I dont see why one would argue for cherry ULPs when you are going to be heavily modifying the case anyways. Might as well go full MX-low-profile.
The part files are so you can … refer any of the dimensions from them to modify/create your own parts. If you are making, for instance, a taller hinge, it would make sense to start off with an unmodified hinge and increasing, for instance its length. The same can be said for the chassis.
Shimming is not the worst idea. If you can just add two machined piece of metal (and some rubber) rather than having to machine an entire new chassis, that would be a pretty significant cost saving. Though whether this is possible remains to be seen.
the goal with shimming is to limit how much ‘heavy modification’ is needed. there’s a point where you’re shifting things enough that a stable housing is going to require actual manufacture. i don’t know for sure if going up a switch class is going to be past that threshold but it’s obviously going to be closer to it than a couple of washers.
As a brief aside I postulate that the reason that the motherboards, input “deck” etc is well documented is so that creators can use these in their own projects. The presumption is they become a de-facto standard like bicycle component manufacturers have each tried to do with their own specs for bottom bracket or headset bearings. The idea is that they are accessible to third party projects - not so that you can cobble together these parts on your kitchen table.
This is demonstrated by the successful “creator led” projects in Framework Orbit. The successful ones have re-used FW parts in a different context. There are very few instances I can think of that have gone the other way and added a fundamentally new part into FW laptops, input cards notwithstanding.
Far from being a bad thing (your emphasis) I think this is a step forward. It does however come with a warning to those who think that a Framework would take home modifications better than other brands. Parts are easy to replace, sure, but those parts are not necessarily user serviceable or customisable. Providing a CAD file for something does not mean that just anyone can actually build it.
There are lots of FW13 already out there and I have yet to see much customisation outside the designated “safe space” of the expansion card bay.
But I may have missed stuff, and would be delighted to be proved wrong.
Anyway what is this “conspiracy stuff” of which you speak? I do try to explain plainly my thinking, I am happy to expand on anything you think I might be purposely ambiguous about. I would appreciate the same courtesy of course, prove me wrong as invited above please, but avoid innuendo such as “conspiracy”. Who am I conspiring with?
I do agree that this could probably be well formed into another thread, please PM me to discuss if that is of interest.
you’re apparently asserting that given only the modular part of the fw13 has gotten many designs made for it (which i’m going to take on faith for the purposes of this post) to somehow argue that the fw16 – which has more modular elements to its design – can’t or won’t get more novel designs made for it
i don’t know what else to do with that, given it’s the exact same kind of logic you were using in the last thread.
Successful “maker community” projects have taken the guts of the Framework and repackaged it into a custom case, as with the Grid project upthread, or the after-market Cooler Master case available in the FW store. FW’s documentation of these bits makes that possible.
On the other hand, I am not aware of so many substantial modifications being done in the stock chassis because the packaging is too tight. Thus some of the modifications that people here want to make - IMO - demand a new chassis.
So that is why I think it is worth agitating for a new chassis. Who knows - it may be unstreamed into the FW design. But first we must come to terms with what the stock chassis can and cannot be made to do.
Oh, a new chassis (or at least either bottom or top) for more room for the keyboard would be great, and the better solution. However, don’t let better stop folks from going the “this works well enough” route. At least it’ll be a way to figure out what the actual height difference needs to be in this case, rather than just doing it based on measurements.
I agree. I am coming to realise that in fact I do not really care so much about FW in terms of the complete “product” but as a set of “standards” that can be used in your own project. This proposed new chassis should be better thought of as a new computer, only one that happens to employ FW hardware due to the latter being well documented and of suitable dimensions.
I am not sure this thread has run its course here. I don’t even think any more it is a FW16 topic specifically, at the time I was interested in that model because of the prospect of programmable microcontroller allowing unorthodox keyboard formats, which might have been putting the cart before the horse. Do others think it should be filed in the “Creators and Developers” area or is it a “General topic”?
So now it is moved out of the way of the 16" forum and away from large amount of noise generated there by customers receiving their machines.
So this is the place to discuss the creation of that discussed. I suggest this is better not to think of as a Framework per se. Rather it would be better regarded as special purpose laptop(s) that are designed around Framework parts in order to take advantage of their intention to be refreshed over several generations. SO brainstorm away, and lets see if anyone runs with the ideas!
The picture shows white rectangles, in the corner of the base under the hinge, where the rectangular side of the hinge attaches. The white rectangles are not flat — there are a couple pegs and donut. Maybe they aid alignment, and transfer some forces directly to the base rather than via the screws. These pictures do not show how closely the ventilation plate fits over the hinges.
The logic has not changed.
