DAN C4-SFX - old

[dondan]

I am not a big fan of 3.5" drives but I think there will be space to fit mountpoints for it

 

[omega24]

Oh man are you serious @dondan ? If you are I love you. That's seriously the only thing I thought was missing from this case the whole time. That makes it perfect.

 

[chyll2]

I think it was already established a long time ago. 3.5" drive are massive. 2.5" harddrive provide good enough storage and some that requires more serious solution usually uses NAS or cloud services. But since it uses Ncase layout, it might be possible to use one if you compromise.

 

[keshon]

2.5" harddrive provide good enough storage

It's either a controversial SMR hdd or expesive SSD. I would definitely vote for 3.5 drive since there is clearly space for that.

 

[Bonusround]

This new direction is intriguing, but strikes me as odd for reasons I will describe.

The latest concept would make sense if I could choose between a slim (2-slot) GPU mounted in one position or a wide (2.5 to 3-slot) GPU in the other. With the slim GPU I gain room for a larger AIO. With the wide GPU I get less AIO, need thinner radiator fans, or choose to air-cool my CPU. That would be a reasonable and flexible set of tradeoffs.

Unfortunately this is not so. With this new design one GPU position is 2.75 wide and the other is 3. This appears to be driven by the GPU's height in the classic/horizontal position, which is unfortunate.

With the two so similar in size it may be best to simply 'rip off the band-aid': make the vertical GPU slot 3-wide and optimize the case around fixed and known locations for GPU and AIO.

Just my $.02. I certainly appreciate the desire to keep the case width narrow (I find the A4 most beautiful in its proportions) but that goal seems very much at odds with also supporting 3-slot GPUs.

 

[Sean Crees]

For everyone who has a problem to get a feeling for the size I can recommend to take a A4 paper and draw a rectangle with 149x237,5. Than you you cut it out and add a second line with a space of 10mm to the right side. Than you can make a bend on this line and easily switch between both sizes.

I get that 9 or 10mm is barely a difference, but we arn't just talking about 9 or 10mm here. The original design was 127mm width. So this is a 22-23mm change, which is basically an inch thicker than where we started. Where does it end? Now people want 280mm rad support, gotta make it bigger again. Then they want to put their tripple width, super tall GPU in the bottom horizontal position WITH that 280mm rad with full height fans on it also at the bottom, gotta make it bigger. At that point just delete the SFF forum thread, and post this up on the [H]ard forum instead, cause it won't really be SFF anymore.

I mean... where does it end?

The original design made about 80% of the poll respondents happy with 2.5 gpu width support, and 240 aio support. And now we are adding all this extra space for the 20% minority?

 

[Quick99]

There are so many good 2 slot GPU's available. If you want to overclock the shit out of your GPU, don't build SFF. The flex design is a big downgrade all because < 20% of "SFF" builders want to run a monstrosity of a GPU.

The original design was awesome.

 

[Tephnos]

The above two posts summarise my thoughts entirely. As I won't repeat myself I'll bow out of this thread now; hopefully, Dan will revert back to his original design again.

 

[BillT]

I get that 9 or 10mm is barely a difference, but we arn't just talking about 9 or 10mm here. The original design was 127mm width. So this is a 22-23mm change, which is basically an inch thicker than where we started. Where does it end? Now people want 280mm rad support, gotta make it bigger again. Then they want to put their tripple width, super tall GPU in the bottom horizontal position WITH that 280mm rad with full height fans on it also at the bottom, gotta make it bigger. At that point just delete the SFF forum thread, and post this up on the [H]ard forum instead, cause it won't really be SFF anymore.

I mean... where does it end?

The original design made about 80% of the poll respondents happy with 2.5 gpu width support, and 240 aio support. And now we are adding all this extra space for the 20% minority?

When the original poll was introduced, people didn't know that Flex2 10.3L is possible. Dan came up with that idea later.

 

[dondan]

I understand both sides and by my self i am happy with both designs.

