I agree with this, I personally prefer loosening the tailcap for lockout, BUT, I would actually use the digital if it was “immediate” in the light’s activation afterwards.
For example, it would treat the 4th click as the same as 1C when you release it, and go to your memorized mode. Or, if you hold the 4th click, it will act as though you are doing a 1H and go to the bottom of the ramp. Lastly, if you add a 5th click, 5C, then it will behave like 2C and go to the top of the ramp… I don’t know if I explained that clearly, but to me, that makes the most sense as far as usability.
To summarize, I would make Lockout into more of a 3C + standard operation (1C, 1H, 2C, etc.). This would be very easy to remember because all you have to do in lockout is… whatever you were going to do, +3C (in front).
This would effectively remove a pause and 1C from the current process, and be much smoother, I think.
Anduril 2 already turns on while exiting lockout mode. It also has an optional function to automatically lock the light after being in “off” mode for N minutes.
So the question is about which of these two styles it should use:
Faster style
Off 3C -> Lockout
Off 4C -> Batt check
Lockout 3C -> On (memorized level)
Lockout 3H -> On (ramp floor)
More compatible style
Off 3C -> Batt check
Off 4C -> Lockout
Lockout 4C -> On (memorized level)
Lockout 4H -> On (ramp floor)
Additionally, to configure the auto-lock function…
Lockout 5C -> Auto-lock config menu (choose how many minutes before it locks)
Lockout 5H -> Disable auto-lock
… and to configure aux LEDs:
Lockout 7C -> next aux LED pattern
Lockout 7H -> next aux LED color
The faster style spaces apart the lockout mode functions so they all have a gap between. 3/5/7 clicks. The more compatible style would be 4/5/7 so the user is more likely to get the wrong thing by accident. However, the auto-lock thing could be moved… perhaps to 10C/10H. Then it’d be 4/7/10 clicks.
The slower / more compatible style also increases the chance of accidentally going into momentary (5C) instead of lockout (4C), since they would be only one click apart. It’s a complaint I’ve heard a few times, that people end up in momentary and then can’t figure out why it won’t unlock.
In any case, turning the light on from lockout is faster than before. Instead of 6 time units (4C, pause, 1C), it’s down to 3 or 4.
Clearly I didn’t read before I came up with and typed all of that… now that I went through all that explaining I realize that of course you already thought of that! , because you’re Toykeeper .
I would prefer the faster option, because quickly getting from lockout, to light, is the whole purpose of the change.
Is the timing in Anduril 2 the same (from lockout) as when unlocked now, to where if you click your second click within .5 second or so after the light is on, it still jumps to the top of the ramp? (so like 3C + 1C to get to the top of the ramp quickly from lockout)?
The button mappings so far are listed in a table at the bottom of the manual.
It doesn’t currently have a shortcut from lockout to off. Unlocking the light turns it on, and then one more click turns it off. So it’s still 4C (ish) to return to off mode, but with a pause before the final click.
No, it doesn’t currently have a shortcut from lockout to ramp ceiling. It’s an option I’ve been considering though. Was thinking a couple days ago about giving lockout the exact same button mappings as the “off” mode, except with 2 extra clicks at the beginning. Basically, it would handle the first two as a momentary moon, then pass control to the “off” mode to handle the rest.
This would kind of get in the way though, like instead of 7C to configure aux LEDs, 7C would take the user to momentary mode. It’d be 9C for aux config, and unclear whether that’s for “off” mode or lockout… and then maybe 11C for lockout’s aux config? And 5C would take the user from lockout mode to … lockout mode. No point in that. After doing something like batt check, it would then go back to the regular “off” mode instead of going back to lockout, so it might need an extra facility to track whether the user wants the regular “off” mode or the safer-but-less-convenient lockout mode when they turn the light off.
Basically, it’s an interesting idea but it has some odd side effects and brings up questions I don’t have answers for. So for now I think maybe lockout should only have direct access to the core ramp functions — floor, mem, and maybe ceiling.
There is only at work that I get used to twist / untwist the head of an FW3A to lock the button, but with my other Anduril flashlights, I find the 2 levels momentary of the lockout super handy. I don’t know why I ended up using it like this at work. I will try to force myself to use the 4C instead of twisting / untwisting it.
