Re: Fitting a Low Profile ESP32 in the Lazer3D Case
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2024 7:35 am
"Gen1" (that we have now) still has the "Developer Edition" text in the front left corner on the PRxxx boards. So, they do still have that "developer" association like those original DEVxxx boards.
Jim Drew of CBMStuff proposed that it is possible to make size-compatible vertical expansion boards (for the Lazer3D case). They're harder to design and fab since you'd need components and traces on both sides. Then, even if you pull that off, you'll have limited rear-port options (maybe 1x 9-pin can fit; otherwise you might need an adapter-dongle, or maybe embrace USB-C). I feel like the original TexElec blank expansion PCB (included with the DEV-boards) were this "less than half height" size, but I can't find mine at the moment.
I like the low-profile of the "pizza box" Lazer3D case, giving a somewhat distinct style to the X16 platform (not a wedge, and not a PDP-8 or Altair "box"). I think that kind of "design identity" is important to have, even if it's not functionally optimal. And consider one of Lazer3D's dilemma: a larger case is more material, so that's not just material-cost but also increases the shipping cost/weight. Still, making it at least "half-height compatible" may have been good (then I'd call it more of a "squat profile" than "low profile").
In Discord they (Lazer3D) have discussed a taller (full height) case option. I don't think the critical-mass is there yet for them to commit to it, since most Developers that would be interested in the multiple-expansion options will likely use an ATX-case alternative anyway. Or like I did, I keep an "open air" X16 that makes all the hardware accessible, then a more traditional closed-desktop style in the Lazer3D case.
Lazer3D has limited staff/equipment and already supporting a plethora of other demands, so they're spread thin to accommodate a variety of X16-specific options.
The "mod"-cut to your case looks good and well done (sanded the edges? or just a new blade). If you need the original back panel again, Lazer3D can probably send one, or I think I have an extra still also.
But you're right, not being able to use the dust-cover top can be an eye-sore. To me, a cheaper/easier solution is to make an "inverse-riser-card" that inverts the expansion pins, so we can use the side-slot as an up-facing vertical slot (otherwise, as-is a riser on the side-slot ends up down facing). That's still not ideal, but let's us readily use two-cards on the stock Lazer3D case - and that may hold us over until even-lower-profile-dual-sided-components cards become feasible.
You do have a valid rant - it's a DevBoard but not really a "dev-case" (I'd call it more a "desktop case"). That's probably fine for most people, but it's true the overall design has meandered a bit between wanting to be a game-console set-top vs general-purpose desktop computer.
Jim Drew of CBMStuff proposed that it is possible to make size-compatible vertical expansion boards (for the Lazer3D case). They're harder to design and fab since you'd need components and traces on both sides. Then, even if you pull that off, you'll have limited rear-port options (maybe 1x 9-pin can fit; otherwise you might need an adapter-dongle, or maybe embrace USB-C). I feel like the original TexElec blank expansion PCB (included with the DEV-boards) were this "less than half height" size, but I can't find mine at the moment.
I like the low-profile of the "pizza box" Lazer3D case, giving a somewhat distinct style to the X16 platform (not a wedge, and not a PDP-8 or Altair "box"). I think that kind of "design identity" is important to have, even if it's not functionally optimal. And consider one of Lazer3D's dilemma: a larger case is more material, so that's not just material-cost but also increases the shipping cost/weight. Still, making it at least "half-height compatible" may have been good (then I'd call it more of a "squat profile" than "low profile").
In Discord they (Lazer3D) have discussed a taller (full height) case option. I don't think the critical-mass is there yet for them to commit to it, since most Developers that would be interested in the multiple-expansion options will likely use an ATX-case alternative anyway. Or like I did, I keep an "open air" X16 that makes all the hardware accessible, then a more traditional closed-desktop style in the Lazer3D case.
Lazer3D has limited staff/equipment and already supporting a plethora of other demands, so they're spread thin to accommodate a variety of X16-specific options.
The "mod"-cut to your case looks good and well done (sanded the edges? or just a new blade). If you need the original back panel again, Lazer3D can probably send one, or I think I have an extra still also.
But you're right, not being able to use the dust-cover top can be an eye-sore. To me, a cheaper/easier solution is to make an "inverse-riser-card" that inverts the expansion pins, so we can use the side-slot as an up-facing vertical slot (otherwise, as-is a riser on the side-slot ends up down facing). That's still not ideal, but let's us readily use two-cards on the stock Lazer3D case - and that may hold us over until even-lower-profile-dual-sided-components cards become feasible.
You do have a valid rant - it's a DevBoard but not really a "dev-case" (I'd call it more a "desktop case"). That's probably fine for most people, but it's true the overall design has meandered a bit between wanting to be a game-console set-top vs general-purpose desktop computer.