The firmware ramp setting is a bit different from a traditional Anduril light (7 stepped levels, with level 120~130 as the max. regulated level). It has only 5 stepped levels. Both stepped and smooth ramp have a floor of level 3 and a ceiling of level 149.
But maybe this can be changed by making a pure firmware change to use the traditional setting, if the FET channel can be controlled by PWM in this driver. This is because you need to make the 6A-buck always on and turn FET on and off (PWM) to simulate a brightness level in between.
You get 0-6A pwm free with no pronounced Duv shift. I’m not sure what more you could ask for. Other drivers would have the Duv shift somewhere soon after 3A+FET pwm kicks in, yes? This gives like double the regulated range
For what it is worth, the shift doesn’t seem too extreme and it does still look great to my eyes but maybe not perfect.
My 2700K NOV-MU does look pretty good 
I can reproduce this bug with my K9.3. But I cannot reproduce this bug with my E12R. NOV-MU is fine too.
This bug appears to have been fixed in a later firmware revision. Note that a Fireflies light is using a later revision (202012240443) than Noctigon K9.3 (202012130262).
This is what I want to know. Waiting for the reviews.
Know it was said they had a delay in shipping until January 16th for the E12R. Mine still hasn’t shipped.
Ordered on 12/8 and still waiting. Paid for DHL shipping also. Anyone received the E12R yet in the US?
Anyone received a shipping notification, or any change of status of shipped on the Fireflies website?
Was that a custom order? I don’t see 2700k in the LED options.
For preorders they had a limited amount they sold from sample emitters they had.
I never received a notice from them for shipping, I got one directly from FedEx since I used my mobile phone number for the order. Basically they ended up using FedEx for most of the US and shipped my E12R on Wednesday and I received it today.
I placed an order for the E12R 219B led on Dec 6 and it was shipped on Jan 16. You might want to take a look at your spam folder, that’s how I found my shipping notice.
I hope it’s more like 1900 lm OTF.
That’s not likely to happen with only 6A current 
The 219B emitters are of D220 bin, which means ~220lm at 700mA, so at 500mA we have 220 * 500/700 = 157lm or more. 157 * 12 emitters = 1886lm. The optics efficiency is probably 90, but we must consider the lose due to the glass and bezel (yes, the bezel really matters…), so the true OTF ratio will be lower than 90, say, 80~85, and this may vary from one unit to the other. 1886 * 85% = 1603lm, that’s the OTF value you may expect. To get more, you need a more efficient emitter or higher current.
D220 is 220 lm minimum at 700 mA, 240 lm maximum.
In TA’s test of the 219B-V1 D220 sw45k, he got 176 lm at 500mA. 1900 lm would basically be spot on with 0,9 optics efficiency.
I’ve got quite a few current regulated lights with 219B-V1 and I’d be disappointed if this one doesn’t exceed 1600 lm.
Thanks for the info. Hopefully will receive mine soon.
Checked and nothing in spam. Do receive their emails in my inbox. Received the email about the delay a few weeks ago.
Status on their website still says paid only. Like to think I’m a pretty patient person. Just when you really want to get your hands on something you paid for time seems to be dragging.
TA’s test was done a long time ago before he calibrated using Maukka calibration lights. His old calibration was 30% or more higher than Maukka’s calibration.
Ok, thanks for the info. However I doubt he tested 30% too high in that old 219B-V1 test.
The emitter was specified D220, which means minimum 220 lm at 700 mA. TA measured 243 lm at 750 mA, 243/1,3 = 186,9, for the 30%, so 186,9 lm at 750 mA
Do you really think those emitters were that far off their binning?
Thought about it for some time and did some calculations, I agree that 1600 lm seems quite realistic. 220-240 lm * 0,73 (rel. flux vs current graph from datasheet at 500 mA*12*0,9 (optics)*0,9(90°C emitter) = 1561-1703 lm or 1734-1892 at turn-on (25°C emitter).
So 1900 lm is optimistic, 1400 lm is too low.
Regardless of what it is you know the current from driver so who cares what the real number is plus or minus 20%. 6A is either enough or it isnt
Of course, you can look at it like that.
However I just expected it to be clearly brighter than my EE X6 triple 219B at 5,3A that I always guesstimated to do around 1300+ lm. Pavlo wrote he expected 1400 lm, which is pretty close to my X6… I just thought driving 12 emitters with 0.7A more at a much more efficient state should result in a bigger difference. I’ll shut up now.
Using the same consistent calculation I used for the 6 amps distributed across 12 LED’s, your X6 9080 219B at 5.3 amps should emit 1090 LED lumens (58 L/W), or 980 Lumens out the front. No matter which measurement is most accurate, the E12R will be about 50% brighter than your X6. The E12R at 6 amps will have 87 L/W, so significantly more efficient.
Using FET, thats a different ball game. The E12R will be much brighter than the X6 on FET.
Last thing to consider, I doubt the E12R can sustain anything above 1000 lumens without proper cooling, so in a real world use, you’ll get more than enough brightness from the FET and top of regulated ramp. The