yes, sorry, mode2/med is 250 lumen, should be lower.
(actually, if low is 5lm, high is 600lm, with turbo being a bonus mode, to make the spacing even, med should be 55lm, so it is 5 times too high now if you look at it like that)
It is not a typo. It is reader error. It says medium, not low. I think with this light, most of us are not going to be exactly happy with the mode spacing, because we have so many opinions of what it should be, yet “there can be only one” final configuration. Let’s remember it’s overall a good light, especially for the price. This light is better than some that you could buy at multiples of the price we’re paying. The time to fuss about specs is over. The only thing left to decide is how many you are going to buy (could be zero, if it’s really not what you want).
Never given this much thought but checked my Roche F6 and found that according to BG it is supposed to be 20 on low, 280 on medium, 500 on high, interesting…
Yes and no. The time to fuss about specs because of different opinions is certainly over, but if there is a clear error in final chosen mode spacing that probably everyone agrees that it is indeed wrong, a little more fussing is required.
Example: I play volleybal and our volleybalclub had a clubshirt that we were not happy about. The colours were ugly, but the main issue was that the fabric was so synthetic that it was unpleasant to wear. So a committee of volunteers was formed to arrange a new clubshirt that was more pleasant to wear (preferably cotton) and please do something about the colours too. They started discussing among themselves, designing, negotiating with manufacturers etc. and a year later proudly the new shirt was presented: a great design, but somewhere during that year the requirement that it should be pleasant to wear was lost, manufacturers only offered options for synthetic shirts and the committee just dropped it. Now our new shirt feels even more plastic than the old one and I have to wear it twice a week. (I do not make this story up).
Morale: it is good to stick to your requirements, even if it means just that little extra effort and time.
I’m with you, djozz. I would like to see that mode lowered and nothing else changed. Doesn’t seem like a hard request to fulfill. Ultimately it’s in Krono’s hands and depends on his level of patience and/or frustration when if comes to dealing with EE through Neal. We know what he is telling Neal but we don’t know what Neal is telling EagleEye and vice-versa. Throw in translation issues and you have a nightmare to deal with.
I too would prefer an adjustment to the 2nd mode but ultimately it's in Krono's hands and I will accept whatever he decides to go with. I will be swapping out the drivers in most of the one's I'm getting anyway.
If I were you I'd tell those shirt committee members to piss off and I'd just wear my own t-shirt in close enough colors. Dealing with wearing that shirt to play a sport in twice a week is far worse than a flashlight mode being off. No way in hell I'd tolerate that kind of incompetence and any appreciation I'd have for their time spent would be non-existent.
So what are the arguments for the chosen mode spacing?
Dang! How can people undervalue a major issue (which it is, come on) it’s beyond my comprehension. Are we in such an haste to get this flashlight asap? How can questioning this (very questionable) mode spacing be called “being fussy?! It might be just me, who knows, but mode spacing is to me a FAR more important feature than, say, max drive level or memory.
From what I have first-hand experienced in years of flashlight-related craze:
- given a selected 4 level spacing * desirable LO-MID-HI-TURBO *
drive spacing should look like 1% - 5% - 25% - 100% (to evenly space the levels optically)
AND
- given a 1000~ ish max lumen output achieved through a max drive level of 3~ ish Amps + considering a moonlight mode should be 1~ lumen or less
desirable mode spacing could be like 0.2% - 1-to-5% - 25% - 100%
As it is now, this is to me a LO-HI-HIGHER-HIGHEST light.
Not much use for that mode spacing in real life, I tell you, since optically the difference will be small to the eye.
Chosen? At EagleEye they have a random mode-spacing generator, and with every iteration of this light it spits out a set of mode spacings and then they sit and wait for the set they get away with it.