- The classic design is slimmer and focus on AIO only
- The flexible design is also small but supports a wider range of hardware

We should let a survey find the answer after i have cad results

 

[FdeFons]

Here the point where we have most been in disagreement is the slots for the gpu, I think that increasing the width of the original design from 127mm to 140mm for example would be a good option as it does not represent a very drastic change in the design and so we would have more compatibility with the thicker gpus

 

[RaDus]

I was away for a few months and the original idea has changed completely. I came here because I liked the original idea - I'm out.

 

[Sean Crees]

Here the point where we have most been in disagreement is the slots for the gpu, I think that increasing the width of the original design from 127mm to 140mm for example would be a good option as it does not represent a very drastic change in the design and so we would have more compatibility with the thicker gpus

140mm? Were you not told? We are up to 149mm now, with the potential of possibly getting bigger.

 

[D90]

@blindphleb:
Here are all relevant designs:

C4-SFX - original v1

• 1. post of this thread = 9,85L (128*239*322) / April 2018

C4-SFX - original v1.1

• optimized for better cable management und screw less side panel mounting = 10.4L (130*247*323) /January 2019

C4-SFX - flexible1

• supporting classic and sandwich layout, fits normal PCIe power cables = 11L (149*237,5*310) / January 2019

C4-SFX - flexible2

• supporting classic and sandwich layout, includes spec. PCIe Low Profile power cables = 10,3L (140*237,5*310) / January 2019

@Killinger: I worthy follower of the A4. It doesn't matter how long it takes to find it. I don't wan't 10 different cases in every volume class I want only one in every class. For examle one in 0-5L (maybe a future product), one in 5-9L (A4-SFX) and one in 9-12L (C4-SFX).

Dan please for the love of god tell me you have some ideas for the 5l and less case design!! Any chance you could start a new thread with some cad markups?

 

[blindphleb]

140mm? Were you not told? We are up to 149mm now, with the potential of possibly getting bigger.

At no time has Dan suggested the case will be wider than 149 or that 140 or 130 were out of the question. Perhaps we should wait for the CAD drawings of either layout, weigh in on the poll, and leave it at that.

 

[Sean Crees]

At no time has Dan suggested the case will be wider than 149 or that 140 or 130 were out of the question. Perhaps we should wait for the CAD drawings of either layout, weigh in on the poll, and leave it at that.

You mean like the poll we just had where 80% of respondents wanted the original 127mm wide 2.5 slot version, and then was quickly swept under the rug and enlarged anyhow?

No no, your right. Lets just keep making polls about the same thing until we get the result "we" want.

 

[papsicleboy]

You mean like the poll we just had where 80% of respondents wanted the original 127mm wide 2.5 slot version, and then was quickly swept under the rug and enlarged anyhow?

No no, your right. Lets just keep making polls about the same thing until we get the result "we" want.

Where can I see the full results of the last poll?

 

[BillT]

You mean like the poll we just had where 80% of respondents wanted the original 127mm wide 2.5 slot version, and then was quickly swept under the rug and enlarged anyhow?

No no, your right. Lets just keep making polls about the same thing until we get the result "we" want.

Again, when the poll was launched, people didn't know that 10.3L 140mm Flex 2 was a thing. Dan came up with it later.

A lot of people could be interested in a massive improvement in GPU noise/temp and more flexibility for 0.45L larger volume.

Ultimately it's Dan's decision. If he wants to finish the Cad on both versions and then launch a new poll, that is what it is. It's obvious that neither camp is gonna persuade the other, so why not just wait until the poll and then cast your vote?

 

[Etz]

I don't think that Flex layout is very beneficial...only things it does is inflating the size and delaying the project.

 

[blindphleb]

Where can I see the full results of the last poll?

They aren't available yet. People are referring to what Dondan said Feb 4th.

Currently we have over 400 votes. With 52,1% for 2Slot, 26,7% 2.5 Slot, 12,6% 2,75 Slot and 8,6% 3 Slot.

We don't know what the poll results are now, considering roughly a week has passed.