Armytek Wizard Pro Prototype Long-Term Testing

[Knight_Light]

Re: Proposed New Armytek Wizard Pro UI:

can we vote this time about the UI? I would like it to be able to not only go from low to high, but back to low again, and I don't mean by just holding in the button to cycle through all other levels and modes. In a Zebralight I can double click and toggle between 2 levels. This is not possible with the Armytek. Let them change that and the lag time between levels when holding the button down. They could cut that time in half and then it wouldn't seem as sluggish when cycling through light levels.

I agree with cutting the time in between levels as it would make the light seem less sluggish. Half I think would be a little bit too much, maybe around 30% would be my suggestion.

As far as making the UI more like zebra I don’t think it will happen. Zebra light has a wonderful UI but it has its shortcomings as well. There are enough consumers that are looking for alternatives and that enjoy the current Armytek UI for it to change.

Also if they are considering a change in the UI, could they add a true firefly level like .05 lumen? Thrunite's original firefly level was .04 lumens and it is perfect. My biggest gripe is .5 lumens is not low enough, and I'd be happy if they made that firefly 2 with a much lower Firefly 1 level. They could ditch one of the higher modes like your proposed section 2. Cyclying through my light the 30 lumens is the highest I would ever need and anything over 115 lumens seems unnecessary to me never mind 1100 lumens. To be honest most of the 115 lumen to 1100 lumen modes don't seem all that different to me.

Again I think there is enough of a consumer base that likes the .5 lm output for it to stay. Adding an additional firefly level would mean the sacrifice of one of the other levels which I think will impact negatively more people than it would satisfy. Your comment about anything over 115 lm being unnecessary would probably go against 95% of the consumer base for this particular headlamp.

You have some very unique preferences for your lights that are outside the bell curve of most consumers. I think you are justified (although I personally can’t relate) in your personal preferences, to be frank with you I wish I had your preferences over mine as I would be capable of ridiculous runtimes when taking lights on expeditions without having to lug additional power sources. I honestly feel that your best bet for 100% satisfaction is just to have someone build a custom headlamp for you by modifying one of the current offerings from zebra light (if you want lightweight) or Armytek (if you want durability).

 

[Knight_Light]

Re: Proposed New Armytek Wizard Pro UI:

If ANYONE makes a dedicated headlamp with JUST lower levels that boasts super long runtimes, then I guess you will have to enlighten me please. Until then, my post is legit.

That is the idea behind my UI. To create 2 headlamps within one unit, each with 3 presets. One for lower levels and one for medium to high levels. This way the product not only could satisfy the majority of the consumer base but also make it more task specific.

 

[Knight_Light]

You must have both powerful and small hands if you can manipulate that button with heavy gloves. I have xxl to xxxl size hands and just a pair of heavy leather gloves would make it impossible, let alone trying to use a pair of heavy winter gloves or mittens.

When I read your response it automatically made me think of the Seinfeld "Man Hands" episode. lol You weren’t an extra on the set by any chance were you? :)

I definitely don't have your hand size but I do wear xl-xxl gloves. I didn't say that it was a joy to operate the headlamp with heavy gloves, I said it was possible. I even tried operating this headlamp with what I thought would be the worst type of glove (heavy welding gloves), and it worked without a problem.

If you have a problem operating this headlamp with gloves it would literally be impossible for you to operate a zebra light with those same gloves, and that was my point (the Armytek is more glove friendly).

 

[Knight_Light]

I'd like to see them change the step down to the next higher level or the one just below that. The massive step down and loss of light they have now could result in an accident if on a bike trail or bad hill. .

+1

I totally agree and I think the level should be 250 lm based on my own personal testing.

I'd also like to see them have a similar range of lumen choices to that of the SC600MKII:

Light Output (OTF Lumens)
High: H1 900Lm for the first 5 min and then step down to 500Lm (2hrs)
or H2 500Lm (2.1hrs) / 270 Lm / 4Hz Strobe
Medium: M1 90Lm (18hrs)
or M2 27Lm (50hrs)
Low: L1 3.0Lm (280hrs)
or L2 0.6Lm / 0.1Lm / 0.02Lm

I don't like to continually change settings, just set a few preferences, for the most part. Preferably low, medium and high. But I'd like to have the full range of options available for when they are needed or useful.

Did you by any chance read my proposed UI? That is one of the things I tried to address by grouping modes into 3’s, and then separating them. As far as having additional modes for lower firefly it is impossible in this headlamp with the current driver, you would have to sacrifice some of the higher levels (which I am personally against).

