Log in, it’s under “purchased files” 
I’m aware of that but thanks… gawd it was painful… and the VESC tool is 2.05 version not 2.04… I may be a k00k… but that is faaaaaaaaaaak’in k00ky… 
I wonder what firmware I’ll upload in this wacky alice in wonderland lottery roll… 
1 Like
Why was this released before it was tested?
4 Likes
Nice to see the collaboration!
Thanks for all your guys hard work! 
7 Likes
16 Likes
This doesn’t answer the question.
About 70% of this thread is addressing the question. Want a TLDR?
Because the code is managed by human beings who make judgement calls that aren’t always in agreement with the best path, especially in hindsight.
There were problems with the 4.xx firmware, and we were keen to get fixes released. Another last minute bug was identified and lumped in without thorough testing on PPM setups which was a mistake.
13 Likes
There was probably more testing and collaboration on this release than any prior. There was a single mistake made that’s already been discussed in this very thread.
7 Likes
But nobody has answered the simple question. Why was it released before it was tested?
I was volunteering my time to test the new code and then I wake up and it’s released with code I haven’t even seen yet.
Why was I wasting my time?
I didn’t ask to discuss how people felt about it, I simply asked why was it released without being tested. I don’t see a single real answer to that in this thread. There is no dead horse beating as the question wasn’t addressed.
1 Like
It was a mistake.
Is that so hard to understand?
6 Likes
Nothing about a premature release wastes the time the community spent testing and identifying bugs. This is a logical fallacy, all of that work will still be (and was) leveraged to improve the software we all use.
9 Likes
Pretty simple answer why… mistakes happen, lessons are being learned and progress is being made across the board.
5 Likes
The issues with throttle and reverse erpm that YOU highlighted are now fixed in the main branch.
Any testing that results in a change pushed to the main branch is not wasted time.
5 Likes
This is better than the firmware 4 release cycle, though. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. Progress has been made.
I agree with @ducktaperules and @sk8l8r that in a project upon which lives depend, this is an absolutely horrible way to do this, despite being better than the last cycle, which is a Good Thing 
Maybe the release cycle for version 6 can look somewhat close to resembling a normal software development cycle?
7 Likes
dont think i ever said that
You didn’t say that verbatim, but correctly noted a lot of things that were bad about the manner in which it was accomplished.
It was answered up above.
It wasn’t answered above, not my question.
@Trampa briefly said
That’s the closest thing, but Trampa never actually answered why it was released before it was tested.
Like what was the reason? Making more money? Legal deadline? Promise to a friend? Pressure from a developer?
Knowing the reason something went wrong is constructive in knowing how to do it better the next time around. It’s finding the root cause.
This whole thread seems to be about how it went wrong, and I asked why. What caused the release to happen today? Whose decision was it, and why did they decide to do it today?
That’s all.
I suspect it’s because Trampa wants to ship some VESC 6 MKIV units and didn’t want to properly backport support into version 4.x, but I’m asking to find out why it was decided
Well this was fun…
Not…
Can I make one suggestion?
Can y’all put the version here and not just default?
I went to install fw 5 and got 5.01 in the VESC lottery… No complaints it’s just a simple way to tie all this together version wise…
The good… I didn’t brick the Unity…
The bad…
Takes forever on BLE… i didn’t wanna crack the enclosure on a perfectly good working build… 3x failures…
Looks like I’m going into the enclosure to USB the upload…
Random:
Went to install tool and apk thru the normal VESC tool website… This thread is less than 12 hours old and the version of the tool and the firmware are not per advertised… :waffle 
BTW… thanks for not bricking my Unity… It still works fine on Unity 23.46
10 Likes
Just FYI from this point onward the unity will have support for FW compression on FW upload, so this first update should be the slowest/most painful (since the 23.xx FW doesn’t support compression) and from then on it should be improved. USB is probably the correct route.
Regarding the rest of your post the FW selected by default is correct and will not brick your unity.
7 Likes