Step-3.7-Flash is surprisingly good

133 views
Nick Antonaccio
Nick AntonaccioAdmin
May 30, 2026 at 12:13 (edited, 2 revisions)
#1

Step-3.7-Flash by Stepfun is looking like a fantastic model for local inference. It appears to be much more knowledgeable than any other model I can run on a single local machine, and if I offload all layers to GPU at IQ4_XS quantization, it's running at 25.51 tokens per second in LM Studio on the Asus GX10 (DGX Spark).

Benchmarks and community feedback so far seem to indicate it's better at coding and agentic tasks than Deepseek-v4-flash and Qwen 27b. I'll believe it when I see it do better than qwen27b at coding, but either way, it looks to be the best model so far for encyclopedic information in a small enough package to run on a single consumer grade machine (you do need a minimum 128GB VRAM to run it).

Nick Antonaccio
Nick AntonaccioAdmin
May 30, 2026 at 12:10 (edited, 1 revision)
#2

First impressions continue to improve with Step-3.7-flash. I built one of the Northwind full CRUD database example apps with it, and the result compared well with the versions by Deepseek-4-pro, Qwen 3.6, and other favorite models. It only took 2 prompts to complete with step-3.7-flash, and would likely have required only 1 prompt if I'd asked for full CRUD functionality in the initial query:

https://com-pute.com/nick/northwind-flask-app-stepfun-flash-3.7-no-db.zip

Along the way, the model provided a link to a web site containing the Northwind database as a downloadable SQLite file, and built the code of the app to work with this file:

https://github.com/jpwhite3/northwind-SQLite3

Results worked perfectly first shot.

Then I had the agent build a zip file package with everything needed to install the app on another server, and it yielded the file linked above, which included detailed install instructions.

I also had it build a 3D space invaders game. This was the first-shot result - bullets don't work yet, but it's a decent initial output:

https://com-pute.com/nick/space-invaders-3d-step37flash-1.html

Additionally, I asked the model set up Rustdesk to be restarted every time the system it was on restarted, and it did a perfect job first shot (Pi was used as the harness).

So far, step-3.7-flash feels more similar to a frontier model than most of the other models I've self hosted. I do wish it was just a bit smaller at q4 compression, because there's not a ton of room for KV cache (I had it set up to use ~89k, and did run into it just running out of cache for a long task).

I don't think step-3.7-flash will dethrone Qwen 3.6 for basic coding tasks yet, but it's another great tool - the best yet for knowledge, which still runs at a fast speed.

Nick Antonaccio
Nick AntonaccioAdmin
May 30, 2026 at 17:08 (edited, 3 revisions)
#3

I'm getting 24.58 tokens per second on Strix Halo, using the iq4_xs quant of step-3.7-flash.

From what I've seen, this model goes much deeper and does much better providing information about obscure topics. It doesn't contain all the knowledge stored in every text ever written by humans, as we've become accustomed to with the largest frontier models, but it's much better than other models that can run on a single GB10 or Strix Halo machine, for example.

The following response to a question about paramotor wing and engine brands, for example, is far better than anything I've ever seen from Minimax, Nemotron 3 Super, and other similarly sized models. Typically, you'll see other models get some brand names correct, but often hallucinate a good portion of the details. step-3.7-flash not only got brand information correct, but lots of details about specific model information correct too:

Please tell me about the most popular brands of wings and engines used in paramotoring

step-3.7-flash Thought for 3 minutes 1 seconds

Got it, let's tackle this question about popular paramotor wing and engine brands. First, I need to make sure I cover both categories separately, right? Also, start with a quick intro explaining that paramotor gear is split into the wing (the paraglider specifically designed for powered flight) and the engine/paramotor unit itself, then break down each category by popularity, use case, key features, maybe note what they're good for beginners vs advanced pilots. First, let's do wings first. Wait, I should categorize them maybe? Like beginner-friendly wings, intermediate/advanced, cross-country, acro? No, better to list the top brands first, then their popular models, who they're suited for. Let's see, top wing brands: Ozone is definitely a big one, right? They make both paragliders and paramotor-specific ones. Then Nova? Yeah, Nova is another major brand. Then Advance? Oh right, Advance has the Epsilon series which is super popular for beginners. Wait also, Skywalk? Their Chili series is common for beginners too. Then there's Apco, they have the Fiesta which is a classic beginner wing. Also, Gin Gliders? Yeah, their Carrera or Safari lines? Wait no, maybe separate by use case first? Wait let's structure wings properly: First, note that paramotor wings are purpose-built (different from free-flight paragliders) to handle higher speeds, more weight, and engine torque. Then list the top brands with key models:

Ozone: Super popular across all levels. Their beginner wing is the Ozone Roadster? Wait no, wait Ozone has the Mojo for beginners? Wait no, wait paramotor specific: Oh right, Ozone's Vibe is a popular beginner/intermediate? Wait no, let me get that right. Wait Ozone Roadster 3 is a top cross-country wing? No, wait maybe I'm mixing up free flight and paramoto. Let me correct: For paramotoring, Ozone has the Ozone Mojo PWR (that's their beginner wing, super stable, easy launch), then the Ozone Vibe for intermediate, then the Ozone Roadster 3 for cross-country/advanced? Wait also they have the Ozone Atom for ultra-light? Yeah that makes sense. Also mention that Ozone is known for consistent quality, good support, lots of size options. Advance: Oh right, Advance Epsilon series is THE most common beginner wing in a lot of places, especially Europe and North America. The Epsilon 8 or 9? Wait latest is Epsilon 9? Yeah, super docile, easy to launch, forgiving, perfect for new pilots. Then they have the Omega XAlps for cross-country, that's a high-performance wing used in the X-Alps race, right? Also the Advance Iota for intermediate. Correct. Skywalk: Their Chili 4 is another huge beginner wing, super popular because it's very stable, low stall speed, easy to handle even if you make mistakes. Then they have the Tonka for intermediate/cross-country, and the Spice for more advanced/sporty flying. Also Skywalk makes a lot of lightweight options for hike-and-fly paramotoring too. Apco: The Apco Fiesta is a classic beginner wing that's been around forever, super reliable, very forgiving, lots of pilots learn on it. Then they have the Apco Presta for intermediate, and the Apco Thrust for cross-country/advanced. Also their wings are known for being durable. Nova: They make high-performance wings mostly, right? The Nova Mentor is a popular intermediate wing, then the Nova Ion for advanced/cross-country, and the Nova Phantom for competition-level flying. Nova is known for really refined aerodynamics, good glide ratios, so they're favored by pilots who want to go far or do XC. Gin Gliders: Their Safari line (Safari 2) is a popular beginner wing too, super easy to launch, very stable. Then the Gin Carrera for intermediate, and the Gin Bolero for more advanced/sporty use. Also they have lightweight options for hike-and-fly. Wait also maybe mention niche brands? Like for acro paramotoring, there's Ozone's Frenzy, or Nova's Acro lines? But keep it focused on popular mainstream ones first. Now engines/paramotor units. First, note that paramotors are usually split into two categories: foot-launched (most common) and wheeled (for heavier pilots, or people with mobility issues). Also, engine types are mostly 2-stroke and 4-stroke, plus electric is emerging but less common. Top engine brands: Vittorazi: Oh my god, Vittorazi is the dominant brand in paramotoring right now, right? Their Moster 185 is THE most popular engine in the world, used by almost every major manufacturer as their base unit. It's a 2-stroke, reliable, good power-to-weight ratio, easy to maintain. Then they have the Atom 80 for lighter, more fuel-efficient units, perfect for hike-and-fly or smaller pilots. The Moster 185 Plus is an upgraded version with more torque. Also they make the Master series for heavier pilots or wheeled units. Vittorazi is known for being super reliable, parts are easy to find worldwide. Polini: Another big Italian brand, right? Their Thor 200 is a popular alternative to the Moster, a bit more powerful, good for heavier pilots or high-altitude flying. The Thor 250 is even bigger for wheeled units or very heavy pilots. Also their smaller engines like the Thor 100 are used in lightweight paramotors. Polini engines are known for being robust, good for high altitude where air is thinner. Miniplane: Italian brand too? Wait yes, Miniplane's Top 80 is a classic 2-stroke engine that's been around forever, super reliable, very fuel-efficient, popular among pilots who want low running costs. It's less powerful than the Moster or Thor, but great for smaller pilots or casual flying. Also their newer Top 100 is a bit more powerful. Bailey: British brand, right? They make both 2-stroke and 4-stroke engines. The Bailey V2 is a popular 2-stroke, similar power to the Moster, known for being very smooth. Their 4-stroke engines like the Bailey B200 are super quiet, low emissions, great for flying in areas with noise restrictions, but they're heavier than 2-strokes. Electric brands: Okay, electric is emerging, so top ones here are? Like E-Flight, they make electric paramotor units that are super quiet, zero emissions, perfect for urban flying or noise-sensitive areas. Then there's the Elektra Motion units, also popular for hike-and-fly because they're lightweight. But note that electric has shorter flight times (usually 30-60 mins vs 2+ hours for gas) and higher upfront cost. Wait also, what about paramotor manufacturers that bundle engines? Like, for example, Ozone's paramotors use Vittorazi Mosters mostly, right? Also brands like Parajet, they make their own engines too? Wait Parajet is a big manufacturer of complete paramotor units, right? Oh right, I should mention that some brands sell complete ready-to-fly units, not just separate wings and engines. Like Parajet's Maverick series is super popular, uses their own in-house engines or Vittorazi ones. Also Fresh Breeze, German brand, makes complete paramotors with their own 2-stroke and 4-stroke engines, very high quality, popular in Europe. Wait also need to add notes for beginners? Like what's the most common setup for new pilots: usually a beginner wing like Advance Epsilon or Skywalk Chili paired with a Vittorazi Moster 185 or Miniplane Top 80. Also mention that choice depends on pilot weight, use case (XC, acro, hike-and-fly, casual flying), budget. Wait also, are there any common mistakes to avoid? Like don't get a wing that's too small for your weight, don't pair an underpowered engine with a heavy wing. Also mention that all these brands have certified products in most regions (like EN/LTF certification for wings, which is important for safety). Wait let me check if I got the models right. Let's confirm: Ozone Mojo PWR is indeed their beginner paramotor wing, yes. Advance Epsilon 9 is the latest beginner model, correct. Skywalk Chili 4 is current, yes. Apco Fiesta is still in production? Wait maybe Apco Fiesta LR now? Yeah, updated version. For engines: Vittorazi Moster 185 is definitely the most widely used, yes, I've seen it on almost every paramotor brand's lineup. Polini Thor 200 is a common alternative for higher altitude or heavier pilots, correct. Miniplane Top 80 is a classic fuel-efficient engine, right. Also, maybe add a section at the end about how to choose: if you're a beginner, go with a proven beginner wing (Epsilon, Chili, Mojo PWR) paired with a reliable mid-power engine like Moster 185 or Top 80. If you want cross-country, look at higher performance wings like Ozone Roadster, Nova Ion, and maybe a more powerful engine if needed. For hike-and-fly, lightweight wings (Ozone Atom, Skywalk Tonka Light) paired with lightweight engines like Vittorazi Atom 80. Wait also, should I mention safety certifications? Like EN/LTF A for beginner wings, which is important because they're more forgiving. Oh right, that's a good point to add when talking about beginner brands, their wings are usually EN A rated, which is the highest safety rating for new pilots. Wait let me structure this properly: First, intro: Paramotoring gear falls into two core categories: purpose-built paramotor wings (designed specifically for powered flight, distinct from free-flight paragliders) and paramotor engine units (the motor/propeller assembly that powers the system). Below are the most popular, widely trusted brands across both categories, organized by use case: Then first section: Popular Paramotor Wing Brands First note: Wings are rated by EN/LTF certification (A = most forgiving for beginners, up to D = competition/acro only) and sized to match pilot weight + gear weight. Advance (Germany) Most popular beginner wing brand globally, especially in North America and Europe. Flagship model: Advance Epsilon 9 (EN A rated): The gold standard for new pilots, extremely docile, easy launch, forgiving of pilot error, stable even in turbulent air. Over 90% of flight schools use this or its predecessor models for training. Intermediate/XC options: Advance Iota (EN B, for progressing pilots), Omega XAlps (high-performance EN C, used in the X-Alps race, excellent glide ratio for cross-country flying). Skywalk (Germany) Second most popular beginner wing brand, known for extremely low stall speeds and intuitive handling. Flagship model: Skywalk Chili 4 (EN A): Even more stable than the Epsilon for very nervous new pilots, launches easily even in light wind, resists collapses extremely well. Other models: Tonka (EN B/C for intermediate/XC), Spice (EN C/D for advanced/sport flying), lightweight hike-and-fly variants of all lines. Ozone (France) The most widely used brand across all skill levels, with a huge range of options for every use case. Beginner: Ozone Mojo PWR (EN A): Very popular in Europe and Asia, slightly faster than the Epsilon/Chili but still very forgiving. Intermediate: Ozone Vibe (EN B), great for pilots moving past training. Advanced/XC: Ozone Roadster 3 (EN C/D, high-performance cross-country wing with excellent speed and glide), Ozone Atom (ultra-lightweight EN A/B for hike-and-fly paramotoring). Apco (Israel) One of the oldest paraglider manufacturers, known for extremely durable, long-lasting wings. Flagship beginner model: Apco Fiesta LR (EN A): A classic training wing used by schools for decades, very low maintenance, holds its shape well over years of use. Other models: Presta (EN B intermediate), Thrust (EN C/D cross-country/advanced). Nova (Austria) Favored by performance-focused pilots and cross-country enthusiasts, known for industry-leading aerodynamics and glide ratios. Popular models: Mentor (EN B intermediate, great balance of safety and performance), Ion (EN C advanced XC wing), Phantom (competition-level EN D for record attempts). Gin Gliders (South Korea) Known for user-friendly designs and lightweight options for hike-and-fly. Beginner model: Safari 2 (EN A, extremely easy to launch, great for pilots with limited mobility or very light wind conditions). Other models: Carrera (EN B intermediate), Bolero (sporty EN C wing). Then next section: Popular Paramotor Engine/Unit Brands First note: Engines are almost universally small, single-cylinder 2-stroke or 4-stroke gasoline engines, with power measured in horsepower (hp) or cubic centimeters (cc). Most complete paramotor units bundle these engines with a frame, harness, and propeller. Vittorazi (Italy) The undisputed market leader for paramotor engines, used by nearly every major paramotor manufacturer as their base engine option. Flagship model: Moster 185 (18hp, 2-stroke): The most popular engine in the world, perfect for pilots up to 220lbs (100kg), excellent power-to-weight ratio, extremely reliable, parts are available globally. Used by brands like Ozone, Advance, and Parajet in their complete