Non-hobbyist\'s impression of the Arc4+
For several months, I've been lurking about CPF, trying to pick out a new EDC. Just recently, I more-or-less settled on the Arc4+. Through a strange and fortuitous circumstance, I wound up getting to play with one this morning. To my surprise, there are several aspects of the Arc 4 that I disliked enough to start looking at other lights again. I've scarcely seen any less than enthusiastic commentary on the 4, so I thought I'd share my impressions with the few of you who haven't already got one.
The tactile feeling of the tail button is the light's primary detraction. Most momentary switches on consumer electronics provide a postive tactile confirmation when activated. This is a traditional element of electronics user interface design, leading to comforable, intuitive function. The switch in the Arc4's tail button has scarcely any "give," and no click at all. As someone else wrote, it's much like pressing down on a pencil eraser. Not knowing exactly when the switch engages or disengages makes triple-clicking (and *shudder* decuple-clicking) more difficult than it needs to be. For a microcontroller-based light so heavily dependant uupon multi-clicking, this is a big problem.
Peter Gransee's post detailing the Arc4 drop testing left me feeling that the tail button couldn't take much abuse. Looking at the switch internals of a real Arc4 this morning, my concern was reinforced. In my mind, a light this expensive should be nigh-indestructable; I certainly shouldn't have to worry about dropping it. In my experience, MiniMags are much sturdier than the Arc4 is described as being.
The implementation of the tail button user interface also disappointed me. It was fairly easy to turn the light on and off and switch between brightness settings, true... but flashlights have a long history of no-fooling-around analog switches that respond instantaneously and consistently. "Fairly easy" to use is not what I want in a flashlight. Besides, the "menu," where the advanced features are configured and accessed, is incredibly fiddly and annoying. Having read that the Arc 4 acclimates to one's clicking style, I clicked up a storm trying to calibrate the light. I couldn't discern that it ever became any more consistently responsive.
Anyway, I've been lusting over the Arc 4+ for several weeks, and I thought I would inevitably order one. I'm really glad I had the unexpected opportunity to try it out first. If had paid $180 for this light (or, to be fair, $100, as the light I played with today was a second), I would be sending it back to Arc with my regrets. It's a neat light, but it is too flawed to be my EDC, and definitely not worth that amount of money (to me). I have no aversion to spending significantly more money on an item to get what I consider the best... the Arc 4 just isn't it.
With a few refinements, the Arc 4+ would be the perfect light for me. I'd like a longer body with two cells, which I understand is in the works. I'd like a sturdy, clicky tail button. Many OEMs make these; they could be bought whole and integrated with the 4. I'd like to take better advantage of the microcontroller. (For example, why is there no variable rate/intensity strobe function?) Finally, I'd like to see the flashlight connect to a PC for user programming. I would reprogram my light infrequently, and would much prefer to do so using my PC rather than the existing "menu." My ideal would be for the microcontroller source code to be released, allowing geeks like myself to develop it further and provide the improvements to Arc and everyone else.
There's no question in my mind that the Arc 4+ is a visionary reimagining of the flashlight. I hope and believe that many more microcontroller-based, solid state smartlights will follow. Somebody will get it right. Arc is just the sort of small, quality and innovation driven company I feel good about giving my money to, so I hope it's them.
For several months, I've been lurking about CPF, trying to pick out a new EDC. Just recently, I more-or-less settled on the Arc4+. Through a strange and fortuitous circumstance, I wound up getting to play with one this morning. To my surprise, there are several aspects of the Arc 4 that I disliked enough to start looking at other lights again. I've scarcely seen any less than enthusiastic commentary on the 4, so I thought I'd share my impressions with the few of you who haven't already got one.
The tactile feeling of the tail button is the light's primary detraction. Most momentary switches on consumer electronics provide a postive tactile confirmation when activated. This is a traditional element of electronics user interface design, leading to comforable, intuitive function. The switch in the Arc4's tail button has scarcely any "give," and no click at all. As someone else wrote, it's much like pressing down on a pencil eraser. Not knowing exactly when the switch engages or disengages makes triple-clicking (and *shudder* decuple-clicking) more difficult than it needs to be. For a microcontroller-based light so heavily dependant uupon multi-clicking, this is a big problem.
Peter Gransee's post detailing the Arc4 drop testing left me feeling that the tail button couldn't take much abuse. Looking at the switch internals of a real Arc4 this morning, my concern was reinforced. In my mind, a light this expensive should be nigh-indestructable; I certainly shouldn't have to worry about dropping it. In my experience, MiniMags are much sturdier than the Arc4 is described as being.
The implementation of the tail button user interface also disappointed me. It was fairly easy to turn the light on and off and switch between brightness settings, true... but flashlights have a long history of no-fooling-around analog switches that respond instantaneously and consistently. "Fairly easy" to use is not what I want in a flashlight. Besides, the "menu," where the advanced features are configured and accessed, is incredibly fiddly and annoying. Having read that the Arc 4 acclimates to one's clicking style, I clicked up a storm trying to calibrate the light. I couldn't discern that it ever became any more consistently responsive.
Anyway, I've been lusting over the Arc 4+ for several weeks, and I thought I would inevitably order one. I'm really glad I had the unexpected opportunity to try it out first. If had paid $180 for this light (or, to be fair, $100, as the light I played with today was a second), I would be sending it back to Arc with my regrets. It's a neat light, but it is too flawed to be my EDC, and definitely not worth that amount of money (to me). I have no aversion to spending significantly more money on an item to get what I consider the best... the Arc 4 just isn't it.
With a few refinements, the Arc 4+ would be the perfect light for me. I'd like a longer body with two cells, which I understand is in the works. I'd like a sturdy, clicky tail button. Many OEMs make these; they could be bought whole and integrated with the 4. I'd like to take better advantage of the microcontroller. (For example, why is there no variable rate/intensity strobe function?) Finally, I'd like to see the flashlight connect to a PC for user programming. I would reprogram my light infrequently, and would much prefer to do so using my PC rather than the existing "menu." My ideal would be for the microcontroller source code to be released, allowing geeks like myself to develop it further and provide the improvements to Arc and everyone else.
There's no question in my mind that the Arc 4+ is a visionary reimagining of the flashlight. I hope and believe that many more microcontroller-based, solid state smartlights will follow. Somebody will get it right. Arc is just the sort of small, quality and innovation driven company I feel good about giving my money to, so I hope it's them.
