That sounds ideal Scot! With memory holding the last used position and a bar graph showing where it is when you turn it on it would be simple to find the appropriate mode for the current use project. Great idea!
My original SOIC clip came with a breakout board like the one that WarHawk made. I've only used it once or twice, but I liked OldLumens' idea of using a strong magnet on the backside to hold the MCU in place.
Thanks. I’ll probably be flashing already-soldered MCUs though, so I think the clip would be easier. When writing software, the cycle is generally write, compile, test, write, compile, test, and each cycle can take anywhere from a minute to a couple hours. I wouldn’t want to have to de-solder/re-solder something every 30 minutes while making revisions.
I think there’s probably enough room around the MCU on this SRK board to allow the clip to fit without removing any wires, and the driver is easy to pop out and it has a nice e-switch. So, I think it’ll be a good test-bed host for this kind of thing. I guess I’ll find out after I have a clip. 
Not the greatest picture, but this is after connecting everything. I hope the wires won’t get in the way:
Edit: I’m not doing this because I think there’s anything wrong with my lights. I have plenty of great lights available, and I’m not really trying to fix a problem. What RMM sold me is very nice and doesn’t need any changes. I’m just doing it because it’s fun to tinker. It’s a way for me to take time out from my busy schedule and relax.
Pretty much agree with the KISS principle. I like the firmware on the lights I received from you but just figure that a “Hold the button down until the light goes off” addition would be a great convenience when you start getting into seven output levels and currently need to do multiple steps up or down to get to the “Off” position. I would classify that addition as making the operation more ergonomic and user friendly.
Fair enough. I've got a build compiled with this implemented and will flash it and test it tonight.
I worked for years in reliability and specification compliance testing on printers. Part of our brief from marketing was to make sure ergonomics were acceptable so that has given me a thought process which automatically asks myself “how can this be improved as far as the user is concerned”. It has been my observation for instance with Chinese made amateur Astronomy equipment that the design engineers are not amateur astronomers so they can make some stuff that is OK theoretically but in actual use it is a total PITA to try and use. Imagine a non-driver designing a car.
Amateur astronomy is quite popular in Japan so when they were the major scope makers in Asia their equipment tended to be more user friendly in design. They were enthusiasts or had direct local feedback from those who were and spoke the same language.
Rich, tagging onto your last post. Direct feedback from the end user in developing any product is key to making something good into something indispensable. PilotPTK or someone made a P-60 pill that could take a mini-USB for programming. I have always since thought that this was a brilliant idea that I would like to see. That way we could experiment with the UI and live with it for a while and tweak the UI to suit our needs.
While I’m at it the only other dream UI programming pipe dream that I have for the Dr.Jones, Mattaus clickie programmable UI that would work with the FET drivers. The latter would be the easiest but the I remember reading that the PWM was an issue. Would it be possible to reconcile the programmable UI and the PWM?
It would be easy to reconcile them, whoever compiles the firmware just has to change 0x23 to 0x21 in the PWM setup, it's that simple.
I now have two SRKs and a Securitying clone. Two are three Led models and one is a six LED light. All three show manufacturing variations in non critical areas such as bezel finish, fin and groove widths and the size of the flat that the switch mounts on. They all kind of look like machined by different machinists who are left to do their own thing in non critical areas as long as they stick to a general pattern. On the other hand they all have interchangeable battery tubes with identical threading and mating parts diameters. Still most of the exterior machining is just different enough on each so I doubt that they were CNC machined. One of the three units is the 6 LED light from Richard. Each light has a different driver board, a JB and a JB-A in my three LED versions and a totally different looking board in Richard’s custom. The logo details on the two lights marked SkyRay King do not even match.
Basically little or no consistency between lights. If internal differences are similar then I can see that trying to modify these lights on a semi production basis could be a total PITA for a business such as Richard’s. As I recall he has mentioned one batch of SRKs or clones he received with internal changes that made them unsuitable for use in his modifying. I have heard reports of some recent ones having LED mounting plates that do not even have proper contact with the light body. That should make for great heat transfer from the LEDs.
