Well that is sorta flawed logic. If nobody buys the first run except for a few people, then there won’t be a second run. I can’t think of a single company that would produce say, 10000 of a product, look back and say, “well nobody bought the first run, lets make 10000 more”. Even if most people would wait it out before buying one, you would still get a first run product. They aren’t going to throw the first run away and run a second batch.
I plan to get the first run that is offered if I can. 
I was burned “literally” when i got a first run of the D4, no thermal regulation or mode memory ;(
It is not important at this time. Just say how many lights you want.
I hope nobody really thinks they would make 10,000 before they go on sale. That is not realistic. They might make 500 a week, maybe. They might have 2 or 3 weeks made up when they go on sale. Depending on demand, they adjust production. This is more realistic.
The number itself wasn’t meant to be realistic. The concept of making something nobody will buy and then making more of them was the point. The number was unimportant, it was a representation of the logic behind suggesting people not rush to buy the first run and wait on a second.
In for another one, for a total of 2
Actually most of the atoms in a flower come from the air
I understand completely, but a certain number of people might take your number realistically. I see this happen all the time. I suppose it’s because we have people from all over the world reading this thread and most have no idea how big or small these flashlight companies are and how production, marketing, sales or shipping works. This is why I want to make sure everyone knows your example was not realistic, it was an extreme concept to make a point.
Thanks for helping to replace speculation with data. That’s almost always a good thing. 
True enough, I see your point. I think it’s great that the folks on here get to give a new product a good shake down and find flaws before it is released on the world. This is one of the few places that the vast majority of folks will buy a light, having a reasonable suspicion that it won’t be perfect, and are willing to help make it better. You don’t get that in most aspects of life. It is quite unique I would think.
I’m interested in getting two. Please add me to the interest list.
Yes… but I wouldn’t have asked maukka for help if I thought it was a prototype instead of a production sample. Maukka is already pretty busy without me sending him unfinished items to test.
Meanwhile, back in China with Neal celebrating his Chinese New Year tonight, he brought with him a sample of the FW3A, and sent me some photos:
looks great, i guess the lightning makes it look brighter then it actually is ?
I’m curious, if they may use 2 different optics for the LH351D version and the XPL-Hi version?
Eg. the Mateminco X6S with triple Nichia 219C uses a frosty (floody) optic by default, but the X6S with triple XPL-Hi uses a throwy (clear) optic by default.
So the XPL-Hi has increased throw, while the 219C becomes even more floody with the chosen optic.
Will this be the case for the FW3A (use a floody optic for LH351D, to make it a floody light), and use a clear optic for the XPL-Hi (for throwy beam)?
No, they will all use the same optic.
We are using the xpl-hi simply because the domed version does not fit under the optic. The dome is too big. It has nothing to do with being floody or throwy. The frosted 10511 is the best comprise between throw and good looks.
Would it make sense to add some 7*7135 stepps?
In theory I suppose you could have a step with the first channel off, the second channel 100%, and the FET off, but im sure that would be a significant amount more programming to add into the firmware to make that work on both the ramp and the steps.
Count me in for one!