**Orbiter 2.0 Playing Card Display - LIVE!

[ecNate]

So Version 1.0 was $48 to display 10 decks and Version 2.0 takes two displays at $54 to display 8 decks? Sorry, but I'd rather have the V1 than this.

So, I knew this would come up, so let's go ahead and address it quickly.

In Version 1.0, it cost $59 to display 10 decks.
In Version 2.0, is costs $62 to display 12 decks.

So, for $3, you gain 2 deck spaces.

Also, you may have noticed that the deal actually gets better the higher/more you get. Admittedly, we couldn't get the numbers to be as nice for the lower pledge levels, but the cost is lower. The funding goal is lower. And, the higher pledge levels are better then the original.

Shipping confusion aside, you are also comparing the min capacity with full rotation to a max capacity with flip action. At full capacity in v1 you would pay $68 for 15 decks so for just $5 more you get 3 deck spaces or to put another way, in v1.0 you lost 2 spaces, but paid $3 less and retained full rotation. It would have been more fair to compare v1.0 at $59 for 10 decks to 8 for $54 where both have full rotation. For me that would have been better actually, but it depends on how people want to display or how many... Anyhow, this may seem like nitpicking, but it's an important distinction that may be lost on those that are seeing this the first time. EDIT - this assumes shipping is included, if it's not then that's even worse and your numbers are off.

Either way, I'm glad this is back and wish you luck. I hope the shipping mixup doesn't kill this from the start because many like me already said no thanks based on that and hopefully they will reconsider if shipping actually is included. I'll be considering it for a while, but if shipping is included I might have to see how I can work these in.

[Fes]

Comparing the two designs against one another. Pro's and Con's of each design. Is this an improvement over the original?

Four or Six decks displayed vs Ten or Fifteen. Two part acrylic deck cage vs Three part deck cage. The new nibs vs the other flip it around nibs. Shorter frame vs the original length.

Many of the choices are cost saving, but are they better for the end user?

[flyers3003]

Let's take a look at another example. Suppose I want to display 20 decks with the 360 degree availability:

V1 - 2 displays (10 decks each at 360 degrees) for $95 + $17 shipping = $112

V2 - 5 displays (4 decks each at 360 degrees) for $130, and we're not even talking about shipping here (which if we did would be an additional $18 for $148)

I'm sorry, I do wish you luck as I've enjoyed many of your deck designs, but your numbers just make this way too costly. And the numbers would only be worse for international customers.

[volantangel]

So Version 1.0 was $48 to display 10 decks and Version 2.0 takes two displays at $54 to display 8 decks? Sorry, but I'd rather have the V1 than this.

So, I knew this would come up, so let's go ahead and address it quickly.

In Version 1.0, it cost $59 to display 10 decks.
In Version 2.0, is costs $62 to display 12 decks.

So, for $3, you gain 2 deck spaces.

Also, you may have noticed that the deal actually gets better the higher/more you get. Admittedly, we couldn't get the numbers to be as nice for the lower pledge levels, but the cost is lower. The funding goal is lower. And, the higher pledge levels are better then the original.

Seriously you not knowing the numbers on your own project is hardly reassuring, why do you need us to point out the flaws in your argument ? If you knew this would come up, you could have at least given us a better explanation.

The only thing here working in your favour is the lowered funding goal, even if you lose a couple of backers here and there you might still make it, but please keep the hideous deck out of the picture this time.

[louizz]

Hey folks,

First, let me apologize for my rushed response. Obviously I misspoke and was trying to do too many things at once. The numbers that have been posted since then, by other folks, are accurate.

So with version v2 we decided to take a different approach then on v1- and yes, to ensure there are no smoke and mirrors going on, the price per deck displayed is more. However, the actual unit cost is less as is the funding goal, which was our main focus.

When we did v1, there were substantial costs associated with it and it's production- hence why the funding goal was so high as was the unit price. On v1, we were focused on the large collectors. The folks who had a plethora of decks, and they wanted to display as many of them as they could. Our general feedback was that it was too large, too expensive, too high of a funding goal, and some people didn't like the actual display cases used as it blocked the sides. But, overall it was a good concept.

