Comment your thoughts below on TS32 dual switch version.
A dual switch interface would make me far less interested. If it comes with a single button and Anduril 2, that is an interface I already know. I can customize it to work exactly how I want and there is no learning curve. With a dual-switch interface I would have to learn how it works and it would be different than most of my other flashlights.
Is the dual switches, for independent control over throw, and flood? Like it's completely two flashlights, just sharing battery?
Why not 12 SFT40 + 1 SBT90.2?
Dual switch interface might be good. I like the idea of keeping things simple®. Being able to separately control leds will most likely be simpler and less bug prone than trying to control everything with single button. I must admit that I have only few times found use to Anduril special modes. So not a big loss for me.
I once suggested Wurkkos to introduce a dual switch design, e.g. for the (non-existing) WK30S model. Here's a possible UI draft of mine for a multi-channel light with different emitters and "channel-ramping" or tint-ramping as mentioned here. For illustrational purposes, switch symbol design is adopted from Fenix. Of course, this very UI here would require proper changes to fit to TS32.
@Lux-Perpetua - I don't see how that design could be better, than just dedicating one button to operate one type of LED, if we just have 2 of them (one for 12 x SST20 and one for 1 x SFT40).
FC40 is great LED but is more like floodier compared to XHP35. Also please don’t use LED with different color temperatures. I like to see 4000K or 5000K version. Also mix of throw and flood is very usefool if you want to use that light on the bike like me. Mix with SST40 with LH351D I think will be good idea because SFT40 exist only in 6500K version.
What would the UI be like?
Would 1 switch control the flood LEDs and 1 control the throw (each with a normal UI, like FC11). So you could have 1 low and 1 high for example. This would give more control but would mean you have to use 2 switches to get to full brightness.
Or would 1 switch control brightness and the other switch control which LEDs are on (click to cycle between flood, throw or both)?
I like option 2. The one switch to control the throw and flood and another one turn on and brightness of light. With one switch you can have for example 1C to switch between some fixed modes throw/flood, 2C only throw and 1H flood beam. With second switch to control all another modes of Anduril but TK must implement that dual switch support in firmware.
This. Familiar adruil 2 for each.
I think you’re on the right track. This looks like an awesome light. SST20’s behind TIR’s is a great idea. A lot of other lights do this successfully like FireFlies. I would like to see the SST20 FA3 behind those TIR’s. They are great for tint and okay for output, but for more output use the 6500K version. The SFT40 is a great choice for the throw emitter. Way better than XP-L HI, XHP35.2 or XHP50.2. The only other emitter I’d recommend is a 6 volt emitter (SST70), but wouldr
Definitely try to put in a current regulated driver (buck driver) if you can. I think we all agree that consistent, fully regulated output is preferable over ultra turbo mode and only 5-10 seconds of 15,000 Lumens. How about a few minutes of 5000-6000 Lumens? It’s definitely feasible. You could still have a turbo mode for that, of course.
I also like the idea of 2 buttons for throw/flood. I reviewed a multi-emitter headlamp with dual switches for the throw/flood LEDs, and it worked perfectly. I like Anduril, but it can be a little complicated for some users to manage at first. If you could make the throw/flood ramping work, that would be a great single-button solution, but for now I think the 2-button design is preferable.
Maybe it’s crazy, but I’d go for double ended flashlight if you do want to combine flood and throw.
Current setup is likely to be only “some” throwy, because of the limited reflector size.
Having a regular size reflector on one end and floody TIR (or mule Leds) on the other would work far better (imho) than having both combined on one end.
See the UI above.
I still want to see how ToyKeeper to implement Anduril UI in TS32, but the progress is a little slow, so let’s hope we will have TS32 Anduril version in future.
In that case we may not be able to push full power of both at the same time, not sure I am correct.
This part is great, but not sure how it sound to TK, FYI, TK has very limited time to work, so huge change may take even longer time. We don’t want you to wait a long time, that is why we launch plan B, dual switch.
That would be superb complicated but cool.
Love the concept and the emitters seem like a good selection, but please source them in neutral white to offer that option!
As others have said, a handle would be nice, very few of these soda can lights come with a handle, or have an option for one.
The handle can be sold seperatly to keep the price lowest for those who don’t want it.
Have it attach around the battery tube like the Nitecore handles, then we can locate it over the switch:
It appears they’re putting a threaded hole for tripod mount on the back side, then at least so we could make our own handle, as I did for my Q8…
But you can’t use the switch:
Sold separately handle mount to the tail, I didn't think of that, I like it.
So now My wild Idea base on that and current design, to allow for it.
Make that grooves on the battery tube at angle, and make a big thread out of it. The handle would just screw in it, and have a holes (3 or 4) for couples screws or something, to threads through it, and go in that 7 or 8 (from render i count 7) larger oblong groves in battery tube. So you can lock it into place, that holes in base of the handle would have to be long vertically, so you can lock the handle directly over the switches. That design could allow that. That Nitecore have just 2 part base handle, but i think it's weak, you just need a long vertical hole of size of length between the large oblong groves )
Of course, the portion before the start of the grooves on the battery tube, would have to be shallower, than threads.
That design would allow for the handle to be moved closer, and further, from the switches, as well, to move right and left from them. So we can have one handle for large and small hands, and you can move the center of gravity to your preferable spot, for handle.
And the locking screws would not be load bearing, it could be screws with rubber tip, to not scratch surface. Or some other type of rotation locking mechanism.
There Is also one handle design that would work with the current design, just have a hinge, and a screw, to lock the base of it to the tube.
Ps. saw this now, a TIR optic, and single battery (which is probably bad idea, but then again, he probably used his NOCTIGON K9.3 base)
https://www.reddit.com/r/flashlight/comments/ptksww/how_about_a_noctigon_k141/
Pps. and we are getting close cheaper and better version of fenix LR40r
https://www.fenixlighting.com/product/fenix-lr40r-flashlight-12000-lumens/
Any updates?
How about an LEP in the center? I haven’t seen that yet -