[Design with Terry]Wurkkos TS32 15000+ Lumens Flashlight Concept

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
kokosnh
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 07/02/2021 - 06:27
Posts: 55
Location: Polska

please be sure to have a high bevel, between the threads and the o’ring, as in TS30s 



On DL70, one o’ring is protected by bevel, but the second o’ring is right next to threads… 



You can thing about double o’ring for this flashlight, as in DL70, but it’s not necessary

dthrckt
dthrckt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 11/08/2011 - 10:11
Posts: 4619
Location: Upstate NY

Seems like 2 switches, one for flood, one for throw, both with their own Andruil, might meet the needs of many customers.

In the FD65, the switches are for starting at low or high from off, and after on, and a short press of either ramps one mode lower or higher. Instead, one switch for flood, one switch for throw.

I’d really prefer an aspheric, or very tight TIR for the center LED, like the Olight marauder 2.

tactical_grizzly
tactical_grizzly's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 49 min ago
Joined: 11/08/2020 - 14:54
Posts: 54
Location: North Texas

Wurkkos Terry wrote:
Hi all, thanks for your constructive post/suggestion, now I am chating with Toykeeper about the throw/flood ramping, maybe not smooth from throw to flood, but ThrowOnly—-FloodOnly—-Throw&Flood(3 emit styles) similar to tint ramp of LT1 Lantern, once emit style is selected, you can ramp from 1% output to 100%(this part is still unknown, should be workable, but still need confirm from ToyKeeper), feel free to comment how you think about this.

Please join us, comment, speak out your idea, and let’s make another great light to this community.

Hereby, I would like to thank Toykeeper a lot, words can not express well.

I like that idea of three steps (all throw, half-and-half, and all flood). It will still allow the use of both channels at the same time without taking too long to ramp between like it does on BLF LT1.

pol77
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 49 min ago
Joined: 02/21/2019 - 07:54
Posts: 408
Location: London

A few suggestions to make the light really high quality:

Regulated constant current driver.
Battery charge cut off around 4.14V. There are so many lights that needlesly push the batteries above 4.20V. The gain is minimal and the battery life is deminished.
Low Voltage Protection around 3V. The same as above + I have it when a light will keep going forever on 1lm, draining the last remnants of the battery. Let it turn off once it cannot sustain Low mode.

How many Amps will the Power bank function be able to give? With phones that support PD being the norm now, a PD supporting power bank at higher than 5V would be fantastic. Is there such a control chip that can be incorporated in the driver? It would make light realyl stand out, as there are a few lights now that have Power Bank fucntionality but none that I know that can do more than 5V, 2A.

Wurkkos Terry
Wurkkos Terry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 7 hours ago
Joined: 04/08/2021 - 04:25
Posts: 106

tactical_grizzly wrote:
Wurkkos Terry wrote:
Hi all, thanks for your constructive post/suggestion, now I am chating with Toykeeper about the throw/flood ramping, maybe not smooth from throw to flood, but ThrowOnly—-FloodOnly—-Throw&Flood(3 emit styles) similar to tint ramp of LT1 Lantern, once emit style is selected, you can ramp from 1% output to 100%(this part is still unknown, should be workable, but still need confirm from ToyKeeper), feel free to comment how you think about this.

Please join us, comment, speak out your idea, and let’s make another great light to this community.

Hereby, I would like to thank Toykeeper a lot, words can not express well.

I like that idea of three steps (all throw, half-and-half, and all flood). It will still allow the use of both channels at the same time without taking too long to ramp between like it does on BLF LT1.

Agree with you, ramp from the middle seems better.

Wurkkos for all workers

www.wurkkos.com(link is external)

 

Facebook: Wurkkos Terry

Email: wurkkos_marketing@163.com

Contact me if you want to review, buy with coupon, design with us.

