choc switches, even though there's not a lot of options for Choc caps at the moment. This will change very soon with MBK preparing to ship, TEA coming out hopefully within the next few months, and KBD-mini hopefully coming out sometime this year. The plus side to using low pro MX is that people can already use their existing caps. Let's be realistic though - SA caps on a low pro MX switch would still be ridiculously high. Speaking of sculpted caps, your board is using flat profile caps (SA r3?) while the comparison board is using sculpted caps (OEM?), so it's not quite a fair height comparison. To go even a little further your case is flat and the other board's case is angled (granted, most 60+ board cases are angled..), where you could have included the foot on your board. It would have been nice to see an apples to apples comparison instead of an apples to watermelon comparison. A Preonic, or something similar, with the same caps would have been a better comparison.

I'll be waiting for reviews of the TTC low pro MX switches before I blindly try them out though. I have some TTC Gold V2 Browns that are by far the worst switches that I've ever tried due to the crazy spring ping and the sheer amount of scratchiness. That being said I like the concept, and I'm glad that the community and manus are trying new things. I'd like to see how the low pro MX style switches are sometime, but I'll probably be trying the ones that Kailh is coming out with sometime this year first. More out of curiosity than anything else.

Quote
It's probably the best premium low profile switch keyboard to date.
Corne LP, IMK Corne, and Bamboo would like a word.. But I'm biased towards smaller split ergo/ortho boards because that's all I use nowadays. ;)
You pretty much summed up my objections to the switch and board concept. The mx cross compatibility is a pseudo-argument. You either have standard keycaps compatibility or low profile, both together won't fly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Pitta

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 16
The mx cross compatibility is a pseudo-argument. You either have standard keycaps compatibility or low profile, both together won't fly.


Your opinion doesn't make any sense to me.
Standard keycap compatibility and lower than regular MX profile is what I wanted.
Choc keycaps no matter how good they will be, they are different from the keycaps I like. Not to mention that with regular keycap compatibility I can use the keycaps that I already own.
By using the TTC low profile switches, the keyboard can be around 6mm lower than regular keyboards with all the other specs remain the same. 6mm lower is a lot.

Offline myyrddraal

  • Posts: 61
The mx cross compatibility is a pseudo-argument. You either have standard keycaps compatibility or low profile, both together won't fly.


Your opinion doesn't make any sense to me.
Standard keycap compatibility and lower than regular MX profile is what I wanted.
Choc keycaps no matter how good they will be, they are different from the keycaps I like. Not to mention that with regular keycap compatibility I can use the keycaps that I already own.
By using the TTC low profile switches, the keyboard can be around 6mm lower than regular keyboards with all the other specs remain the same. 6mm lower is a lot.
6mm maybe a lot to some. For me it's either comfort and aesthetics of standard height keycaps or minimalism of chocs. Sacrificing plate and free choice of caps for 6mm does mot make sense to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Pitta

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 16
6mm maybe a lot to some.

Isn't this the purpose of the IC? How makes it a pseudo-argument?

Sacrificing plate and free choice of caps for 6mm does mot make sense to me.

PCB mounting is not inferior to plate mount in my opinion. It makes perfect sense to me to apply PCB mounting for lower the case even just a bit.
Isn't free choice of caps a benefit of using the TTC low profile switches rather than choc?

Offline myyrddraal

  • Posts: 61
6mm maybe a lot to some.

Isn't this the purpose of the IC? How makes it a pseudo-argument?

Sacrificing plate and free choice of caps for 6mm does mot make sense to me.

PCB mounting is not inferior to plate mount in my opinion. It makes perfect sense to me to apply PCB mounting for lower the case even just a bit.
Isn't free choice of caps a benefit of using the TTC low profile switches rather than choc?
Still i cannot see how are you going to accommodate standard height keycaps on a switch with basically the same height as choc. My tests excluded all but Cherry R2 profiles, when I played around with the idea of mx cross caps on low profile 1-2 years ago. And difference was not only 0.6mm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Pyk_

  • Posts: 58
6mm maybe a lot to some.

Isn't this the purpose of the IC? How makes it a pseudo-argument?

Sacrificing plate and free choice of caps for 6mm does mot make sense to me.

