VOGONS


Reply 20 of 39, by NeoG_

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Lopo wrote on 2026-09-22, 18:19:

That explains the last piece: the error dialog was telling you the truth every time. What varies is only what the repair decides to do with the open edges, and on the loads where it picked something harmless you had nothing to notice. So you probably did reproduce it — it just did not show.
And do not be hard on yourself about the QA. You gave me the one thing I could not get any other way: a screenshot of what a slicer actually did with the file. I had no test for watertightness at all until then, which is exactly why the bug survived this long. There is one now, and it runs over every combination the tool can produce.

Hi Lopo, the tool looks to be very useful, however keep in mind the forum does not allow the content of posts to be generated by AI models and there is no exception for "my english isn't good". Please write the posts yourself.

98/DOS Rig: BabyAT AladdinV, K6-2+/550, V3 2000, 128MB PC100, 20GB HDD, 128GB SD2IDE, SB Live!, SB16-SCSI, PicoGUS, WP32 McCake, iNFRA CD, ZIP100
XP Rig: Lian Li PC-10 ATX, Gigabyte X38-DQ6, Core2Duo E6850, ATi HD5870, 2GB DDR2, 2TB HDD, X-Fi XtremeGamer

Reply 21 of 39, by H3nrik V!

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Love that tool. Only issue from my POV is that I've already spent hours on hours modeling my own design, starting years ago, and have printed 20+ of them, so I'm not likely to actually use the tool. But kudos for the good work!

If it's dual it's kind of cool ... 😎

--- GA586DX --- P2B-DS --- BP6 ---

Please use the "quote" option if asking questions to what I write - it will really up the chances of me noticing 😀

Reply 22 of 39, by H3nrik V!

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

When using DIP designs, it only reports number of pockets - not number of chips made room for. All though it is correct, that there's only one pocket for e.g. 3 chips in a row, it would be nice with a "number of chips" or something. It creates holes fine. (using 178x130 mm, DIP18 0.3" as an example). Maybe it would even be cool with separators between chips placed in a row?

If it's dual it's kind of cool ... 😎

--- GA586DX --- P2B-DS --- BP6 ---

Please use the "quote" option if asking questions to what I write - it will really up the chances of me noticing 😀

Reply 23 of 39, by Boohyaka

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Lopo, the stacking looks fine to me 😀

The attachment stack.jpeg is no longer available

Also about the geometry error - I tried to slice the model without the repair, and it sliced okay. I'm currently printing it out as a test, and so far it's looking good

Reply 24 of 39, by Lopo

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Since there are still some errors coming in, and it is very hard to work anything out from descriptions and photos alone, this update adds a version marker — the build at the bottom of the page — and writes the settings that generated a file into the file itself. So for any problem, please send me the generated file that is faulty, together with which program and version you used and what error it reports.

Dothan Burger: a non-manifold edge is an edge where the surface does not close up properly — the model has a gap you cannot see, but the slicer trips over it.

About the pedestal: there are two ways of supporting a chip in a pocket. The pedestal is a raised square in the middle of the pocket and the chip rests on its own pin-free centre — that is the "Central pedestal" checkbox. The ledge is a step around the edge of the pocket and the chip rests on the rim of its substrate — that is the "Edge ledge under the substrate rim" slider, in mm, 0 meaning none.

Which one is right depends on the underside of the package. Old CPUs (386, 486, Socket 7, Socket A) have a clean underside, so the pedestal is enough. From Socket 370 onwards they started putting SMD capacitors down there, so those need the ledge — Socket 370 has both, a smaller pedestal plus a ledge, and the newer ones have only the ledge. So for Socket A the pedestal is on and the ledge is 0 by default, and that is deliberate.

Yoghoo: the filament figure is calculated from 100% fill, so the real weight is proportionally lower according to your own settings. A reset for the values has been added, except for the selected package/socket and the label text. The preview can be reset by clicking a view type — including the one that is already selected.

A tray mixing different packages: nope, at least in the near future.

H3nrik V!: the DIP dimensions have been checked and the calculations cleaned up where they had been rounded — and one of them turned out to be a typo rather than rounding, off by half a millimetre. The count was already there, the wording has been changed. And if you like, send me your design and I can look at whether some adjustment could be made so the two fit together.

Separators between chips: not right now, but possibly later this week.

NeoG_: fair enough, and I am not going to pretend otherwise — I do not hand-code all of this myself, the project is AI-assisted. There is simply too much interlinked technology in it for one person to command all of it at that level of detail.

For context: I am an IT analyst/developer/programmer by profession, I studied mechanical engineering at secondary level, and electronics is my hobby. I understand what the project does and I have been checking it from the start — but I am not going to claim that anyone can understand something like this to the last line of code, in all its connections.

As for the posts, they were not plain copy and paste either. Trust but verify: I went through everything, and a good part of it I wrote myself.

