I can only see schematics. Where are the PCB gerber files, the BOM that you said (and repeated) you would publish ?
Benjamin and I have made the decision to go down the line described on the VESC-Project website. Otherwise we would not see the kind of innovation we have seen in the past. Only if you design something yourself, you know all the details which are essential to actually produce something that works. Benjamin has stated pretty clearly why he thinks it is best to publish the schematics only. Some people have reverse engineered the V6 (without understanding some really important details), other have taken the chance to make changes and designed something new or different. If you are able to reverse engineer a VESC 6, you could have just designed your own, more specific ESC in less time. You would have had USPs and would have pushed things into a different direction instead of copying an existing design that is available already.
Personally I think the current situation is a very good compromise in between the different opinions about OS and Hardware. Schematics are a great way to allow people to design something themselves. This way more and more hardware will get available in all sorts of different markets. 99% of the work is in the software. There are millions of different hardware designs possible, all running the same software/firmware. Software and hardware are two pair of shoes.
That is exactly what I have said. You garantied during months that you would publish a full desilgn with hardware. And you never did. To me, it looks very much that you said that to cool down hot discussions that were very much critics against your agressive arrival in the VESC world. At the end, it served well your purposes, and you abandonned your commitment when things were enough advanced for your buisness.
Of course you think that it is a good compromise !! No wonder !! You should restrain yourself from lecturing people after what you have done with your own commitments torward this community.
Except if Ben comes here to validate your says, you should stand for your words and not hide behind his respected figure in every answer you formulate.
This is an endless discussion. Please stick to the topic of this thread.
And that is why Benjamin has written up things on the VESC-Website.
This is the way it is and itâs well thought about.
I just wanted to point out the fact that the software is GPLed and distribution of the code needs you to take certain steps to assure that the license is fulfilled.
Just received two FSESC 4.20 in the mail via DHL today.
So far, I am impressed by the build quality; it works much better than the TorqueBoards ESC from DIYElectricSkateboard. The size of the entire ESC, including the bus capacitors, is as big as the PCB portion of the TB ESC and other 4.12 boards. Wire insulation is silicone, JST connectors are heat resistant plastic. Lead-free solder is a bit annoying, but hey, thatâs because of RoHS. The heat dissipation of the PCB is much better than the TB ESC; the STM32F405RG would get warm on the TB ESC when idling, the FSESC 4.20 stays cool all throughout the entire board even when running 5 - 10A. It pays to have 6 layers of 3 oz. copper.
I donât doubt the 50A continuous current rating, on trapezoidal control (BLDC mode), thatâs about 12W of heat dissipation in the power stage, which the heatsink can handle just fine. On field oriented control, 50A RMS (which is 70A peak) would result in closer to 20W of power (more due to RDSon variation with temperature), which would stress the dissipative power of the heatsink, so the controller would probably only be able to handle 40A RMS continuous in FOC. Switching losses are literally negligible on the NTMFS5C628NL (like, 0.3W total), so they are not included in this calculation (which is nice because now your current ratings are independent of switching frequency and system voltage).
An interesting peculiarity is that the TB ESC (and the ESC I DiYed) measures 27uH of inductance on my deltawound hub motors while the FSESC 4.20 measures 65uH, but the FSESC runs much better (a lot less cogging, lower current draw for same load), anyway.
One qualm I have is that none of the components have silkscreen (which can be explained by the component density, haha), meaning if I ever need to replace the DRV8302 and accidentally knock something off, Iâm left to probing with my multimeter to figure out what other components and pins it was connected to. Hopefully it wonât ever have to come to that, though 
but, I for one would greatly appreciate if Flipsky could release the gerber files so we know which component is which :).
They are currently in the process of making that available. I had time to explain exactly what was required with reference to all the material on the vedder site to Barbara and her team. Once this information is available she will update the community. Going back over some of the conversations in this post it is apparent that a language/ translation issue may have a lot to do with the confusion. Once the material is available that should satisfy the license requirements and we can let flipskys products speak for themselves. I hope we all try to understand. Cory
Did you buy the mini
Or the one that preceded that one and was a bit bigger?
The earlier Version 4.12 works fine. I have it and many other. He means the 4.20
@Gamer43 thanks for the review.
At least u confirmed that fsvesc 4.20 can be qualified as good controller / made product, at least from âvisualâ perspective.
Lets see how it holds up in field testing and whenever it will show up any quirks or not.
Waiting to receive mine shortly, also.
I thought I read somewhere that the dual 4.20 has some issues with cut outs. Donât remember who wrote it, maybe @longhairedboy 
There is still not so much feedback and testing about them here.
Please share your experience when you had the oportunity to test your unit.
i did write that. And they do. The FSESC4.20 Dual 100A has severe cut out issues.
@longhairedboy Have you heard anything about the dual 6.6? Iâve got one Iâm about to put through the paces but Iâm nervous about what to expectâŚ
not the dual, but the singles are solid. As long as the switch doesnât fail. the current handling is great though, and theyâre smooth.
I was supposed to receive a dual 6.6 but i havenât yet.
I see, if the singles are solid then I have hope⌠Still wearing full protective gear though 
Yes, please do. Always.
I questioned the Team at at Flipsky regarding problems associated with the Dual FSESC4.20 and the dropouts youâve mentioned? They suggested 10S is fine however theyâre investigating some troubles reported on 12S?
Anyways⌠Iâll be using the Dual FSESC4.20 plus Anti-Spark Pro on my Evolve CGT conversion along with 10S5P Samsung batteries and external BMS for balancing when charging only.
Iâm hoping all will go smooth! 
10S may be fine. I exclusively run 12S with 13S protos on occasion.
Cool, thanks LHB! I plan to share some pictures of my conversion so Iâll keep yaâll updated⌠Cheers