Please add me to the GB list. Thank you.

pearlriver wrote:

ASTROLUX said that it has been manufactured in batches, and will be on sale in the middle of next month.

Yeah, I got the light to behave thermally, so I think it should be almost ready to buy. Here’s an example of a thermal test with the maximum temperature set pretty low to make things harder for the thermal algorithm:

Given the style of power channels used, this result is pretty close to optimal.

Which emitter is it using? The sustainable lumens seems low if it is xpl hi or sst 20 70cri. The heat shedding of this version is significantly improved by TA from the original MF01 so should do better than this.

Seems kinda disappointing tbh. Efficiency could be better. It’s set to only 45 degrees so I guess it could sustain higher output.

It’s probably using the SST-20 95CRI emitter, as it seems inefficient.

I think this is SST-20 4000K 95CRI, which runs hotter and less bright than the lower-CRI versions. Just checked again, and it’s definitely around 4000K, so it’s not the 5000K 70CRI version.

Yes, you should have the 4000k FD2 bin LED’s if they did as I asked lol.

This high-CRI version is only supposed to make about 10,000 or 11,000 lumens, but I measured it at 13,900 lm at start with a set of just-charged 30Q cells.

This was measured with an integrating tube, so it’s not as accurate as a sphere… but it’s pretty close. I used some biased diffuser sheets to improve the integration qualities, then calibrated it to match reference lights from maukka. The sheets force the light to spread out and bounce around inside, so it’s less favorable to throwy lights. It also acts as sort of like one-way valves, which reduces the impact of the entry point and initial bend, so it gets more consistent readings for a wider variety of lights. But it’s still not as good as a sphere.

Anyway, I think it actually could make 14,000 lumens with some high-amp cells like 25R. And more, when using lower-CRI emitters. Just not for very long, because it gets hot fast.

All the technology in today’s world and astrolux uses a camera from the late 1990s.

Lund1660 wrote:

All the technology in today’s world and astrolux uses a camera from the late 1990s.

Interested!

JasonWW wrote:

Lund1660 wrote:

All the technology in today’s world and astrolux uses a camera from the late 1990s.

What are you refering to?

Lund1660 wrote:

JasonWW wrote:

Lund1660 wrote:

All the technology in today’s world and astrolux uses a camera from the late 1990s.

What are you refering to?

The last post on page 12

TK, will the first batch of lights get updated with your improved thermal regulation firmware?

SKV89 wrote:

TK, will the first batch of lights get updated with your improved thermal regulation firmware?

I don’t have any details on that. I hadn’t even heard there was a first batch.

Im referring to the yet to be on the market first batch that is supposedly already in production.

but looking at the graph it shows at around 2m its already down to 2000 lumens only ? kinda low to me..

SKV89 wrote:

Im referring to the yet to be on the market first batch that is supposedly already in production.

Only the metal parts are in production at this point last I heard. The driver and firmware have yet to be finalized. Could be wrong though.

This Astrolux MF01S looks very similar to the Emisar D18, as both use 18x SST20 emitters, and both use Anduril firmware.

Just curious what would be different about this MF01S compared to the Emisar D18? The D18 uses 3×18650, so the batteries have to work harder to put out higher lumens (need to use very high-drain 18650s on the D18), whereas the MF01S uses 4×18650 so the current drain per battery is notably less. (I’m assuming that the higher max lumens on the MF01S compared to the D18 is mainly due to the MF01S having 1 more battery to drain current from).

I would presume the MF01S, having a 4×18650 body, may have a bit more thermal mass so heat may be able to dissipate a bit better — at around what lumens does the MF01S stabilize (it seems to be nearly 2000 lumens from the above graphs), doesn’t the D18 also stabilize at nearly 2000 lumens?

How about in terms of beam pattern, I’m curious how the MF01S compares to the D18 (the D18 has a focused spot, corona and useful spill area of light).

d_t_a wrote:

This Astrolux MF01S looks very similar to the Emisar D18, as both use 18x SST20 emitters, and both use Anduril firmware.

Just curious what would be different about this MF01S compared to the Emisar D18? The D18 uses 3×18650, so the batteries have to work harder to put out higher lumens (need to use very high-drain 18650s on the D18), whereas the MF01S uses 4×18650 so the current drain per battery is notably less. (I’m assuming that the higher max lumens on the MF01S compared to the D18 is mainly due to the MF01S having 1 more battery to drain current from).

I would presume the MF01S, having a 4×18650 body, may have a bit more thermal mass so heat may be able to dissipate a bit better — at around what lumens does the MF01S stabilize (it seems to be nearly 2000 lumens from the above graphs), doesn’t the D18 also stabilize at nearly 2000 lumens?

How about in terms of beam pattern, I’m curious how the MF01S compares to the D18 (the D18 has a focused spot, corona and useful spill area of light).

Keep in mind that the D18 was 70CRI LED’s and the MF01S above is 90+CRI. So the lumens will be lower naturally.

The D18 is available with 4 different emitters 2 of which are 95 CRI

Led & Tint
Cool White – SST20 6500K
Neutral White – SST20 5000K
Neutral White – SST20 4000K 95CRI
Warm White – SST20 3000K 95CRI

shirnask wrote:

The D18 is available with 4 different emitters 2 of which are 95 CRI

Led & Tint
Cool White – SST20 6500K
Neutral White – SST20 5000K
Neutral White – SST20 4000K 95CRI
Warm White – SST20 3000K 95CRI

I think TA meant the D18 sustained output was tested with 70CRI emitters whereas TK tested the MF01 with 95CRI emitters so you can’t directly compare these sustained outputs.

with the firmware you can calibrate the temperature and set the ceiling higher

SKV89 wrote:

The sustainable lumens seems low if it is xpl hi or sst 20 70cri. The heat shedding of this version is significantly improved by TA from the original MF01 so should do better than this.

