Itâs the nature of software to evolve over time. People request improvements which get rolled into future releases. In this case the changes are minor and I suspect that the vast majority of people will never know or care about the 2 versions.
Sofirn did not spring a surprise and put the light into production without the team knowing and approving it.
The LT team did bother to read it and saying that they didnât is a big disservice to them. Rather than wait another month or 2 to have the manual catch up with all the corrections it was felt that it was ok to release batch 1 earlier so that people could start getting the LT.
I bet if the buy was delayed just for the manual changes that people would be complaining about the delay.
None of the LT team, other than Sofirn, is making any money off the lantern or is doing this as a job so the development time is largely due to that.
Besides, the updated manual can be download as noted somewhere in this thread. And itâs just a lantern, how complicated can it be to read the on-line instructions a few times and then configure it for what one needs? My guess is that for many users after itâs been configured itâs going to stay that way for a long time.
So, for example, why did the manual say the default mode was the smooth ramping mode when it is actually the stepped one? How did such a basic error not get fixed until after sbslider, myself, and others spent hours working on the manual?
Not everyone who is going to get one of these lanterns to use has been following this thread from the beginning. Someone who I give one of these lanterns to as a gift isnât expecting to have to go online to read a corrected manual or flash the firmware in their lantern because the shipping product wasnât quite done.
Reading it and having Sofirn make corrections are not one and the same. Also my career was in programming and Iâve seen many cases where manuals were wrong even when they were worked on by paid professional technical writers.
So your claim is it was right before and that Sofirn changed the manual introducing errors into it after the LT1 team reviewed it? :person_facepalming:
If Sofirn is to blame for all these things maybe the LT1 picked the wrong manufacturing partner.
You seem like youâre almost looking for crap to be unhappy about.
This is basically a volunteer project for everyone except Sofirn. Youâve got a bunch of people volunteering their time and efforts to design and produce this thing and dealing with people in another country who may or may not speak the same language super proficiently who need to actually make the final product.
And the you have all of us providing pressure to get it out as quickly as possible.
And youâre somehow shocked and dismayed that thereâs been some changes or minor issues in that process?
There have been only 3 manufacturers prepared to work with BLF over the last 5 years, Manker (stopped doing that), Lumintop and Sofirn, of which only Sofirn trusted BLF enough to make almost exactly what the BLF team wanted, and that trust took more than a year to develop during the Q8 project (via Thorfire). This is now their third project, and the most risky one for them because it is a relatively expensive product and about everything was completely newly developed which is costly for a small flashlight manufacturer. I think that it worked very succesfully for BLF and hopefully for Sofirn too.
I love automation! I think there are plenty out there that donât trust a computer for some reason. I see it in my work all the time. We were migrating 100+ email accounts and the powers that be decided a manual process (Office 365 web interface, point & click for hours utilizing several staff) was safer than a powershell script with testing and logging (seconds to execute the script and utilizing 1 staff member).
Another possibility is that maybe the process for getting the codes from Amazon is not super friendly/portable. I havenât sold anything through Amazon, so Iâm not sure.