Just because there's additional slots at the bottom for normal GPU placement? You can still opt for the vertical gpu mount and place your rad down there. Is this really a deal breaker???
Last edited:
DAN C4-SFX - old
- Thread starter dondan
- Start date
- Status
Just because there's additional slots at the bottom for normal GPU placement? You can still opt for the vertical gpu mount and place your rad down there. Is this really a deal breaker???
To them, I guess it's more that the case has grown in width by a few mm and now they can't grip it with one hand. I don't understand their reasoning, but it's just as valid as wanting the case to accommodate bigger GPUs or beadblasted finishes or ranting against panel clips or wanting the side I/O brought back. We're all going to have to compromise on some things, that's just the nature of this sort of endeavor.
I just find it hard to believe after those two have contributed positively towards this thread for so long and bickered back and forth; suddenly they throw in the towel over a few cm and additional slots on the back of the case (who's staring at the back of your cases? Who are you trying to impress at Dreamhack?) I didn't know we were watching the development of an Apple product here (/sarcasm).
You have clearly not read a single thing I've said, because I outlaid my reasoning and you're just throwing words in my mouth interjected with your own opinion. Enough of that.
Good for you if you like the new development. If this is the way the case is going then I'm out - I never wanted a second NCASE. It is coming far too close to it for my liking, therefore the cost (and additional cost of all the extra components to make this layout work) is no longer worth it for me. Makes sense, yes?
I'm tired of the constant changes. I wanted the original case but compromised on the design with page 94. I'm not compromising again.
To be clear, when I asked you what caused the first expansion in volume you couldn't even remember. It must have been a pretty small compromise for you to have forgotten it so soon.
I like the idea of an extrememely flexible case but I don't understand why I should have to pay extra for features that very few percent of people will use (3 slot compatibility). From what I understand there is some kind of expensive power connector needed as well to keep the case closer to 10L? Also what is the point considering the NCASE exists. I'd rather buy an NCASE right now rather than wait for this case considering they are going to be so similar in terms of compatibility and size (I understand there is about a 2L difference but that's worth it vs the time spent waiting for this case and the increased price of this case).
It's certainly a cool idea but why not just go with what the survey says?
It's certainly a cool idea but why not just go with what the survey says?
I think nearly every hardware product has features that you not need but you pay for.
Only for a slim (140mm) version of the flexible design. The 149mm design do not need them.
What is the point for the classic design considering the Ghost + Top Heads exists? Who said that my case will be more expansive as the M1? BTW: There is no case called NCASE. There is also no burger in this world that is called Mc Donalds.
For vertical GPU mount I see some space for 3.5 inch drive instead of AIO. @dondan is this possible theoretically?Reup:
Maybe I have a crazy idea. What whould you say if I make everything possible. This means C4 sandwich layout + classic Layout in one case, support for all GPUs up to 3 Slot in classic layout and 2,75 Slot for sandwich layout. Support für big heatsinks like Noctua C14 or U9S and 240 AIOs. This case would have a size of (149 (W) x 237,5 x (H) x 310 (L) = 11L. It would be a exteme flexible case.
Sigh.
To be clear, nobody asked you for this opinion and I certainly do not appreciate your underhanded attempt at throwing shade at me just because I dislike the layout that you do. If you're going to start doing that then you can do this thread a favour by leaving it. Stick to the cases, not the users.
As it appears you had no participation in the months prior to this, you obviously have no idea why I had forgotten, so let me bring you up to speed with a quick dramatisation:
- In the beginning, Dan created the C4. This was lauded as a good decision by all and we waited with bated breath for the herald of our new SFF idol.
- Dan had some problems constructing the case as was originally envisioned. This was fine, we are patient followers.
- Dan eventually decided he no longer liked the C4 and brought out some new sketches of an entirely different case. Thus began the great SFF holy crusade, in which supporters of the original design warred against this new false god that took the name of our beloved idol.
- Dan eventually withdrew his ideas for the newer case and after a break, brought back the old design, but with improvements to solve the initial construction problems and the like that the original design had - bringing it up a notch in volume. This was seen as a great success by those of us who wanted the original case back, and so the fact we were even getting the original case back was a win - even if there were minor internal adjustments that brought it up in size.
That brings us to today, where Dan is sketching more changes and increasing the volume again - it is quite obvious why some of us are very resistant to this after everything that happened in the past year (and why some details get lost to the void - it has been a long time and Dan likes to change things a lot, which gets very tiring to keep up with).
The compromise I accepted initially was an increase in volume to get the case I wanted back from the prospect of something entirely different otherwise (and it solved problems that the initial design had, so they were beneficial). Now that it's back, I don't want to compromise on the volume again.
Because the original C4 looked sexy; it was by far the most aesthetically pleasing SFF that (imo) I had seen yet. The Ghost with a top hat looks dumb, that line ruins the whole aesthetic. Looks are clearly important since nobody disagreed with a bead blasted finish. We are beyond the days of small and ugly SFF cases. With the NCASE, the A4, and so on - the bar has been raised. There is quite a market for sexy cases, after all.
Nobody said it was more expansive than the M1, but it is getting too close to it that for many people who will be waiting for this case, it would make more sense to just buy the already available M1 and call it a day.
I don't really see the point about the name. Yeah, the case is actually called the M1 but everyone refers it to the NCASE regardless - we all have that mutual understanding so there's no problem in communicating what we mean.
Last edited:
So the amount of width you were willing to compromise on was *checks notes* 2mm? Do you see why some might think portraying that as a meaningful compromise is kind of silly?