Th558 wrote:

Seems kinda disappointing tbh. Efficiency could be better. It’s set to only 45 degrees so I guess it could sustain higher output.

To test max sustainable lumens you start at a certain lower lumen level and see how the light behaves. Temperature will build up much slower which may or may not activate the thermal management and you should get different results.

It will probably be in the same 2,000 to 3,000 range, but probably higher than what the tests above show.

My point is you should not jump to conclusions. Recognize what is actually being tested. (I might be grumpy today)

d_t_a wrote:

I’m curious how the MF01S compares to the D18

They’re a similar concept, but there’s a significant difference in size, beam shape, driver type, and extras. The MF01S is larger/heavier and holds 4 batteries in a carrier instead of 3 in the tube. The MF01S has a big wide “wall of light” hotspot with virtually no spill, similar to a Noctigon Meteor or a triple in a Carclo 10507 optic. It uses a 2S2P 2-channel driver at 6V instead of a 4P 3-channel driver at 3V. It also has colorful aux LEDs and a lighted button and a tripod mount hole.

I’m the wrong person to ask about which is better though, since I mostly stick to smaller lights.

ToyKeeper wrote:

This high-CRI version is only supposed to make about 10,000 or 11,000 lumens, but I measured it at 13,900 lm at start with a set of just-charged 30Q cells.

This was measured with an integrating tube, so it’s not as accurate as a sphere… but it’s pretty close. I used some biased diffuser sheets to improve the integration qualities, then calibrated it to match reference lights from maukka. The sheets force the light to spread out and bounce around inside, so it’s less favorable to throwy lights. It also acts as sort of like one-way valves, which reduces the impact of the entry point and initial bend, so it gets more consistent readings for a wider variety of lights. But it’s still not as good as a sphere.

Anyway, I think it actually could make 14,000 lumens with some high-amp cells like 25R. And more, when using lower-CRI emitters. Just not for very long, because it gets hot fast.

Hopefully I wasnt getting my hopes up over this. Im pretty much sold on a D18, but the driver and the aux board on this were definitely interesting. Im surprised it doesnt really show much difference over the D18’s specs considering its size and assumed increased driver efficiencies.

nick779 wrote:

Hopefully I wasnt getting my hopes up over this. Im pretty much sold on a D18, but the driver and the aux board on this were definitely interesting. Im surprised it doesnt really show much difference over the D18’s specs considering its size and assumed increased driver efficiencies.

The drivers themselves are basically a wash on paper. The D18 should be a bit more efficient at lower modes and the MF01S a bit more efficient at higher modes.

I expect the optic efficiency to be larger then the drivers.

Interested, pending price.

ToyKeeper wrote:

d_t_a wrote:

I’m curious how the MF01S compares to the D18

They’re a similar concept, but there’s a significant difference in size, beam shape, driver type, and extras. The MF01S is larger/heavier and holds 4 batteries in a carrier instead of 3 in the tube. The MF01S has a big wide “wall of light” hotspot with virtually no spill, similar to a Noctigon Meteor or a triple in a Carclo 10507 optic. It uses a 2S2P 2-channel driver at 6V instead of a 4P 3-channel driver at 3V. It also has colorful aux LEDs and a lighted button and a tripod mount hole.

Thanks for clarifying the distinction between the 2 flashlights!

Have a few more questions:

MF01S: big wide “wall of light” hotspot with virtually no spill
D18: has a smooth hotspot, corona and spill

Just curious, is the above difference due to having different optics used by the MF01S vs the D18, or also due to the size of the heads (I’m guessing the MF01S has a bigger head since it has a bigger 4×18650 body tube)

Texas_Ace wrote:

nick779 wrote:

Hopefully I wasnt getting my hopes up over this. Im pretty much sold on a D18, but the driver and the aux board on this were definitely interesting. Im surprised it doesnt really show much difference over the D18’s specs considering its size and assumed increased driver efficiencies.

The drivers themselves are basically a wash on paper. The D18 should be a bit more efficient at lower modes and the MF01S a bit more efficient at higher modes.

I expect the optic efficiency to be larger then the drivers.

ToyKeeper mentions:
MF01S: 2S2P 2-channel driver at 6v
D18: 4P 3-channel driver at 3v

I’m not that well-versed in electronics, so maybe need more explanation for me to understand… 3-channel driver is more efficient at lower modes, whereas 2-channel driver at higher voltage is more efficient at higher modes. Is that the correct line of thought?

D18, 3 channel is FET+7+1? while MF01S is FET+1?

In my testing the 3 channel vs 2 channel efficiency difference was not nearly as much as many people used to think.

That said the 3 channel will have a fairly small window in the low/midrange where it has a bit of an advantage simply because it has a channel specifically designed for that output level.

At other output levels the only real difference is the input voltage.

Honestly there it is not even worth talking about driver efficiency. We are talking about a ~10% change in efficiency one way or the other depending on the exact output level. Considering the LED’s have a tolerance of 12% themselves there are simply better things to worry about.