Sofirn SC31 Pro Andúril Flashlight Review

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
zeroair
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 45 min ago
Joined: 11/27/2015 - 22:55
Posts: 115
Sofirn SC31 Pro Andúril Flashlight Review

Sofirn SC31 Pro Andúril Flashlight Review


I'm sure someone here has the SC31 Pro. What do you think about it?

niajef
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 50 min ago
Joined: 10/18/2020 - 18:23
Posts: 771
Location: Toronto

i love it. especially for the price point, its VERY good value, during 11.11 it was like $23 USD without battery. and with coupons, you can get it under $20!

zeroair
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 45 min ago
Joined: 11/27/2015 - 22:55
Posts: 115

niajef wrote:
i love it. especially for the price point, its VERY good value, during 11.11 it was like $23 USD without battery. and with coupons, you can get it under $20!

For under $20, this is a great value! Particularly if you can get the 5000K version. Though, this is definitely not the worst 6500K light I’ve seen!!
niajef
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 50 min ago
Joined: 10/18/2020 - 18:23
Posts: 771
Location: Toronto

i wish the heat dissipation could be better though, so it doesnt step down thermally in such a short time

Serlite
Offline
Last seen: 16 min 15 sec ago
Joined: 11/01/2018 - 16:14
Posts: 417
Quote:
There’s also a 5000K version, which I recommend you buy unless you hate everything about life.

Hah! Can’t say I disagree. Great review as usual!
This has quickly become one of my preferred lights to EDC.

how crazy is this
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 09/14/2011 - 13:24
Posts: 290
Location: Minneapolis

Something seems really off to me in the charts. Perhaps it is the thermal calibration? Perhaps I just got lucky? Perhaps it is because my use has been at 18 degrees C or less? Could be that my eyes are just off but I certainly don’t see how they could be off as far as the chart indicates. I know the difference between a TH20 AA Turbo (roughly 250 lumen) and 800 lumen. The charts indicate that the SC31 Pro can only sustain about 200 Lumen. Certainly not the case in my example.

The other night I stuck the SC31 Pro on the top of the fridge, at the default top of ramp (high not turbo), while I split some dough, made loaves, and cleaned up the kitchen. This took far longer than 2 min! At that point the light was warm but quite holdable and the output was, to my eye, at least as high as level 4 of 5 on my convoy silver C8 XP-L HI (right around 1A IIRC). At that point, a double click took it above full power on the C8 (About 3A). It was still able to do in excess of 1000 lumen after running for far longer than those charts would indicate possible. When I checked the temperature it blinked out 47.

After walking the pooches and putting the bread in the oven to bake I once again stuck the SC31 Pro on top of the fridge while I finished cleaning the kitchen. When the bread finished I took it out and took the picture below with my phone. You can see the fridge on the right. The SC31Pro is providing the light for the picture. The automatic settings were, no flash, f2, 1/20 sec, ISO 958, 3.57mm focal length. The light was easily on for more than 2 minutes when this picture was taken. Does anyone think that 200 lumen could have done this? I don’t understand the difference but isn’t a picture at least a solid indication of lumen output given the exposure information?

DtroitPunk72
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
Joined: 10/13/2020 - 18:13
Posts: 79
Location: Innsmouth (look it up)

I’m very disappointed.

I own several Sofirn lights as they typically offer outstanding value and performance at their price point.

I really wanted the SC 31 Pro 5000.

It was in stock a bit back so I bought one.

I was contacted and told the 5000 was oos! They couldn’t even give me a solid date for a restock and offered nothing by way of apology if I would accept the 6500.

I canceled my order.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

pennzy
pennzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 23 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 19:45
Posts: 2784
Location: United States , Pa.

The run time chart looks like a regulated output. I thought it was a FET driver?

maba
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 17:39
Posts: 148
Location: Poland

This graph is strange, in my SC31 Pro turbo works for over 2 minutes Silly

Serlite
Offline
Last seen: 16 min 15 sec ago
Joined: 11/01/2018 - 16:14
Posts: 417
pennzy wrote:
The run time chart looks like a regulated output. I thought it was a FET driver?