I don’t know if it’s only me but I find a 3C to be more “intuitive” than a 4C, it’s something that I can do very quickly without counting so I guess that having the 3C for something that is used very often (lock/unlock) sounds pratical.
I’m used to 3C for Batt Check and more recently to go to Beacon but I guess that using 4C instead with Anduril 2 wouldn’t be difficult to get used to.
The 3/5/7 clicks arrangement sounds good. 10C/10H for Simple UI also, so for me and I’m only speaking for me, the question would be more about the Momentary which would need to be reaffected to a different number of clicks.
Do people use the Momentary often ? For me the “2 levels momentary” of the lockout is way more usefull so I wouldn’t be bothered if the Momentary would need more clicks to be activated.
Going from lockout to off isn’t really very different than before. There may be no explicit shortcut, but due to the way things work out, it’s still pretty similar.
Before:
click, click, click, click
After:
click, click, hold, click
- or -
click, click, click, pause, click
They both pass through ramp mode on the way to “off”, but only for a moment. It’s still four presses and releases… but with slightly different timing.
Going to lockout is faster though, and turning the light on is faster.
Because of this, I’m kind of wondering if I should remap one more thing…
Before:
Lockout 4C, 1C -> ramp
Ramp 1C, 4C -> lockout
Ramp 3C -> change ramp style
After:
Lockout 3C -> ramp
Ramp 3C -> lockout
Ramp ??? -> change ramp style
This way, for people who prefer lockout to the “off” mode, it’d be easier and more symmetrical to go between ramp and lockout. I would just need to move the ramp style toggle somewhere else.
Or perhaps all the lockout stuff should be on 4C instead of 3C. Still not sure.
I prefer 4C. Lockout should prevent accidental activation. Although the chance with 3C is already low, 4C is even better and just one more click and consistent with the old UI. Also I suggest to make as many config menus as possible with H.
Lockout 4C → ramp
Lockout 4H → ramp floor
Lockout 5C → auto-lock config menu
Lockout 5H → disable auto-lock
Lockout 7C → aux LEDs: next pattern
Lockout 7H → aux LEDs: next color
Ramp 1C → off
Ramp 1H → ramp (up, with reversing)
Ramp 2C → go to ceiling / return to previous
Ramp 2H → ramp (down)
Ramp 3C → go to turbo / return to previous
Ramp 3H → tint ramping (on some lights)
Ramp 4C → lockout
Ramp 4H
Ramp 5C → momentary mode
Ramp 5H → sunset timer on, and add 5 minutes
Ramp 6C → enable manual memory at current brightness
Ramp 6H → disable manual memory
Ramp 7C → change ramp style (smooth / stepped)
Ramp 7H → ramp config mode
I vote for streamlining lockout/unlock as much as possible.
3C/3H would flow better than 4 while still being too complicated to misfire in your pocket or bag.
Isn’t the point of a flashlight to turn it on when you want it? If it wasn’t for some familiarity of how v1 locks/unlocks now I cannot think of a reason why a 4 lockout is better.
I think it would be pretty difficult for lockout to be turned off in an accidental manner (not talking about mistaken # of presses, but rather “in a pocket” or “in a bag” or something) due to how close together all three presses have to be. That said, if I were a user of lockout mode, it might be a bit startling to suddenly start getting lights with 3C lockout and 4C battcheck vs. the dozen I might already own that are the other way around. And not everyone can flash updates. But then again, maybe that’s why we’re calling this Anduril 2/something else, and not just continuing to call it Anduril. Change is hard, but change for the better is worth it.