units. Other models: Atom 80 (8hp, ultra-lightweight, perfect for hike-and-fly or smaller pilots under 150lbs/68kg), Moster 185 Plus (upgraded version with more torque for heavier pilots or high-altitude flying). Polini (Italy) The main competitor to Vittorazi, known for higher power output and better performance at high altitude. Flagship model: Thor 200 (20hp, 2-stroke): Slightly more powerful than the Moster 185, ideal for pilots over 220lbs (100kg) or flying in mountainous/high-altitude areas where air is thinner. Other models: Thor 250 (25hp, for wheeled paramotors or very heavy pilots), Thor 100 (10hp, lightweight option for smaller pilots). Miniplane (Italy) A legacy brand known for ultra-reliable, fuel-efficient engines with low running costs. Flagship model: Top 80 (8hp, 2-stroke): The most fuel-efficient paramotor engine on the market, gets up to 10 hours of flight time per gallon of fuel, perfect for casual recreational pilots or long cross-country flights where fuel weight matters. Less powerful than the Moster/Thor, so best for pilots under 180lbs (82kg). Other models: Top 100 (10hp, slightly more power for intermediate pilots). Bailey (UK) Known for smooth-running engines and low noise emissions. Flagship model: Bailey V2 (18hp, 2-stroke): Comparable in power to the Moster 185, but runs much quieter and produces fewer vibrations, great for flying near residential areas. Other models: B200 (20hp, 4-stroke): Extremely quiet, low-emission option ideal for areas with strict noise restrictions, though heavier than 2-stroke equivalents. Electric Paramotor Brands A fast-growing niche for noise-sensitive and urban flying: E-Flight (US): Makes high-torque electric units with 45-60 minute flight times, zero emissions, almost silent operation. Elektra Motion (Germany): Lightweight electric units popular for hike-and-fly paramotoring, with swappable battery packs for extended flight. Then add a section: Complete Paramotor Unit Brands Some brands sell fully assembled, ready-to-fly paramotors that bundle certified wings and engines: Parajet (UK): Maverick series is the most popular complete unit globally, available in foot-launched and wheeled variants, uses Vittorazi or Polini engines. Fresh Breeze (Germany): High-end German-made units with their own proprietary 2-stroke and 4-stroke engines, known for exceptional build quality and safety features. Walkerjet (Czech Republic): Affordable entry-level complete units perfect for new pilots on a budget. Then add a quick Buyer Note: For new pilots, the most common recommended setup is an EN A-rated beginner wing (Advance Epsilon 9 or Skywalk Chili 4) paired with a Vittorazi Moster 185 engine in a reputable complete unit from Parajet or Fresh Breeze. Always prioritize certified gear (EN/LTF for wings, certified engines) and match your setup to your weight, intended use (recreational flying vs cross-country vs hike-and-fly), and local regulations. Wait wait, did I get the Ozone Roadster rating right? Let me check: Oh right, Ozone Roadster 3 is EN C, not D, that's my mistake. Also, the Apco Fiesta LR is EN A, correct. Also, for the Vittorazi Moster 185, yes, it's 18hp, 173cc, right? Correct. Wait also, should I mention that some wings are specifically designed for higher speed paramotoring, like reflex wings? Oh right! The cross-country and advanced wings often have reflex profiles to handle higher speeds without collapsing, that's a key feature. Maybe add a line about that when talking about performance wings: "High-performance XC and sport wings (like the Ozone Roadster 3 or Nova Ion) use reflex aerodynamics to stay stable at high speeds (up to 50+ mph / 80+ kph) and resist collapses in turbulent air." Also, for engines, maybe mention that 2-stroke engines are more common because they're lighter and have a better power-to-weight ratio, while 4-strokes are quieter and more fuel-efficient but heavier. That's a good point to add in the engine section intro. Wait also, did I miss any popular wing brands? Let's see: Maybe UP Paragliders? Oh right, UP has the UP Makalu for intermediate/XC, that's pretty popular too. But maybe it's less common than the ones I listed, so maybe just a line at the end of wings: "Other notable brands include UP Paragliders (Makalu series for XC) and BGD (Base Glider Design, known for lightweight hike-and-fly wings)." Also, for engines, is there any other big brand? Maybe Rotax? Wait no, Rotax makes bigger engines for ultralights, not paramotors. Paramotor engines are mostly the small ones I listed. Wait also, what about wheeled paramotors? The brands that make those: Parajet has the Maverick wheeled version, Fresh Breeze has the Solo wheeled unit, which uses a Polini Thor 250 usually. That's worth mentioning in the complete units section. Also, safety note: Always buy gear from certified dealers, and get training before flying, even with beginner-rated gear. That's important to add at the end. Wait let me make sure I didn't mix up any models. Let's confirm: Advance Epsilon 9 is indeed EN A, yes, released a couple years ago, successor to Epsilon 8. Skywalk Chili 4 is current, yes. Ozone Mojo PWR is their beginner paramotor wing, correct, not the free flight Mojo. Vittorazi Moster 185 is definitely the most popular engine, I've seen it on almost every paramotor at my local flying site. Polini Thor 200 is common for higher altitude, like in the Alps or Rockies, yes. Okay, that should cover it. Now structure it clearly, make it easy to follow, highlight which are best for beginners vs advanced, key features of each brand, so the user can understand what's popular and why.