On v2, we decided to try to incorporate that feedback. The main focus was to get the funding goal down, which we did substantially. The only way to do this was change the design around, which worked out to also help address some of the other concerns. We shortened the frame to hold 4-6 opposed to 10-15, which makes it more usable to a lot of folks. We changed the "nipple", which truthfully didn't change the price that much, but simplified the design. And, most importantly, changed the deck holder to be clear at every angle, allowing for a true every angle view-able area.

We wanted to make v2 more accessible to everyone, not just the hardcore collector with 100+ decks. With the new design, you can still display your decks, but you might just have to be more selective with what your displaying. It's also important to remember that one could also add as many clear sleeves they want to their order and switch them out as desired. They could purchase the 3 Orbiter option, and simply rotate decks out as they see fit.

The bottom line is, we were trying to make them cheaper per unit, make the funding goal substantially cheaper, and listen to the feedback and incorporate it. Some of our bigger backers from the first go around are going to be understandably upset, as it will ultimately cost them more to display the equal amount from the v1 display (FES). I wouldn't necessarily expect them to make the same level of pledge though, and fully understand if they didn't. But, perhaps they pick up a few, and go the rotation route.

Hopefully, this post will clear up a few points, and at the very least let folks know the approach this go around.

As for my opinion, I see pros and cons to both. Obviously, depending on your point of view, it's easy to argue either way. If you take the per deck display route, it's more costly... no doubt. You're paying less, but you're also getting less. But isn't that the way everything is?

I think v2 is a better design all around compared to v1. V2 is cleaner, takes up less space, and ultimately more affordable for the person who wants to display a handful of decks, versus they're entire collection.

but please keep the hideous deck out of the picture this time.

Oh Volantangel, you're never without an opinion. You'd be surprised how many people have been asking about that "hideous deck".

[flyers3003]

So you're really competing with the specialized displays:


(pic from collectableplayingcards.com)

versus the bulk displays:


(pic from collectableplayingcards.com)

Based on that, the price point is good, not as good as V1, but very good when compared to the lucite cases. If I was in the market for specialized cases I would probably prefer these over the lucite cases, but alas I must be in the minority of your feedback responses as I am more interested in the bulk display.

Appreciate your explanations of the costs/direction. Good luck and if you ever decide to attempt something in the bulk display category, I'd probably jump in.

[ecNate]

flyers nailed this, especially at this form factor you're talking about ability to display a subset of a most collections for just the most prized decks. However, I am glad you got the price of entry lower along with your funding goal because I really hope in the future you'll be able to make a much larger unit using the same design at a much lower per deck cost. Good luck and congrats on a strong early start. This really is a neat design, even if I did prefer the longer and larger prior option.

[cosmicsecret]

Yeah it´s a bit more pricey - on the other hand its more likely that it will get funded
I have to check my funds and then decide on how many i can afford.
This picture looks so great


That´s how i would like to display the decks too.
Another idea pops into my head right now - having a Orbiter Display underneath a uncut sheet of a series of 4/6 decks.
In example Emanuel´s Curator,Clipped Wings,Saw Dust - The Ellusionist Artifice Series - Smoke & Mirrors....and so on.
Single Orbiter Frames would be a nice stretch goal

[ecNate]

Another idea pops into my head right now - having a Orbiter Display underneath a uncut sheet of a series of 4/6 decks.
In example Emanuel´s Curator,Clipped Wings,Saw Dust - The Ellusionist Artifice Series - Smoke & Mirrors....and so on.
Single Orbiter Frames would be a nice stretch goal

Now that would be really cool actually, but I gotta wonder what the cost would be and if that would require new molds, etc. The only issue I think would be the height of them would be better served by a flat mount, but then you would need 2 decks. This is interesting, please look into that if things go well.

[louizz]

but I gotta wonder what the cost would be and if that would require new molds, etc.

You hit it on the head. Mold creation, engineering, and tooling are by far the most expensive part of doing something like that. It would actually be an entire new KS project. lol!

[louizz]

So, I have some great news! First off, people are awesomely smart! I didn't come up with this concept, but I wanted to share it with you all!

One of my backers asked a question, that led to a VERY exciting discovery!