 

[Knight_Light]

Re: Proposed New Armytek Wizard Pro UI:

I like your version better, would just add from off: double click for last memorized section 2, triple for turbo, quad for strobe. I'm not sure if press and hold from off should put you in mode 1 or rather in last memorized mode from section 1 (I see advantages both ways)

I thought about what you suggested originally. The reason I decided to set it up the way that it is, is because if you wake up in the middle of the night and you need access to the light and you forgot it in 30 lm or even 7 lm you would immediately get blasted with more light then you wanted.

But...you just kinda "zebrafied" the predator . The biggest difference between these lights for me is ZL Ui has more efficient way to access any of the preselected modes from on and off but Predator is much, much better in accessing turbo from other modes when on and switching between turbo and section 2. IMHO one is targeted at outdoor people the second more at tactical crowd. I don't think its possible to make both crowds happy with one one-button UI.

Zebra light definitely has a more efficient UI for accessing any of the preselected modes but it is a lot more difficult in selecting the others (that is the main drawback of the zebra UI for me). My solution was to try to create 2 separate headlamps in one headlamp offering that you then can toggle to and from. One would concentrate on lower lumens and the other would concentrate on medium and high while both give you access to Turbo and specialty modes.

Now with your UI look what happened witch switching temporarily between Turbo and section2. Previously it was doubleclick and hold for Turbo, relase to go back. Now it's tripleclick for turbo, doubleclick to go back. With stiff button it could bother after few tries. So to summarize your UI is better for me than the original but for others could be worst.

I didn’t fully elaborate on the UI. It would be triple click to go into Turbo, but if you held the last click it would be momentary Turbo just like the current UI. I will update my post.

Btw. It could be even more "zebrafied" if we would move 550 lm mode to section 3, 30 lm to section 2 and add new low-low to section 1. At that stage you would need to consider if section 3 should be added to other sections for access with double click or not. It has some advantages and some drawbacks. IMHO much more drawbacks.

1st​ let me start by saying that the concept of the UI is not to zebrafy the headlamp but to create 2 separate headlamps in one. Also if we followed your suggestion by creating an extra firefly mode we would have to sacrifice the Turbo (or some other mode) due to the design of the driver.

Also you need to consider what happens when the light is waiting for user to finish clicks...for example when On: click, click (switch section now or wait?), click (turbo now or wait?), click (ah he wanted strobe). There are some traps in deciding if light should act immediately and eventually correct action later in case of more clicks or wait to confirm end of clicks. Example of it you will see when doubleclicking from off in ZL UI.

If we’re talking about my UI I think it is best to have immediate action (personal preference). Not only will it make the light seem more responsive but you will be guaranteed light no matter what (this would be useful in an emergency panic situation).

Another trap in your UI: there may be confusion between for example highest mode in section 1 and lowest in section 2 for inexperienced user. So he will not be sure if he is currently in section 1 or 2 if he don't remember what he used before. He thinks that he is in 1, press and hold to get to firefly and starts ramping light higher instead of lower. To operate current UI's in ZL and Predator you don't need to know where you are, it helps but its not needed because you always have click and hold for ramp up through entire or most of spectrum of lumens output. In your case click and hold will ramp trough half of the modes and they all will be close in output.

Every UI has its limitations (including mine) otherwise there would be a perfect UI that every manufacturer would use. As far as the confusion that one may experience, I totally agree with this, however the confusion at the higher levels is less detrimental to night vision then the lower, so it would be more of an inconvenience then harmful. Again this is a trade-off in what I perceived to be improvements in other areas.

 

[ArcticHighlander]

Re: Proposed New Armytek Wizard Pro UI:

Having had a chance to quickly compare the highest and lowest settings on the Wizard Pro with the H600 I've been able to form some initial impressions. On the lowest setting the WP is definitely brighter and has a wider beam. It casts a very nice light but it is too bright for the lowest end of my usage. The H600 in my opinion is also too high a low setting but still much better at preserving night vision and less likely to disturb others. Outdoors, on the highest setting the WP still casts a nice warm even flood without any hot spot. It is the only flashlight I've had that does not. It seems like the perfect light for a walk at night along a forest trail. The H600 on the other hand is a bit harsher in color and has a noticeable intense spot beam at the center of its flood beam. Because of its spot beam however it throws much further than the WP and seems more useful for biking or other activities where having that extra reach is important.