Honestly, I’m still in the camp that strongly dislikes lockout as a principle. So maybe my opinions shouldn’t count much. My D4 is a nightstand and desktop light, not a carry light, because I can’t rely on it to stay off in my pocket. The D4V2 offers me a raised side switch, but that’s adding chonk to the light around the head where it’s already a barely tolerable width for me to pocket. Even my FW3A didn’t get carried before the o-ring mod, because I was always turning it on when clipping it and sliding it down the pocket. What I do use lockout mode for is night-time light. I deliberately set the stepped-ramp floor to one level, and the ramp-floor to “1”, and lockout the light at night. Single-hold is then “dark-adapted eyes appropriate and I won’t step on a cat” and click-hold is good for a slightly higher output when needed (“is that cat vomit or just a cat toy”). I don’t have to worry about blinding myself or waking my wife if I accidentally click into ramp instead of hold into moonlight (normally not an issue, but in this case it’s the middle of the night, who knows what my brain does). On a light with indicator LEDs, it would further be useful to dedicate lockout to “low” so I can see it on my nightstand but not be bothered by whatever my current daytime setup may be (high, off, blinking, whatever my whims were that day). Wait, what was my point. Oh right, I don’t use lockout for lockout, I use it for nighttime light restriction. It would bother the heck out of me to un-lock for useful operation every time I pulled the light from my pocket, whether three clicks or four.
Ramp Any 3C Lockout mode
Ramp Any 3H Tint ramping (on some lights)
Ramp Full 4C Enable manual memory at current brightness
Ramp Full 4H Disable manual memory
Ramp Full 5C Change ramp style (smooth / stepped)
Ramp Full 5H Sunset timer on, and add 5 minutes
Ramp Full 7C Ramp config mode
Lockout Any 3C On (ramp mode, memorized level)
Lockout Any 3H On (ramp mode, floor level)
Lockout Full 5C Auto-lock config menu
Lockout Full 5H Disable Auto-lock
Lockout Full 7C Aux LEDs: Next pattern
Lockout Full 7H Aux LEDs: Next color
4C lockout
Off Any 3C Battcheck mode
Off Any 4C Lockout mode
Ramp Full 3C Change ramp style (smooth / stepped)
Ramp Any 3H Tint ramping (on some lights)
Ramp Any 4C Lockout mode
Ramp Full 5C Momentary mode (?)
Ramp Full 5H Sunset timer on, and add 5 minutes
Ramp Full 7C Ramp config mode
Ramp Full 10C Enable manual memory at current brightness
Ramp Full 10H Disable manual memory
Lockout Any 4C On (ramp mode, memorized level)
Lockout Any 4H On (ramp mode, floor level)
Lockout Full 7C Aux LEDs: Next pattern
Lockout Full 7H Aux LEDs: Next color
Lockout Full 10C Auto-lock config menu
Lockout Full 10H Disable Auto-lock
With so many things packed in, any change like this has cascading effects like what happens when turning a Rubik's cube. So, it's helpful to consider all the changes involved instead of just one part. I marked the changes in bold text.
Personally, I use voltage check much more often than I use lockout. I think maintaining consistency with lights running earlier versions of Anduril would trump the fraction of a second in time savings or the extreme minority of people that can’t count to 4 while clicking.
Yeah, Honestly it’s just getting from lockout to “on” that is the most important part of this discussion for me. I leave it to ToyKeeper to figure out what makes the most sense as far as 3 or 4 clicks, clearly she is smarter than I am when it comes to solving that.
Ramp Any 3C Lockout mode
Ramp Any 3H Tint ramping (on some lights)
Ramp Full 4C Enable manual memory at current brightness
Ramp Full 4H Disable manual memory
Ramp Full 5C Momentary mode
Ramp Full 5H Sunset timer on, and add 5 minutes
Ramp Full 7C Change ramp style (smooth / stepped)
Ramp Full 7H Ramp config mode
Same 5C also in strobe mode. Then you can directly enable momentary from the current mode.
Firstly, I have never tried Anduril so I might not be entitled to comment. But let me start with some background information. Back in 2010 I had some work related requirements for a good flashlight, and I ended up on CPF. For a couple of years after that I gradually built up a small collection of small EDC lights from different brands, both expensive and budget lights, trying to find the perfect light (for me). I ended up with a couple of HDS, a ZL headlamp and two 6P Surefires with drop-ins. I tried and sold Jetbeam RRT-01, Sunwayman V11R and Eagtac D25C (among others) because I did not really like their UIs.
In 2017 I had a new period of lurking on the forums, but I quickly realised that there was not much to gain in replacing any of my lights. The only thing that actually got my attention was a Petzl Nao, due to the “reactive lightning” and the bluetooth connection with an app. But based on reviews I decided that my ZL was probably still the better option.
