DAN C4-SFX - old

[schn1tt3r]

Going to wait for the flex renders (hopefully rendered side by side with the original design?). And I have to agree with people saying it gets tiring having such drastic changes every time. A 10MM might not make me go for another case instead, but the main concern is... when do the changes end? 3.5" drives talk now... then dual 240 radiator support will be a topic again and well... just where does it end.

 

[Bonusround]

@dondan, please help me understand: why does a case need two GPU locations when the two are only 1/4-slot apart?

 

[AlexTSG]

why does a case need two GPU locations when the two are only 1/4-slot apart?

As far as I can see it's not two GPU locations specifically. It's two locations, which can, in the flexible design, be used for either a GPU or an AiO. This allows more variety of configurations in terms of the slot width of the GPU and the thickness of fan + radiator. Those who want either a 3 slot GPU, or a fatter AiO will have to use the horizontal location at the bottom/top of the case.

 

[muSashi]

It is interesting for me to see that always the same forum members (handful) augmenting against the flexible design. They criticize the increased width of 10-19mm. They are augmenting that everyone should by a 2 slot card because with SFF you have to compromise. On the other side they can't make a compromise even with an increased width of only 10mm. They don't see the advantage that this will result in a case with so much more possibilities. A future proofed case that will be also useable if the industry move forward to even more power hungry hardware. A case that will support two different hardware layouts. A case that could be interesting for more customers even those who are skeptical with SFF. A case that will have more space for cable routing and hiding them. They don't see that the sandwich layout is not as space efficient as the classic one if it comes to water cooling. They don't see that this case is still very small.

As I can see on the threads statistic that there are many silint readers here in the thread. I have the hope they will join the discussion.

I am one of those silent readers Dan who just registered to stop this nonsens, that the case should only support 2-slots card, and to make it a flex design is bad. I am sure that the flex design will be a lot more popular then the original design ever could. For those who dont like the size of this case, you still have the option to buy the A4-version, if smaller is your cup of tea.

I can't understand why some of you are against this new flex design, its not like its gonna be double the size or anything like that.
It will hit a market share which Dan dont have any present as of now, and in the end it will benefit the SFF community as a whole, because he will be able to reach out to new potential customers with this new flexible design.

I am also one of those that really would like to see some renders of the flexible design, and hopefully this project starts to speed up after that.

 

[wykydtronik]

It is interesting for me to see that always the same forum members (handful) augmenting against the flexible design. They criticize the increased width of 10-19mm. They are augmenting that everyone should by a 2 slot card because with SFF you have to compromise. On the other side they can't make a compromise even with an increased width of only 10mm. They don't see the advantage that this will result in a case with so much more possibilities. A future proofed case that will be also useable if the industry move forward to even more power hungry hardware. A case that will support two different hardware layouts. A case that could be interesting for more customers even those who are skeptical with SFF. A case that will have more space for cable routing and hiding them. They don't see that the sandwich layout is not as space efficient as the classic one if it comes to water cooling. They don't see that this case is still very small.

As I can see on the threads statistic that there are many silint readers here in the thread. I have the hope they will join the discussion.

My NZXT H200i (case) cable management with cable mods was very painful to tuck and hide the excessive lines. It's a big case, but also meant for a full PSU. I've always wanted to build an A4 case, but the past couple of years with the Intel i9 I decided water cooling will be a requirement. Then I found this thread.

 

[LazyGamer]

Personally what drew me to build my current PC in the A4 over the M1 was the challenge. I knew I would have to experiment with different cooling solutions for my CPU and I loved the idea of an ongoing project.

At one point I will be looking for a new case to experiment with and I really like the idea of the flexible design. Again because of the layout possibilities there will be plenty to experiment with.

I have however been holding off on purchasing a new graphics card. Because I don't want to spend $1400/$2200+ Australian Dollarydoos on a 2080/2080ti with a two slot cooler that will scream because it's running hot. So personally I'm rooting for more than two slots for the GPU.

 

[FAQBytes]

So here's my problem with the flex. It basically turns into the problem I have with every other standard layout case in that there's really no good way to do direct airflow.

By this I mean the following, by putting the GPU at the bottom, the only way to prevent having the air redirect 90° is by putting a radiator at the front, and that's difficult to get right and not grossly increase case size.

Putting the GPU at the bottom inside the slot itself and the radiator by the motherboard:
Dear lord is this awful for airflow. Not only are you choking the fans on both sides, but your exit strategies are awful. You direct air into the Motherboard, which acts like a splash plate to reduce velocity (increases pressure). At which point the now redirected air has to flow to the outlets, to be choked once again, again reducing velocity and increasing pressure. This also has the issue is creating stagnation eddies that cannot effectively dissipate heat, particularly in areas with right angles, like behind the graphics card. Additionally, without extreme amounts of porting, your graphics card is going to be doing the same thing, which is already bad enough in the Node 202. Replace the side panel with a solid plate, and I assume the front and back (reverse side glass, not rear where IO is) will be solid as well, and you're begging for the air to stew. The problem is bad enough in my Node 202 and that has a very open front and a decent amount of side porting for exhaust.