 

[ArcticHighlander]

+1

I totally agree and I think the level should be 250 lm based on my own personal testing.

Did you by any chance read my proposed UI? That is one of the things I tried to address by grouping modes into 3’s, and then separating them. As far as having additional modes for lower firefly it is impossible in this headlamp with the current driver, you would have to sacrifice some of the higher levels (which I am personally against).

Can you clarify why this driver precludes the use of the lower firefly settings without sacrificing the higher ones?

 

[markr6]

Re: Proposed New Armytek Wizard Pro UI:

Every UI has its limitations (including mine) otherwise there would be a perfect UI that every manufacturer would use.

This got me thinking - would it add too much bulk and weight to have a variable control ring at the head end? That would be a great UI for a headlamp. A quick flick to turbo, start in low, everything easily in between.

 

[Beacon of Light]

Re: Proposed New Armytek Wizard Pro UI:

Thanks I already have several of these push button lights. I'd actually use them if there was a rechargeable CR2032 coin cell battery as I cannot in good faith use non-rechargeable batteries in the year 2013. I've been using rechargeables since 1991 with the Eveready NiCads, so since then there is never a need to buy a primary cell, ever.

I think I found a solution for Beacon of Light.

AND

 

[stp]

Re: Proposed New Armytek Wizard Pro UI:

Let me tell you that it's hard to discuss with you for me, each time I have feeling that you are getting very defensive (I don't know maybe its a language barrier - english is obviously not my native language). You asked about opinions and I just tried to point what I like in it, what not, potential disadvantages and potential problems. That's all.

...
1st​ let me start by saying that the concept of the UI is not to zebrafy the headlamp...

Well lets me clarify, on one end of the spectrum you have Zebra UI, on another Predatar UI. Yours for me is somewhere in between. Because it used Predator UI as a base this is why "zebrafy" was coined. No wrong intentions here. Its just like I see them in relation to each other.

If we’re talking about my UI I think it is best to have immediate action (personal preference). Not only will it make the light seem more responsive but you will be guaranteed light no matter what (this would be useful in an emergency panic situation).

You see it really depends from what mode you are switching to where and how. I don't have time to analyse every possible situation but it should be done because there are some pitfalls like:

Mode 1 is remembered in section 1 ( .5lm ), user is in section 2 - mode 6 (550lm), he wants to switch to turbo (1000lm). With immediate action it will look like: 550lm, click, (lets ignore immediate off :), click, 0.5 lm, click 1000lm. The best solution imho would be to ramp the light up/down in short amount of time. So you have immediate reaction but it doesn't look so aggresive and it always can change direction during interpretation of user input. But I didn't see any light with complicated interface that had something like that implemented.

 

[Knight_Light]

Can you clarify why this driver precludes the use of the lower firefly settings without sacrificing the higher ones?

Without getting too technical the best way to describe it is you have a certain amount of modes that the driver is capable of, once those are filled if you introduce an additional mode another one has to be removed. Think of a typical egg carton that holds a dozen eggs. If you wanted to add a mode or a feature and the carton is not full you simply add it but if the carton is full you have to remove something to be able to put something in its place.

 

[Knight_Light]

Re: Proposed New Armytek Wizard Pro UI:

This got me thinking - would it add too much bulk and weight to have a variable control ring at the head end? That would be a great UI for a headlamp. A quick flick to turbo, start in low, everything easily in between.

On paper it sounds like a great idea but in reality it's horrible, especially for a headlamp. The main reason is that it is impossible to judge runtimes with infinite variable lights except for the high and low. Most people that get headlamps use them in environments where they need to be able to calculate runtimes.

If you are utilizing your headlamp with access to additional power supplies then yes it’s solves a lot of issues in terms of satisfying everyone’s light preferences and is a wonderful idea. However, when most people are given an infinite variable light they tend to choose output levels that are typically higher then needed (especially since light is perceived on a logarithmic scale) thus shortening runtimes. That is one of the reasons why I stay away from infinite variable lights for outdoor purposes.

For example on the current prototype the 30 lm level is almost indistinguishable from that 70 lm level. With an infinite variable light it would be very easy to end up around 70 lm or 80 lm and thusly shortening runtimes without the need to do so. Although this feature is very handy as well as appealing to most users it just makes the light to unpredictable in terms of runtimes, and let’s face it most people are concerned about runtimes especially for outdoor and emergency lighting needs.