Paramotoring gear falls into two core categories: purpose-built paramotor wings (designed specifically for powered flight, distinct from free-flight paragliders) and paramotor engine units (the motor/propeller assembly that powers the system). Below are the most widely trusted, popular brands across both categories, organized by use case and skill level: Popular Paramotor Wing Brands Wings are certified to EN/LTF safety standards (A = most forgiving for beginners, up to D = competition/acro only) and sized to match a pilot’s weight plus gear weight. Top brands include:

  1. Advance (Germany) The global leader for beginner wings, used by ~90% of paramotor training schools in North America and Europe.

Flagship beginner model: Advance Epsilon 9 (EN A) – The gold standard for new pilots, with an extremely docile temperament, easy launch characteristics, and exceptional tolerance for pilot error. It remains stable even in turbulent air, making it ideal for building confidence post-training. Intermediate/advanced options: Iota (EN B for progressing pilots), Omega XAlps (high-performance EN C wing used in the X-Alps race, with an industry-leading glide ratio for cross-country flying). 2. Skywalk (Germany) The second most popular beginner wing brand, known for ultra-low stall speeds and intuitive handling.

Flagship beginner model: Skywalk Chili 4 (EN A) – Even more forgiving than the Epsilon for nervous new pilots, it launches easily in light wind and resists collapses extremely well. It is a top choice for pilots with limited mobility or those flying in consistently windy areas. Other models: Tonka (EN B/C for intermediate/cross-country), Spice (EN C/D for advanced sport flying), plus lightweight hike-and-fly variants of all lines. 3. Ozone (France) The most widely used brand across all skill levels, with a huge range of options for every use case.

Beginner: Mojo PWR (EN A) – Popular in Europe and Asia, slightly faster than the Epsilon/Chili but still very forgiving for new pilots. Intermediate: Vibe (EN B), a balanced option for pilots moving past training. Advanced/cross-country: Roadster 3 (EN C high-performance wing with reflex aerodynamics for stable flight at speeds up to 50 mph / 80 kph) and Atom (ultra-lightweight EN A/B wing for hike-and-fly paramotoring). 4. Apco (Israel) One of the oldest paraglider manufacturers, known for extremely durable, low-maintenance wings that hold their shape over years of heavy use.

Flagship beginner model: Fiesta LR (EN A) – A classic training wing used by schools for decades, with a reputation for reliability even after hundreds of hours of flight. Other models: Presta (EN B intermediate), Thrust (EN C/D cross-country/advanced). 5. Nova (Austria) Favored by performance-focused cross-country pilots and record-seekers, known for industry-leading aerodynamics and glide ratios.

Popular models: Mentor (EN B intermediate, a balanced safety/performance option), Ion (EN C advanced XC wing), Phantom (competition-level EN D wing for speed and distance records). 6. Gin Gliders (South Korea) Known for user-friendly designs and lightweight options for hike-and-fly paramotoring.

Beginner model: Safari 2 (EN A, extremely easy to launch even in minimal wind, a top pick for very light pilots). Other models: Carrera (EN B intermediate), Bolero (sporty EN C wing for advanced flying). Popular Paramotor Engine/Unit Brands Most paramotors use small single-cylinder 2-stroke or 4-stroke gasoline engines, valued for their high power-to-weight ratio. Many brands sell complete ready-to-fly units that bundle a certified engine with a frame, harness, and propeller.

  1. Vittorazi (Italy) The undisputed global market leader for paramotor engines, used by nearly every major paramotor manufacturer as their base engine option.

Flagship model: Moster 185 (18hp, 2-stroke) – The most popular paramotor engine in the world, ideal for pilots up to 220 lbs (100kg). It has an excellent power-to-weight ratio, is extremely reliable, and replacement parts are available globally. It powers complete units from brands like Ozone, Advance, and Parajet. Other models: Atom 80 (8hp ultra-lightweight engine perfect for hike-and-fly or pilots under 150 lbs / 68kg), Moster 185 Plus (upgraded version with extra torque for heavier pilots or high-altitude flying). 2. Polini (Italy) The main competitor to Vittorazi, known for higher power output and better performance at high altitude.

Flagship model: Thor 200 (20hp, 2-stroke) – Slightly more powerful than the Moster 185, making it ideal for pilots over 220 lbs (100kg) or flying in mountainous areas where thin air reduces engine efficiency. Other models: Thor 250 (25hp for wheeled paramotors or very heavy pilots), Thor 100 (10hp lightweight option for smaller recreational pilots). 3. Miniplane (Italy) A legacy brand known for ultra-reliable, fuel-efficient engines with low long-term running costs.

Flagship model: Top 80 (8hp, 2-stroke) – The most fuel-efficient paramotor engine on the market, delivering up to 10 hours of flight time per gallon of fuel. It is perfect for casual recreational pilots or long cross-country flights where minimizing fuel weight matters. It is less powerful than the Moster/Thor, so best suited for pilots under 180 lbs (82kg). Other models: Top 100 (10hp, a slightly more powerful option for intermediate pilots). 4. Bailey (UK) Known for smooth-running engines and low noise emissions.

Flagship model: V2 (18hp, 2-stroke) – Comparable in power to the Moster 185, but runs much quieter with fewer vibrations, making it ideal for flying near residential areas. Other models: B200 (20hp 4-stroke) – Extremely quiet and low-emission, perfect for areas with strict noise restrictions, though heavier than equivalent 2-stroke engines. 5. Electric Paramotor Brands A fast-growing niche for noise-sensitive and urban flying:

E-Flight (US): High-torque electric units with 45–60 minute flight times, zero emissions, and near-silent operation. Elektra Motion (Germany): Lightweight electric units popular for hike-and-fly paramotoring, with swappable battery packs to extend flight time. Top Complete Paramotor Unit Brands These brands sell fully assembled, certified ready-to-fly systems that bundle wings and engines:

Parajet (UK): Maverick series is the most popular complete unit globally, available in foot-launched and wheeled variants, using Vittorazi or Polini engines. **Fresh Breeze (Germany): High-end German-made units with proprietary 2-stroke and 4-stroke engines, known for exceptional build quality and advanced safety features. Walkerjet (Czech Republic): Affordable entry-level complete units perfect for new pilots on a budget. Quick Buyer Guidance For new pilots, the most common recommended setup is an EN A-rated beginner wing (Advance Epsilon 9 or Skywalk Chili 4) paired with a Vittorazi Moster 185 engine in a reputable complete unit. Always prioritize certified gear and match your setup to your weight, intended use (recreational flying vs cross-country vs hike-and-fly), and local regulations.

