This lack of a detailed Changelog makes it difficult to know if there is ANY reason to upgrade ever! And why they even bother to issue new Firmware versions.
As mentioned before, I have not upgraded my 1.13 Firmware because there appears to be no compelling reason to do so and I don’t want to delete my programs. I think the venerable HKJ made a similar comment somewhere.
@Mandrake50, many thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response! I will comment further below:
Thanks for looking! I’m still on page 12 of that CPF thread, and these mentions you found are on page 280, so it would have taken me a long time to get there yet 
Just adding the URLs to the posts you quoted:
"skyrc replied:
Just improve the internal resistance measurement in the new 1.17 firmware."
This is on post #5,586.
Cryptic… right?
Agreed, they should have stated exactly how they “improved” it.
Then:
The newest firmware version (1.17) gives an unrealistically low value for the IR, this is the only change. I do not recommend to upgrade.
And this is on post #5,589
As per this last one, I would like to point it doesn’t seem to be ‘official’ info from SkyRC, but just the isolated opinion of a CPF user (NiOOH), who I haven’t seen so far in my reading-through of that thread, (so I can’t say how knowledgeable/reliable that user/information is) and which doesn’t seem to be corroborated by further posts in that same thread (other users seem to have basically taken that info as granted).
And apparently 1.17 was also broken in the way @dmenezes mentioned.
Yes, according to the information I got straight from SkyRC.
So 1.18 fixed what they broke in 1.17 ?? Did it keep the IR reading variance?
From a straight-up interpretation of what they told me, I would say that from 1.17 to 1.18, they only fixed the bug related to the D-REDUCE and its conterpart in the charging process.
But I can somewhat easily check for that, as I have logged the IR for many of my batteries with 1.17; now that I have upgraded to 1.18, I can just run the same ops (some were refresh and some recharge) with the same batteries and compare the reported IRs.
It would be so much easier if they published comprehensive change logs…
Agreed 100%. IMHO SkyRC is handling this firmware versioning matter in a totally unprofessional way, any hobbyist with a Github account (and even most without one) handles this in a much better, more transparent manner,.
And that’s one of the reasons I hate closed-source firmware/hardware… 
And the worst part is, SkyRC once used to publish exactly that automatically, on a panel of the PC Monitor application, when one checked for available firmware. But now, as I reported, it seems the PC Monitor application only returns errors for any firmware-related operation… 
1.15 doesn’t have any glaring errors. If you have logged IR for cells using 1.15. they may not be comparable to 1.18 (??).
Again, I can check for that somewhat easily: now that I’ve determined that I can flash up/down versions on the MC3000, let me just collect a little more data with version 1.18 and then I will go back to 1.15 and repeat the same process with the same batteries. Then I will be able to report the IR measurements for each one with both 1.15, 1.17 and 1.18; this should give us a fair appraisal of that IR thing.
I have been wrestling with the decision myself. So far, I have stayed put on 1.15.
Yeah. It’s the old motto, “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it”. OTOH, it will make it more difficult to make sense of any previous/current data when SkyRC releases an even newer version (1.19? 1.20?) with some worthwhile improvement; in that sense, it would make more sense to keep the charger always upgraded with the latest version.
My recommendation for now is to stand by and let me make those IR measurements in 1.18 and 1.15 and put them both in a table, along with the ones I already have from 1.17; if indeed 1.17 (and presumably 1.18 too) are b0rked in that regard, that table should make it easy to see.
I agree 100%. SkyRC should do much better in that regard.
Agreed, if I had any programs on my MC3000 (which I don’t, I keep all of them on the bluetooth app)I would also be unwilling to upgrade; the fact that flashing new firmware erases all settings (including programs) and that they can’t be backed up and much less restored unless AFAICS one goes through a long, labor-intensive and error-prone procedure using DataExplorer (see my post above) is one more nail in the coffin of MC3000 firmware upgrades…
What would be really great is if someone managed to reverse-engineer the MC3000 firmware and its upgrade process and could develop an entirely open-source alternative to it, in the same way that has been done for countless similar ‘embedded’ products like famously the WRT54G line of routers, long ago… then we could buy the great hardware that MC3000 is, and skew the SkyRC bad/opaque software and firmware for something transparent and understandable…,.
Which brings up something I have thought about recently. I have the app on and old phone. Like a Galaxy 5 or 6 . At some point I will need to switch to another phone (the battery on the current one is getting a bit flaky). Has anyone tried backing up the app and saved programs so it can be transferred to a new device? Or, heck, just to have a backup?
I recently switched to a new phone (both Android, as your Galaxy 5/6) by following Android’s built-in “switch to a new phone” procedure, and the SkyRC app was installed automatically on the new phone AND all its data was migrated also automatically, including all the charger programs I had created with it on the old phone. I didn’t have to do anything else.