PCB mounting is not inferior to plate mount in my opinion. It makes perfect sense to me to apply PCB mounting for lower the case even just a bit.
Isn't free choice of caps a benefit of using the TTC low profile switches rather than choc?
Still i cannot see how are you going to accommodate standard height keycaps on a switch with basically the same height as choc. My tests excluded all but Cherry R2 profiles, when I played around with the idea of mx cross caps on low profile 1-2 years ago. And difference was not only 0.6mm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You both seem to mainly be arguing opinion. There are people interested in these, myself included, and I think thatís all that really matters for the interest check.

That is, assuming they work as advertised. I assume you (Pitta) have already confirmed that common key profiles will work?

Offline myyrddraal

  • Posts: 61
6mm maybe a lot to some.

Isn't this the purpose of the IC? How makes it a pseudo-argument?

Sacrificing plate and free choice of caps for 6mm does mot make sense to me.

PCB mounting is not inferior to plate mount in my opinion. It makes perfect sense to me to apply PCB mounting for lower the case even just a bit.
Isn't free choice of caps a benefit of using the TTC low profile switches rather than choc?
Still i cannot see how are you going to accommodate standard height keycaps on a switch with basically the same height as choc. My tests excluded all but Cherry R2 profiles, when I played around with the idea of mx cross caps on low profile 1-2 years ago. And difference was not only 0.6mm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You both seem to mainly be arguing opinion. There are people interested in these, myself included, and I think thatís all that really matters for the interest check.

That is, assuming they work as advertised. I assume you (Pitta) have already confirmed that common key profiles will work?
The thing is I am very interested in a solution where low profile would work with normal caps. But I somehow don't see the case here. I saw the renders with xda and mda, but still cannot wrap my head around it. Admittedly i didn't formulate my sentences very constructively (maybe also a bit lack on the side of my command of English). But still, I am interested in this a lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Findecanor

  • Posts: 4689
  • Location: Koriko
Still i cannot see how are you going to accommodate standard height keycaps on a switch with basically the same height as choc. My tests excluded all but Cherry R2 profiles, when I played around with the idea of mx cross caps on low profile 1-2 years ago. And difference was not only 0.6mm.
The issue is not with the switch's height but with the wall-thickness of the keycaps' skirts and the width of the switch's top housing. These new switches are wider at the top than Cherry MX (which are narrower nearer the top).

If the skirt is is thick, such as on thick-walled Cherry-profile from Cherry (vintage, ABS), GMK and ePBT, then the keycaps will hit the edges of the top housing before bottoming out.

Signature Plastics' SDA profile and Cherry's contemporary thin-walled lasered PBT work on Cherry MX Low Profile because those have thin skirts that clear the housing.
I haven't tested DCS' home row, but I think it should work if Cherry's thin-walled keycaps do.
« Last Edit: Mon, 22 June 2020, 05:51:14 by Findecanor »
Man must shape his tools lest they shape him
-- Arthur Miller

Offline jonowarren94

  • Posts: 43
Looks really interesting. Just to throw (another) spanner into the works, is there any chance this will support ISO layouts?

Offline myyrddraal

  • Posts: 61
Still i cannot see how are you going to accommodate standard height keycaps on a switch with basically the same height as choc. My tests excluded all but Cherry R2 profiles, when I played around with the idea of mx cross caps on low profile 1-2 years ago. And difference was not only 0.6mm.
The issue is not with the switch's height but with the wall-thickness of the keycaps' skirts and the width of the switch's top housing. These new switches are wider at the top than Cherry MX (which are narrower nearer the top).

If the skirt is is thick, such as on thick-walled Cherry-profile from Cherry (vintage, ABS), GMK and ePBT, then the keycaps will hit the edges of the top housing before bottoming out.

Signature Plastics' SDA profile and Cherry's contemporary thin-walled lasered PBT work on Cherry MX Low Profile because those have thin skirts that clear the housing.
I haven't tested DCS' home row, but I think it should work if Cherry's thin-walled keycaps do.
Well, my tests showed caps were hitting pcb because the walls were higher than the total travel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline art3mis

  • Posts: 9
Looks really interesting. Just to throw (another) spanner into the works, is there any chance this will support ISO layouts?
Second that question  :D

Offline switchnollie

  • sleever supreme
  • * Exquisite Elder
  • Posts: 1549
  • Location: 白い帽子
  • greyhat co-leader
Awesome board, the only other lo-pro board I know of is like the dilly but that isn't very useful for me with that layout.

Didn't know there were MX compatible switches like these :cool:


Keyboards: OTD 356CL Dark Greyhat Edition, baybee!