Fast forward 3 years and Covid-19 gave me some extra time so I decided to see what had happened in the flashlight world lately. And honestly, I was underwhelmed. A couple of extra lumens, a few new HCRI emitters, and more lights with built-in charging. I really believed that all electronics manufactured in 2020 would be part of IOT, with OTA updates of FW and all the customization you could imagine. I quickly realised that this was not the reality, most lights still used old drivers with old UIs.
Then I discovered Anduril, and although still a bit disappointed over the lack of easy FW updates I honestly think this is the biggest evolution within the flashlight world in the last decade. Imagine an open-source FW which allowed any manufacturer to actually use a great UI, with almost all the customization you could imagine. I immediately had to order a light to test (although it is still stuck in transit somewhere)
Then I saw this thread, and initially I was really really pleased. My biggest regret (within the flashlight world) is that i passed on an opportunity to buy a Liteflux LF3XT 10 years ago, and I believed that Anduril 2 would actually be a better version of that UI. Then I realised a few points which I would really like to comment, only because I am actually afraid that it can take Anduril a step backwards and not forward:
1: No turbo in “Compact UI / Default mode”
Which commercial flashlight company will willingly hide their biggest selling point? For everyone outside communities like this “XXXX LUMENS” is the first and only thing a customer looks at. I am afraid that with such a UI Anduril will only be used for “BLF-special runs”, and not widely distributed in ordinary production lines. The only persons actually interested in this UI would be people here who would like to have a safe muggle mode with some extra features. I honestly believe that it should be up to the manufacturers to make such changes in the code if they believe that their light is not safe to use, this is nothing Toykeeper or anyone else can be held responsible for.
My clear recommendation here would be to keep the shortcut to turbo enabled by default, but let it be possibly to disable it in the «Full UI / Advanced mode». And off course it can be done the other way around by the manufacturers themself if they believe it is not safe.
2: Unwillingness to change
From all the post I’ve read it seems clear to me that TK would like to have 3c for lockout and 4c for battery check. I believe that you should not be so afraid to change. Most people already have several lights with different UIs, and any change to the better should be encouraged. If the fear of breaking backwards compability is stronger than the desire to improve, then anduril will for sure die. I can also see this in some off the suggestions where the response is “this is not anduril, that would be a new UI” (in regards to implementation of momentary, function button and customization menu). I am not in a position where I can say if these suggestions are good or not, but I do believe they deserve a better response. If they are good ideas, but not easily implemented due to breaking other code, lack of memory or other reasons than that should be stated. I cannot see how any ideas of increased functionality that is not changing the basics of the UI can be seen as a different UI. All these suggestions would just add more customization, not take any functionality away. If the ideas are crap, ok, then be clear about that as well.
Hope you don’t see this as to hard, that is not my intention. I really appreciate all the work you put in to this, and I am really impressed by what I have read and seen on YouTube. So now I have to update the tracking information of my first Anduril light one more time today.
I agree it doesn’t make sense for “backward compatibility” to be a high priority. Perhaps the solution would be to have “Anduril Classic” which would just be the current Anduril with the new features/etc. as a flashable version for those who would prefer it, and maybe have a separate “branch” for Anduril 2.0 that isn’t limited in that manner. I do understand the fragmentation issue that could create, but I would think MOST manufacturers would go with the latest and greatest. Those in this community who are actually going to have THAT strong of a preference for the old version, can just flash their own version. It is of course up to ToyKeeper whether or not she would want to put out the effort of maintaining a “Classic” version and a current version.
That all said, I personally am 100% on the side of making whatever changes are needed to make it more capable and usable, even if that fundamentally changes the UI. I can learn a new UI… in fact unless I have ONLY Anduril lights, I kind of have to, and will continue to have to, which is fine.
Thanks! So far, we’ve managed to get a few companies to use free software, but it’s still a relatively niche sort of thing.
Er, a few, actually. Some companies are pretty worried about their customers burning things and getting angry about it. With massively-overpowered lights making 4000+ lumens in a very small form factor, a few items have earned reputations as “nut roasters” which have literally burned holes in people’s pants while the pants were being worn. It takes only a few seconds.