This is why I loved the original design so much. Extremely practical without any frills. Everything had a purpose and it was nearly perfect. Nothing was cut I couldn't live without. It was wider than my 202, but I was fine with that as it was overall more convenient to transport, which helps when you move often and take it everywhere to do VR demos.

Sure, you have the GPU facing the glass, but the amount of air that circulates through the case should mostly mitigate any problem that was caused.

At this point I've been designing my own case for the past little while while I've been waiting to see where the C4 goes as it seems more and more likely that I'll be building my own that expand on what I liked about the original design.

Much love.

 

[mrbonkers]

So here's my problem with the flex. It basically turns into the problem I have with every other standard layout case in that there's really no good way to do direct airflow.

By this I mean the following, by putting the GPU at the bottom, the only way to prevent having the air redirect 90° is by putting a radiator at the front, and that's difficult to get right and not grossly increase case size.

Putting the GPU at the bottom inside the slot itself and the radiator by the motherboard:
Dear lord is this awful for airflow. Not only are you choking the fans on both sides, but your exit strategies are awful. You direct air into the Motherboard, which acts like a splash plate to reduce velocity (increases pressure). At which point the now redirected air has to flow to the outlets, to be choked once again, again reducing velocity and increasing pressure. This also has the issue is creating stagnation eddies that cannot effectively dissipate heat, particularly in areas with right angles, like behind the graphics card. Additionally, without extreme amounts of porting, your graphics card is going to be doing the same thing, which is already bad enough in the Node 202. Replace the side panel with a solid plate, and I assume the front and back (reverse side glass, not rear where IO is) will be solid as well, and you're begging for the air to stew. The problem is bad enough in my Node 202 and that has a very open front and a decent amount of side porting for exhaust.

This is why I loved the original design so much. Extremely practical without any frills. Everything had a purpose and it was nearly perfect. Nothing was cut I couldn't live without. It was wider than my 202, but I was fine with that as it was overall more convenient to transport, which helps when you move often and take it everywhere to do VR demos.

Sure, you have the GPU facing the glass, but the amount of air that circulates through the case should mostly mitigate any problem that was caused.

At this point I've been designing my own case for the past little while while I've been waiting to see where the C4 goes as it seems more and more likely that I'll be building my own that expand on what I liked about the original design.

Much love.

I have to agree with you. The original C4 concept was what got me interested in this case in the first place. Every iteration after that got me less interested as it got further and further away from the original idea. With the flex design, I believe airflow is not going to be great. And the flex design looks so similar to the m1. Why not get that case instead? Hopefully the final design does not vary so much from the original C4

 

[theexplainer]

Good luck with the case, Dan. I think the time for discussion is over. Just make the renders, see if its even possible, then a survey and call it done.

Honestly? I don't see why he is doing surveys, if he ignores the outcome anyways - on the last survey, 75% of people wanted to go 2-2,5slot, yet he wants to go for 3 slots anyways, just as a small example.

cmon dan, just settle on something already, you can by no means create "the perfect case" for everyone, that's just not possible. Most of us got interested in the C4 because of the initial design Idea and yet it seems like a totally different case every few weeks, I hope you can understand the issues we got with that.

 

[Metroversal]

I have to agree with you. The original C4 concept was what got me interested in this case in the first place. Every iteration after that got me less interested as it got further and further away from the original idea. With the flex design, I believe airflow is not going to be great. And the flex design looks so similar to the m1. Why not get that case instead? Hopefully the final design does not vary so much from the original C4

You know what? I gave up on asking for classic design, Dan clearly explained what does not work on that layout.
Anyhow, The size increase should theorically allow for some original features to comeback, namely Side I/O (including audio ports).

Also, I was wondering if a wider case would allow for the old case feet design to return (wider case should mean more stable, am I right?).

Please, let us know @dondan - A bigger case with the return of some original features, would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Bonusround]

As far as I can see it's not two GPU locations specifically. It's two locations, which can, in the flexible design, be used for either a GPU or an AiO. This allows more variety of configurations in terms of the slot width of the GPU and the thickness of fan + radiator. Those who want either a 3 slot GPU, or a fatter AiO will have to use the horizontal location at the bottom/top of the case.

From the numbers I've seen Dan post, the AIO + fan dimensions supported by these two locations are very, very similar. If there actually was a significant tradeoff, as you suggest, this design would make much more sense. As it is, a 1/4 slot difference adds up to what... ~5mm? 10?

So my question stands: @dondan, what is the 'flexibility' provided when one location is 2.75 slots-wide, and the other 3 slots-wide? Just choose a single location and let it support the largest cards. Optimize the GPU location for GPU airflow, and the AIO location for AIO airflow. Believe in the conviction of your design.

To be clear, I do think this current direction has merit. Instead of simply an "A4 + full-size water cooling," the case has evolved into something more like "SFF with no compromises," in that it supports the very largest GPU and the very hottest desktop CPUs while still aiming for minimal volume. This caters to enthusiasts yet offers distinct tradeoffs from the A4, and that makes sense. I see it as a wise move for your brand and lineup.

