Just popped by for nostalgia reasons, saw this thread, decided to repost a previous thread on this topic. It even has video of it in action ...

https://forum.nfcring.com/topic/534/android-lollipop-trusted-device-nfc-ring-perfect

@IBBoard_ Yeah that's where the option is - right below 'owner info'. Have you enabled a screen-lock option though? I don't think you'll have smart lock if you haven't set up a locking mechanism.

@johnyma22 It's like you're not reading the messages @jasok2 has been posting in this thread, even though you're replying to them.

RE #10921 I personally replied on the 8th of October and you didn't reply, you haven't replied to this ticket since then.. Am I missing something?

His first message says that he emailed back the same day. Then the 30th October. Then the 12th November. So yes, you're missing something, he says he has emailed but obviously you guys haven't received them if they're not in your queue.

As I mentioned in the ticket you really need to get to a jewellers to get your proper ring size.

Twice in this thread he said he took it to a jeweller for sizing, and one of his emails to support was a photo of it being sized in a jewellers!

Sorry to butt in, but I understand the frustration from providing details and then having to restate them when someone comes along and starts responding without actually reading what you've written.

@johnyma22 Yeah I've been struggling with what to call that first screen when talking with friends about it ... it's not really an unlock screen because that's what comes after you swipe up.

I guess it's more of a notification screen because (unseen here because I'm tidy with my notifications!) that screen will have your notifications displaying when you turn the phone on.

Alright then @johnyma22 , you asked for it ...

Ok after a bit more time with it I've noticed a small lock icon on the initial power-on screen. So you don't need to have a tag touching when you turn on, but that lock icon should show' unlocked when you swipe up if you want the lockscreen to be bypassed.

I've had a few times now where I've not had the ring in perfect position and had to unlock after swiping up, but I've also noticed that icon change once while holding phone.

So I've just flashed the factory image for lollipop on my Nexus 5 and was initially disappointed that the trusted device functionality didn't seem to be working.

I'd added both sides of my ring and also a credit-card sized tag as trusted NFC tags, hoping they'd bypass the lockscreen. But on turning on, swiping up to reveal the lockscreen, and then tapping a tag I was getting nothing, nada, zilch. I didn't even get the familiar 'bad read' sound. Cue sad face.

A bit of research however revealed how it is supposed to work, and will hopefully save someone that disappointment time. The tag must be touching when you turn the phone on, and when you then swipe up the lockscreen will be non-existent. Happy days.

It may just be me, but it seems to read better too. My ring is on my index finger and it is easy to hold the phone naturally with the ring over my sweet spot, so as soon as I turn the phone on it is just unlocked ... no more waving, sweeping, tapping or trying to activate across a small sweet spot.

@Irene If you become a backer of a project on something like Kickstarter and don't read the updates that are sent out every month then it is very likely you are going to end up with a metric tonne of surprises when the project finally reaches fruition.

If it was like a store, and you just ordered things and they were guaranteed to be delivered as described then that would be a great. But projects on KS are rarely like that and shouldn't be treated like that. You are usually pledging to fund R&D, prototyping, production and all sorts of other activities. At any of those stages problems may turn up that mean the original specification just isn't possible. The updates will detail this process.

I'm not going to answer your specific questions because every single smegging one of them has been covered in at least one update. If you didn't bother reading them I'm not going to bother regurgitating them for you.

As for the alpha, if you have the same "Your NFC ring order is on it's way!" (their typo not mine) email as me then it details exactly what the situation is with the alpha ring and how to go about getting one.

And just in case you think I'm being a bit harsh, my final shipped order also had not a single ring that I ordered. But I did read the updates and engage with support when requested, so it wasn't a surprise. Just a disappointment.

@mrbrown said:

1. the constant updates with bad news basically put me off the whole thing to be honest.
2. which is why I believe I probably missed any email regarding what to do about my changing my ring order again. Glad everyone grouped together to decide for me!

So help me to understand why I ended up with two rings being black/transparent and the other having both sides transparent?

I am NOT ungrateful, I am somewhat happy something has finally arrived, problem is its not what I agreed too, nor did I agree for anyone else to decide for me. So is it possible to get some control on what I want?

I don't mind about the colours not being available due to QA, but can I at least choose from what is available?

If another form was sent out asking this, I apologise for missing that, but I would of rather not received anything... to then have me then contact you complaining to then find I missed another change request because then I could of had the opportunity to change it again.

Yes, basically, when you got put off by the updates you missed a number of emails detailing what was happening with substitutions (because of the high QA fail rates).

You would specifically also have missed a **personal **email asking you directly how you wanted to deal with any rings in your order that were causing the delay. I can only assume if you didn't take that opportunity to engage in dialogue with support then they would just have given you what was readily available. So yes, you could have had control. You could have made the decision yourself rather than have others decide for you. And yes, you could have chosen from what was available. Maybe now you're engaging finally you can go through a returns process, but that isn't for me to say.

Out of all the ring options given at the start of the project, the ones shown on the current NFC Store are really the only ones that made it through the development process. I've got my fingers crossed that some more options appear (like a silver inlay) but time will tell.

Just to add to what @Lokki and @jasok2 have said, tapping rarely works for me. What you need to do is move the ring through the sweet spot. Have a look at Lokki's recent video of a home-made sweet spot detector for a visible demonstration of this difference.

