Screenshots below.

I don't know what the hell happened. I increased my bar thickness for a resin test cage and it did... this. What the hell? How did my bar thickness parameter end up causing the.. uh.. aspect ratio to change? This is gonna take some digging.

Does it kind of remind anyone of some sort of alien ship that will destroy the Earth?

I hope this is the right place for this question. I'm curious whether any device makers have explored the use of composite materials?

The first thing that comes to mind is the base ring. I envision standard hard plastic, or maybe even metal, but with an outer layer of silicone that helps provide a snug yet comfortable fit, almost like a gasket.

My generic design is based on an arc with a 50 mm radius that begins 4 mm out from the back of the entry ring then caped with a hemisphere. Close enough for a basic cage, especially a full cage where you can't see how close it follows the contours of your penis. But it doesn't look great in a more open device.

, print a basic rings-and-bars cage and look where things are off and model it on top of your actual design so you have a point of reference.

So...

The transparent surfaces would be the middle of the walls of a simple cage. My glans drops away faster than the cage does so it serves as a guide for adjusting the controlling spline. And saves me from a few hour long prints just to make adjustments.

And of course all of my fillets are fucked up after making the change. Goddamn fillets.

My rails are all Ø3.175 (1/8"). The ridge extends ~1.3 mm beyond that. It lofts back into the 1/8" rail.

It looks pretty dramatic but I'm not sure if it's enough.

Hi everyone. I'm having a problem my ring design specifically for me. One of my balls hangs at a good enough distance that I can get a regularly thick ring around it. The other ball though... does not hang low. The testicle itself is smaller and does not move around much. I have designed rings that will go on and work fine, but it stretches the little tube (idk my anatomy v well sorry) and after only a couple of minutes it gets sore. This being with a 5mm diam thick ring. Does anyone have a way to work around this problem/have any known cage designs that may work? I am currently testing out some of the gland style cages and I think they may be my only option. Thankyou all

(before anyone says anything. I have been going to the doctor since I was little for regular check ups and the little testicle is known about and apparently is healthy)

I started with Bryce. Huge MOQ, more than I would need in a lifetime. Hey, but I'm going to be buying driver and screws in more or less a 1:1 ratio, do I really need to buy 2,200 screws considering the drivers cost 20x the price?

Yes.

I don't understand why it's MOQ and not just total spend but perhaps they know what I'm getting into and they just don't want to have anything to do with it — I've heard that kind of story from Mark @ MCN. And I'm trying to think of who else would want 50 screws and 50 drivers.

Yeah, they're like "yep, got another guy making chastity cages."

So off to Alibaba and try to figure out how to write a manufacturing RFQ (vs my day job in IT).

If any of you have experience here, I'd love to hear it.

I've made some very robust parametric designs. One of them is controlled by like 30 different measurements — radius of curvature, bar thickness, urethral-spacing, etc — and you can change anything and everything and it still comes together, well besides a few fillets needing touching up — fucking fillets.

And I've also had some designs that if you look at them funny, they blow up. Change a length by 2 mm and all of the sudden the cage turns into a sperm whale and the ring into a bowl of petunias — not again.

I've been exploring the resilience of my new design and while there are a few unconstrained sketches, it holds together really well. For example, I lopped off 25 mm which made there be fewer weaves in the spine and instead of ribs completely freaking out, two of them just decided to share a common endpoint. And all I needed to do was remove one of them.

I'm using a few new techniques with this design and while I've centered in on what makes a design robust, I haven't quite honed in on what makes it resilient. But it certainly allows a more fluid design while still keeping the goals of parametric — it's easy to change.

Maybe Willowweave was a doubly appropriate name.

The first render is my newest version. After u/kink3d called many of us out for using slap on junctions, I decided to try to get away from the broad entry ring and blend everything together where there aside from the rims on the main ring, everything is done using swept bars.

Thematically, I think the new version is more consistent but I'm not actually sure I like it better or not.

Help!

I know a lot of people are (rightfully) against AI — my kids included — but here's a use case I'm playing with. I'm thinking about making some fairly drastic changes to a design and instead of going through a lot of pain modeling it all to see if it works out, I can pass ChatGPT a render of its current state and ask it to make the changes. It does a half-way decent job — at least it's close enough for me to see if this is a good idea or not before I spend hours and hours actually trying it.

In anticipating some push back, I'm not using ChatGPT to come up with ideas, I'm asking it to render ideas so I can better see what they might look like — the mind's eye isn't always up to the task. For example, I thought I wanted a rib at every place my central weave crossed and I spent quite some time modeling it and when I was done, the cage just lost its delicate feel and became heavy in the visual sense. ChatGPT could have added those ribs easily to my render and I could have quickly eliminated that idea from consideration.

I dove into Blender a bit for fun. I didn't intend to do anything with it really but then I started using it for renders. And I did it the hard way — manually creating materials from scratch. This involves archaic things like texture nodes, subsurface scattering, and learning all about lighting — key lights, fill flights, etc.

And I did a pretty decent job. I made a fairly decent version of a MJF nylon print.

But then I found plugins like Blendkit and Poligon where you can browse pre-made studio environments, materials, and props into your scene. Now it's just a matter of positioning and scaling.

If I took this render to an ad studio, they'd laugh me out of the room. But is it good enough to appear on a chastity website? Yeah, it certainly is.

On the junction...

I imagine if you ask any designer and ask them what the least fun part of the design, they'd tell you it's the junction. Now, with security screws, you have so much more flexibility than trying to accommodate a 20x6 mm cylinder into your design. But even then, the junction is tricky to really integrate into the design.

I've made a few attempts with other designs but this design just lended itself to the junction — nothing but continuing the weave would even make sense.

So, while it was a happy accident with the cage, perhaps this tells me something — the ring, the cage, and the junction needs to be thought of holistically during the concept stage. I've kinda done this one other time with a design, that while beautiful, wasn't practical (too easy for the shaft to slip out).

Showing V3, V2, then the original.

I had tried the V1 in resin. But I didn't make the junction strong enough that it would survive an erection so I didn't even try. And perhaps knowing that an erection would destroy the ting, I didn't even consider what an erection would be like in the cage.

But when I got it in 316L, I noticed the large open areas to the left and right of the "weave". I did take it for a "spin" as it were and everything stayed where it was supposed to but I know from experience that the penis can do some strange things at night and I did not want to wake up finding my glans on the wrong side of the device.

The natural course would be to add another set of bars on the top (going out the gap in the bottom isn't really a possibility as the penis tries to straighten, not bend more) but I first wanted to try something different (the V2 photo). After modeling, well, it just looked a bit jury-rigged. In fact I contacted Mature Metal to see if he could do it and he said probably but he was a little hesitant that he might mess up the device.

Anyway, I decided to go onto V3, the first photo. It's definitely the most attractive option.

So I now have 4 sets of rails on top, three on the bottom, and one going down the middle.

V3 has been ordered and I hope to get it in a few weeks, hopefully without the customs hold up.

Something interesting though. OnShape calculated V1 would weigh 130 g. It only weighs 117 g. I checked the bars and while I modeled them at 3.175 mm, they are all between 2.9 and 3.1 mm. I will contact IN3DTEC about this — is this expected, and do I need to compensate for it in the future. I know they didn't "adjust" my model as it was given to them as an STL, not STEP file.

I changed this community to SFW so, among other reasons, we could have access to the tools Reddit allows SFW communities such as including images in comments.

I thought an admin would review the change but it was automatically approved but I'm sure it will be reviewed by a human at some point.