Mati and Darth Hideous, Thanks for the suggestions! Since the electronic components are extremely small, the length and width of the finished board are flexible (parts can be rotated and rearranged). As for reducing the layout to 0.75" by 0.8" (a reduction in both dimensions), this would reduce the total area of the board by 70% (.75*.8 = .6 inches^2 and the original 1"*2" = 2 inches^2), which will most likely be impossible... imagine an Ultrasound board cut in half and then that half cut in half again! However, 0.75" by 2.666", for example, would easily work. All things considered, here's an idea... I'll add a poll to this blog regarding the desired dimensions. The top three most popular sizes will eventually be manufactured and made available... So when you order, remember there are three might be three styles! Let's get enough votes to get some real statistics out of that poll. Tell your friends.
The price:
The components are expensive. The 2GB, which is currently the most requested size, memory chip alone is something like 8 dollars in quantities of 1000, 4GB even higher. Accelerometers and the gyroscope are more expensive than that, the sound synthesizing circuits are comparable to that of a PC sound card, there will be three fast processors, and heavy duty power controllers, light controllers (4 outputs) etc... The board is packed with silicon, front and back. It will be the most powerful light saber controller ever, at least in terms of processing capacity, configurability, power output, sensitivity and accuracy of motion / physics, etc!
Even still, demand for the device will ultimately determine the price. From a practical perspective, if the demand is such that only one or two units are purchased per day, then it would be pointless to produce in quantities of 1,000, since it would take up to three years to sell them all. And, by then, either the device will be obsolete, or the price of technology will have dropped.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I always say that you get what you pay for. Too highly priced and well... but I really hope you don't use cheaper, less effective alternatives that cost on or two dollars less, but reduce the quality by more than the value of $2.
ReplyDeleteThis is just what happened with the US 2.5 .
How much the price would change if we could use clash sensor for clashes? Using accelemeter for clashes is... The simple ball-bearing sensor for clashes is much more accurate, and I would happily pay 0.25 $ more (The price of them on TCSS) if this would be possible.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the board should be long and thin, and that do not buy second-grade components just to lower the price a bit, as Skott just said.
I also think that 2 GBs would do just fine for the board.
A video?
Thanks
By the way where is the poll?
ReplyDeleteJesse,
ReplyDeleteSorry, you misunderstood. I didn't say 0.75 "x" 0.8, I said 0.75 "-" (to) 0.8, and I meant in width only. 0.75 x 2.7 would be OK, as long as the length doesn't create more problems than it would solve. I think we need more feedback before you head off in that direction. You can't please everyone, but do the best you can.
Thanks...
I say leave it 1" by 2" it'll fit in anything thats out there.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of a thinner one, simply because while the one would fit anything out there now, a thinner board would fit saber hilts that are NOT out there right now.
ReplyDeleteWould it be possible to take the skinnier board and split it, with wires or ribbon connecting? If so, you could conceivably achieve .8" X 1.4" with the boards sitting parallel. Which would allow for some VERY small fully functional lightsaber hilts.
Also, yeah, don't go with cheaper components to save a couple of bucks. I think that at the price you suggested, with the features you suggested there will be plenty of buyers.
Single, long, and narrow board.
ReplyDeletePerfection.
I would hate to have a splitted board, too easy to break...
OK... I REALLY disagree with Mati on this one. Why change to a long, thin board? I fail to see what you gain by having a longer board that will not fit on top of a battery pack, which in my opinion is the most sensible way to mount a soundboard. What do you need to put NEXT to the board?
ReplyDeleteAnd Jesse PLEASE use accelerometers. Clash sensors are a set sensitivity. The spring either hits the wall of the sensor or it doesn't. The accelerometer can have changed values, so if you have a less sensitive saber, or you mount the board somewhere less sensitive, you can just change the accelerometer settings to account, and vica versa.
" I say leave it 1" by 2" it'll fit in anything thats out there. "
ReplyDeleteI agree fully. absolutely no reason to change the size of the standard that has worked in this hobby (in slight variations) for years.
Also, i agree with Skott on the idea of the accelerometer vs the sensor. If i wanted something NOT configurable i would buy a MR board.
Don't worry, accelerometers are a definite. It's all solid state and high speed. Information leading from these sensors are analyzed by FFT algorithms. The user can ultimately decide exactly how to respond, or choose default settings which should work in most cases. Gyroscopes will also be used to maintain bearing and process dead reckoning of position.
ReplyDeleteJesse, can you say how many accent LED pads there are yet? I'm planning my saber! And can you give any information about sound?
ReplyDeleteAs many have said, a video is in order.
ReplyDeletePlease upload a video to youtube.
Upload to youtube -> more people interested -> more buyers -> more money -> better versions -> next version preview upload to youtube
And the loop goes on.
A spambot?
ReplyDelete(His weird link)