(joke aside, it is not much beside what is happening I think. There certainly is not one engineer at EagleEye who assembles a complete flashlight to assess, let go measure, how the User Interface they designed works out in the completed product)
I think you miss a point here, a proper BLF-light is not some random useful flashlight, it is way past that :steve:
It is vitally important for a true BLF-light that the aim is perfection, every detail needs endless discussion, for the discussions going on in this thread only, this groupbuy is already the best in BLF history :party: , the actual light (perfect or not) is a mere bonus :bigsmile:
I think at this stage it is a bit late arguing about mode levels and spacing. We should have argued it out originally and stuck to our guns. IIRC I did express a desire for a second level significantly lower than 250 Lumens and a “moonlight” mode about 1 Lumen but the approximate levels have been known for some time. NOW we Argue Unfortunately though nothing was done and with this many people involved a real consensus would be hard to reach anyway. Mode level preferences vary by individual so we are never going to be able to satisfy everyone. Just taint going to happen. One of the reasons I like a magnetic ring continuously variable user interface. Choose any level you want without wearing out the switch.
At this stage if you can live with the levels spacing, buy. If not then drop out. As simple as that seeing as how NO decision is going to be able to make everyone happy.
Well, djozz may have had a bad experience, but I still say the time to fuss is over. Yes, it is an important issue. It is important enough that the arguments should have been made before the decision was cast. Now, it does no good to complain. We will get what we get.
I went back and looked at Dale’s numbers in post #2429, and averaged them out, then found the mode level percentages from the average amount of each level that he measured. Based on his measured amps, the mode spacing is Low - 0.3, Med - 17, High - 46, Turbo - 100. Now, based on measured lumen output, the mode spacing is Low - 0.6, Med - 26, High - 60, Turbo - 100. I see two places where this diverges from what you call ideal - your Low mode (1% to 5) doesn’t exist in this driver, and this driver’s High mode (60) doesn’t exist in your ideal mode set. So, your assertion that this is “a LO-HI-HIGHER-HIGHEST light” seems to be right on. The way I see it, the reason for that is because the manufacturer insisted on a turbo step-down. If we had insisted that the step-down level be excluded from the mode cycling, it would have been LO-MED-HI(step-down). But, that’s not what we did, so we got it this way. Either way, the Med mode is the one everyone is complaining about being too high, yet it is right in line with what you said is ideal. 
awesome, i can not wait for this. thank you krono and everyone that participated in this group buy to make it happen.
Yeah, well, see, there’s where things get complicated with so many opinions on how things should be out there on the table. I don’t like 1 lumen for moon. That’s a useless PITA for me. In so many of my situations that 1 lumen moon looks off and I have to double check that it’s actually in the off level instead of the 1 lumen moon. I want some light, that’s why I’m using a flashlight after all!
I have tiny button cell lights that go on keychains that make 2-5 lumens and are useless for much of anything other than finding a keyhole or not stepping in a hole. So for me, a light this size making 6 lumens is very nice. Enough light to walk through the house and not step on a toy, low enough to not disturb anyone.
I don’t fly jet planes, I have no real need of sub lumen output. I do, however, know someone that does and maintaining night vision while checking maps for coordinates is very important to him. So I can see a need in certain situations for that low level of light.
Seems to me that you wouldn’t want a possible 1000 lumens if your situation demanded 1. So that would dictate a specialized light for those situations, not a general purpose light that might come on with blinding power. Like djozz is saying, he wouldn’t want 1000 lumens at 2AM. (you can easily make sure you click the light to low before turning it off, just as easily as making sure the head is loose on your Eagle Tac. I am always double checking my TX25C2 to ensure just that, the same way I’m always leaving my Texas Poker in low when I use it last) All it takes is some personal attention.
So, in retrospect, this light is a Low-Med-Hi general purpose light with a bonus Moon mode…if anything. Not the other way around. And like the rest of the opinions, this is just mine.
