My review of the 10,225 lumens ASTROLUX FTO2S V2
(This review features a V1 vs V2 comparison)
4 Thanks
I will “hijack” your topic for this, since this is the only topic that I could find that is specifically dedicated to the FT02S V2.
Yesterday I recieved my FT02S V2 and started playing with it and noticed something weird in the UI, that I wasn’t expecting. On paper it looks like a normal/standard and straight forward UI, but there is something that really surprised me.
When the flashlight is in a low mode and you double click for Turbo, then there is no direct way (by double or single click) to go directly back to the previous (low) level of the ramp. Double click does nothing and a single click turns off the flashlight, but with the result that if you turn the flashlight back on again with one click, mode memory instantly puts it back in full turbo! (The only way to prevent this, is a long press from off, to turn the light on in bottom of the ramp.)
The only way to get it out of Turbo again (and to prevent it from entering into mode memory), is to long press and ramp it down “slowly” to a low(er) mode. It is already weird/unusual having to ‘ramp down out of turbo’, but the fact that when you directly turn it of, turning it on (with 1 click) and beeing greeted by turbo is not exactly ideal.
At first I thought that turbo just was ‘max ramp’ and the double click was a short cut to max ramp, and maybe therefore you had to ramp down out of ‘turbo’ and that also explained why 1 click turned it off, because it was technically still in the main ramp range. But in practice it turns out that is not the case, because when go to max ramp and then double click for turbo, you still see a (small) bump in output, meaning that there is a seperate turbo mode/level.
By the way, I’m also not super impressed by the “smooth” ramp, since it is pretty ‘jittery’/jumpy, so not the best ramp mode I experienced, but this doesn’t bother me nearly as much as turbo being in mode memory and not a direct way back from turbo to the previous ramp level.
Besides the pretty annoying UI ‘quirk’, it does put out a ton of light!
I’ve just did a current test at the tail with a 14AWG wire and clamp meter and a new almost full BAK 45D (close to 40PL and JP40 in performance) and I measured 31 amps peak, but I expect it is probably even a bit more, since I had trouble getting perfect contact with the wires.
The last iteration of the FT02S was fantastic, not seeing how this is an improvement.
Mine has a faint donut which is a big no-no for me.
I paid ~$35 for it with the cell, so not a horrible price, but for a light with noname emitters that create a donut it is.
I will try LHP531 in it sometime in the future.
And might as well try the LHP73B, if the reflector led opening is 9mm you can let the reflector sit on the gasket ( reduce the gasket perimeter height if needed). throwy flooder.. 
Cheers 
I wasn’t impressed with the V2 either. The output regulation was way better even though its still a linear driver, mainly due to how Anduril manages the thermals. The LEDs are super cool white (but don’t have nearly as bad corona and pee yellow tint shift) there’s a bit of a donut too.
At what distance do you notice that faint donut the best? On my samble I can only see a faint donut from about 30cm/12 inches from the wall and only at 20cm/8" it gets really noticable. From 2 meters distance, shinig on a white wall it’s basicly invisible; maybe only a tiiiiiiiny bit what looks more like a (very) tiny bit of yellow tintshift and only on the really low levels.
I paid € 26,38 (with the cell), which would be something like $ 30,91 with current exchange rates. I mainly bought it with the idea, that for this price, it would be a fun flashlight to experiment with putting other LED’s in it, including the idea you also have, of swapping LHP531’s in.
It might just about work, but my worry is more: can I make the contact pads on the MCPCB bigger in accurately enough way, because going from 5050 to 7070 also influences the size of the contact pads on the MCPCB.
Even though I don’t have the OG FT02S, I agree with you that the V2 isn’t an improvement. Fortunately, for the price I got it, I didn’t expect that.
The main reason I bought one is that I wanted to a multi emitter swap in a FET driven light, but I’m not willing to ‘sacrifice’ my OG EA01S or my Q8 Plus, for swapping in (for example) LHP531.
You can order another mcpcb for the 70x70 footprint (20,25,27mm ?), and keep the original as backup or simply for a good reason to have another project
Cheers
1 Thank
Have you tested/tried that? Because the pads need to perfectly align with the reflector holes.
I could probably try to source an extra mcpcb via Mateminco, but I assume they only have 5050 footprint for the FT02S. (And probably ask a lot of money for it.
The LHP531 probably doesn’t give the best beamprofile with the FT02S, given that it’s a domeless LED, but with it’s very low Vf, I really wonder what it could put out in this light. (Although the ‘HP50’ led in it, is pretty unknown, so no idea what it’s potential (and Vf) is ofcourse.
The further away, the worse it gets. At 1m it’s not noticable, at 3-4m it’s easily identifiable.
I changed the LEDs with LHP531 - same problem.
I think the reflector has been made for SST40 type LEDs, not for those with bigger LES.
I will leave it like this, and it will be my last multi-LED-in-one-reflector-light.
1 Thank
I will give it a try on at least 4 meters of a wall. I’ve used it outside for a few short bursts over longer distances, but against backgrounds that might hide the donut a bit.
I was already expecting that the LHP531 wasn’t going to give the best beam profile in this light, but a shame that the donut hole is part of the problem.
I have another domed LED in mind, that I would like to try, but it depends on if I can source it from somewhere.
All in all, it’s still a fun light for the sub € 27,- I’ve paid for it.
The OG version didn’t have a donut hole. I think the issue is the actual LED in the V2 as the vias separating the dies are bigger than the genuine Cree LEDs. I think If you swapped in a XHP50.3 HI it would probably help it A LOT in terms of output and beam (plus you can get 90 CRI versions). The beam in the original isn’t bad at all: It’s those Cree XHP50.2 that make it ugly.