That's another driving reason actually. All of the arguments about dated layouts, form factors, and cap choices would become a moot argument. They would be more willing to try and understand why we think the buckling spring is special. Plus Phase 1 will cover MOST of our desires as an IBM purist (especially if we wrap it up with a metal case mini GB later).Techno Trousers wrote: ↑I do think, however, that phase 2 will generally have more appeal to the Cherry/Topre/Alps enthusiasts more so than the IBM enthusiasts, especially if you end up creating 60%, Ergodox, White Fox, or other small/non-standard layouts.
For Phase 1, the top plate will support both barrel types (XT and AT). So even if you went with AT barrels out of the gate, XT barrels could be exchanged for it at any point in the future. Hopefully that will make it more appealing to those that aren't sure yet what they want to do about procuring switches since the option of either working will be there.Techno Trousers wrote: ↑For point 1, let's make a mental note to have that choice finalized before phase 1 ordering opens, so we can know what type of phase 1 plate to order to make it compatible with the upcoming barrels. And for point 2, won't point 1 kind of make that impossible for the "losing" lock option? I suppose what would make the most sense is to choose the barrel type based on the distribution you're getting from your donor boards. My gut says that the AT style will be most plentiful, but maybe not.
For Phase 2 (when we actually produce a new barrel from scratch), we will pick one to keep the mold costs down. Either way you would be able to order an extra set of barrels and return the original donor board back (though you would need to pull the barrels from the Phase 1 assembly to return to the donor if it was the alternative lock).