Offline envyy24

  • Posts: 155
  • Location: UK
Maybe it is just me but this layout is most annoying to me. Is it possible to just have a regular 60% layout or merge the shift and ? together (and use qmk to make tap = ? and hold = shift). Because the equal staggered zxcv row is so hard to adjust into especially you still have other board that is normally staggered.

Offline Findecanor

  • Posts: 4689
  • Location: Koriko
Looks really interesting. Just to throw (another) spanner into the works, is there any chance this will support ISO layouts?
It is difficult to make a keyboard for these switches support multiple layouts on the same PCB. Their holes are much bigger than for full-size Cherry MX.
In some combos switches would need to be rotated, and then you would lose alignment for backlighting.

Is it possible to just have a regular 60% layout [...]
There is the Vortex Pok3r V2 if you'd want that layout and linear (Cherry MX Low Profile), but, yeah, only linear.
« Last Edit: Thu, 25 June 2020, 08:39:45 by Findecanor »
Man must shape his tools lest they shape him
-- Arthur Miller

Offline rpiguy9907

  • Posts: 80
Please provide an option for a regular right shift.

1u Right shift is the worst!

Offline Pitta

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 16
Please provide an option for a regular right shift.

1u Right shift is the worst!

I'm working on an ANSI version PCB with split right Shift.

Offline Pitta

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 16
Update on keycap compatibility:

Fully compatible:
  • DSA
  • XDA
  • DCS
  • MDA
  • Taihao Cublic
  • SA (333333)
  • SA (223333)
  • KAM
  • MT3
  • MG (MelGeek)
  • DSS
  • VSA (Vortexgear)
  • HAS

Not compatible:
  • Cherry
  • SA (112343)
  • OEM

Partially compatible:
  • G20: there are at least two molds of the G20 profile caps. One mold is fully compatible. The another one is not.

I've test most of the keycap profiles on the market. Please let me know what else you want me to test.
The most promising keycap profiles are DCS, DSA, XDA, and Cubic. They are readily available and comfortable to type on.
It doesn't make sense to use high profile keycaps but I've also tested some of them.
Unfortunately, Cherry profile is not compatible whatsoever.

Offline leavenember

  • Posts: 17
Re: [IC] Pitta60 (updated compatibility test)
« Reply #47 on: Wed, 08 July 2020, 01:35:11 »
The two main problems with chocs right now are lack of availability for caps and stabilizers. By making the stems MX compatible you have partially solved the keycap problem but will you have vendors also sell the stabilizers?

Also, would it be possible to sell a kit with just pcb+stabs+switches? And would these switches be compatible with pre-existing 14x14mm plates or do they have a different plate cutout?

Offline bananasplit_00

  • Posts: 113
  • Location: Sweden
Update on keycap compatibility:

Fully compatible:
  • DSA
  • XDA
  • DCS
  • MDA
  • Taihao Cublic
  • SA (333333)
  • SA (223333)
  • KAM
  • MT3
  • MG (MelGeek)
  • DSS
  • VSA (Vortexgear)
  • HAS

Not compatible:
  • Cherry
  • SA (112343)
  • OEM

Partially compatible:
  • G20: there are at least two molds of the G20 profile caps. One mold is fully compatible. The another one is not.

I've test most of the keycap profiles on the market. Please let me know what else you want me to test.
The most promising keycap profiles are DCS, DSA, XDA, and Cubic. They are readily available and comfortable to type on.
It doesn't make sense to use high profile keycaps but I've also tested some of them.
Unfortunately, Cherry profile is not compatible whatsoever.

This is nice to see, thank you! Any chance you could test KAT?  :)

Offline TameFlame

  • Posts: 18
  • Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Re: [IC] Pitta60 (updated compatibility test)
« Reply #49 on: Sat, 11 July 2020, 18:12:19 »
Been looking at this for a few weeks, trying to figure out what stands out to me as interesting.
- It's obviously admirable that you're experimenting on a larger scale than most projects, and I commend you for that. The board in conjunction with the reinvented switches seem to me, like an organism cooperating for a shared goal. The designs correlate well, and express the same general aesthetic. While I'm not particularly fond of the choice of keycaps you've used for your renders, I'm very interested in the actual board's looks.
- I believe the design expresses a very clean nature, which sits well with me. I'm interested in the concept of these new switches, and would love it if you would tie in some more words on the typing experience? Perhaps general keystroke feel and sound?
- I would definitely enjoy getting my hands on one of these, although I must regretfully admit, that I likely won't be participating in a groupbuy for this, any time soon.