Even when setting up a light with 7 levels, I prefer most of those to be on the low end, with the 7th being a blast of power. This is so I can conserve power and yet have enough light for a given task. Even so, the BLF17DD Ver 1.0 driver with an FET and STAR firmware ONLY goes down to 7 lumens. That’s it. That’s as low as the firmware can be set. The choices are 1-255 and this is set at 1 for moon mode. (I’ve been told some of the firmware variants will produce a lower moon on a “0” setting. Don’t know.) This is a result of having set it up to run Max output with a hot cell, looking for mega lumens on the other end. So I have it set up to run like this on a de-domed XM-L2 U3 1A (and yes, this is an Eagle Eye X6 with an Efest Purple 35A) …
0.01A at 7 lumens
0.04A at 24 lumens
0.13A at 61 lumens
0.33A at 171 lumens
1.38A at 525 lumens
2.35A at 814 lumens
4.97A at 1480 lumens
I don’t typically mod for others, on occasion I do so for some friends. Richard can build these FET drivers and set em up for you how you like. Feel free to give him a shout if this looks appealing.
Want a lower low? It’ll probably take a lesser light.
It seems the point is being deliberately missed. I will put this in a simpler fashion: don’t you (all) feel the need in a general use flashlight for a level between 6 and 250 lumens? Because I do and, given the mentioned first-hand experience, I also can’t see why some would not.
Moonlight mode is NOT the issue, please! I would happily skip a true moonlight (which this flashlight has NOT) for decent mode spacing between LO, MID and HIGH.
Also:
Maybe it was too difficult for me to keep up with the 2500+ post thread, but I missed when/where/by-who mode spacing was “chosen”. I had the impression that ugly spaced mode came as a surprise from the manufacturer (after failing the first driver setup).
I have several of Richard’s lights with the seven level firmware and love them. He has three firmware variations IIRC not counting custom levels so contact him at Mountain Electronics or a PM to RMM to see what he can do for you if you are not a modder yourself. He has one of my modified M6 lights back at the moment as he offered to install a new development he is working on and asked me if I wanted to provide a test light for the new modification. To me his modification prices are more than reasonable.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself on this, but no, I don’t need a mode between 6lm and 250lm. I am currently carrying an Olight S20 with modes thusly: 0.5lm - 5lm - 120lm - 550lm. I only ever use the lowest and the highest modes. The two in between are not needed for what I use the flashlight for.
chenko, you’re right about the mode levels. And it’s difficult to respond to any one question as there are so many. To a great many people the moon mode is an issue. To even more, it is not.
I would like to see Medium brought down. Kronological would , JohnnyMac would, I believe most of us would. But Eagle Eye did the choosing on that. We are just trying to accept the good with the bad and move on. In real life, it’s not as much a difference as you might think. Yes, Medium is fairly bright. Use a lesser cell and negate that if it’s your preference. A 3400mAh Panasonic will give you some of the lowest possible numbers, if that helps any.
It’s very difficult to get the manufacturer in China to understand the desires of this thread. And also very difficult to spread out the levels between 4 spots, when Moon and Turbo are so far apart. And the step down makes a big difference as well. So, in the words of the infamous Old-Lumens, “It is what it is”
Do you think there is a possibility we can Flash the driver?
For me what really matter in placement of modes is not output, but runtime. This way I know if I set the light in certain mode, I would get certain runtime. The modes are placed in such way that it basically doubles the output in each level, giving a significant increase in perceived output.
Having a mode between 6 and 250, say 180, will not yield lot of extra runtime, and output difference is hardly noticeable, it will be considered a “repeated mode”. Many of us are used to know 250 lumens as the turbo modes of older Cree’s, so it is quite a “mandatory level” here. Modes placement will never please everybody, but I believe most participants of this GB agree with this one.
Personally, my general use output for close range indoor is around 300 lumens.
Lets remember human eye sensitivity. A jump from 125 lumens to 250 is actually a minor brightness change to the eye in actual light use. The big advantage of a lower second level would be in battery life rather than in very noticeable reduced illumination I expect.