The first model was extremely useful, allowing me to identify issues, not only with the design itself, but with how it’s design affected the manufacturing of the enclosure.
1. PVA material was used to support any overhangs within the design. This was time consuming (and would have taken considerably longer had I waited for it to dissolve completely), messy and difficult to remove. Breakaway supports could be substituted to speed up post processing and make it easier.
2. The adhesion material attached to and surrounding the perimeter of each component was also difficult to remove, especially from the bottom of the base, since the rails on the thin sides of the base make them sharp, reducing the effectiveness of simply sanding off the excess material.
3. After all of the support/adhesion material was removed, the parts fitted together well, sliding freely against each other. However, the build of the casing in general feels flimsy, cheap and low quality, for a number of possible reasons. one also being due to the sharpness of the rails on the thin sides of the base, which make it difficult to achieve a smooth, even edge.
4. The two parts are difficult to assemble whilst holding them in mid air, but this becomes far easier when placed on a surface (which could be designed into the concept).
5. There is limited grip for the user when opening the enclosure.
6. I only managed to fit one of the screws into the threaded holes since they were slightly too small, these need to be widened.
Whilst some of these issues can be fixed by simply altering the CAD model, other issues may require more exploration into development design ideas via further sketching, CAD and prototyping.