I don’t understand why they push the “adamant” glass breaker/self protection thing and then have “NO” knurling at all on the body.
Contradiction in form and function.

Can we expect the same beam pattern as the earlier S42?

wle wrote:

it isn’t a glass breaker – it’s a ‘pocket ripper’

nice

(not really, why?)

Luckily the glass breaker simply unscrews (well it comes separately in the box, so you can simply not install it at all).

The body I have zero explanations for, it is ugly and I told them exactly that as soon as I saw it. The body on the prototype had some nice finger groves that looked pretty good actually.

JasonWW wrote:

Can we expect the same beam pattern as the S42?

Yes, it uses the same optic so it will have the same beam. The only change to the beam is a slightly thicker bezel for some reason so thus a little lower OTF lumens. Although on the plus side the tint shift on the XP-G3 seems to be a little reduced as well.

Wait, do you think the bezel is swappable?

That would be really nice so I could swap in the S42’s bezel in and get a better light.

BlueSwordM wrote:

Wait, do you think the bezel is swappable?

That would be really nice so I could swap in the S42’s bezel in and get a better light.

Yes, they appear to be swappable. Although holding them next to each other the difference is less then I first thought, maybe 0.5mm difference.

I seem to of forgotten how much the S42 bezel covered of the optic as I no longer have one (I used my S41 to swap the bezel)

Texas_Ace wrote:

The body I have zero explanations for, it is ugly and I told them exactly that as soon as I saw it. The body on the prototype had some nice finger groves that looked pretty good actually.

Weird. Just out of curiosity, do you happen to have a photo of the prototype we could see?

Assuming that wouldn’t violate any rights or agreements, of course – I’m not sure what the rules would be for something like that.

Phlogiston wrote:

Texas_Ace wrote:

The body I have zero explanations for, it is ugly and I told them exactly that as soon as I saw it. The body on the prototype had some nice finger groves that looked pretty good actually.

Weird. Just out of curiosity, do you happen to have a photo of the prototype we could see?

Assuming that wouldn’t violate any rights or agreements, of course – I’m not sure what the rules would be for something like that.

Yeah, I am not sure on the rules for that as well in this case. The light is released to the public now and they didn’t tell me to not share it but it also looks a lot different.

Everything is the same except the battery tube. Instead of a blank tube the prototype was a smooth finish with 3 gentle finger indention’s cut on 3 sides. Gave it a classy yet simple look.

If you already have an S42 you can swap the bezel if you desired or even the whole thing, pretty sure the battery tube can be swapped as well.

Sad that would be needed for a new light through.

Texas_Ace wrote:

Yeah, I am not sure on the rules for that as well in this case. The light is released to the public now and they didn’t tell me to not share it but it also looks a lot different.

Everything is the same except the battery tube. Instead of a blank tube the prototype was a smooth finish with 3 gentle finger indention’s cut on 3 sides. Gave it a classy yet simple look.

Got it, thank you Probably best not to chance the photo. Sounds interesting, though.

Out of curiosity, if the battery tube on the S43 was changed, would that be the only cosmetic issue most of you have with the light?

I think it might be too late for the S43 to be changed but figure I could give it one last try.

The tailcap striker is already removable, makes the tailcap a bit taller then needed but that is about it.

The bezel is the only other real complaint I see here, how big of a deal is it? it is not that aggressive and is not that bad.

I got permission to post the prototype light I got, these are pictures from Mateminco, the ano looks a lot better on mine in real life then the picture look.

I think it is pretty good looking in the real world, the picture do not do it justice. if I have time I might try to get one of mine.

Hey TA

Is it possible to modify the circuit to get 1A charging or it has to be done through the driver code?

I mainly use 18650 and prefer 1A charging.

Nicolicous wrote:

Hey TA

Is it possible to modify the circuit to get 1A charging or it has to be done through the driver code?

I mainly use 18650 and prefer 1A charging.

Nicolicous wrote:

Hey TA

Is it possible to modify the circuit to get 1A charging or it has to be done through the driver code?

I mainly use 18650 and prefer 1A charging.