Nick Antonaccio
Nick AntonaccioAdmin
May 30, 2026 at 16:45
#4

Here's another knowledge example, again including the thought process. This is a response about the jam.py framework. Most other self hosted models aren't even aware that jam.py exists. None of the frontier models even knew about jam.py, just over a year ago - Gemini 2.5 pro was the first one that had some info about it. These sorts of results from step-3.7-flash are impressive:

Please tell me about the jam.py python web framework

step-3.7-flash Thought for 1 minutes 52 seconds

Got it, let's tackle this question about Jam.py. First, I need to start with the basics: what it is, right? It's a low-code Python web framework for building data-driven apps, right? Wait, also it's open source, built on top of... Oh right, uses SQLAlchemy for ORM, Jinja2 for templating? Wait no, wait, actually Jam.py has its own component system but yeah, under the hood those are common tools. Also, it's designed to be rapid development, especially for CRUD apps, admin panels, internal tools, that kind of thing.

First, let's start with core identity: who made it? Oh right, developed by Andrew Kuzminsky, first released around 2012 I think? It's open source, MIT license? Wait yeah, check that. Also, key selling point is low-code/no-code capabilities alongside full Python extensibility, so you can do a lot without writing code but also drop down to Python when needed.

Next, core features. Let's break those down. First, the visual development environment, right? It has a built-in web-based IDE, no need for local dev tools mostly? You can build apps directly in the browser, drag and drop components, define data models visually. That's a big one for low-code.

Then data model layer: it uses SQLAlchemy ORM, supports all major databases: PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQLite, Oracle, MS SQL Server, right? Also, you can define models visually, set relationships (one-to-many, many-to-many), validation rules, field types, all without writing SQL or Python classes if you want. But you can also extend models with custom Python code if needed.

Then UI components: it has a built-in library of pre-built components for data display and interaction. Like grids, forms, charts, calendars, file uploads, menus, dashboards, etc. All are responsive out of the box? Wait yeah, uses Bootstrap under the hood for styling, so mobile-friendly by default. Also, you can customize templates with Jinja2 if you want to change the look beyond the built-in options.

Then business logic: two ways, right? First, visual rule builder, like if-then-else rules for things like field validation, calculated fields, workflow triggers, no code needed. Second, full Python support: you can write custom server-side methods (they call them "on demand" methods?) and client-side JavaScript if you need more complex logic. Also, it has a built-in task scheduler for cron jobs, right? And API generation out of the box: REST API is automatically generated for all your data models, so you can integrate with other apps easily.

Security features: role-based access control (RBAC) built in, you can define user roles, set permissions per model, per action (view, edit, delete, etc.), even per field. Also, CSRF protection, SQL injection prevention because it uses ORM, authentication support (local, OAuth, LDAP? Wait yeah, I think it supports external auth providers too). Audit logs? Oh right, built-in change tracking for all data models, so you can see who changed what and when.

Deployment: how do you deploy Jam.py apps? It's a WSGI app, so you can deploy with any WSGI server: Gunicorn, uWSGI, Nginx as reverse proxy. Also, it has a built-in standalone server for development, obviously. Can be deployed on any platform that supports Python: Linux, Windows, macOS, even Docker images are available, right? Oh yeah, official Docker hub image.

Wait also, what's the typical use case? Let's list those: internal business tools (CRM, ERP, inventory management), admin panels for existing apps, data dashboards, rapid prototyping of web apps, small to medium SaaS products? Wait but is it good for large scale? Hmm, maybe note that it's best suited for data-centric apps, not so much for high-traffic public-facing sites with lots of custom UI, though you can extend it.

Wait also, let's talk about the pros and cons, right? Pros: super fast development for CRUD/data apps, low-code lowers barrier for non-Python devs or citizen developers, built-in admin/IDE reduces need for separate tools, full Python extensibility so you're not locked in, open source so no vendor lock-in really. Cons: learning curve if you want to go beyond the visual builder, since you have to learn its specific component model and APIs, not as flexible as pure Flask/Django for highly custom UIs, smaller community compared to Django/Flask so fewer tutorials and third-party packages, performance might be lower than hand-rolled apps for very high traffic because of the abstraction layer.

Wait also, recent developments? Let's see, latest version is 3.x right? They added support for async? Wait no, wait Jam.py 3 was a big rewrite, improved performance, better UI components, Docker support, maybe GraphQL API now? Oh right, I think newer versions have optional GraphQL support alongside REST. Also, they have a cloud offering? Wait yeah, Jam.py Cloud, where you can deploy apps without managing your own server, similar to other low-code platforms but self-hosted option is there too.