Has anyone tried backing up the app and saved programs so it can be transferred to a new device? Or, heck, just to have a backup?
If you want to have a backup (which is recommended anyway, independent of migrating to a new phone), this is the app I use and heartily recommend: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.swiftapps.swiftbackup; install it on the old phone, configure it to backup your apps to the SD card, and when it’s done, turn the old phone off and remove the card, then install it on the new phone, ditto Swift Backup, then point it to the SD card and tell it to restore from there (either all your apps or any of them you wish to restore). Works like a charm.
THX… I assume, as it is hard to find a new phone with an SD slot, this means a C-OTG-MicroSD adapter setup.
Which I think I have… A shame they have removed the MicroSD slots on many/most phones.
Anyway… we drift off topic again… 
I don’t buy phones without a microSD slot. This is the one I just switched to: Info about lisa | LineageOS Wiki
As you can see, it’s officially supported by LineageOS (the opensource port of Google’s Android), as have all my phones since time imemorial (well, at least for the last 10 years).
Setting it up took some doing (jumping through Xiaomi’s loops to unlock the bootloader, then installing adb+fastboot tools in a computer and using it to reflash the phone with LineageOS), but the result is well worth it: I get a not-so-expensive phone with everything I want and nothing I don’t (specially the usual manufacturer’s bloatware/adware/spyware).
Now that you mention it… 
I discovered an easier method of getting ahold of the flash contents – and actually managed to get it, in the form of HEX files!
Please see my post here: SkyRC MC3000: reverse-engineering the firmware update program, and extracting the firmware embedded in it.
Preliminary results comparing the same batteries charged previously with firmware 1.17, and now with 1.18:
Battery ID: IR v1.17: IR v1.18:
---------- --------- ---------
2023010308 9; 9; 9; 9; 6; 6; 8; 7; AVG=7.9 9;
2023072301 10;8;AVG=9.0 9;
Notes:
0) Both batteries are LG MJ18650, being charged/discharged with the datasheet-recommended parameters;
1) numbers separated by semicolons are results of multiple measurements; AVG is their average)
So the results so far don’t seem indicate much change in measured IR from 1.17 to 1.18, at least not with those batteries. I will keep recording at least a couple more batteries , and then downgrade my MC3000 to firmware 1.15 and test again.
Good to know. I typically see more variation than that just by removing and replacing the cells … In other words, maybe it is not a big deal… Though those V1.15 (which is what I am on currently) numbers will be interesting to compare.
I appreciate you doing this! Sincerely.
Yeah, comparing them to 1.15 will allow us to actually know if SkyRC changed something in IR calculation as per the CPF user comment, or not. If they did, so far the numbers seem to indicate they maintained that change in 1.18, but I think it best that we wait for more measurements before reaching a conclusion.
Your appreciation is much appreciated! 
Seriously, I benefited and continue to benefit so much from the great community that BLF is, that being able to contribute anything back is more than a pleasure.
I’m not sure if the ‘help’ thread is the best place for this info, but it might be of help to someone, so…
EDIT: Keep in mind that both the discharge cutoff voltage value and discharge current / rate used in the referenced cell manufacturer’s capacity ratings is unknown, so direct comparisons of this data with those ratings is not practical.
In the course of doing some cell testing in the past couple of weeks, plus the initial checkout of a new ‘charger/analyzer’, some data I noticed in my notes may be of interest to some, so I’ll share it:
The 2 devices in use were / are:
I ran discharge tests on 4 new examples of NItecore NL-166 , protected 16340 cells which have a rated capacity of 650 mAh. Discharge current used was 1.0A, and discharge cutoff voltage was set to 2.8V on the MC3000, and the non-configurable default value of the Opus is the same (~2.8V).
The resulting capacity (in mAh) indicated by the MC3000 was:
Cell #6 - 671
Cell #7 - 677
Cell #8 - 677
Cell #9 - 666
The next day I ran the same test on the Opus, with the following results:
Cell #6 - 718
Cell #7 - 709
Cell #8 - 741
Cell #9 - 725
The next day I re-ran the test using the MC3000, with the following results:
Cell #6 - 673
Cell #7 - 679
Cell #8 - 682
Cell #9 - 669
Those results would seem to indicate that the capacity results of the Opus are, in this particular case, ~7.5% higher than those of the MC3000.
It also indicates that the change in average measured capacity (per the MC3000) between the first and third tests was minimal / negligible (~ +3mAh, or +0.446%).
