Hi panel designers and users,
Just thought I would add $.02 to several mentioned issues. Sorry if this
turns into a novella.
I suppose the basic (conflicting) issues are cost and customization. I'm
for standardization for ease of designing and reduced cost (by several of
us ordering the same panel - but see Cost Note below). However, I assume
like some others, I value being able to customize a panel to my viewpoint
and my limited physical space for inserting modules.
>
> A standardized macro would be good -- whatever's closest to MOTM, though
> even MOTM changed to a simpler style, didn't they?
I think MOTM changed to a more detailed design, especially tick marks and
numbering (I'm comparing the 110 style [11 tick marks, few numbers] to the
310).
One issue I have with motm numbers are their size. Given my aging
eyes, they are bit difficult to see, so in the panels I've designed I've
slightly increased the sizes of the numbers and changed the font a bit to
make the numbers more readable to me. This may not be an issue with
others, but it is one thing that I can do with Schaeffer panels that helps
me out. Stooge panels have smaller numbers and lettering than motm (tho'
similar in design). This is also one reason I prefer the simpler 110
style to the later motm module styles.
Cost Note: I'm not entirely convinced that the Schaeffer discounts apply
to only the same .fpd files. I previously placed an order that contained
5 different files (that totaled over $200) and asked Kai if I could possibly
receive a discount. If I remember correctly, he did take off 5% or 10%.
So, if we submit a 'reasonable' number of files, we could ask Kai if he
would apply a discount to the entire lot (we certainly couldn't lose by
asking).
>Richard wrote:
>I am not worried about exactly matching MOTM. I would just like to have
>11 main detent tick marks on each dial, like the MOTM.
Yes, here I am in agreement. Even a number on each of the tick marks
(like I have on my designs) isn't crucial to me (again, 110 as an
example).
>Richard wrote:
>Since we started the standards, topic, how about hole sizes?
Again this depends on what components are being used by individuals. For
example, on Oakley modules I buy the Omeg pots, which require a slightly
larger hole size than the Spectrol and Bourns that usually go into motm
modules. It becomes more complicated if one uses another pot
manufacturer, say Alpha, which I have used in some of my EFM and CGS
designs (just because I had the pot's on hand).
>The standard MOTM Lumex LED goes in a 5/16" hole.
This is true for the 'single color' Lumex's that are used in motm's, but
Lumex makes other sized led's. There is a bicolor Lumex led that I like
that takes a 1/4" hole.
>Another approach would be to make all LED holes 1/4" and
>let people who want to use the Lumex part just drill them out.
A possibility I would consider. However, one of the things I like about
getting Schaeffer panels is that I don't have to drill holes.
Comments? Jeff