i have no interest in changing your standpoint.
and just as a convenient reference (L to R: 128, 130, 140 & 149mm)
Last edited:
-
Save 15% on ALL SFF Network merch, until Dec 31st! Use code SFF2024 at checkout. Click here!
DAN C4-SFX - old
- Thread starter dondan
- Start date
- Status
and just as a convenient reference (L to R: 128, 130, 140 & 149mm)
Here's the one practical aspect of case thickness that I have noticed from my ownership of Ncase M1. In a Pelican 1510 carry on case (which is actually wider than their newer 1535), the 160mm Ncase M1 only fits for me by removing the foam insert in the top lid. It is still safe enough as the case fits tightly in the main foam compartment but still. A case at 140mm or lower width should not face this issue I think, thus improving safety of carry on.
Hopefully this will not be considered a repost, but I had the urge to figure out the visual differences for myself as well and my conclusion remains the same. To me the appereances vary heavily from the first revision to the last, the 130mm being the proportionally best looking to the thick looking 150mm becoming too unproportional, while 140mm being the nice compromise. I feel like your render doesn't visualize the differences enough @giraffesinmybalcony hence I post mine.
(L to R: 150, 140, 130 ,128; last one is a top view)
(L to R: 150, 140, 130 ,128; last one is a top view)
I didn't say i have a problem with it, i'm merely trying to help people understand why this change is upsetting people. I'm trying to see both sides here instead of just pushing my own agenda.
Strangely all these guys are complaining about an extra cm... Go ask your wife/girlfriend for her opinion. Bet she wouldn't mind getting an extra cm... 
I became curious what a "beautiful" rectangle's dimensions would be. Often the Golden Ratio is looked at as being a marker of beauty, as it's found throughout nature, math, architecture, art, music, and science. So I calculated what the heights should be based on the different widths we've been discussing.
The Golden Ratio would just be dealing with the ratio of width to height.
V1.0 dimensions: 128*239*322
Golden Ratio rectangle if we keep the 128mm width: 128w207h
Difference between the two heights: 32mm taller than golden ratio
V1.1 dimensions: 130*247*323
Golden Ratio rectangle if we keep the 130 width: 130w210h
Difference between the two heights: 37mm taller than golden ratio
Flexible 1 dimensions: 149*237,5*310
Golden Ratio rectangle if we keep the 149 width: 149w241h
Difference between the two heights: 3.5mm shorter than golden ratio
Flexible 2 dimensions:140*237,5*310
Golden Ratio rectangle if we keep the 140 width: 140w226.5h
Difference between the two heights: 11mm taller than golden ratio
Thus, the version that is closest to the golden ratio is Flexible 1.
The Golden Ratio would just be dealing with the ratio of width to height.
V1.0 dimensions: 128*239*322
Golden Ratio rectangle if we keep the 128mm width: 128w207h
Difference between the two heights: 32mm taller than golden ratio
V1.1 dimensions: 130*247*323
Golden Ratio rectangle if we keep the 130 width: 130w210h
Difference between the two heights: 37mm taller than golden ratio
Flexible 1 dimensions: 149*237,5*310
Golden Ratio rectangle if we keep the 149 width: 149w241h
Difference between the two heights: 3.5mm shorter than golden ratio
Flexible 2 dimensions:140*237,5*310
Golden Ratio rectangle if we keep the 140 width: 140w226.5h
Difference between the two heights: 11mm taller than golden ratio
Thus, the version that is closest to the golden ratio is Flexible 1.
I was really impressed by the dual rad layout of the old design but this one has blown my mind, I love the idea of have a flexible case like this, Dan you might just be a genius
Nice one... when I was looking on the images from giraffesinmybalcony this was the one that I found visually most appealing. Never underestimate the influence of a metric like the Golden Ratio!
do we now have to consider the width of the case simply so that we could fit it into a pelican case as well? i wonder what's next
the reason why it has this much of visual difference is that your front viewport displays the model in perspective view, which includes part of the side profile as well that heavily influences the apparent width of the case. this was why i included a 2 dimensional drawing of the cases side by side, which eliminates the visual 'trickery', so to speak. the second image i posted earlier is an orthographic view instead of perspective, also to eliminate any visual trickery.
removing the side profile of the case, you can see that the difference between the 2nd and 3rd profile (140mm, 130mm respectively) (10mm difference) is not much. but there is a noticeable difference between the 1st and 2nd profile (150mm, 140mm respectively) (again, 10mm difference). this is why perspective view (instead of orthographic/2d view) does not serve an accurate representation when trying to compare sizes. notice how the edges of the case seem to tilt more and more from the 3rd profile to the 1st profile. while the 4th profile has a negative tilt. this visual effect that is caused by perspective view is inaccurate and misleading.
now, removing the side profile from your top view (which by the way, is perspective instead of orthographic, and rather misleading since other users might think that it is a front view instead)
you can see that the visual difference between my 2d drawing (front view) and yours (top view) does not differ much at all (in terms of width/thickness), other than the fact that the picture you've posted above is the top view instead of the front view, which is not particularly relevant in this case, since we are not considering the length of the case as much as the width and height
as an experiment to further illustrate my point above, i've included these screenshot, taken in perspective view (same viewport camera-to-object distance) from the left and right side respectively. notice how the apparent size of the cases differ when you look at them from the left side and then from the right.
(L to R: 128, 130, 140 & 149mm)
(L to R: 128, 130, 140 & 149mm)
i guess it's safe to say that perspective view is probably not the best when wanting to make a visual size comparison
imo, giving up an extra 10mm simply for the sake of aesthetic over flexibility doesn't make much sense to me.
Last edited:
Though I'm all in for Flex2, and Golden ratio is important, it has to be said that width is an important consideration for how much desk space a case takes up.
That said, for people who are all about slim and tall, Flex 2 looks quite slender already from these sketchups. Going too slender may even hurt the aesthetic, just saying.
Yea we are all WELL aware of your opinion on this matter.
I've just tried to provide balanced input with objective data points for both sides of the case width debate. If you go back, you'll find my comment indicating that I do like the new more flexible direction for the case.
i understand where you're coming from, but i think that it is a rather rare situation whereby only a few people would do so. moreover, pelican cases are rather expensive and niche for those wanting to travel with their sff computer. perhaps a more common carrying case would be the WALLYE Tactik Duffle, but i digress. my apologies if i sounded hostile or aggressive in my earlier reply.
I agree. There are many aspects to consider. I don't mean the information about what case most closely approaches the golden ratio to be an authority on which design to go with, only a data point. It just happens to also be the most flexible design. But also the one with the largest footprint. These distinctions matter too.
I agree with this. The anesthetics is going to take a hit just so you can please everyone you'll alienate people like me who value looks a lot. I just want initial rendender or 94 page.
Why are people mentioning "only 50% voted 2 slot" when the original renders and page 94 also support 2.5? Compare percentages of 2 + 2.5 and compare those to the meager 3 slots.
I feel that those with 3 slots cards should just look elsewhere instead of making this case look square for those that have been here since the start
Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself.
That's true. I think the other number though that people miss is the total number of respondents, since that gives a rough idea of how many people are seriously considering actually purchasing this case. It's not a huge number, which may be another reason why Dan felt a more flexible approach might be best.
To be fair, respondents to a forum poll. Just a video from LTT, JTC, GN, or Optimum would reach more people than this forum ever would. It is a fair question as to how to appeal to demographics in the larger tech sphere.
- Status