So they’re interested in shipping with safer settings by default, while still allowing people to unlock the full power after they’ve bothered to read the manual.
Not every light is like that, though… so the defaults are configurable for each model, and some models will enable full power by default even in simple mode. It depends on the light’s power-to-mass ratio, target market, and the desires of the company who makes it.
Additionally, the user can choose to enable full power in simple mode… but it requires reading the manual to figure out how.
As a general guideline, the simple mode’s default limit is a little higher than what each model can thermally sustain during use. Sometimes that means full power, sometimes not.
Aside from companies, the main people whose requests are being addressed by the Simple UI are people who wrote very angry reviews about how Anduril is a useless, overcomplicated toy, and they want it to just do normal things like a normal tool so they can get some work done without having their tool spaz out.
The way people expressed the idea may have been rude, but the underlying point was solid. There is a design philosophy that a creation is not finished when there is nothing left to add, but rather, when there is nothing unnecessary left to remove.
So the Simple UI is an attempt at that design philosophy. It takes the full-featured original UI and then removes things until only the essentials remain.
I hope we can get to that point eventually. But so far, very few manufacturers seem to do any safety testing… and none have attempted to modify the code. Mostly they just don’t want to get returned items, or reviews complaining about the product being too dangerous or complicated.
It sounds crazy, but one of the top reasons for returns and refunds is: people have difficulty figuring out that they need to remove a legally-mandated sticker from the end of the battery. And they return the item instead of reading the manual. So it needs to ship, by default, in a state which is compatible with that type of user. Anything complex or confusing gets locked behind a knowledge gate, so new users won’t bump into it by accident and panic.
Anyway, every company I’ve asked about this has said they like the idea and look forward to it… because it’ll hopefully make their lives easier. But we still have to work out the details of where the default limits are for each supported light.
I’m honestly not sure what would be better. I’ve been using 3C lockout for over a week, and the extra speed is nice… but I kinda prefer 4C so far — especially now that there are direct shortcuts between ramp and lockout.
About Anduril dying, I’m not too worried. It’s reaching a point of diminishing returns, where further optimizations don’t provide much benefit.
So I’d like to focus future development on the FSM library, and on other UIs. People have had some really interesting ideas for other types of interfaces, and I think those ideas deserve more attention.
Also, on the ecosystem in general. Like, making it so more lights are easy to reflash, making it so people can choose whatever UI they want at time of purchase, and generally getting companies onboard with the concept of free software.
Exactly. Those ideas generally need to be developed into their own complete applications, not just tacked onto something else as an afterthought. I can cram some things into Anduril in a relatively coherent manner, but some ideas are different enough that they don’t fit… and they make a good starting point for a completely different interface.
Like, let’s say I’m making a salad. A lot of ingredients can go into a salad and it’ll still be good. But if someone wants to remove the lettuce add replace it with bread, melted cheese, and tomato sauce… I think what they want is actually a pizza, not a salad.
Both are good. But they’re better as separate items, instead of blended together.
As for what Anduril is, it’s mostly three things:
A solid core designed for a single e-switch and a single light source
A bunch of extra stuff I personally like
A bunch of extra stuff suggested or contributed by the community, when it can be made to fit in a coherent manner
The solid core is what I found when I did an informal survey of various flashlight communities to see what people liked best for interfaces with one e-switch. Around the world, people mostly settled on a single idea. It needed just a few essential functions:
Off 1H -> moon or low
Off 1C -> med or mem
Off 2C -> high or turbo
On 1C -> off
On 1H -> up / down
On 2C -> to / from high or turbo
Other details varied, but the part above was almost always exactly the same no matter where I looked. So that is the core of Anduril, and anything which doesn’t fit the above description is … not Anduril.
For example, changing “Off 1H” to be a momentary function… is a big enough change that it probably should be its own UI. One implementation of how that works in practice is tterev3’s wonderful MELD firmware.
Also, ideas about multiple buttons or multiple sets of LEDs are great… and worth developing a brand new UI for. Trying to retrofit Anduril over that would be really awkward and would likely produce a poor result.
But my time is limited, so I’m trying to finish this project before I start on any new projects.
, because you’re Toykeeper 
.