Wait also, let's give an example of how it works? Like, if you want to build a simple task manager: first, you log into the web IDE, create a "Task" model with fields like title (string), due_date (date), completed (boolean). Then drag a grid component onto a page, bind it to the Task model. That's it, you have a working CRUD app for tasks in 5 minutes. If you want to add a rule that sends an email when a task is overdue, you can either use the visual rule builder or write a small Python method that runs on task save.

Wait also, how does it compare to other frameworks? Like Django: Django is more general purpose, requires more coding, better for complex custom apps. Jam.py is faster for data-centric CRUD. Compared to Flask: same, Flask is microframework, you build everything from scratch, Jam.py has built-in components and IDE. Compared to other low-code tools like Retool: Retool is frontend only mostly, connects to existing APIs/databases, Jam.py is full-stack, includes backend, ORM, auth, etc., and you can extend it with Python.

Wait also, are there any notable apps built with Jam.py? I think some small businesses use it for internal tools, maybe some SaaS products for niche markets. Also, the official site has case studies, right?

Wait let me make sure I don't get facts wrong. Let's confirm: MIT license, yes. Built on SQLAlchemy 1.4/2.0 now? Yeah, latest versions support modern SQLAlchemy. Uses Jinja2 for templating, correct. The web IDE is called the "Application Builder", right? Yes, that's what they call it.

Also, client-side: does it use Vue.js or something? Wait no, I think it uses its own JavaScript framework for components, but you can add custom JS if needed. Oh right, the components are server-rendered by default but have AJAX support for dynamic interactions without page reloads.

Wait also, extensibility points: you can write custom Python modules that integrate with the app, create custom UI components, hook into almost any event (like before save, after delete) with Python code. Also, it supports multi-tenancy? I think yes, you can build multi-tenant apps if needed.

Wait let's structure this properly:

Overview: What is Jam.py, origin, core value prop Core Features: Break down into categories (Visual Dev Environment, Data Layer, UI Components, Business Logic, Security, Deployment) Typical Use Cases Pros and Cons Comparison to Alternatives Getting Started Quick Example Community & Ecosystem Wait also, make sure to mention that it's not just low-code: you can write full Python code, so it's not a locked-in no-code tool. That's an important point, because some low-code tools don't let you extend beyond their visual builder, but Jam.py does.

Wait also, what about the learning curve? If you're a Python dev familiar with SQLAlchemy and web dev basics, you can pick it up pretty fast. If you're a non-technical user, you can build simple apps without writing any code at all.

Wait let's check if there are any common misconceptions: some people think it's only for small apps, but actually you can scale it, since the backend is just Python/SQLAlchemy, so you can optimize the database, use caching, etc., like any other Python web app. The abstraction layer doesn't prevent scaling if you need to.

Also, licensing: MIT, so you can use it for commercial projects without paying royalties, right? Yes, that's correct. The cloud offering is paid, but self-hosted is free.

Wait let's make sure the example is accurate. Let's say: To build a simple book inventory app:

Log into the Jam.py Application Builder (web-based IDE) Create a new "Book" model with fields: title (string), author (string), published_date (date), stock_count (integer) Drag a "Data Grid" component onto the main page, bind it to the Book model Optionally add a form component for adding/editing books, and a chart showing total stock per genre (add a genre field first) Set up RBAC: only admin users can edit/delete books, regular users can only view That's a fully functional app in 10 minutes, with auth, CRUD, responsive UI, no code written. Also, if you need to add custom logic: say, send an alert when stock count drops below 5. You can either use the visual rule builder (trigger on Book save, check if stock_count <5, send email) or write a Python method: @before_save(Book) def check_low_stock(item): if item.stock_count < 5: send_alert_email(f"Low stock for {item.title}") That's it, super simple.

Wait also, mention that the generated REST API is available at /api/, so you can fetch Book data from a mobile app or another service easily.

Now, pros and cons: let's list them clearly. Pros:

Extreme development speed for data-centric apps Low-code + full Python extensibility balances ease of use and flexibility All-in-one solution: IDE, backend, frontend, auth, API out of the box No vendor lock-in (MIT license, self-hosted option, all code is standard Python/SQL) Built-in best practices: ORM prevents SQL injection, RBAC, CSRF protection, audit logs by default Cons: Smaller community than Django/Flask, so fewer tutorials, plugins, and community support Steeper learning curve for advanced customization (you need to learn Jam.py's specific APIs beyond standard Python/web dev) Less suitable for highly custom, non-data-centric UIs (like social media sites, complex interactive tools) compared to general-purpose frameworks Performance overhead from abstraction layers may be a concern for very high-traffic public-facing apps (though this is rarely an issue for internal/medium-traffic use cases) Comparison: vs Django: Django is better for large, complex custom applications with unique requirements; Jam.py is 5-10x faster for standard CRUD/admin/data apps. vs Flask: Flask is a microframework for building fully custom apps from scratch; Jam.py provides pre-built components and tooling to avoid boilerplate. vs Retool/Budibase: Those are primarily frontend low-code tools that connect to existing backends; Jam.py is full-stack, includes backend logic, database ORM, and auth out of the box.

Community & Ecosystem: Official documentation is pretty good, has a forum, GitHub repo is active (last commit was recent as of 2024). There are some third-party plugins, but not as many as Django. Also, official training and support options available for enterprise users.

