Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community - Reply to Topic

Thread: Attempt at creating a mouse Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
06-10-2019 11:18 AM
ATH-YF
Quote: Originally Posted by seryth View Post
There will always be something that someone will complain about you can't please everyone - from what I've noticed the holes do provide a weight reduction while also cooling my hand during gaming sessions which is an added perk for me. With the standard shells my hand tend to sweat quite a bit. If the community here highly disliked the holes and wanted them removed I would obviously do just that. Either way my goal is to actually fund this project via preorders or starting an indiegogo campaign I'm just hoping their is some sort of demand for this type of mouse. If not at least I've tried.
Good to see something light finally targeted for peoples with smaller hands and shorter grip styles. I'm signed up if the hardware reach a proper level in quality control (including the scroll wheel). Is hot swap able switches a possibility here?

I'm used to clear my hardware and I sweat a lot too so holes are very interesting to me, unfortunately everything released so far (G Model O..) is still too big.
Reinforcing the shell in few spots by covering the holes could help preserve its integrity.

Please don't give up on the idea, there are similar peoples looking for replacement of their old g100s, Ninox aurora & co without trading dimensions. (not even mentioning girls gamers who tend to have shorter hands too)
06-10-2019 10:15 AM
JackCY
Quote: Originally Posted by gipetto View Post
The best standard way is to have no ratio between debounce time and click latency. When the click occurs, immediately bypass any delay code and register the click to the host pc, then from that point on start counting debounce time before it unclicks. about 14ms or so would be ok, but up to 24 ms is fine too.
Pretty much, plus the 3 contacts switch hardware based bouncing reduction. The problem with click delays is mostly from crappy firmware adding unnecessary delays instead of doing it proper.

--

The shapes... not interested. Too tiny meant for small hands and claw grip. Plus it may get into issues with who ever you copy the shape from: Logitech, BenQ, ...

Hexagonal while looking "cool" is not the most structurally stiff or breaking resistant. Plus if the material is thick then what weight saving really is there compared to a thin solid wall material.

Dunno how much a "die" to manufacture the shape costs but it certainly isn't cheap. Most of these projects often go the route of DIY and 3D print instead.

Hard to tell from only rendered pictures how stiff and resistant it will be, one has to hold and use it to know.
06-10-2019 09:23 AM
seryth
Quote: Originally Posted by TranquilTempest View Post
I guarantee people would whine about bad build quality, because the buttons wiggle a bit.
There will always be something that someone will complain about you can't please everyone - from what I've noticed the holes do provide a weight reduction while also cooling my hand during gaming sessions which is an added perk for me. With the standard shells my hand tend to sweat quite a bit. If the community here highly disliked the holes and wanted them removed I would obviously do just that. Either way my goal is to actually fund this project via preorders or starting an indiegogo campaign I'm just hoping their is some sort of demand for this type of mouse. If not at least I've tried.
06-10-2019 09:18 AM
seryth
Quote: Originally Posted by qsxcv View Post
nice shape but holes are the most stupid thing ever
Thank you. I am going to test this without side holes, as well as top and see the if their are any significant weight differences. I am aiming for a really lightweight mouse because that's always what I have preferred.
06-09-2019 09:08 AM
TranquilTempest
Quote: Originally Posted by lurkerguy View Post
Agreed I wish Logitech would make a normal size 50g mouse without holes to show everyone else that holes in shells are pointless and barely save any weight
I guarantee people would whine about bad build quality, because the buttons wiggle a bit.
06-09-2019 04:23 AM
lurkerguy Agreed I wish Logitech would make a normal size 50g mouse without holes to show everyone else that holes in shells are pointless and barely save any weight
06-09-2019 12:50 AM
qsxcv nice shape but holes are the most stupid thing ever
06-08-2019 12:32 PM
gipetto The best standard way is to have no ratio between debounce time and click latency. When the click occurs, immediately bypass any delay code and register the click to the host pc, then from that point on start counting debounce time before it unclicks. about 14ms or so would be ok, but up to 24 ms is fine too.
06-08-2019 10:24 AM
seryth
Quote: Originally Posted by vanir1337 View Post
Cool! Also, get it a good MCU and a well-written firmware. If you're going with the Omrons, have them have at least 4-6 ms of debounce if not more, but measure out the click latency in the end so it won't get overly high (best stay below 10 ms a little bit). Also, make sure not to smooth the hell out of the sensor above 2000 CPI like some companies do.
If all of these are done properly you'll get yourself a great product.
Will do, I will be working with a manufacture who are specialists with all of this.. They will be able to provide the ability to adjust the debounce time within the software, but I will have it come out of the box with the most optimal debounce time. As of right now we're choosing D2FC-F-7N for the switches do you know what is generally accepted as the best debounce time to click latency ratio for this? We will test this to find the most optimal settings otherwise
06-08-2019 09:35 AM
TranquilTempest
Quote: Originally Posted by vanir1337 View Post
Wanted to say this, but for a one man project, I'm not quite sure if it's affordable.
Well, if you have source files and you're already familiar with the PCB layout and firmware, it's a couple hours work to make that change. Whether it's feasible depends on how many middlemen there are between the purchaser and the EE, and if the factory already has a stockpile of PCBs of the old design.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off