Concept SENTRY 3.0: Development and Suggestions

Solo

King of Cable Management
Nov 18, 2017
738
1,225
Do you mean ditching the front panel completely or you'd want to replace the cable with something that's more manageable? We know that USB 3.0 20-pin plug is terrible, but that's a standard for now.
I don't even know, really. The front ports are useful (wired controllers in my case). Maybe some miracle less-cumbersome thing will come along in the meantime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loader963

SaperPL

Master of Cramming
DR ZĄBER
Oct 17, 2017
425
738
So.... you’re saying if you made the case 1mm thicker, reduced the standoffs 1mm, and deleted the 2.5” drive support.... that we would have room for 50mm cpu coolers and 2.5 slot GPUs 😃
That was an example. Shaving off the standoffs is a bit complicated because we need some material at the back of the case where the cutout for IO plate is to make the bend. With molds this might change as it should be possible, but you have to remember that the more complex the shape is to be made, the more expensive tooling is. So this was hypothetical big IF there's a cooler that would be so revolutionary that we would have to have that.

I don't even know, really. The front ports are useful (wired controllers in my case). Maybe some miracle less-cumbersome thing will come along in the meantime.

I know the pain, I'm annoyed by this 20-pin cable and header from the start. The only real valid solution I can see right now is that if that new header used for type-C on some high end motherboard would replace the 20-pin header all along, so we'd have two of those, or at least we could have this standardised for all boards across and use only the new connector and ditch that 20-pin plug.

For the cable though, I'm not sure what we could do about this. The excess was required early on as there were still boards having the header in some weird spot next to the IO and PCI-E slot. We've shown on the photos that you can roll up the excess in front of the CPU. I'm not sure if those can be made shorter than 50 cm as the injection mold might need to have one of the ends outside of the machine and I have no idea how short these could be. Right now they are 50 cm long and iirc/my guess is they could be something around 30 cm long.
 

MarcParis

Spatial Philosopher
Apr 1, 2016
3,404
2,419
That's not going to happen, sorry. 75mm tall coolers support would be a completely different case, fitting 3 slot GPUs like 3090 are something that could potentially be achieved by dropping support of 2.5" drives or figuring some weird mount for them underneath the riser etc, but it would become combersome to build in such case. On top of that you don't want to use 350W TDP card in a case that doesn't have airflow inducing fans, it'd be worse than running it on open test bench this way and you get diminishing returns for the investment. The 3-slot card is made this way to push the limits of the chip but it also assumes the environment will handle exchanging the air around it properly. Perforation will reduce the amount of air exchanged - It's not magic what we're doing here and you simply can not cheat physics.
Ok for CPU cooler to reach 75mm height it will change too much Sentry DNA..:)

For GPU thickness, however, please push for compatibility for RTX3090 FE (3 slots, passthrough fan) with vents on both sides...this will be as if you are in open test table...then sentry will offer a master piece of cooling for passthrough GPU.

I think pasthrough GPU is a great opportunity for small case like sentry.
 

SaperPL

Master of Cramming
DR ZĄBER
Oct 17, 2017
425
738
For GPU thickness, however, please push for compatibility for RTX3090 FE (3 slots, passthrough fan) with vents on both sides...this will be as if you are in open test table...then sentry will offer a master piece of cooling for passthrough GPU.

I think pasthrough GPU is a great opportunity for small case like sentry.

2.5 slot is something worth considering, but 3 slots is too much. It will not be like open test bench because perforation is reducing the airflow and on top of that the perforation is not everywhere so it'll still slow down the air exchange.

The way the perforation affects the airflow is not just that you have the vent and so it's like open air. By making perforation you are reducing the area of exchange, so from the top of my head let's say we start with 50% or 60% which is already a significant difference. On top of that air in each hole behaves in a way that at certain distance from the edge it gradually slows down, has gradient of speed within that range, so roughly, by average that area has the flow less than half of the airflow in the middle of the vent, so effective airflow is even less than just the area. So generally huge holes are better for performance and that is that magic trick that some use for their custom cases like NFC, but then the EU safety regulations come into the picture where we can't have, don't want to use this kind of design.

If you have a case that has 3 or 4 120 mm fans and huge vent in front of it, then you have more exchange area right at the beginning, so the base area for the effective area function is significantly bigger than what we can have in SFF cases. If you watch Gamers Nexus videos on tower cases, he's often bashing stupid ideas like making full TG front panels with small vents where you literally buy a case to have multiple fans for huge airflow area and close them up with a solid front panel. Those huge power hungry triple slot cards are made for proportionally huge well vented cases.

