Variable Voltage (VV) Mode

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by lentis720, Jul 27, 2017.

  1. lentis720

    lentis720 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    3
    My Wismec Predator 228 started acting strange lately. The resistance reading goes up and I'm suspecting the 510 pin's spring / travel is the problem. If I push the atomizer toward the mod the resistance goes back to normal, but after I take my hand off it goes back higher. I don't think I'm suffering from the infamous problem with the negative threading. Anyway.

    I think such a sophisticated firmware should have a VV mode included. It's the most absolute way to control the power without relying on questionable ohm readings.

    In my case I would pick a voltage that vapes to my taste and let it be. Right now I keep adjusting the wattage to control the voltage as my ohm readings vary from 0.45 to 0.55 (Kanthal).

    Let me know what you think about it and please focus on the VV mode as a suggestion, I'm not asking for help with my mod's issue.
     
    AndiHB and Vaper like this.
  2. CodusSupremus

    CodusSupremus New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    2
    We were just talking about this in my local B&M. Would this be considered the same as bypass mode?
     
  3. Vaper

    Vaper New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2017
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    6
    Bypass mode just dumps the battery unregulated, like using a mech mod - V.Voltage is regulated.

    I don`t know why the V.Voltage option was removed from some devices - it was good for a long time before V.Wattage came on the scene.
     
  4. lentis720

    lentis720 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    3
    Yep, don't confuse VV with unregulated. VV is regulated and adjustable as the name suggests.
     
  5. CodusSupremus

    CodusSupremus New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    2
    @maelstrom2001 would VV be a valid feature request? Better yet is that something AF can add?
     
  6. maelstrom2001

    maelstrom2001 Developer
    NFE Team

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,634
    Likes Received:
    1,497
    I have nothing against it. But the task is more complicated than it seems at first glance, it will require very significant changes in the profiles structure and "engine" in whole. Perhaps this will be realized someday, along with a complete rework.
     
  7. ReikoKitsune

    ReikoKitsune Developer
    NFE Team

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    674
    Likes Received:
    588
    @CodusSupremus yeah, this is a valid request, but you should understand that this just a request ^^
    I mean that it can be rejected/approved or ignored also.

    Adding of the VV is a very complex task because of much other related things like: UI, menus, navigation, preheat, curves etc.
    All of this things is requiring ROM space... which is almost exhausted.
     
  8. lentis720

    lentis720 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    3
    Thanks for even considering this. From a user's perspective I hope you can see that it's something logical to ask.

    I understand ROM space is limited, I'm a programmer myself. Maybe you could add a barebones VV only boot mode? I understand you might not like this though.

    Anyway thanks for reading.
     
    AndiHB likes this.
  9. CodusSupremus

    CodusSupremus New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    2
    @ReikoKitsune Yes, I understand fully that it is just a request. Thank you guys for the superb AF and for being so responsive.
    Have yall sent a bill to Wismec/Joytech yet (jk for yall making their devices so much better)?!
     
  10. joeblowma

    joeblowma Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    75
    I recall working on some ARM embedded stuff a while ago where space was short - and downgrading from gcc 4.x to 2.6 or so (and binutils) reclaimed a lot of space (more than half) of my limited ROM and actually increased the code speed which was unexpected. Bloat in the assembly with the addition of newer/expanded arch, mostly.

    Not sure if it's helpful, just a thought. It's always fun to look at libc things like strnicmp disassembled across different gcc versions to get an idea what the tradeoffs have been, and whether it really is worthwhile to upgrade the toolchain if you don't need something specific from the later versions. Won't even say what trying to use CPP on small embedded does to the space, both ROM and RAM :eek:

    Thanks once again for AF! Even if you use all my ROMS and RAMS! (please do, I don't think OEM ever will)
     
  11. maelstrom2001

    maelstrom2001 Developer
    NFE Team

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,634
    Likes Received:
    1,497
    Yeah. If we were to use a new compiler, we would not have had enough space for a long time :D