About a week later, I tested 4 samples of NL-169, a newer version Nitecore protected 16340 cell with a rated capacity of 950 mAH using the MC3000, with same parameters as previous tests. Those results were (in mAH):
Cell #1 - 905
Cell #2 - 913
Cell #3 - 911
Cell #4 - 897
Following that, I re-ran the test on the same 4 cells, but this time I used a discharge current of 0.5 A (rather than 1.0A used on all the previous tests) with these results:
Cell #1 - 925
Cell #2 - 938
Cell #3 - 940
Cell #4 - 924
Although the effect of different discharge rates on measured capacity is easy to determine from looking at any proper manufacturer-provided discharge graph, this just provides a real world data point I happen to have in front of me. This 50% reduction in discharge current appears to have increased measured capacity by ~2.8%.
Just FYI. As you were…
That’s good data right here! Thanks for posting it!
Going over to SkyRC MC3000 webpage, I notice there is a firmware update v1.18, dated 2023-05-25.
I updated my MC3000 to this firmware (it was previously v1.15, from around 2 or 3 years ago).
There doesn’t seem to be any changelog of notes of what changed. Maybe someone has any information about the firmware update? (my guess is that these may just be some compatibility issue update with respect to the smartphone (Android or IOS) apps)
If you read back thought this thread you will pretty soon have as much info on firmware updates as anyone else has. Namely, that there is no info as SkyRC does not issue changelogs.
Just something I noticed after updating my MC3000 from v1.15 to v1.18:
the DC IR resistance reading becomes too low.
for instance, I had a high-drain 18650 battery that registers around 28-31mOhms back in firmware v1.15
but after updating the v1.18 firmware, the DC IR reading is just 6-7mOhms.
another button-top 14500 battery (button-top will usually have much added resistance),
in firmware v1.15, it was reading around 100-110mOhms
but in firmware v1.18, it was just reading around 20mOhms
since I had previously been jotting down the DC IR values of many of my batteries (using the v1.15 values), I decided to just flash back to the v1.15 firmware, which appeared to restore to the old DC IR values (which I deem is the “more correct” one, compared to the too low DC IR reading with firmware v1.18)
Maybe if someone else can test their MC3000 if the v1.18 firmware also (significantly and probably incorrectly) reduces the DC IR measurement reading (when compared to v1.13-v1.15 firmware)?
My MC3000 came with 1.17 and both 1.17 and 1.18 show unrealistically low IR values.
I think that people commented on this IR measurement change in 1.17 in the big CPF thread on the MC3000. I think @dmenezes was going to do some comparisons by flashing back and forth between the versions. Maybe that is still in the works. But it appears that @d_t_a has answered this question.
I am on 1.15 on both of my Mc3000s. It would be nice to understand what other changes were made from 1.15 to 1.17 or 1.18.
For now, if nothing else than consistency in my measurements, I think I will stay with 1.15.
My general professional experience would suggest that sticking w/ Rev. 1.15 is likely the best decision, for the time being, and unless / until there is known, concrete information which indicates the need to do otherwise. If ‘updated’, The chances of incurring a ‘new’ bug are likely just as high as correcting a currently unknown / undefined (to me) defect. If updated, the ‘risk’ is high, and the ‘reward’ is currently not established to exist (to the best of my knowledge), so that wouldn’t appear to be a good decision. My MC3000 shipped with Ver. 1.15, and that’s where it will remain for the foreseeable future.
That aside, here’s an interesting comparison of internal resistance measurements on 4 brand new samples of a 16340 cell using:
Most of this info (capacity measurements) was included in my post on the testing on 09/20, however here I have added internal resistance measurements which were / are not included in that original post:
The resulting capacity / internal resistance indicated by the MC3000 was:
Cell #6 - 671 mAh - 0.153 Ω
Cell #7 - 677 mAh - 0.163 Ω
Cell #8 - 677 mAh - 0.137 Ω
Cell #9 - 666 mAh - 0.153 Ω
I then ran the same test on the Opus, with the following results:
Cell #6 - 718 mAh - 0.257 Ω
Cell #7 - 709 mAh - 0.249 Ω
Cell #8 - 741 mAh - 0.226 Ω
Cell #9 - 725 mAh - 0.248 Ω
One thing which may be of interest anecdotally to you is the difference in measurements between those 2 testers.
Equally significant, if not more so to me, is that I have compared the internal resistance measurements for a number of different cells, and compared those results with those published in HKJ’s test results on the ‘lygte’ site. I am satisfied that the internal resistance measurements I’m currently getting w/ my MC3000 are very consistent with those published by HKJ for comparable, and in a few cases, the same types of cells. Therefore, I currently have absolutely no reason to suspect that the internal resistance measurements I’m currently getting using Ver. 1.15 are anything less than ‘accurate’ (within the limits of the tester’s design). I consider his level of expertise to be pretty good based on what I know, and further, he has access to far better test equipment than I currently do. This is the primary specific reason why I have no current intent to update from Ver. 1.15.
I will of course reevaluate this as new data / info may come to light, but for today, you couldn’t pay me to update the firmware on my MC3000.