With a larger tag it may look like you are tapping, but in fact you are sweeping in a plane perpendicular with the phone. Being a small antenna in the phone you generally won't have enough of a field to sweep perpendicular so will need to do the parallel sweep.

@julian Yep, all sorted. Nice one.

Yep, having same problem. Which means I don't get the 'unread' quick link. Which means it's not really possible to keep up with what's new.

@johnyma22 said:

and "Sadly there is still a error in the naming"

Where are you guys seeing these confusing strings?

Are they talking about the fact that the website refers to this as a password, whereas the app asks for a verification code?

@MrStein B.S that's the same distance

From 11-12 secs on your video that read looks like it is sub 50mm, and maybe as low as 40mm. But perspective is tricky and maybe you have fat sausage fingers. The read at around 7 secs does look better, at around 50mm. But none of those reads appear to have the distance shown in Lokki's image, and from 10-13 secs in your video you're definitely not getting a good read at what is considered a normal read distance for that board and the card NFC.

Anyway, not my problem, but I respect the opinion of those who have used the rings in demonstrable fashion on a range of projects. It seems you've had real bad luck with your boards, or how you are using them.

@NFCringTom Ok Tom, thanks for the clarification - I got the email today. Cheers.

@Lokki Yep, it's been over a month since the last update from @johnyma22

@Lokki said:

I figured I'd add mine to your thread @LoganFive.

I got my rings! I have had my order changed, but that's ok - they're excellent quality and I'd completely forgotten how shiny the fresh titanium is after the hell I put that pre-production ring through...
It's just so nice to be able to program up my fingers again and once more use my NFC powers.
Thanks @johnyma22, @NFCringTom, Chris and everyone else on the team!

Ah so that's what The Collection looks like in the right packaging! Mine just came in a plastic baggy in a jiffy bag: no chain, no 'collectors box'. I did send support an email a couple of weeks ago about this, but I imagine they are busy.
Nice looking.

So looking at the code (you bad man you), it seems that yes - what is being rotated is the camera. Which means the lights/envmap will remain pointing at the same place on the model. Kind of like here ... http://threejs.org/examples/webgl_loader_stl.html ... note how the shadows move with the objects, and the dark part of the meshes is always the dark part.

It isn't so obvious on your ring version though because there isn't a background/floor and so no shadows cast to get reference.

I know nothing about three.js though but assume this is the culprit:

controls = new THREE.OrbitControls(camera);

Ideally the controls would rotate the ring model rather than the camera. In that way the fixed light positions would hit different parts of the ring as you moved the ring.

As for the envmap, something really neutral or maybe even just removed would show off the ring better IMHO.

@johnyma22 Aaaargggh, you're making me look at javascript ... I told you what I thought about that!

@leftyfb You're a really hard person to try and help with constantly ignoring questions asked of you, completely (purposefully?) misunderstanding what has been told to you, and then you're quick to come back with something snide or accusatory because you've completely failed at some basic level of comprehension.

Let me be extremely clear for you, and try and spell out this discourse in easy-to-follow points. You came here with 3 problems:

1. Order was wrong

2. Rings don't work on your board

3. You had to reregister your forum account

4. Order was wrong

• You said "it was supposed to be classic black like mine and not transparent". Unfortunately this lead to some confusion and you were then given info about black plated rings, which isn't your problem at all.
• You then gave your desired order as two rings both black+silver, but said "2nd ring as mentioned above, doesn't have a colored inlay like the first and is transparent".
• I asked if this meant you received 1 ring in black+silver and one in transparent+silver (because the word 'coloured inlay' might mean the black one or the silver one, but from your first post I assumed you meant black and tried to clarify what you actually received. I also mentioned that the factory wasn't producing all the coloured inlays originally required of it, maybe I should have gone into more detail on that and linked to the actual updates posted on Kickstarter that cover this.
• Unhelpfully you then said "As posted above, they are titanium rings with black inlay and transparent inlay". But earlier you said "it was supposed to be classic black like mine", so did you get two different rings or not? If you got both rings with black then why did you start by saying "it was supposed to be black ..."? If you received black+transparent then surely it is the silver that is missing? This thread would be a lot quicker if you left out the attitude and just gave the bloody facts.
• You then said "AFAIK ... these should be the rings with the least amount of issues". I pointed out that it's not just the plating (i.e. black or blue rings) that has been a problem, and that there have also been production problems with inlays. I listed some of the ones that have been an issue. These have been mentioned in updates, along with the fact that the team have been substituting rings affected for ones they have in stock, and detailed what they're going to do to remedy it. Presumably you've been ignoring the Kickstarter update emails about this.
• You then blur the inlay production problems into the problems you are having with the board you bought, which are completely unrelated. Throwing in a 'is there any ring that doesn't have problems' doesn't help people help you.

tl;dr

Read the Kickstart updates to find out why your inlays may not match those you ordered.

2. Rings don't work on your board

I don't really have much to add to this except you've shown that the ring works with

1. A phone
2. Another board

... but doesn't work with a particular board. It seems your beef is about the recommendation post here rather than the ring, because obviously the ring works just fine. From that recommendation, the user who recommended it didn't have your problems. I don't know what to say. Unfortunately you pissed off the one user who might have spared time to help you get to the bottom of this.

3. Forum account deleted/purged

That's all cleared up now, I believe.