AlexGT
AlexGT's picture
Online
Last seen: 9 min 28 sec ago
Joined: 06/07/2012 - 17:39
Posts: 4600
Location: Texas

For the center led, how about using the new XHP-50 “Hi” version (XHP-50.3), is like the SFT you are currently planning to use but brighter.

JaredM
JaredM's picture
Online
Last seen: 4 min 36 sec ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 13:33
Posts: 2240
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
AlexGT wrote:
For the center led, how about using the new XHP-50 “Hi” version (XHP-50.3), is like the SFT you are currently planning to use but brighter.

It’ll require a boost driver. The HI won’t come in 3V and surface brightness will not come close to the SFT without one bad-a$$ driver

Wurkkos Terry
Wurkkos Terry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 7 hours ago
Joined: 04/08/2021 - 04:25
Posts: 106

kokosnh wrote:

please be sure to have a high bevel, between the threads and the o’ring, as in TS30s 



On DL70, one o’ring is protected by bevel, but the second o’ring is right next to threads… 



You can thing about double o’ring for this flashlight, as in DL70, but it’s not necessary

Yes, new products will apply the design of TS30.

Wurkkos for all workers

www.wurkkos.com(link is external)

 

Facebook: Wurkkos Terry

Email: wurkkos_marketing@163.com

Contact me if you want to review, buy with coupon, design with us.

ToyKeeper
ToyKeeper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 15 hours ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 14:40
Posts: 10761
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3

Oh, er, another possible method to control it, without making it slow, is to just make the tint ramp faster. It currently does 255 steps at 62 Hz, so it takes about 4 seconds. But it could skip several steps per frame and ramp in like 1 second instead. It’d just be harder to precisely pick blends in the middle.

pol77
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 49 min ago
Joined: 02/21/2019 - 07:54
Posts: 408
Location: London

TK, would it be possible to skip several steps per frame towards the edges of the ramp, fewer as it gets towards the middle and not skip any steps in the middle?

tactical_grizzly
tactical_grizzly's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 49 min ago
Joined: 11/08/2020 - 14:54
Posts: 54
Location: North Texas
ToyKeeper wrote:
Oh, er, another possible method to control it, without making it slow, is to just make the tint ramp faster. It currently does 255 steps at 62 Hz, so it takes about 4 seconds. But it could skip several steps per frame and ramp in like 1 second instead. It’d just be harder to precisely pick blends in the middle.

I like that idea. Tint ramping takes a little too long for me on the LT1. A 1 or 2 second channel ramp on this light would not be too bad. Would it be possible to allow the user to choose between a smooth ramp and instant switching?

What about stepped channel ramping? We have discussed previously but think it is possible. It should inherit the main ramp (stepped or smooth) for channel ramping and inherit the number of steps if stepped ramping.

If the user happens to be at a low brightness where the number of steps they have selected is not possible, just lower the number of steps in the channel ramp. That’s basically what it already does right? It starts out with a ton of steps at the top of the brightness range and then lowers down to three steps at the bottom of the brightness range, right?

dave1010
dave1010's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 07/04/2017 - 02:38
Posts: 317
Location: Dorset, United Kingdom
ToyKeeper wrote:
Oh, er, another possible method to control it, without making it slow, is to just make the tint ramp faster. It currently does 255 steps at 62 Hz, so it takes about 4 seconds. But it could skip several steps per frame and ramp in like 1 second instead. It’d just be harder to precisely pick blends in the middle.

This is kind of what I was implying with this comment: https://budgetlightforum.com/comment/1800794#comment-1800794

If you’re happy with more complexity in the code base then this is a way to please everyone. Attempting to please everyone with lots of options isn’t always the best strategy in the long run though!

ToyKeeper
ToyKeeper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 15 hours ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 14:40
Posts: 10761
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3
tactical_grizzly wrote:
If the user happens to be at a low brightness where the number of steps they have selected is not possible, just lower the number of steps in the channel ramp. That’s basically what it already does right? It starts out with a ton of steps at the top of the brightness range and then lowers down to three steps at the bottom of the brightness range, right?

