Thank you Toykeeper, a TEST CLIP 8PIN SOIC was the missing piece of the puzzle for me. Had no idea something like that existed, was thinking it was going to be a pain and expense to clip something to each leg.
I think people usually go for the SBT70 just for looks. It is a round emitter. But, also, it is a ~3V emitter, so it works as a replacement for MT-G2 in lights where ~6V is not do-able.
is there any possibility to order extra drivers along with the flashlight? i think it would be great to be able to get some extra drivers for a “chinese price”!
No, we’ve had this conversation before. No extra drivers. Sorry.
i think i’ve read through all of this thread, but couldn’t remember if the question had been asked before.
any reason why there won’t be any extra drivers? since they already will have to make 700 drivers, why not make another 1000? i know i would buy a couple extra…
Iirc they just want to focus on getting the flashlight built at this time. We can always explore interest in anything else after the flashlight is a smashing success.
Well, I looked back over the thread. I think if you start around post #151 and read a while, you’ll get the idea. 
If you need more clarity, perhaps you should PM bugsy36. 
ok, thanks!
it seems like the permission to use this driver is for this run of the group buy, and not for anything else. so EE or BG can’t sell these drivers outside this flashlight. And perhaps with adding drivers to the GB it would be a bit too complex to handle.
I’d still like a couple of extra drivers without having to build them myself or order from USA, which makes them not-so-budget for me, but i guess not this time then
Permission? Who's permission? Didn't think TK would restrict it, maybe for the driver board design? I think EE enhanced it though with the added gate resistors which probably eliminated the well known flashes on mode changes or power up this OSHPark DD+1 driver has.
@OscarM - On that side of the world.....Contact Mitko for drivers. He may be able to help you :)
The code is freely usable under the provisions of the GNU Public License, which is a share-and-share-alike sort of thing. I’m not sure what the situation is for the A17DD-L driver board, but it’s on OSHpark. Would be nice if it had an explicit license.
BTW, the production samples still have a bit of a blink on moon if the capacitor was already charged up when it turns on. Not sure how to get around that since it needs to read the OTC value immediately on boot before it starts treating that pin as an output.
Did I say I wanted one? Yes, I did (neutral)
Make that two.
K, then still a mystery where this 'permission' issue is coming from?
Then the added resistors is also a mystery? Or an attempt to solve that issue? I recall early on we were play'n with resistors on the gates (maybe 100K?) but found it didn't seem to make a difference so they were eliminated later on.
For 1 - NW Please :bigsmile:
Okay, I’ll bite. Already on the other current Groupbuys but would like one of these too.
Please add me to the interest/want list. Need a little advice on the choice of XP-L tint though…
Regarding CW vs. NW on the XP-L. I have the original Christmas 2014 Thrunite Ti (Titanium) AAA. As this was one of the first tiny XP-L emitter lights it was only available in CW as far as I know.
However my only experience of this CW XP-L is a very nice tint. If it were compared to an XM-L2 you would say it was more Neutral (white) than Cool (blue), though not Warm or “Yellow”. As the stock CW was already leaning towards Neutral-ish, is the NW of an XP-L likely to be more Warm/Yellow in tint?
Though I don’t like Blue Cold lights, I equally don’t like very Yellow reminiscent of the old ‘Incandescent’ colour. So would I be better off with CW or NW for this particular emitter.
Also forgive me if this has been addressed already. Is this BLF edition A6 proposed to have the new XP-L HI (no factory dome), or the regular XP-L? Just opinion but being a tubular light, (ie. already limited in reflector size and hence throw capability), perhaps the new Intensity version would be a good choice to offset or counteract the throw limitation…
All the best,
Hirsh
As far as I know, the exact bins used for CW and NW have not yet been decided. I assume that what is available when production starts will decide. Wait and see, or get one of each to cover your bets...
The "regular" XP-L LED will be used, not the "factory dedomed".
If you want or need a flashlight with good throw, this is not it. This is a compact EDC light that is more of a hi-powered area light/flooder. I suspect that it will be perfect as a bike light or to light up nearby or enclosed areas.
No idea what is technically legal, but it seems to me from the beginning of this group buy attempt Wight was asked permission to use his board and ToyKeeper was asked permission to use her firmware. When a major company is using someone else’s design it’s virtually always with the designers permission to do so. Otherwise there is the potential for it to blow up in their face.
In almost every field, the guy that worked his butt off for a killer design wants recognition for it, right?
If someone just copies his great idea without getting that permission then he can rightfully sue for damages and losses, right? Happens all the time.
So Tom, if you work you butt off to figure out how to make an Olight Javelot throw 850Kcd for a client, then he gives it to Vinh and all of a sudden YOUR work has the known VN trademark on it, you gonna be happy with that?
I’ve seen it firsthand. I made the required aluminum heat sink to enable a quad to fit in the X6. I was asked if another member here could use the design, and if so, what would I do to make it better? So I redesigned it to take all the elements in question and gave him that drawing. Now everyone here knows that Nitro had these pills made for the X6 for some awesome lights. Not everyone knows that it’s my design. I didn’t know he was going to mass market it when I gave him permission, but for the greater good of the community I decided it didn’t matter to me. After all, I’m not in the business so I’m not losing anything on it nor did I intend to try making anything on it, so all is well. But that has to be understood from the get go, is the design openly available for all, and are “permissions” given for someone to mass market it and make money on it? Therein lies the rub. Where is Wight? I’m pretty sure he only gave permission for this driver to be used in the group buy. Notice they changed the design a wee bit? So technically they’re not using Wights board, right? This is the stuff lawsuits are made of, so yes, permissions are usually made note of for protection of all parties involved. I believe they call it the CYA policy…
Even if you are not in the business, and didn’t lose anything, that type of behavior is immoral at best. Just my opinion. I’m glad you didn’t let it bother you. I’m not sure many people would have done the same.
Sorry, that’s not what I meant… both myself and Nitro did our best to help the community at large, with little to no profit for anyone. The manufacturer isn’t in it for the same reasons.
The sample does not use Wight’s board, but a new board design. I don’t think Wight can claim any intellectual property on the circuit diagram since it is based upon Nanjg driver.