I'm getting really tired of your attempts to undermine everything to make your own positions look better. You can say you're fine with the increase in width and call it a day there, but stop undermining others for the love of god. Apparently, you didn't learn a thing from the previous post.
Original design: 250 x 127.3 x 322.8 (9.85L)
Updated design: 247 x 130 x 323 (10.37L) [-3mm, +2.7mm, + 0.2mm] (Volume increase by 5%, but fine compromise)
Proposed design: 237.5 x 149 x 310 (11L) [-10mm, +19mm, - 13mm] (Volume increase by 10% over original design).
The newer design has become wider and takes up a larger footprint, and is simply not what I wanted from this case. I liked the slimmer, taller design. I don't care what you think is significant or not. This is SFF, every little bit matters.
This is the last time I respond to you. I'm saying I am not fine with the increase in width and decrease in height, as well as the further increase in volume. I don't care if you agree with me or not, it's not you I'm giving my opinion to.
Last edited:
@ALL: Please let this thread be peaceful. If someone likes the old layout - great if someone likes the new one - great. There is no need trying to convert someone else. There is also no need of heavily promoting own wishes/preferences on every page.
I think this all calls for some sexy renders from @dondan...
Just saying... it wouldn't hurt. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Just saying... it wouldn't hurt. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
HEAR HEAR! We need some good high quality 3d rendered pc case porn to quell our angst!
Couple of cents on the golden ratio debate:
Chasing the golden ratio (1 : 1.618...) can be satisfying when done as height : depth or depth : height.
When done as width : height, it just is not as satisfying to me.
Here's an example image to assist with height : width : depth visualization:
1 : 0.22 : 1.53 /height : depth ratio near golden/
Here's the same case extended so that the width : height ratio is 1 : 1.62 /almost exactly golden/, height unchanged:
For you trying to solve the puzzle: the Height equals 342 mm. (though the ratios are only approximate)
A third example would be a case taller than it is deep (depth : height as 1 : 1.62), but you'll have to imagine that one.
From my experience, the wider you go, the less efficient the design gets. (these days a personal preference is under ~130 mm, which basically excludes traditional orientation)
Take a peek at the server market with all the blade server racks and U sized enclosures /mentioning the industrial market because that's where the money is and where standards originate/.
On the consumer side there are many people who appreciate that low footprint on their work/play surface. ASAP /as slim as possible/ is the way to go for many (reasons, people, markets,...).
I hope that this is not way off topic, since the designs shown are not that similar to the C4.
Edit:
Though we are basically back at the concept stage at this point.
Chasing the golden ratio (1 : 1.618...) can be satisfying when done as height : depth or depth : height.
When done as width : height, it just is not as satisfying to me.
Here's an example image to assist with height : width : depth visualization:
1 : 0.22 : 1.53 /height : depth ratio near golden/
Here's the same case extended so that the width : height ratio is 1 : 1.62 /almost exactly golden/, height unchanged:
For you trying to solve the puzzle: the Height equals 342 mm. (though the ratios are only approximate)
A third example would be a case taller than it is deep (depth : height as 1 : 1.62), but you'll have to imagine that one.
From my experience, the wider you go, the less efficient the design gets. (these days a personal preference is under ~130 mm, which basically excludes traditional orientation)
Take a peek at the server market with all the blade server racks and U sized enclosures /mentioning the industrial market because that's where the money is and where standards originate/.
On the consumer side there are many people who appreciate that low footprint on their work/play surface. ASAP /as slim as possible/ is the way to go for many (reasons, people, markets,...).
I hope that this is not way off topic, since the designs shown are not that similar to the C4.
Edit:
Though we are basically back at the concept stage at this point.
Last edited:
@Supercluster
That makes sense. Before I actually did the calculations I predicted that the slimmer cases would be closer to the golden ratio, because I prefer the look of them. But that wasn't the case.
Your description might explain why that is.
That makes sense. Before I actually did the calculations I predicted that the slimmer cases would be closer to the golden ratio, because I prefer the look of them. But that wasn't the case.
Your description might explain why that is.
@dondan
Yes, a lot of hardware products have features that I don't need but pay for anyways. But it makes me not want to buy the product. For example, Dell xps 13 only has a touch screen on the 4k model. I want touch screen but actually would rather not have 4k because of battery life. It's a compromise that I'd be willing to make if it weren't for other high quality ultrabooks (see surface laptop). Similar situation with this case, I really like the aesthetics and concept but now I also have to pay for 3-slot compatibility which, like 4k on the ultrabook, is actually a downside because it makes the case wider and look boxy. IMO the looks of this case are one of its major strong suits so undermining that should be only for something very important - unlike 3 slot compatibility.
Of course there is no perfect product and I understand that, I'll have to compromise somewhere. But when did the compromise become making the case smaller? This is SFF, it should be justifying why to make the case bigger, not the other way around. I don't see a single good reason to go past 2 slot and do classic PC layout.
I think you might have misinterpreted, I said more expensive than the M1, because of the slim power cable and now bead-blasted finish. I was drawing a comparison between the similar layout of the C4 flex and the M1, saying that I would rather just buy an M1 now instead of waiting for a similar case that's more expensive.
Also on the subject of the Ghost S1, I think that with a top hat that case is actually very ugly. It looks better with 2 top hats but at that point I should just buy something else for the price. also you definitely know I mean the NCASE M1. When I say lets get KFC you think of fried chicken just as you think of the M1 when you read NCASE. They are synonymous lol.
- Status