The tint uses an abstract value from 0 to 255. When the user ramps the tint, it changes this value.

While setting the brightness, the tint value goes into a formula to convert it to a hardware control value. For example, if the tint is 100/255, and the brightness is 10, the hardware values are then 4 and 6.

  • cool = ((brightness * tint) + 127) / 255
  • warm = brightness – cool

Or with numbers…

  • cool = ((10 * 100) / 127) / 255 = 4
  • warm = 10 – 4 = 6

Since the hardware control values are all integers, the number of different tints possible increases with brightness. At a value of 2 brightness, the only possible values are 2:0, 1:1, and 0:2. With 3 brightness, it can be 3:0, 2:1, 1:2, or 3:0. And so on.

This is pretty simple so far, but in practice it gets more complicated. On PWM-based lights like the LT1, the hardware response is not linear… so it also has to add in a correction factor based on the current tint and brightness. The brightness dips at middle tints, as shown by the orange line here, and after adding a correction factor, it follows the blue line:

The correction function is a simple triangle wave which peaks in the middle, and gets added to the overall brightness values. So instead of having the hardware controls follow a straight line, they end up following a different shape of curve…

And there is likely to be an additional complication beyond that, on newer lights. I recently added a dynamic PWM thing to improve the resolution and ramp shape in low modes. This makes it so the hardware control values follow a more complex pattern. For example, here’s how the controls look on the KR4:

So if there was a tint-ramping light which also used high-precision dynamic PWM, the tint resolution would still be low at the bottom, but it would then increase quickly, turn around and become somewhat coarse again in the middle of the ramp, and then increase quickly again. The number of tints follows the orange line in that picture.

I did a test for this on my K9.3 prototype, and it works pretty well… but the code to implement it is pretty complex.

So… the tint ramping UI code really has no idea how many tint steps there will be. It’s a pretty complex calculation. Instead of trying to guess, the UI code just moves the abstract 0-to-255 “tint” value back and forth and lets the underlying hardware code interpret that however it needs to.

Currently, it moves that by 1 per frame, and the frames happen at 62 Hz because of hardware reasons. But it could move by 2 per frame, or 3, or 4, to speed things up… or it could move by 1 every 2 frames, or every 3 frames, etc, to slow things down. For a tint-ramp light, it’s nice to have high-precision control. But for a flood-throw-ramp light, speed seems more important than precision.

Another option is… depending on how the hardware works, it could just go to maximum throw mode (or perhaps maximum flood mode) at the top of the ramp, regardless of the current tint value. Like, on the K9.3 I tested with, there is a DD FET channel but it only powers one set of LEDs. So at the top of the ramp, that goes to full power no matter what the tint is. Tint ramping only works when the DD FET is off, using the two regulated power channels.

If that style is used, people could go to full throw mode and back just by activating turbo.

But I don’t know yet how this specific light will work. I’m just tossing up options for now, to see what sticks. I’m hoping for something simple though, because as dave1010 said, adding complexity to cover every possible preference is usually not a great solution.

Wurkkos Terry
Wurkkos Terry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 7 hours ago
Joined: 04/08/2021 - 04:25
Posts: 106

Comment your thoughts below on TS32 dual switch version.

Wurkkos for all workers

www.wurkkos.com(link is external)

 

Facebook: Wurkkos Terry

Email: wurkkos_marketing@163.com

Contact me if you want to review, buy with coupon, design with us.

tactical_grizzly
tactical_grizzly's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 49 min ago
Joined: 11/08/2020 - 14:54
Posts: 54
Location: North Texas
Wurkkos Terry wrote:
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.

kokosnh
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 07/02/2021 - 06:27
Posts: 55
Location: Polska

Is  the dual switches, for independent control over throw, and flood? Like it's completely two flashlights, just sharing battery? 

Fedtro
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 07/17/2020 - 10:40
Posts: 133
Location: Corropoli, Teramo, ITALIA

Why not 12 SFT40 + 1 SBT90.2?