 

[Knight_Light]

Re: Proposed New Armytek Wizard Pro UI:

Thanks I already have several of these push button lights. I'd actually use them if there was a rechargeable CR2032 coin cell battery as I cannot in good faith use non-rechargeable batteries in the year 2013. I've been using rechargeables since 1991 with the Eveready NiCads, so since then there is never a need to buy a primary cell, ever.

I think I may have solved your problem. They have rechargeable CR2032. They are typically referred to as LIR2032. Just Google it and you will find plenty of sellers.

 

[Knight_Light]

Re: Proposed New Armytek Wizard Pro UI:

Let me tell you that it's hard to discuss with you for me, each time I have feeling that you are getting very defensive (I don't know maybe its a language barrier - english is obviously not my native language). You asked about opinions and I just tried to point what I like in it, what not, potential disadvantages and potential problems. That's all.

1st​ of all let me clarify something. I don’t take any opinion defensively, especially one that is constructive (which yours is) to the discussion of the subject matter. I apologize if that is the way that it comes across. I do however try to clarify my point of view or my idea if I feel it still has legitimacy after hearing a counter idea.

You see it really depends from what mode you are switching to where and how. I don't have time to analyse every possible situation but it should be done because there are some pitfalls like:

Mode 1 is remembered in section 1 ( .5lm ), user is in section 2 - mode 6 (550lm), he wants to switch to turbo (1000lm). With immediate action it will look like: 550lm, click, (lets ignore immediate off , click, 0.5 lm, click 1000lm. The best solution imho would be to ramp the light up/down in short amount of time. So you have immediate reaction but it doesn't look so aggresive and it always can change direction during interpretation of user input. But I didn't see any light with complicated interface that had something like that implemented.

I understand your point of view and will go as far as to say that I agree with it. But you don’t have a proposed solution that maintains the original intention of the UI. It would be a lot more constructive if you propose a solution that Incorporated an improvement while maintaining the original intention of the UI (unless you want to change the intention of the UI in which case it is not an improvement but a completely different UI).

 

[markr6]

Re: Proposed New Armytek Wizard Pro UI:

On paper it sounds like a great idea but in reality it's horrible, especially for a headlamp. The main reason is that it is impossible to judge runtimes with infinite variable lights except for the high and low. Most people that get headlamps use them in environments where they need to be able to calculate runtimes.

If you are utilizing your headlamp with access to additional power supplies then yes it’s solves a lot of issues in terms of satisfying everyone’s light preferences and is a wonderful idea. However, when most people are given an infinite variable light they tend to choose output levels that are typically higher then needed (especially since light is perceived on a logarithmic scale) thus shortening runtimes. That is one of the reasons why I stay away from infinite variable lights for outdoor purposes.

For example on the current prototype the 30 lm level is almost indistinguishable from that 70 lm level. With an infinite variable light it would be very easy to end up around 70 lm or 80 lm and thusly shortening runtimes without the need to do so. Although this feature is very handy as well as appealing to most users it just makes the light to unpredictable in terms of runtimes, and let’s face it most people are concerned about runtimes especially for outdoor and emergency lighting needs.

That makes sense. Perfect explanation, thanks!

 

[Knight_Light]

Re: Proposed New Armytek Wizard Pro UI:

That makes sense. Perfect explanation, thanks!

You are welcome :)


Having said that, as a secondary light, especially in an environment with access to reliable power sources (such as a home in a nonemergency situation) infinite variable lights are awesome and super convenient to use (provided they get the magnetic ring calibrated properly to adjust for the logarithmic perception of light).

I think everyone should own at least one infinite variable light provided it is not their primary light or one that is relied upon in emergency situations. It is so easy to use that less technical family members and friends will enjoy the light without having a steep learning curve while guaranteeing that most light preferences will be met with a simple twist (or whatever mechanism it uses).

I think one of the best designs is a hybrid combination. Where the modes are changed with a magnetic ring selector but the levels are clearly predefined so that one knows the expected runtimes associated with each level. There are drawbacks however to these designs. Magnetic ring selector lights tend to be not as durable as regular clicky lights, they are not even as durable as electronic switch lights such as the Armytek Zebra and Spark. There is no mode memorization and the user typically needs to start either in the highest high or the lowest low (a huge drawback if you ask me).

 

[Beacon of Light]

Re: Proposed New Armytek Wizard Pro UI:

I have several Icon Irix I and II headlamps that use a variable control knob. When you have a variable control there is no need for memorization. Starting at lowest low (which isn't as low as I'd prefer, but it gets nice and low on a run down battery) is not only NOT a problem, it is my preference. It's funny as everything you think as a drawback in headlamp design or UI, I tend to disagree and think the opposite.

