Yes, that should be done. Keep is simpler.
It is much more important to have rosy tint, and CRI over 90, and R9 over 90, on either 3000-4000-4500-5000-5700k. It really does not make that much of a difference in real life. 3000-4000k with that high of a CRI is basically the same.
They’re building this thing to a DBSAR / BLF spec, including some very detailed and specific requirements. The simplest way to make sure everything is included and the spec is actually met is to get as much detailed design from DBSAR and BLF as possible.
Basically, Barry and his people are trying to make sure that they understand the needs of the project and stop any mistakes or misunderstandings creeping in right from the start.
I applaud them for that, because it’s an article of faith in any engineering project that correcting mistakes gets drastically harder and more expensive as you reach later stages of the project.
I understand that the desire to keep it simple is based on the assumption that things will move faster and cheaper, or that the process even gets stuck if the design becomes complex. But you do don’t know that at all, that may be not true. A design with more features as this project is turning into may be easily achievable by Sofirn and may result in a more complete product that will be more useful and sell to a wider audiance that may have slightly different demands than you.
Sofirn thusfar is able to design and make basic flashlights but is eager to get on a higher level. For that they attracted some engineers from other flashlight companies, plus they happily absorb our spoon-fedded BLF-knowledge. In return we get products with our very own desirable quality features for a very reasonable price.
I understand you also. But if i am honest with myself, that “feature” is very silly. I cannot think of a single person that will actually use it, and even less to make a difference for them to buy the light or not. As i said peoples preference and choice will be much more influenced from R9 values and rosy tint at 3000 or 4000k. Changing tint between 3000 and 4000k is not really a real feature, it is a gimmick - if we are honest.
Please, do not be offended, I am talking with the uttermost respect, but am trying to be realistic.
Well, I have a use for tint ramping. I like 5000K for work lights because that colour temperature seems more natural to me when I’m doing repairs or moving stuff around the attic, but 3000K is better for reading and relaxing in the evening before bed.
The plan is for the lantern to support a ramp between 3000K and 5000K (not 4000K), so the feature is ideal for me. I can save money by only buying one device for both scenarios, or I can buy two to have a backup with both units being able to do everything.
Much better than having one 3000K light and one 5000K light, where Murphy’s law guarantees that the one that breaks is the one you’d rather have right now 
(not per sé applicable to the Lantern project: )
Being a flashaholic, I like gimmicks as much as I like useful features for real life. “Hey, that sounds cool, can we make that?” is part of the fun of BLF projects and the price that real people pay is extra features that may not neccessarily aid to their real life. Luckily some people even have a need for the gimmicks 
Without that feature, I don’t know that I would still be interested in this light. This feature would also help sell to many who don’t care about this feature, but have a preferred temp. With the ability to satisfy people with a temperature preference between 3000K-5000k you cover a lot of people.
My temp preference is 4000K 99% of the time. For most scenarios I can use this at 4000K. For camping and a few other times 2700-3000K is needed. On the rare occasions that I would use it during the day I prefer 4500-5000K for that.
Ok, then lets say it is useful for some people.
Hopefully we will see this light in the near future.
Yeah, if you go back and read all the discussion from the start, you will see that the tint ramping was added just to make sure this light does cover pretty much everyone. Unless you have a strong preference for a tint which is either higher or lower than the range provided, then protesting this feature is quite a selfish and arrogant thing to do, IMHO. We aren’t a mono-culture here.
Not only that, but the tint ramping feature isn’t even a big deal from a design (or build) perspective. It doesn’t much affect the complexity of the hardware or the software, compared to recent BLF designs. The big deal, design-wise, is our attempt to add on-board charging to the driver. From Sofirn’s perspective, that still won’t be a big deal either, once we get a PCB layout (and a BOM) for them to follow.
I hope it’s ready next year for purchase. That’s when I am getting back into camping.
The main complexity of tint-ramping is indeed not in the hardware (driver design is a bit different but DEL first and Lexel now is working on that, and the MCPCB has a different lay-out which is nothing complex), but the main complexity is in the software and the work on that will be done by our in-house software-empress Toykeeper. The Sofirn part will be finding the right 3000K and 5000K leds, and letting Toykeeper have a prototype to fine-tune the settings.
Good points djozz. As of right now were hoping to go with efficient Samsung LH351D in both 3000Kor 2700K) and either 4000K or 5000K for the cooler side if we can get the tint ramping feature integrated.
There is no doubt in my mind that Toykeeper is fully capable of this. The hardware is easy (and done), the firmware is not much different than what already exists in Anduril.
Nobody thinks this is a good idea? Less components and higher efficiency.
I don’t have much experience with designing drivers, but Lexel and others who have the driver expertise can probably chime in on that.
The very warm to neutral customizable high CRI tint and promise of the complex software features are what drew me to this light. If I wanted something relatively simple I’d just buy Zanflare T1 lanterns and never bother with a more premium lantern at all. I am buying a Zanflare T1 anyway, but that’s just because I’m a flashaholic and can’t stop myself…
Quite a few people (myself included) would use that feature and it is a big selling point. Without that “silly” feature and a great UI (what ToyKeeper has mentioned of the UI sounded quite enticing), I don’t think there would be enough to compel me to buy it over other cheaper lanterns or a diffuser.
The bigger the spread the better, in my opinion. The Samsung LH351Ds from what I’ve seen are an excellent choice.
Someone has to design it. Designing parts of this lantern has been slow sofar, only now even the driver takes final form and I believe it is nice that it is being done at all and that it will have nice options and firmware. And an even more efficient driver without PWM like you suggest (I agree that for a relatively low-powered light like the lantern a FET-based lineair driver would be a suitable application) would require lots of extra expertise and time. Apart from that, I wonder if you could get output and tint ramping done without old-school PWM?
I will suggest to the manufacturer to try to source the 351Ds in 2700K for the warm side and 5000K for the cool side of the two channels for tint ramping, that will give a good range of tints.
I think it is too much to ask for Sofirn, but if you never ask for it you will certainly not get it:
Could you ask for the 2700K led for one of the colour-bins W1 to W8, and for the 5000K leds for colour-bins R1 or R2? These Samsung tint bins are on or below the black body line, if Sofirn was able to source them (in 90 CRI of course) that would be awesome for the tint of the Lantern.