 

 

 

Haukkeli
Online
Last seen: 6 min 26 sec ago
Joined: 06/24/2021 - 05:27
Posts: 105
Location: Suomi

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.

Lux-Perpetua
Lux-Perpetua's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 03/01/2018 - 04:39
Posts: 3196

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.

kokosnh
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 07/02/2021 - 06:27
Posts: 55
Location: Polska

 @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). 


icpart
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 04/15/2019 - 01:13
Posts: 332
Location: Bulgaria
Wurkkos Terry wrote:
ArtieT59 wrote:

gchart wrote:
ch1ir wrote:
Agreed on high cri warmer tints, I would prefer Xhp35 in the center. It is still superior to the sft in my opinion. Thank you Lee Terry please keep us informed
Ehh, I don’t have any problems with the XHP35 but that’s a 12-volt only LED which would mean a boost driver. Not that Wurkkos couldn’t do that, but it would complicate things for sure. For me, I don’t see any problems in using the SFT40 (or an Osram).

 


agreed, for as much as I like the xhp35 HI 4000k (one of my favorite emitters), the sft40 is equally as impressive. And I would rather have the added numerous options of 3 volt emitters for that center led. Xhp35 and gt fc40 are the only 12v emitters I can think of that are worth using.  

What is GT FC40? Very curious.


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.
dave1010
dave1010's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 07/04/2017 - 02:38
Posts: 317
Location: Dorset, United Kingdom
Wurkkos Terry wrote:
Comment your thoughts below on TS32 dual switch 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)?

icpart
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 04/15/2019 - 01:13
Posts: 332
Location: Bulgaria
dave1010 wrote:
Wurkkos Terry wrote:
Comment your thoughts below on TS32 dual switch 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.
dthrckt
dthrckt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 11/08/2011 - 10:11
Posts: 4619
Location: Upstate NY
kokosnh wrote:

 @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). 


This. Familiar adruil 2 for each.

Sirstinky
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 11/02/2018 - 17:07
Posts: 1379
Location: Vancouver, WA

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.

1stein
1stein's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 4 min ago
Joined: 12/24/2017 - 16:25
Posts: 833
Location: Poland

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.

Wurkkos Terry
Wurkkos Terry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 7 hours ago
Joined: 04/08/2021 - 04:25
Posts: 106
dave1010 wrote:
Wurkkos Terry wrote:
Comment your thoughts below on TS32 dual switch version.

the UI be like?

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.

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.

Wurkkos for all workers

www.wurkkos.com(link is external)

 

Facebook: Wurkkos Terry

Email: wurkkos_marketing@163.com

Contact me if you want to review, buy with coupon, design with us.

Wurkkos Terry
Wurkkos Terry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 7 hours ago
Joined: 04/08/2021 - 04:25
Posts: 106
icpart wrote:
dave1010 wrote:
Wurkkos Terry wrote:
Comment your thoughts below on TS32 dual switch 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.

In that case we may not be able to push full power of both at the same time, not sure I am correct.

Quote:
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 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.

Wurkkos for all workers

www.wurkkos.com(link is external)

 

Facebook: Wurkkos Terry

Email: wurkkos_marketing@163.com

Contact me if you want to review, buy with coupon, design with us.

Wurkkos Terry
Wurkkos Terry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 7 hours ago
Joined: 04/08/2021 - 04:25
Posts: 106
dthrckt wrote:
kokosnh wrote:

 @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). 


This. Familiar adruil 2 for each.

That would be superb complicated but cool.

Wurkkos for all workers

www.wurkkos.com(link is external)

 

Facebook: Wurkkos Terry

Email: wurkkos_marketing@163.com

Contact me if you want to review, buy with coupon, design with us.

beam0
beam0's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 18 hours ago
Joined: 12/20/2011 - 23:18
Posts: 3318
Location: Pennsylvania

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:

20200407_202649 20200407_202610

 

Pages