I think I read somewhere that this is a FET+1, so the flat line starting from 200 lumens would be where it gets regulated by the (+1) 7135 linear regulator.

longuylander
longuylander's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2019 - 05:02
Posts: 170
Location: Long Island

The temperature calibration clearly wasn’t done. It’s only reaching a maximum of 28 degrees. Set it properly and the sustained brightness will go up, the runtime will drop, and you’ll see it’s not regulated at higher outputs. My turbo also lasts for multiple minutes before ramping down, and it definitely sustains more than 200 lumens.

icpart
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 50 min ago
Joined: 04/15/2019 - 01:13
Posts: 225
Location: Bulgaria

Zeroair I like most of yours reviews and I have see on another Anduril flashlight based reviews lumen temperature graphs in some cases are not very accurate. Do you check thermal calibration and temperature setup of Anduril lights. This is one of reason why we see very short Turbo time in most cases. Also I have 5000K SC31Pro from first batches and it great.

pennzy
pennzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 23 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 19:45
Posts: 2784
Location: United States , Pa.
Serlite wrote:
pennzy wrote:
The run time chart looks like a regulated output. I thought it was a FET driver?

I think I read somewhere that this is a FET+1, so the flat line starting from 200 lumens would be where it gets regulated by the (+1) 7135 linear regulator.


Yeah, duh me . I didn’t notice it was 200 lumens.
Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 13498
Location: nyc
niajef wrote:
i wish the heat dissipation could be better though, so it doesnt step down thermally in such a short time

Check the temperature settings. Stick it next to a thermometer that reads in °C and let it equilibrate a few hours unmolestered. Quickly, and I mean quickly, before holding it warms it up a coupla degrees, let it blink out what it thinks is the temperature. Compare with the external thermometer’s reading. If need be, also quickly, go into thermal config and set it to the right temperature. Repeat the temperature blinkout to make sure it took.

My first one was off by a whole bunch (something awful, like 40°C when it was really only 21°C), but my second one was almost spot-on. Resetting it got rid of the premature stepdown.

Looked at an old PM, it was reading 44°C when it was actually ~21°C. So it was just on the verge of stepping down when it was just getting warmed up.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

how crazy is this
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 09/14/2011 - 13:24
Posts: 290
Location: Minneapolis
Serlite wrote:
pennzy wrote:
The run time chart looks like a regulated output. I thought it was a FET driver?

I think I read somewhere that this is a FET+1, so the flat line starting from 200 lumens would be where it gets regulated by the (+1) 7135 linear regulator.

Hence why I think there is something off on the chart. Does anyone think that 200 lumen could produce that picture? I think my light does a very good job of thermal regulation. I just pulled my light out of my pocket and it read 28. Seems pretty close to me. I know when I was out with the light clipped outside my pocket for over a half hour I checked it and it was 3 degrees which was pretty close to what the outside temperature was. Seems to me that the light is capable of putting out much more light than the charts would indicate if the calibration works like mine does.

zeroair
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 45 min ago
Joined: 11/27/2015 - 22:55
Posts: 115

niajef wrote:
i wish the heat dissipation could be better though, so it doesnt step down thermally in such a short time

Hey niajef! I updated the thermal calibration and retested the light. It actually holds up quite well after calibration! But calibration is 100% required!
Serlite wrote:
Quote:
There’s also a 5000K version, which I recommend you buy unless you hate everything about life.

Hah! Can’t say I disagree. Great review as usual!
This has quickly become one of my preferred lights to EDC.


Thank you! I threw out a couple of updated runtimes after calibration, which you might find interesting.

how crazy is this wrote:
Something seems really off to me in the charts. Perhaps it is the thermal calibration?

You were right – and sorry I didn’t get back to this earlier. I wasn’t getting emailed notifications of new replies, so I missed a lot.
Anyway, I did calibrate the light, and it now performs MUCH better – as you can see in the two new runtimes! Thanks!!

pennzy wrote:
The run time chart looks like a regulated output. I thought it was a FET driver?