So please understand: my question is not yet another person whining about "you didn't build the case I wanted." My query is about a design that doesn't make sense to me. What does this 'flexibility' really add, beyond the additional cost of a PCIe riser that many won't even use?

 

[chyll2]

The riser is not added that won't be used. That was the original intended layout of C4.

The 2.75 card is actually intended for 2.5 card slot with breathing space.

The bottom mounted radiator just became flexible to allow the use of 3 slot card while making the case wider.

 

[gotcha43]

It gives flexibility to choose between Air and watercooling.

 

[AlexTSG]

Believe in the conviction of your design.

Believe in the convection of your design. Fixed it for you!

I do agree that if possible items like the PCIe riser or U-shaped GPU power connectors should be optional extras, to bring down the cost for those who aren't planning a build that requires them.

 

[Raptor_N60]

The flexible design is actually much more closer to the Ncase M1 than most think, considering that there are companies that make these: https://mnpctech.com/pci-e-riser-ca...l-video-card-gpu-mounting-bracket-silver.html

 

[Belsvik]

As I can see on the threads statistic that there are many silint readers here in the thread. I have the hope they will join the discussion.

I'm one of those silent readers that are curious to how this product will end up. One of those who is following this thread because i'm in love with the case pictured in the first page as of today. One of those who is willing to choose hardware that fit the case, rather than a case that fits my hardwares. Because that is what this forum is about, isnt it?

I do understand the business perspective of your development Dondan, you need to make something that sells ofcourse. I think whats making people in here frustrated is youre change of heart and direction all the time.
In the beginning you were hard pressed to make room for a 55mm fan + rad setup because you where worried about the volume. you discussed diffrent mounting options for the glass, because they added 1mm to the case wich could contribute to tipping the 10L mark. we(you) discussed IO port on top or side?.. what cutout is pretty?..
And while im glad you accomodated to the "universal" 55mm AIO setup, i think things have gotten abit out of hand here. Several times you make spinoffs from the original design and concept, and as have been said before it feels like you yourself dont like the original concept.
This makes me scared, because thats what i fell in love with and thats what i'd be willing to empty my pockets for. The picture presented on the previous page(edit: page 109); SLICK! *drool*

Now, it might be that a flexible alternative might be just as pretty, and even a better solution. But i dont know, because i havent seen a picture yet. And i dont know, because i dont know if you will be happy with it. will you change it again? will 280 rad be the next question?

This is your case, and ofcourse it is your decision. But i'd love to land on a design now so we can continue discussing IO placement, construction materials, glass mounting options, feet options etc.. so that we may come one step closer to something that i (hopefully)will buy.

 

[Bonusround]

The 2.75 card is actually intended for 2.5 card slot with breathing space.

Then make the side slot 2-slot and keep the case width slim. Any card over 2-slots wide goes in the bottom (horizontal) bay.... The problem is, that doesn't work because the 3-slot location already forces the case to be wider than a 2-slot side-mounted (vertical) GPU.

It's clear that adding the 3-slot bay drives the dimensions of everything else. Some don't like this because it grows the volume of the case. Some because of the resulting case proportions. (FWIW, the golden rule does not work like some upthread proposed.) I think it's silly because it says, "well, we have room here still, and earlier versions of the case did it this way, so let's just offer BOTH."

If you go for a 3-slot wide bay on the bottom, make that the location for the GPU. Want the card to be 'on display'? Flip the case. Offer glass on the top panel and clearings to reveal the GPU in its full RGB glory.

But don't overcomplicate the design for a minimal tradeoff at best. @dondan, what is the tradeoff here? Purely aesthetic? Air cooling, as suggested above?

 

[SirJack]

@Metroversal For the classis design i aggree with you the 3.5 drive doesn't make sense because it will not fit, but for the flexible design it will fit without increasing price and size.

On weekend SFFLab and i did some test on the old samples from 2018 and it wasn't fun to build inside. So forgett 2.5 Slot and custom loops on the classic C4 design it is nearly impossible. Also handling psu powercables above the radiator isn't fun. It will work but but you have to manage a lot of cables and need to plan very clever or use custome ones. So for the classic one you are limited to AIO and 2 Slot only.

Think about also the assembly experience is very important. For the A4-SFX with air cooling it is very easy, i think it should be the same for C4.

We had hands-on with the old C4.

For cooling, cable mgmt, reliability, Flexible 1 is the better way to go.

I personally don't care about the slot numbers if I can reasonably coll both CPU and GPU. Yet, it seemed like everyone who have had any actual hands on with the case prefer the flex design so I am inclined to trust @dondan and @Wahaha360 . There is information we won't know by stuffing naked component models into CAD without cabling, tubing, preexisting components, etc. So, I support Dan's decisions but I would really love some side by side builds of the two designs if possible.

 

[dondan]

I will make some side to side renderings after the new model is ready.

 

[Wahaha360]

Before kickstarter, it might be worth it to give @optimumtech a hands on the two variations for a third opinion.

That being said, I stand by my pick.