I think setting PWM_CHANNELS to 2 in hwdef-FW3A.h would do it. You could also redo the PWM levels in cfg-FW3A.h to use the FET, but only at a low duty cycle.
FWIW Maukka tested his review sample with sw40s and the output was acceptable with a GA. I suspect the LEDs wouldnāt fare as well with high drain cells, so it comes down to either only using the light with GAs or limiting the FET output in firmware or disabling it completely. Itās quite doable but the level you limit it to will depend on what cells you want to use.
Ok, I give up. Please put me on the list for 2 of these.
Also, as far as not using the FET is concerned, couldnāt you just set the top of the ramp to the highest regulated level? Then it would never use the FET, correct? I guess unless you double clicked for turboā¦ hmmā¦
So how would the ramp look if you didnāt use the FET? Top of ramp at 75% regulated, then fully regulated for turbo?
Interesting. I just canāt imagine not wanting the option of more lumens if you really needed them.
Once you start rewriting the firmware, you can specify any behavior the hardware is capable of. Iāll play with it a bit and may end up with something like a 25% duty cycle with the FET for the one I put 219Bs in. I probably want the behavior of the light to feel the same, just with a max level thatās safe for the emitters.
I donāt want to give up output I can actually have with the LEDs Iām going to use. 219Bs given too much power will turn blue and output will decrease. The emitters might potentially be permanently damaged in the process. Thatās technically true of the emitters the FW3A will actually come with as well, but the hardware will not be capable of delivering that much power.
Oh! Thatās what I get for not paying close enough attention. I was under the impression that this was being done for battery life/heat management. What you say makes sense though. Even Anduril on the D4 and D4S has the FET limited on the 219c version if I remember correctly, for that reason.
Yep, 219Bs shouldnāt be driven at >2.5A for more than very short bursts if Iām remembering right. Thatās VERY easy to exceed with even lower-drain cells, they can put out higher current than even the rated burst drain in a FET-driven light.
The 219B is rated at 1.5A, compared to 1.8A for the 219C, so nominally they donāt look much different, especially since the newer V1 219bās have similar voltage curves to the 219C. However, the 219C is already known to be working very hard on the D4, so the concern is increased when the current your battery can supply is shared between one less emitter, and that emitter has even a slightly lower current capacity.
So dialing back the current for a 219B mod is very likely prudent.
A benefit to modifying the firmware rather than just setting the ramp at a safe level is you retain the short-cut to the firmware max level. Shortcuts are a great feature of firmwares like Anduril.
A firmware modified for the 219B might also be well-suited for the E21A, and Clemence is planning an E21A triple board. However, Carclo says the 219B should have more throw in the 10511 optic than an E21A.
I have no idea. Iāve been trying to get confirmation on a variety of extrasā¦ but most of those questions just disappear into the void. In particular, Iām hoping there will be a diffuser cap made to fit it, to allow it to work as a candle or lantern. But I get the impression this sort of question wonāt even be acknowledged until after the light itself is in production.