It was likely a thermal calibration issue you’re seeing. I recalibrated and you can see two new runtimes; I think these will answer your concerns.

maba wrote:
This graph is strange, in my SC31 Pro turbo works for over 2 minutes Silly

After calibration, mine does too! WELL over 2 minutes actually (after the little drop from initial output, anyway).

longuylander wrote:
The temperature calibration clearly wasn’t done. It’s only reaching a maximum of 28 degrees. Set it properly and the sustained brightness will go up, the runtime will drop, and you’ll see it’s not regulated at higher outputs. My turbo also lasts for multiple minutes before ramping down, and it definitely sustains more than 200 lumens.

You’re right – and I have just posted the update to include thermal calibrated runtimes (2). Thanks!
icpart wrote:
Zeroair I like most of yours reviews and I have see on another Anduril flashlight based reviews lumen temperature graphs in some cases are not very accurate. Do you check thermal calibration and temperature setup of Anduril lights. This is one of reason why we see very short Turbo time in most cases. Also I have 5000K SC31Pro from first batches and it great.
I don’t always check – and I should, and I will try to do better going forward! I did go back and calibrate this one, and it does in fact perform much better! Mine was set to 41°C (!!!!!!) default. So that definitely needed correction! Thank you.
Lightbringer wrote:
niajef wrote:
i wish the heat dissipation could be better though, so it doesnt step down thermally in such a short time

Check the temperature settings.


Done, and retested! And yes, the performance after calibration is much improved. VERY much improved.

Thanks everyone for your patience while I updated the charts! And sorry I wasn’t getting the notifications of new replies.

thefreeman
thefreeman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 44 min ago
Joined: 01/06/2020 - 09:56
Posts: 316
Location: France

Thanks for redoing the test with calibration, that’s much better.

Were previous Anduril lights also tested without calibration ? I see several of them with very low sustained output and low temperatures that would indicated no calibration (FW21A, FW3x for example)

Yokiamy
Yokiamy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 10/18/2016 - 15:47
Posts: 2807
Location: Netherlands

What Gabriel said, thermal settings need to be adjusted.

Oh, and his review is readable on BLF

https://budgetlightforum.com/node/74573

WTB: Jetbeam TCR-1 or Sunwayman V10R Ti

Ozythemandias
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 16 hours ago
Joined: 09/21/2016 - 08:33
Posts: 346

I’m just going to come out and say it, It’s 100% lazy, irresponsible and hurts the consumers (and our hobby) if we don’t hold manufacturers to the expectation that the lights are shipped with the driver calibrated for the lights they’re installed in.

 

zeroair
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 45 min ago
Joined: 11/27/2015 - 22:55
Posts: 115

thefreeman wrote:
Thanks for redoing the test with calibration, that’s much better.

Were previous Anduril lights also tested without calibration ? I see several of them with very low sustained output and low temperatures that would indicated no calibration (FW21A, FW3x for example)


If I recall correctly, I make a note specifically if a light was calibrated for a test.

Yokiamy wrote:
What Gabriel said, thermal settings need to be adjusted.

Oh, and his review is readable on BLF

https://budgetlightforum.com/node/74573


Right, the point of my recent comments were that I calibrated the light. If nothing else, it’s an interesting exposition on what an uncalibrated light can look like (very bad) vs what it can look like calibrated (much better).

I see the review by Gabriel.

Ozythemandias wrote:
I’m just going to come out and say it, It’s 100% lazy, irresponsible and hurts the consumers (and our hobby) if we don’t hold manufacturers to the expectation that the lights are shipped with the driver calibrated for the lights they’re installed in.

I wholeheartedly agree, and that’s sort of my point about these lights. They’re sold on amazon. I would guess many amazon purchasers aren’t going to be able to figure out, much less be willing to, calibrate a light in this way. As a result, testing in stock format is important, and valuable.