In previous version, it was possible to set the default location for saved files. I'd like to see this back.
Also the Recent Files header is a bit sloppy. Why not put recently opened files directly at the bottom like most other software.
Posted By: Dan Santoni on Aug 17, 2010 01:22PM Category: Whishes
Thank you for the feedback concerning our software. I will forward your comments along to our software engineers.
I would mention, however, that the intention of the modifications to the "Recent Files" menu selection was intended to allow for a longer history of opened files without making the "File" drop down menu super long.
Posted By: Paul Birkeland on Aug 18, 2010 07:29PMReply
I can understand why the Recent Files was done the way it is. However, it is more unwieldy than just having them visible. A limit could also be set by the user.
Posted By: Dan Santoni on Aug 18, 2010 09:30PMReply
would it be possible to add white to the color selection. i sure would appreciate it.
Posted By: Randy Humbert on Aug 13, 2010 04:15PM Category: Front Panel Designer
Thank you for contacting us concerning our materials.
Currently, there is no process available to make white anodized aluminum. We do, however, plan to offer powder coating in the near future. As white anodizing is currently impossible, it seems reasonable to expect that white will be one of the first choices available.
Also, depending on your needs, we may be able to recommend certain plastics that are also white. Feel free to give us a call to discuss these options.
Posted By: Paul Birkeland on Aug 13, 2010 05:09PMReply
I'm wondering what the general tolerance is for hole sizes.
I received an order today in which a few 0.125 inch were used, intended for press-fit dowel pins. The dowel pins are loose instead and I found that a #30 drill (nominally 0.128") passes easily through those holes.
It would help me to know what precision to expect.
I can just use slip-fit loctite for now, but in the future should I specify any special tolerance in the order notes (or elsewhere?), or have them drilled smaller and ream precision-diameter holes myself? I have low volumes so that wouldn't really be a problem for me either.
Posted By: Ed Heitzman on Jul 26, 2010 08:47PM Category: Production
Our tolerance for holes, engravings, sizes, and thickness is +/- .1mm.
For your .125" drill hole, it would not be out of the ordinary to receive a panel with a .129" hole. If, however, you measure the hole with a caliper and find that the dimension is measurably larger than that, please contact us.
Posted By: Paul Birkeland on Jul 26, 2010 08:57PMReply
Thanks for the quick reply, Paul.
For what it's worth, these holes are 1/8 inch diameter, not 1/4. They are within that +/- 0.1mm spec though.
I thought they might be tighter, at least when using "standard" sizes. Do you use the closest metric drill when "inch" sizes like this are specified?
In any event in the future I'll be sure to make any lower-tolerance holes a bit smaller and ream them true myself.
Posted By: Ed Heitzman on Jul 27, 2010 02:00AMReply
Hello again Ed,
(I amended my post above)
When you have specific needs concerning really tight tolerance holes, it is always good to leave a note in the "Remarks for Production" box in the panel properties, or to give us a call.
Posted By: Paul Birkeland on Jul 27, 2010 05:48PMReply
I guess this isn't a bug, but an annoyance. The edit boxes in some dialogs aren't wide enough.
I assume this would be in several places, but the one that "bugs" me most is in the "Move Selected Objects" dialog.
e.g. If I change the absolute X position to say 11.9500 inches, it's not too bad while still in the dialog (left-justified with the 4th decimal point half cut off); but if I reenter the dialog the X value appears as "1.9600" with the most significant digit completely cut off. You need to enter the edit box and scroll it over to see the most significant digit.
The edit boxes simply need to be a bit wider.
Posted By: Ed Heitzman on Jul 26, 2010 08:25PM Category: Front Panel Designer
When you click back into the dialog box to edit the X value, the number will move around according to where you click. If for instance in 11.9512", you click on the very right edge of the 2, then the leading 1 will get cut off. If, however, you click on the decimal point, you will lose the 2 at the end of the number.
For those of us (like me) used to clicking on the right edge of a given number to edit it, this will take some getting used to!
While we could widen the box, when you start working on huge panels in metric, the boxes would need to get super wide to sufficiently display all the entries.
We will be sure to work on this for the next revision of the software, thanks for letting us know!
I hope this helps.
Posted By: Paul Birkeland on Jul 27, 2010 05:53PMReply
I really like the idea of your side panel extrusions. They seem affordable, and I'm sure they are very solid. For the purposes of making rack cases however, the costs of top/bottom panels adds up very quickly.
For my purposes, I don't have any special requirements for top/bottom panels. Perhaps a few air vent holes, but I don't really even care where they are located. For an 11" deep 19" wide rack case, the cost of the top and bottom panels comes to around $60 a piece, which is about the same as front/rear panels. That makes a 1U enclosure somewhere around $260.
I like the flexibility of front and back panel design, but I wonder if one of the following could be a solution to reduce cost and increase sales:
1. Manufacture standard rack width top/bottom panels similar to your extrusions: in one big long sheet, and then cut to the customer's length requirements.
2. Keep several standard length top/bottom rack panels (like 6", 10", 13", 16", 20"), and manufacture them in bulk so that you can make them more cheaply and offer them more cheaply.
3. Source some standard length top/bottom rack panels (like 6", 10", 13", 16", 20") in steel from another supplier in bulk and just resell them. This way they could be thinner (0.06") and cheaper.
As is, I'm probably going to end up purchasing a stock rack chassis from somewhere else and then either send a front and rear panel to you to customize or just drill it myself. If you offered simple stock top/bottom panels at $10 a piece, an enclosure would be around $160, which would be affordable enough where I would be much more likely to get a custom chassis from you.
I have no idea how many rack cases you sell, but it seems that if you sell enough to warrant having some top/bottom panels in bulk then you could sell more.
Posted By: Eric Pruett on Jul 24, 2010 07:46PM Category: Whishes
Thanks for the input! While I can sympathize with you in terms of the costs associated with fabricating a custom enclosure, cutting a pre-cut sheet to various lengths would add significant time (and cost) to the process of enclosure fabrication. For a 19" wide rack enclosure, the top and bottom panels would need some mounting holes for the housing brackets, and adding these after a sheet is cut out would raise the price significantly.
This caveat makes the bulk purchasing/manufacturing less advantageous. When you add in the observation that nearly all of our rack panel boxes are made with different depths, we end up holding onto significant amounts of additional material.
If you wanted to use our extrusions, front panels, and back panels, you could investigate obtaining raw 1.5mm aluminum provided elsewhere for your top and bottom panels.
You could also likely purchase and machine perforated sheet on your own for this application.
Hopefully this is helpful!
Posted By: Paul Birkeland on Jul 26, 2010 07:25PMReply