Handling 3 slot cards means no support for 2.5" drive or increasing complexity of centre rail to somehow mount the drives there, the 3 slot cards being choked anyway and having fans causing a lot of turbulence as there would be not much space between fans and perforation. On top of that a flexible riser or a really tall 90 degree riser piece, reinforcing the case in some weird way at the corner where we have the cut-out etc. This is a complete makeover just so very few that have the cash for a triple-slot 3090 can boast that they did squeeze that inside such small case just so they can play at performance level of 3080 or even 3070 because the card is choking.

Be reasonable and think about that we initially designed the case for 150W TDP cards and you want to squeeze in a 350-400W cards inside...

What we want to do is to increase performance and compatibility with 2.5 slot cards, not just enable squeezing in something that doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:

MarcParis

Spatial Philosopher
Apr 1, 2016
3,404
2,419
2.5 slot is something worth considering, but 3 slots is too much. It will not be like open test bench because perforation is reducing the airflow and on top of that the perforation is not everywhere so it'll still slow down the air exchange.

The way the perforation affects the airflow is not just that you have the vent and so it's like open air. By making perforation you are reducing the area of exchange, so from the top of my head let's say we start with 50% or 60% which is already a significant difference. On top of that air in each hole behaves in a way that at certain distance from the edge it gradually slows down, has gradient of speed within that range, so roughly, by average that area has the flow less than half of the airflow in the middle of the vent, so effective airflow is even less than just the area. So generally huge holes are better for performance and that is that magic trick that some use for their custom cases like NFC, but then the EU safety regulations come into the picture where we can't have, don't want to use this kind of design.

If you have a case that has 3 or 4 120 mm fans and huge vent in front of it, then you have more exchange area right at the beginning, so the base area for the effective area function is significantly bigger than what we can have in SFF cases. If you watch Gamers Nexus videos on tower cases, he's often bashing stupid ideas like making full TG front panels with small vents where you literally buy a case to have multiple fans for huge airflow area and close them up with a solid front panel. Those huge power hungry triple slot cards are made for proportionally huge well vented cases.

Handling 3 slot cards means no support for 2.5" drive or increasing complexity of centre rail to somehow mount the drives there, the 3 slot cards being choked anyway and having fans causing a lot of turbulence as there would be not much space between fans and perforation. On top of that a flexible riser or a really tall 90 degree riser piece, reinforcing the case in some weird way at the corner where we have the cut-out etc. This is a complete makeover just so very few that have the cash for a triple-slot 3090 can boast that they did squeeze that inside such small case just so they can play at performance level of 3080 or even 3070 because the card is choking.

Be reasonable and think about that we initially designed the case for 150W TDP cards and you want to squeeze in a 350-400W cards inside...

What we want to do is to increase performance and compatibility with 2.5 slot cards, not just enable squeezing in something that doesn't make sense.
Thanks for the time answering me..:)
I understand your point completely.

At least standard RTX3080 FE (if available) could be a good candidate instead. However I'll add perforations are limiting exhaust capabilities by similar amount as exchange surface.
 

Idle2824

Average Stuffer
Apr 26, 2018
59
52
We'll see what we can do with tooling we'll be able to make, but note that when you do it this way, you have one surface with right angle coming together with a surface that is rounded which may not look good at this thickness of steel sheet. The outer radius will be 2mm on that bend. Unless of course I didn't get what you mean, so you could link me to the example of what you are talking about.
Yeah, I think you're right. It would be hard to make it look as neat as your current solution. The examples I've come across where kind of bend/tab is used to secure panels to each other is in ovens (for the frame that hides within the cabinet) and boilers, which are also not trying to be pretty.

I know the pain, I'm annoyed by this 20-pin cable and header from the start.
Honestly, it's awful. Who comes up with these standards? They managed to combine thick, inflexible cables with the least robust connector imaginable. It's hard to tell when you've inserted it properly without a clear view of it, and it's easy for it to get disconnected if the cable gets pushed on a bit when closing the case. The ATX power cables might be fiddly too, but at least once you've clicked them into place, you know they're not going anywhere.

Rant aside, I do think you should keep the USB ports, in whatever flavour is most standard/available when you come to production. I am a fan of minimalism as much as anyone, but reaching around to the back of your case every time you wanted to connect something would get old pretty fast. Besides, a lot of ITX motherboards have an annoyingly low USB slot count on their rear I/O anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: riba2233

Edward78

Airflow Optimizer
Jun 16, 2015
233
11
Will it beable to take a slim ODD? If you have a pc under the tv, why not have it able to play a blue ray, with out a Ext, ODD?
 

ZombiPL

Airflow Optimizer
Original poster
DR ZĄBER
Apr 13, 2016
238
756
Will it beable to take a slim ODD? If you have a pc under the tv, why not have it able to play a blue ray, with out a Ext, ODD?