Reply 25 of 39, by megatog615

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Is this AI-generated code?

Your AI slop bores me.

Reply 26 of 39, by Dothan Burger

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Lopo wrote on 2026-09-23, 15:11:

Which one is right depends on the underside of the package. Old CPUs (386, 486, Socket 7, Socket A) have a clean underside, so the pedestal is enough.

Athlon XP Palomino core does have smd's on the underside.

Reply 27 of 39, by H3nrik V!

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Lopo wrote on 2026-09-23, 15:11:

H3nrik V!: the DIP dimensions have been checked and the calculations cleaned up where they had been rounded — and one of them turned out to be a typo rather than rounding, off by half a millimetre. The count was already there, the wording has been changed. And if you like, send me your design and I can look at whether some adjustment could be made so the two fit together.

Oh, that's my bad - I hadn't noticed the text box showing the chip count, and as an afterthought that is off course the right way of reporting it, since one channel containing several chips is still just one channel. Thanks for clarifying!

If it's dual it's kind of cool ... 😎

--- GA586DX --- P2B-DS --- BP6 ---

Please use the "quote" option if asking questions to what I write - it will really up the chances of me noticing 😀

Reply 28 of 39, by megatog615

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Could there be a "top" preset that just generates a "tray" for nothing that can stack on top to close the stack?

Your AI slop bores me.

Reply 29 of 39, by Boohyaka

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
megatog615 wrote on 2026-09-24, 21:50:

Could there be a "top" preset that just generates a "tray" for nothing that can stack on top to close the stack?

that's a good idea!

Reply 30 of 39, by megatog615

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Boohyaka wrote on 2026-09-25, 05:14:
megatog615 wrote on 2026-09-24, 21:50:

Could there be a "top" preset that just generates a "tray" for nothing that can stack on top to close the stack?

that's a good idea!

I want to print a top, then wrap it all up with rubber bands to hold the stack together until I need a different CPU.

Your AI slop bores me.

Reply 31 of 39, by Lopo

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

You asked for it, you got it 😉

  • added separators for DIP, enabled by default
  • added a lid option, via a checkbox under the package/socket selection

Reply 32 of 39, by megatog615

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Lopo wrote on 2026-09-27, 13:11:
You asked for it, you got it ;) […]
Show full quote

You asked for it, you got it 😉

  • added separators for DIP, enabled by default
  • added a lid option, via a checkbox under the package/socket selection

The STL for the lid should probably be flipped upside-down if the label is set to engraved.

Your AI slop bores me.

Reply 33 of 39, by Lopo

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
megatog615 wrote on 2026-09-27, 21:50:

The STL for the lid should probably be flipped upside-down if the label is set to engraved.

done 😉

Reply 34 of 39, by sdz

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Thanks for making and sharing this! Printed a couple of trays and they turned out great. Printed on a Bambu Lab P2S, 0.4mm nozzle, 0.12mm layer height.

The attachment 20261007_100707.jpg is no longer available

Reply 35 of 39, by Lopo

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

added a new group: memory modules
for now with presets for SIPP 30, SIMM 30, SIMM 72 and SDRAM DIMM

Reply 36 of 39, by megatog615

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Lopo wrote on 2026-10-11, 07:42:

added a new group: memory modules
for now with presets for SIPP 30, SIMM 30, SIMM 72 and SDRAM DIMM

I printed out a 72-pin SIMM tray and... it's not really that tall? Regular SIMMs exceed the height easily. Is this intentional? I think the default module height is a bit low at 16.5mm.

Your AI slop bores me.

Reply 37 of 39, by Lopo

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Those heights are more or less the minimum, and there is of course a slider for them, since real modules vary a lot in height.
I've changed the default height from that min value to a more standard one.
On the opposite side of those minimal heights there are some "monstrosities", double-height modules with wings that are wider than the contact edge ... for now I'm analysing them to add support for them.
for example: https://www.ebay.com/itm/800209830615

Reply 38 of 39, by megatog615

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Lopo wrote on 2026-10-13, 06:04:
Those heights are more or less the minimum, and there is of course a slider for them, since real modules vary a lot in height. I […]
Show full quote

Those heights are more or less the minimum, and there is of course a slider for them, since real modules vary a lot in height.
I've changed the default height from that min value to a more standard one.
On the opposite side of those minimal heights there are some "monstrosities", double-height modules with wings that are wider than the contact edge ... for now I'm analysing them to add support for them.
for example: https://www.ebay.com/itm/800209830615

Okay I printed one for 32mm as that's the tallest I have. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to get modules out when the tray is loaded up, though.

Your AI slop bores me.

Reply 39 of 39, by Lopo

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
megatog615 wrote on 2026-10-13, 10:01:

Okay I printed one for 32mm as that's the tallest I have. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to get modules out when the tray is loaded up, though.

added some modifications / options