What should the next Foursevens QK16L UI look like? GAW winner raccoon city

Voted for option #3. For better runtime.

Voted #3 , to be coherent with the previous conversation and vote :smiley:

I have a ramp calculator which can be used to calculate evenly-spaced levels on a few different perceptual scales, if anyone wants guidance on how many lumens to aim for at each level.

On a light which goes up to 700 lumens, I’d normally use 5 levels… 0.25 / 10 / 70 / 260 / 700 lm.

But it sounds like that’s not an option. So within the constraint of 1 to 700 lm in a maximum of 5 steps (including burst), I’d suggest something more like… 1 / 20 / 100 / 300 / 700 lm.

If it needs to hit 400 lm for some reason, it could be… 1 / 25 / 133 / 400 / 700 lm.

Or if it can only use 3 modes plus burst, I’d probably go with 1 / 20 / 150 / 700 lm.

If it helps, the first one was calculated with a command line like this:

./level_calc.py 4.18 1 5 7135 1 0.25 700
1: visually 0.72 (0.25 lm): 1.00/255
2: visually 1.74 (10.05 lm): 4.56/255
3: visually 2.76 (69.20 lm): 26.03/255
4: visually 3.77 (257.79 lm): 94.48/255
5: visually 4.79 (700.00 lm): 255.00/255
PWM1 values: 1,5,26,94,255

On most EDC-style lights I only actually use a few levels… ~10 lumens, ~0.25 lumens, and something in the range of 50 to 100 lumens. But usually just 10. And occasionally turbo, but not very often. So I try to make sure those are included in the ramp. But if the lowest mode is 1 lumen instead of having a true moon level, the entire thing gets shifted upward to avoid having modes too close together. So it hits about 20 or 25 lumens instead.

Voted option 3

option 2 for me

I voted for last option! Lower middle modes I don’t mind. It’s the max that always matters.

Voted

  1. since existing is not optional…

I voted option 1. The spacing is good enough that way, and in my experience more modes just means you spend more time getting where you need to be. Even four modes on my EDC lights has started to bother me. With proper spacing, three is enough.

Just voted #1.
I’d like 40 lumens on medium instead of 100 because it’s still high enough after the low 1 lumen.

Voted

Do what TK says. And get a sub lumen moonlight.

Voted
Picked option 3 for run time, given the size of the light.

I went with 3.

The difference between 350 and 400 would be nigh imperceptible, even 2 lights side-by-side, yet would at least give marginally more runtime.

I voted. 1 / 20 / 150 / 700 would be my preference within these constraints.

i voted
for #2
but you guys should study anduril UI
seriously
it’s the best

2nd runner up is BLF A6 ui

wle

6 months seemed reasonable.

Curious to know why the change so soon after all those people backed the Kickstarter project? Will the proposed change be implemented for them - or will they just be SOL and “stuck” so to speak with what they backed you with?

It seems a bit odd to say to those 1000+ supporters that the light you just bid on and are getting is going to be immediately changed right after you get yours… :question:

Our first production run on QK16L lights sold out on Kickstarter and we are about to begin the next batch, so I may have an opportunity to revise the UI to make it more nerd friendly.”

It's asking what customers think of the current, and their opinion on the possibility of changing the UI on future runs.
I'm hearing You do not want it changed so soon and keep the current UI. You may think it is
too early to change it,

but production manufacturing processes need submittal time to implement. Currently there is a small window of time

the design can be tweaked before beginning the next batch. This is why Jason is asking what everyone thinks, and

appreciates everyone's comments and opinions on Quark QK16L MKIII's UI.

I can't change the poll without resetting it, so I will include leave it the same comments as a vote for the GAW

Cool. Thanks for the answer.

Vote for Pedro keeping things the same. :smiley:

Pedro's Vote count’s

Voted! Thank you for GAV