Yes, there is a resistor that can be swapped to raise the current. No firmware involved as it is completely separate from the main driver.

So what we have here is BLF-modder’s dream-internals (thanks TA ) in a flashlight that is too ugly to buy (thanks Astrolux ).

Btw, TA, looking at the prototype, did Astrolux ever properly fix the optics issue that was in the S41? So the optic does not damage the leds but still the leds are in proper focus? (in the S41 they fixed one problem by creating the other).

I bought it because it is an ugly flashlight with a great UI – it will take all the bangs and scrapes that I can’t bring myself to have happen to my “pretty” lights

I might get it just for the heck of it. Roll the dice. If I don’t like it, I can always give it away. At the very least it does have a nice UI. It’s probably the only Narsil base light that has built-in charging from the factory.

I don’t know, I’ll keep thinking about it.

Texas_Ace, does the ramping go all the way to Turbo or does it stop short and you have to double click to get Turbo?

djozz wrote:

Btw, TA, looking at the prototype, did Astrolux ever properly fix the optics issue that was in the S41? So the optic does not damage the leds but still the leds are in proper focus? (in the S41 they fixed one problem by creating the other).

I am not sure what the “proper fix” is as I was not ever really aware of the issue but I did not notice any issues with the optics in the prototypes.

The optic has alignment pins for the mcpcb and the optic itself sits on a ledge cut into the head.

JasonWW wrote:

Texas_Ace, does the ramping go all the way to Turbo or does it stop short and you have to double click to get Turbo?

It stops short and uses a double click to turbo. Thus far there has been an vast majority approval of this method both from the feedback I have gotten directly and from the manufactures.

Naturally some prefer the ramp go all the way to turbo and there is nothing wrong with that but for Joe public I feel that the ramp stopping short is the better option.

Texas_Ace wrote:

JasonWW wrote:

Texas_Ace, does the ramping go all the way to Turbo or does it stop short and you have to double click to get Turbo?

It stops short and uses a double click to turbo. Thus far there has been an vast majority approval of this method both from the feedback I have gotten directly and from the manufactures.

Naturally some prefer the ramp go all the way to turbo and there is nothing wrong with that but for Joe public I feel that the ramp stopping short is the better option.

I modded both my S42 with lexel’s driver…I think that’s still the better way to go. It has better components and better looking of course. I converted one into a triple, and plan on doing the same thing to the other one as well.

JasonWW wrote:

Texas_Ace wrote:

JasonWW wrote:

Texas_Ace, does the ramping go all the way to Turbo or does it stop short and you have to double click to get Turbo?

It stops short and uses a double click to turbo. Thus far there has been an vast majority approval of this method both from the feedback I have gotten directly and from the manufactures.

Naturally some prefer the ramp go all the way to turbo and there is nothing wrong with that but for Joe public I feel that the ramp stopping short is the better option.

About where does it stop, 1000 lumen?

Yes, around ~55-60% output generally. Anything less then this and the step up to turbo is virtually un-noticeable like in the first GT.

I like the finger grooves on the battery tube and think it makes the light look better. And I can live with the bezel if that’s what is going to ship. Not that big of a deal to me.

Sadly the BG battery tube is there to stay as they have already been produced it seems.

Are they going to make a stainless steel S43S version of this as the S41S and S42S?

ZozzV6 wrote:

Are they going to make a stainless steel S43S version of this as the S41S and S42S?

That I do not know, if the S43 sells well I bet they would, with the current looks I am not sure if it will sell good enough for that though.

I found this on the Banggood page

Quote:

Lock/Unlocked Function:
With the breathing light on the button is unlocked.Click the button at least 1.5seconds when flashlight is off,then the breathing light will turn off and the switch is locked.To activate the breathing light,click the button 1.5seconds again.

Is this wrong stuff from the old S42?
I see problems:
You can’t ramp from off, it shuts off after 1.5 seconds.
You have two electronic lock outs: NarsilM and breathing light.

@Texas Ace
Can you test this on the prototype?
I hope Banggood wrote BS