The Orbiter 2.0 can actually display 18 decks with just 2 Orbiters. Or, 30 decks with just 3. Or, 42 decks, with just 4... You get the point.

See, the holes go all the way through the acrylic frame, which is 6mm thick. The nipples that hold the decks into place is just 3mm thick. That leaves exactly enough room for another nipple to go on the top/bottom.

This means that you can mount 2 Orbiters to the wall and then put 6 deck holders in between them, instantly creating an 18 deck display! Or, get 3 Orbiters, and put 12 decks (6 in between each one) and have 30 decks displayed! Obviously this only works for wall mounting, but that evens up the playing field for the larger collectors pretty substantially!

[dazzleguts]

Very cool!
I added this image to CBJ's initial posting. I hope you don't mind Jay?

[Eoghann]

Not bad at all.

[CBJ]

Very cool!
I added this image to CBJ's initial posting. I hope you don't mind Jay?

I don't mind at all!!

[CBJ]

Congrats on hitting your goal!!!

and still another 33 days to go!

[ecNate]

See, the holes go all the way through the acrylic frame, which is 6mm thick. The nipples that hold the decks into place is just 3mm thick. That leaves exactly enough room for another nipple to go on the top/bottom.

This means that you can mount 2 Orbiters to the wall and then put 6 deck holders in between them, instantly creating an 18 deck display! Or, get 3 Orbiters, and put 12 decks (6 in between each one) and have 30 decks displayed! Obviously this only works for wall mounting, but that evens up the playing field for the larger collectors pretty substantially!

While this is an excellent suggestion and on paper certainly possible, I really wonder if the real world execution will work as well. This also means your mounting holes need to be DEAD ON because your margin of error between where to place the top and bottom units really has to be within 1-2mm. Gravity, doing what it does will mean the decks in the middle will settle in to the lowest point and consume the full available 3mm. This means the top 'nipples' must rest within at least 1-2mm, ideally the full 3mm, of the top unit or they will fall out. I'm still willing to give it a try, but I really have to wonder how many people will be frustrated with trying to get it to work. Providing a proven paper template that has accurate measurements would help, but 2mm isn't much to work with. Unless you somehow have sample units that you've already tried, but I thought molds had to be built first.

Obviously the way to do it would be to mount the top, then insert a few holders in the middle and with the bottom empty make it a tight fit and make your marks ( EDIT - per Eoghann's post below doing the bottom first would probably be better). That should work, but I would still be concerned about getting it just perfect so they don't fall out and are still able to slide in/out easily from the middle. With proper care I would expect a high success rate, but there are variables and precision will be critical.

[Eoghann]

Yeah I was thinking that as well. It's definitely a clever idea whoever brought it up. But we're talking about less than an 1/8 of an inch on each end to play with so accuracy is imperative. A template would definitely help but I don't trust drywall anchors so I tend to use toggle bolts so there's plenty of play to get things accurate.

I would probably mount the bottom bracket first. Then place the center holders, and then mount the top bracket. Working with gravity that's probably the best way to minimize inaccuracy and you have the bottom supporting you.

[louizz]

Yeah I was thinking that as well. It's definitely a clever idea whoever brought it up. But we're talking about less than an 1/8 of an inch on each end to play with so accuracy is imperative. A template would definitely help but I don't trust drywall anchors so I tend to use toggle bolts so there's plenty of play to get things accurate.

Yeah, the backer(s) who mentioned it asked if I thought it would work, so I checked the measurements and it should-- on paper-- work. HOWEVER, you're absolutely right that lining it up will have to be spot on.

I think starting on the bottom is the best way to approach it, then go from there. AND, make sure you have a level

I think the frame should be rigid enough to hold everything in place without any issues, especially considering the weight distribution between having to have 2 mounted Orbiters (at the very least). And, the "nipples" have a wider base, so they will stop at exactly 3mm and go down no more. Like I said, on paper it works, but we may have to make some minor tweaks once we get the hard sample in.

As for the cases and switching out decks, you technically don't even have to take the deck holders out of the Orbiter to get a deck out. You should be able to get the deck out by just taking the horizontal case piece off.

[CBJ]

With a week to go, I thought I'd give this a bump