I also now have three SupFire M6 lights and even under close examination they appear identical. Machining details are identical and consistent so they look like they were all machined on a computer controlled CNC machining center. Two are lights from Richard and one was a direct from China purchase but they ALL appear to be IDENTICAL. If they are as consistent internally then this should make the customizer’s job a lot easier. He can make up internal assemblies in advance and expect to have them fit with minimal work. Opening up each light is not a mystery or unpleasant surprise. In modern mass production manufacturing this is how things should be. To me this visual inspection provides clear evidence as to why buying an M6 is much preferred to buying an SRK or clone. Consistency from item to item produced is what the consumer has come to expect in manufactured items. Otherwise the purchase becomes a craps shoot.
Rich, as you just pointed out, none of us ever expect any SRK style lights to be identical, or even that similar. They are all clones of clones...snowflake-like-flashlights--no two are alike. Every batch is different, even from the same manufacturer. All you can do is order and hope you get something decent. I have rejected many batches of the SRK clones because the quality just wasn't there, even for the low price.
The M6s are all the same because they are all made by the same (original) manufacturer. None of the SRK lights you have (and that very few of us have) was actually made by SkyRay. They are all clones.
I do like modifying the M6 because they are so consistent, I know what I'm getting. Some of the SRKs are missing screws, have undersized boards, etc. that need to be addressed before the light can be modified. As I noted above, I always worry when I order a batch of "SRKs" that they will arrive and be substantially different than the last. I have had to send back $1,000+ worth of lights before because they just weren't right (poor reflectors, missing heatsink shelfs, etc.) That's $2,000+ that's tied up for up to a month or more while I send the bad batch back, order a new batch, and waste lots of time.
The Securityings (at least my copies, lol) have been pretty good so far--the best overall for the price. I've only had a few duds with those, although I see them popping up all over the place now and I'm guessing we'll even see clones of the Securityings if we're not already.
Richard;
Sounds to me like just from the money tied up and frustration standpoint the SRKs might not be worthwhile continuing with unless you have suppressed masochistic tendencies! :bigsmile:
How does one manufacturer in China prevent others from copying his designs and name while another one has everyone copying his external design and even his name and company logo?
DUDE! Time to see the doctor
You don't, that's the problem.
I wonder if a manufacturer in China really wanted to, how good could they get the quality? I mean, if they could figure out that going with a pricier end product they could actually build a name for themselves and be the origin of the desire to clone.
They seem to have the ability to churn out product, what if it were EXCELLENT product? Hmmmm….
Naaaaa, never happen.
They can, at least for a while, but they have to be good. They have to do something that other companies would have a much harder time replicating. Like Nitecore with the OLED display on their tm26 and tm36, or Jetbeam and Sunwayman with their magnetic control rings, or Fenix and Sunwayman with their multi button control systems. That works for designs, but name and logos are still up for theft.
The only intellectual property protection available from the Chinese is to build something that is technologically difficult to copy/replicate. That will buy you a few years until they catch up. I am doing some work with a friend who is developing a new cleaning chemical and has a patent pending on it, we often talk about how difficult it will be for the Chinese to reproduce it and sell it at a much lower cost. The only hope is to get in the market early and keep your quality control above what they can do. //off topic 
Up to now it looks like SupFire has managed it. Also I am not aware of companies such as Fenix, or Olight being cloned, or if they are then the counterfeits do not seem to be reaching the USA market with counterfeit markings.
As for quality lights again the name brand Chinese lights like Fenix seem to be of good quality so far as I know. Maybe not quite state of the art as far as LED drive levels are concerned or with all the tricks such as adding braid to springs but good lights. Actuallly this seems to be true for SupFire too. Of course the Chinese makers doing true state of the art lights would put the hurts on modifiers such as Richard and Vinh.
One exception is if a design is handed out to multiple factories for them to build samples and produce a bid, and then having one of the factories that lose decide they want to build it on their own.
As far as the M6 goes, there is one clone that has a flat tailcap. I think someone here bought one, but I don't remember if that member said anything about its quality.
It would be great if the clones were dimensionally correct. Then parts would effectively be standardized, and then we might have access to reflectors with different numbers of bowls and copper emitter boards.
I figure that in a few years the custom stuff we are doing will be standard on most lights. Either we will keep on innovating and providing something that the OEMs aren't, or we'll disappear.