It would be hard to do it:
a) without affecting the space in GPU chamber,
b) without affecting the aesthetics of the front of the case.

During 1.0/1.1 and 2.0 project we tried to do it somehow, but finally this idea was rejected. We can once again investigate if we will get some options with our new manufacturing approach, but it would be hard to keep all the features that are already in 2.0 revision, adding internal ODD and not affecting the size or aesthetics of the case.
 

Edward78

Airflow Optimizer
Jun 16, 2015
233
11
It would be hard to do it:
a) without affecting the space in GPU chamber,
b) without affecting the aesthetics of the front of the case.

During 1.0/1.1 and 2.0 project we tried to do it somehow, but finally this idea was rejected. We can once again investigate if we will get some options with our new manufacturing approach, but it would be hard to keep all the features that are already in 2.0 revision, adding internal ODD and not affecting the size or aesthetics of the case.
Oh ok, no prob.
 

SkorpioNElite

Efficiency Noob
Feb 13, 2021
5
8
- Black USB Front Connectors
- RGB Switch
- More ventilation holes (Also a different design element to avoid the small line without holes directly above the cpu fan)
- Drop Air Pocket for 2.5 Slot GPUs and add ventilation holes instead
- Fix the panel with screws on the back, or sink them like the front panel screws (Also add washers to avoid damaging the case with the screws. Frequently opening the case tends to also damaging the screw socket)
- The standoff piece without a hole or a bigger cutout (SSD on the back of mainboard can be cooled with a thermal pad transfering heat to the case)
- Gen 4 Raiser
- Better Quality Control for bending of the front panel (Mine has a 1mm gap in the middle and none at the top or bottom)
- I don´t think theres a reason to change the case dimensions (Which cooler is 50 mm in height?)
 

SaperPL

Master of Cramming
DR ZĄBER
Oct 17, 2017
425
738
- I don´t think theres a reason to change the case dimensions (Which cooler is 50 mm in height?)
That was hypothetical to explain when we could be changing dimensions. If there is a cooler that would fit if we would add one or two or three mm, then we could investigate whether this makes sense, but the coolers that start making big difference start at something like 60 mm iirc which would be too much of a change
 
  • Like
Reactions: sos

loader963

King of Cable Management
Bronze Supporter
Jan 21, 2017
656
560
That 50mm cooler height isn’t really for a 50mm cooler but to get a few mm’s of space for the 47mm coolers so they aren’t right against the perforations, making that whooshing noise. Not a big deal if it doesn’t happen imo, but wouldn’t hurt my feelings.
 
Last edited:

nightshift

SFF Lingo Aficionado
Jul 23, 2020
96
55
All I can say is to keep the form factor as it is - any modifications can only be considered improvements if the gains are done without increasing the size. Or at least not more than a liter. Your product is easily the best looking one from the console themed cases. It is a niche within a niche, it should never be an all-rounder, it should just aim do the things it's supposed to do better than the rest.
With that in mind, this case never meant to accommodate big and thick gpu's or 280mm aio's. There are separate cases for those interested to go in that direction, while people choosing this case are already aware of the limitations involved and are happy and willing to work with them for the size reduction and form benefits they get. They just want a good case, maybe with a 3060ti and a cpu with 65w tdp able to work reliably to their full potential in case as small and sleek as the 2.0. So being limited to smaller gpu's are perfectly fine here. This is not about what do people want from a case in general, this is about the Sentry.

I mean, even if you can manage to reach the same attributes you currently deliver, accommodating the same components but shrinking it even further is also considered a nice outcome and definitely a step forward. So just remember while designing the newest version to stay true to the original principles set with this case, for people choosing it are doing so exactly because of those qualities. The NR200, M1's and basically anything above 8L is not what you need to compete with with the Sentry.
Good luck!
 
Last edited:

lawney

SFF Lingo Aficionado
Jun 28, 2018
104
68
I have the original Sentry 1.0, such a great case, and it's the only PC case I've found that looks at home in a hifi/home theatre rack or an under-TV-console. Maybe the S4M is the only other one that looks the part to me.

So if I were to make one oddball request, it would be to be the ability to add rack ears to it. Kind of a niche thing, but it would be pretty cool if the structural rigidity in the outer panel were there to support something like this. Front panel USB-C (3.2 gen2) instead of USB-A would be a must, partly because the original 30-pin thick cable was such a pain.
 

tja4430

Trash Compacter
Mar 14, 2020
35
44
I currently have a 5600x/2070 Super FE in the 2.0 version of this case. So excited to see the improvements on the 3.0.