I'd also disagree with your theory in another post that one tends to use more light than they need with a variable control light. I purposely try to use LESS than I need, all in the name of battery conservation and to extend runtime. That is my goal 100% of the time. I actually had to cringe when someone suggested I take beamshots of it on high, knowing I was wasting precious mAh by doing so, in an early review of this light back in the day here on CPF.

There are drawbacks however to these designs. Magnetic ring selector lights tend to be not as durable as regular clicky lights, they are not even as durable as electronic switch lights such as the Armytek Zebra and Spark. There is no mode memorization and the user typically needs to start either in the highest high or the lowest low (a huge drawback if you ask me).

 

[Knight_Light]

Re: Proposed New Armytek Wizard Pro UI:

I have several Icon Irix I and II headlamps that use a variable control knob. When you have a variable control there is no need for memorization. Starting at lowest low (which isn't as low as I'd prefer, but it gets nice and low on a run down battery) is not only NOT a problem, it is my preference. It's funny as everything you think as a drawback in headlamp design or UI, I tend to disagree and think the opposite.

In that case you should probably never buy a headlamp that I review positively. :)

When you say there is no need for memorization, that is according to YOU, other people have different needs.

I'd also disagree with your theory in another post that one tends to use more light than they need with a variable control light. I purposely try to use LESS than I need, all in the name of battery conservation and to extend runtime. That is my goal 100% of the time. I actually had to cringe when someone suggested I take beamshots of it on high, knowing I was wasting precious mAh by doing so, in an early review of this light back in the day here on CPF.

Now I am not saying you are not entitled to your preferences and opinions, as a matter of fact I encourage them, everyone should have that right, but when your preferences opinions and needs are probably 3 standard deviations from the middle of a bell curve that is considered the consumer market you are probably better off building your own product or paying someone to make a custom one-off product.

 

[bluemax_1]

Re: Proposed New Armytek Wizard Pro UI:

If ANYONE makes a dedicated headlamp with JUST lower levels that boasts super long runtimes, then I guess you will have to enlighten me please. Until then, my post is legit.

To make your analogy correct you should change the 40mph to 140mph. Be honest there isn't a lot of difference between 140 and 199 when people are cool to travel at 70-80mph.

As far as headlamps go, ZL already has lower lumen models with good runtimes and firefly options.

Yes, 199mph and 140mph may not be too different to the layman (although it's a world of a difference to the average person looking to buy a new 911 Turbo), but no, my analogy is correct. There are folks who only drive in the city. These are the folks who prize fuel economy and being able to easily fit in parking spots and are the target market for things like Smart cars. They rarely ever go over 40mph and hardly ever even get to 70mph because they're only driving in city.

In normal every day use, folks generally don't go much over 70mph (in the US at least), so 140mph or 199mph doesn't make much difference, but that's an inaccurate analogy because there are MANY users out there who would regularly use more than 115 lumens out of a headlamp every day. Trail runners, bikers, anyone doing stuff outside the house. Just like there are many people who regularly drive at speeds greater than 40mph. This light is made for them. There are many smaller lights that offer lower output for folks who don't need the output the WP offers.


Max

 

[Beacon of Light]

Re: Proposed New Armytek Wizard Pro UI:

In that case you should probably never buy a headlamp that I review positively. :)

Your Armytek Wizard Pro was the first and only review I have seen of yours, but I will take your advise for reviews you may do in the future. haha

When you say there is no need for memorization, that is according to YOU, other people have different needs.
Now I am not saying you are not entitled to your preferences and opinions, as a matter of fact I encourage them, everyone should have that right, but when your preferences opinions and needs are probably 3 standard deviations from the middle of a bell curve that is considered the consumer market you are probably better off building your own product or paying someone to make a custom one-off product.

Just for giggles, why would you need memorization on a light with a control dial? Are we getting that lazy in this day and age where turning a knob is too much work? Maybe it would be a gimmick to add memory to a light with variable control, so you can do both, but I can't even see a memory function even improving anything like efficiency or quickness, as it would take maybe a millisecond more time to turn the dial than to click a button... Now we are splitting hairs, and to be honest, a control dial is much more precise with whatever level of light you need, not being at the mercy of pre-set lumen levels that a company or some internet guru claimed would be best for "x" light levels.