There is an extensive thread on this on BLF - with the same dismay expressed over the lack of a firmware update changelog. As Geppo says, its crazy that you have to lose your programs IF you do a firmware update.I agree. The lost of charging settings is a completely nonsense. That's why I don't want to upgrade for negligible improvements, otherwise I would try to upgrade. Moreover I find incredible they did not implemented a way to backup / restore of all charging settings.
Does anyone know what's new in firmware release 1.18?
Following up on this, early this morning I managed to get ahold of a helpful representative at the SkyRC website chat, and asked about v1.17 (which came on my SkyRC MC3000, purchased late last April), the previous version v1.15, and the current one v1.18;
- Initial discussion about firmware versions for the MC3000, specially v1.15 vs v1.18 (will be continued here): Checking mAh - #58 by dmenezes (and the next 4 posts following it).
I hope this is helpful to other MC3000 owners.13 Sep, 2023
[15:08] DMenezes: I have an SkyRC MC3000 with firmware 1.17. I see there's an update available for firmware 1.18, but I'm worried that the new firmware could not work as well and I would need to go back to the old one.
[15:09] DMenezes: I searched the SkyRC website for version 1.17 so I could go back to it if needed, but could but could not find it. I could find version 1.15, tho.
[15:11] DMenezes: My question is, is there a reason the older version (1.15) is available for download, but the newer one (1.17) isn't?
[17:34] SkyRC: There is a bug in V1.17
[17:34] SkyRC: So we did not put it on the site
[17:35] SkyRC: The bug is about the charge or discharge reduce
[17:50] DMenezes: Ok, so I better upgrade ASAP, I guess
[18:34] DMenezes: if I upgrade to 1.18 and it doesn't work for me, should I then move to 1.15?
[18:45] SkyRC: I believe 1.18 will work for you
Thanks much for the link(s) and your comments. Now I at least have one entry for my list of possible sources, and that sure beats zero
More data: just repeated the above with the exact same batteries and in the same slots, but now with a charge operation and first starting the battery in slot #1 and then the batteries in slots #2 and #3, but despite changing the order, the exact same behavior repeated: slots #2 and #3 changed their IR measurements from the values that were initially measured to "N/A", while slot #1 kept showing it.One thing that could explain what I've seen is that I first started the discharge on the MJ1 batteries (on slots #2 and #3) and only about 3 mins afterwards (as it has different parameters) I did the same on battery #1. Perhaps when I statrted the discharge on #1, it messed up the IR measurement for the other two?
Sounds like good work!I've owned 3 of these excellent chargers and they get daily use. Sadly the first one (first batch made available) has bit the dust. Slot 3 gave unstable (high) voltage reading that fluctuated around as I looked at it. I was going to just use the other slots but then the plastic spring retaining peg snapped off on slot 2. It's already had one new top panel so that was it.
Sadly my second (backup) unit snapped two spring posts yesterday. And upon opening it the other two are just holding on. It seems to me like this fault will be very common.
So I have started a repair. I'm not sure if anyone has tried similar but I'm wanting to make it 'better than new'. I drilled a 2mm hole in the middle of the reinforced area at the bottom of the snapped peg - not too far or it will come through into the battery holder - then screwed in a M2.5 x 10mm grub screw with some JB Weld around the bottom into the hole. Then checked that the screws match up with the holes in the PCB. This is rock solid so you have not only the PCB holding the screw but the plastic and JB weld too.
It takes time and care but it is solid!
As far as I know the second one was revised. For the first batch they offer the revised part as a spare which I ordered but that broke and my later one broke also. However more improvements may have been made along the way.Sounds like good work!
Is your second (backup) unit also from the first batch? The second batch (June 2016 Production) was supposed to have all those retaining peg problems solved.
They were supposed to have fixed ALL the problems including the case material in the third production which came with the two fans.Ok I've overcome another issue. One of the 6 plastic pegs that the casing screws drive into was snapped right off. It had initially cracked in two then those two bits were rattling inside the case. But I was able to fix it. If you look at the broken off pegs there is a portion left at the base that can save the day. I used a screw from the 'Halfords self tapping screw selection' box that under scrutiny had identical thread pitch and diameter but was around 1/4" longer. You need no more than 1/8" longer with the point ground off.
You have so little left the point will come through the case if you are not careful.
Now it's secure and I thought I'd share as other users must be having similar problems.
I love the charger but the case material is dissapointing.
That's good news as I got someone to buy one for themselves recently. My ones must be second run then as just one fan.They were supposed to have fixed ALL the problems including the case material in the third production which came with the two fans.
I assumed that they no longer offered replacement tops because they figured they fixed all the plastic problems in the 'two fans' (third) version.They used to offer the top panel for $15 but no longer it seems.
Yes it's got so long that it's hard to find stuff now. If the materials have improved and are now reliable that's good. But that leaves a lot of older examples with difficult to fix problems. Expensive bit of kit to just bin.I assumed that they no longer offered replacement tops because they figured they fixed all the plastic problems in the 'two fans' (third) version.
I also seem to recall that there is a discussion of the plastic issues somewhere several years back in this very long thread.
Thanks for the reply.@Lowglow
Thanx for your posts regarding the repairs and remediation measures you've taken w/ your MC3000(s). Having only recently acquired one, I'm still making friends with it, but it's looking like it will be a good friendship. Good on ya for keeping them functional, despite the challenges imposed by the use of the trashy materials in their case construction (at least in earlier generations) EDIT: and its design.
I expect I'll be depending on this gadget as 'critical equipment' for some time. Although I've not been using it long, I already realize that I wouldn't want to be without it. Because nothing else has come on the market which can truly and effectively replace it yet (to the best of my knowledge), together with my lacking high confidence in its continued availability long term(?), I'm considering getting a backup. Given that replacement housings are apparently no longer available, I'm thinking you might want to consider doing likewise and acquiring a(nother), latest version 'backup' for your older unit(s) for perhaps the same reasons. I'm certainly not trying to spend your money, but when I started thinking of ordering a second one, I thought of you. 'Just sayin'' ;-)
Anyway, thanx for the cool info!
Thanks for that feedback! That's exactly the primary reason why I did this test, and is exactly what I wanted such feedback on. I knew many would be 'surprised', because many have stated that such consistency is impossible to achieve in a charger/analyzer of this general design. In my judgement / opinion, my results so far establish that is not the case.I'm surprised that the values aren't more spread out.
Note that possible factors behind the numbers is another matter entirely though.
I may have some additional comments regarding these numbers and what's behind them later, but for now will just let them 'speak for themselves'.
the numbers completely spoke for themselves and answered the question which prompted me to do the little test to my satisfaction.
if anyone has representative data from any other unit / device which would correlate / be comparable with this data (gathered using the same real-world methodology apples-to-apples), that would also be welcomed. "What's in your wallet?"