I was referring to the center area of the front panel. I think it's cleaner if the whole front panel is flat and simple, with the I/O integrated seamlessly and not looking like they're tacked on. Like Dan A4's but with vent holes, if that makes sense. But each to their own.
I agree with
@heckinwoofer
it might be done to death but I prefer a flat front as well (I dont mind the side panel lip extending beyond). imo, either bring the IO flat to being recessed or dont recess inward the vented panel (making it flat to the IO)
It's important to keep in mind that the fact that we have a separate I/O faceplate is both aesthetic and functional; a part of it is to try to make the front more distinctive and interesting, but we also require that this part be separate for:
- Easy swapping of I/O plates (offering things like a blank plate, power button only plate, and so forth, is substantially cheaper and easier when keeping this part separate
- Allowance of more/different materials for the front panel (we can't use meshes, for example, since you can't create I/O cutouts in a mesh)
Technically we could offer a front panel that integrates the I/O at some point, but for the moment I think having it be separate remains the best choice in balance. I will say that this arrangement of an I/O plate and front panel look natural in person, perhaps a bit moreso than in renders or photos.
One question: what's the clearance/distance between the bottom of the case and floor and/or how tall are the feet? Hoping it's 10-20mm or more off the ground, unless bottom intake isn't impacted by less than that (can't say I've ever tested this myself). Sorry if I missed it, just did a quick check of thread. Thanks!
The current prototype has feet similar to the A4-SFX, I believe it's in the neighborhood of 7mm or so.
Is it possible to make the metal frame of the windowed side panel slimmer?
Why slimmer? It will be less structurally rigid and more likely to warp and bend easier.
I’m not sure if it’s feasible, but I think tool-less tempered glass panels look substantially more premium than a window. lian li's o11 dynamic mechanism doesn't seem like it would work, but maybe something like the fractal define r6's (which uses push pins on half) would. both of them have the frame for the mounting hardware on the inside of the glass panel, leaving the external side of the panel with a darkened edge and smooth appearance.
As
@teodoro explained more in detail, it can be much more premium and I think it will worth the increase in the price. Since it has front-back cooling approach and place for custom loops, a tool-less tempered glass panel would enhance the whole look of the system.
Getting that look on panels of the CX2's size, while supporting all the other panel options, is quite tricky. If you look at Lian Li's various "full side window" enclosures, basically none of them use the same style of clips and pins, instead opting for sliding hooks or tabs and grooves. We can't really support multiple toolless panel mechanisms interchangeably, and the solutions typically used for full windowed panels compromise the look or cost of solid or vented panels. This is putting aside the issue of compromising how the front would look, since you would have the side glass panel (of a different thickness and color) extending beyond the front panel with the existing aluminum panels.
Basically, it isn't that we
haven't explored that style of panel, it's simply that it's tricky to implement given the variety of options we want to offer, and other decisions we've made.
any particular reason (besides aesthetics) to have the io at the top rather than the bottom of the panel?
Keeping it at the top secludes any impact to component compatibility down to essentially the maximum length of front-mounted radiators. It also keeps the cables and such somewhat out of view when using a windowed side panel. Placing it at the bottom would complicate compatibility for front and bottom-mounted hardware, while adding a mess of cables in a very visible area.
I also don't dig the look of the bottom cutouts and would prefer a solid panel, though I suspect the option of a second radiator is too good a marketing point to pass up. I'd be curious if those vents have any measurable impact on air cooling setups.
IMO the most important use of the bottom cutouts is to flexibly support support fans, storage (2.5" and 3.5"), and other devices, rather than a radiator. You can put a radiator there and it will work ok, but airflow will be restricted, you will lose PCI slots for ATX/EATX builds, and comparatively a front mounted radiator works much better (it can be larger and thicker with less restriction) while demanding fewer compromises (only the length of your PCI devices essentially). It really only makes sense to put a radiator on the bottom if you're going for an over-the-top custom loop, multiple AIOs, or really need the full depth of the enclosure.
@PlayfulPhoenix also supporting atx power supply in the bottom would be a nice addition because I might like to run two titan rtx's in this case with showing the custom loop.
We're experimenting a bit with how we might be able to support installation of PSU's internally (rather than just the two rear-mounted positions), so it may be possible to support this without further complicating the rear of the enclosure. No promises, particularly with ATX PSU's, but stay tuned for now.