One question I have, is would it be possible to make the overall case dimensions say 4-5 mm taller? Would allow some more support of taller GPUs, which seems to be the trend now with the new AMD and NVIDIA GPUs. Seems like the only "true" 2 slot GPUs in terms of length/height are the NVIDIA FE 3060/3060ti/3070/3080, the blower versions of those, and the EVGA 2 slot cards unfortunately.

EVGA's new 3060/3060ti 2-slot card is absolutely perfect for this case though.
 

SkorpioNElite

Efficiency Noob
Feb 13, 2021
5
8
Better ventilation and more gpu space can also benefit the smaller setups. It´s not about reinventing the sentry for watercooling or power hungry components as standard. Improvement and compromise.

compromise:
Small CPU Cooler <=47mm / thin AIO with small or no gpu)
No SFX-L (Corsair SFX 750Watt - should be enough for even Ryzen 9 5950X + 3090)
No Mainboard Cutout on the back. (Or anything that came up on 2.0 development)
External dimensions should stay as is.

Improvement:
GPU thickness and space / cooling
ventilation
aestetics (USB / Switch / Screws / Quality)

I think the standard setup is 1 M.2 (PCIe) SSD and one 2.5" HDD/SSD as data grave. So drop the possible 2nd 2.5" HDD/SSD for a new holding mechanism for the riser PCB/Cable. I mean push the "PSU" SSD further to the front and get even more space to route the riser above the stabilizing beam in the middle.


Is there perhaps a sketch of the new case stand?
 

SkorpioNElite

Efficiency Noob
Feb 13, 2021
5
8
Better ventilation and more gpu space can also benefit the smaller setups. It´s not about reinventing the sentry for watercooling or power hungry components as standard. Improvement and compromise.

compromise:
Small CPU Cooler <=47mm / thin AIO with small or no gpu)
No SFX-L (Corsair SFX 750Watt - should be enough for even Ryzen 9 5950X + 3090)
No Mainboard Cutout on the back. (Or anything that came up on 2.0 development)
External dimensions should stay as is.

Improvement:
GPU thickness and space / cooling
ventilation
aestetics (USB / Switch / Screws / Quality)

I think the standard setup is 1 M.2 (PCIe) SSD and one 2.5" HDD/SSD as data grave. So drop the possible 2nd 2.5" HDD/SSD for a new holding mechanism for the riser PCB/Cable. I mean push the "PSU" SSD further to the front and get even more space to route the riser above the stabilizing beam in the middle.


Is there perhaps a sketch of the new case stand?
 

SaperPL

Master of Cramming
DR ZĄBER
Oct 17, 2017
425
738
So if I were to make one oddball request, it would be to be the ability to add rack ears to it. Kind of a niche thing, but it would be pretty cool if the structural rigidity in the outer panel were there to support something like this.
I don't think this is something that we will be able to do without significantly affecting construction. Also this is not a rack case and will never be, it's meant to have airflow at the sides and when you put other equipment next to it in a rack, you'll choke the airflow.
Front panel USB-C (3.2 gen2) instead of USB-A would be a must, partly because the original 30-pin thick cable was such a pain.
The type-C connector on front panel is one thing, the internal header on it is a separate topic. We would love to ditch the 20-pin header, but that's still a standard. Maybe with AM5 we'll finally have the new connector being standard in mITX boards and then we will be able to change the internal cable to it. For now it's still not there. We don't want to force you to buy Asus or one of few expensive boards that have those.
One question I have, is would it be possible to make the overall case dimensions say 4-5 mm taller? Would allow some more support of taller GPUs, which seems to be the trend now with the new AMD and NVIDIA GPUs. Seems like the only "true" 2 slot GPUs in terms of length/height are the NVIDIA FE 3060/3060ti/3070/3080, the blower versions of those, and the EVGA 2 slot cards unfortunately.
Taller and thicker cards are made because they need more cooling, more power. We don't want to support that because we can't state those cards will perform properly in Sentry. As said before, perforation limits the airflow. We don't want to increase the case size significantly as well. We are thinking about the support for 2.5 slot cards and that's what's reasonable here.
I think the standard setup is 1 M.2 (PCIe) SSD and one 2.5" HDD/SSD as data grave. So drop the possible 2nd 2.5" HDD/SSD for a new holding mechanism for the riser PCB/Cable. I mean push the "PSU" SSD further to the front and get even more space to route the riser above the stabilizing beam in the middle.
Well, the beam in the middle/centre wall is made in a way it can be properly manufactured and provides reasonable rigidity to the case. Reinventing this piece will complicate things.

I'm not sure what you could mean by new holding mechanism for the riser other than that you'd want it to move up to make space for bigger GPU.
Is there perhaps a sketch of the new case stand?
We aim to make it look close to what we have now. We don't want to redesign the aesthetics of it, we want to improve it in context of manufacturing process mostly.