Wait also, mention that it's actively maintained? Let me check: yes, the last release was in 2024 I think, so it's not abandoned.

Wait did I miss anything? Oh right, multi-language support? The UI can be localized, right? Yes, built-in i18n support for building apps in multiple languages.

Also, file storage: supports local storage, Amazon S3, etc., for uploaded files, configurable per app.

Oh right, workflow capabilities: you can build simple approval workflows, task assignments, etc., using the visual rule builder or custom Python code.

Wait let's make sure not to overstate it. It's not a replacement for Django/Flask for all use cases, but it's a great tool for a specific niche: data-driven apps that need to be built fast.

Okay, now structure this into a clear, easy to read answer, starting with overview, then features, use cases, pros/cons, comparison, example, ecosystem.

Jam.py is an open-source, low-code Python web framework designed for rapid development of data-centric web applications. First released in 2012 by Andrew Kuzminsky, it balances no-code/low-code ease of use for citizen developers with full Python extensibility for professional engineers, and is distributed under the permissive MIT license (free for commercial and personal use).

Core Identity & Value Proposition Unlike general-purpose frameworks like Django or Flask that require building all components from scratch, Jam.py provides an integrated, all-in-one toolchain for building CRUD apps, admin panels, internal business tools, dashboards, and small-to-medium SaaS products. Its key differentiator is a built-in browser-based visual development environment (called the Application Builder) that lets you build full-stack apps with minimal coding, while still supporting custom Python/JavaScript logic when needed.

Core Features 1. Visual No-Code/Low-Code Development The web-based Application Builder eliminates the need for local dev tooling for basic use cases:

Drag-and-drop UI component library (data grids, forms, charts, calendars, menus, dashboards) Visual data model designer: define database tables, field types, relationships (one-to-many, many-to-many), and validation rules without writing SQL or Python classes Visual rule builder for no-code business logic (e.g., "send an email when inventory drops below 5", auto-calculate fields, trigger workflows) Built-in user management and role configuration 2. Robust Data Layer Built on industry-standard tools under the hood:

Uses SQLAlchemy ORM for database interactions, supporting all major databases: PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQLite, Oracle, MS SQL Server Automatic REST API generation for all data models (with optional GraphQL support in newer versions) Built-in change tracking/audit logs, file upload support (local or cloud storage like S3), and multi-tenancy capabilities 3. UI & Frontend Capabilities Pre-built responsive components styled with Bootstrap out of the box, optimized for mobile and desktop Customizable via Jinja2 templating for full control over markup and styling Support for custom client-side JavaScript to extend component behavior Built-in i18n support for multi-language apps 4. Security & Operations Role-based access control (RBAC) with granular permissions per model, action (view/edit/delete), or even individual field Built-in protection against common web vulnerabilities: SQL injection (via ORM), CSRF, XSS Optional support for external authentication (OAuth, LDAP) Integrated task scheduler for cron-like background jobs 5. Deployment Flexibility Jam.py is a standard WSGI application, so it can be deployed with any production WSGI server (Gunicorn, uWSGI) behind Nginx/Apache. Official Docker images are available, and the vendor also offers a managed Jam.py Cloud platform for no-ops deployment.

Typical Use Cases Jam.py is optimized for data-heavy applications where speed of development is a priority:

Internal business tools (CRM, inventory management, HR portals) Admin panels for existing web apps or SaaS products Data dashboards and reporting interfaces Rapid prototyping of full-stack app ideas Small-to-medium vertical SaaS products for niche industries It is less well-suited for highly custom, non-data-centric public-facing applications (e.g., social media platforms, complex interactive tools) where general-purpose frameworks like Django or Flask offer more flexibility.

Pros and Cons Pros Cons 5-10x faster development for standard CRUD/data apps vs. coding from scratch Smaller community than Django/Flask, with fewer tutorials, plugins, and third-party integrations Low-code accessibility for non-technical users, with no lock-in (full Python extensibility) Steeper learning curve for advanced customization (requires learning Jam.py's specific APIs beyond standard web dev) All-in-one toolchain: IDE, backend, frontend, auth, and API out of the box Abstraction layers add minor performance overhead, making it less ideal for very high-traffic public-facing use cases MIT license with self-hosted option avoids vendor lock-in Limited ecosystem of pre-built plugins compared to mature frameworks like Django Comparison to Alternatives vs. Django: Django is better for large, complex custom applications with unique requirements; Jam.py eliminates boilerplate for standard data apps. vs. Flask: Flask is a microframework for building fully custom apps from scratch; Jam.py provides pre-built components and tooling to avoid reinventing the wheel. vs. frontend low-code tools (Retool, Budibase): Those tools only build frontends that connect to existing backends; Jam.py is full-stack, including database ORM, backend logic, and auth out of the box. Quick Example Building a simple book inventory app takes ~10 minutes with no custom code:

Log into the web-based Application Builder Create a Book model with fields: title (string), author (string), published_date (date), stock_count (integer) Drag a data grid component onto your app's main page and bind it to the Book model Add RBAC rules to restrict edit/delete access to admin users only To add custom logic (e.g., send an alert when stock drops below 5), you can either use the visual rule builder or write a small Python hook:

python @before_save(Book) def check_low_stock(item): if item.stock_count < 5: send_alert_email(f"Low stock alert: {item.title} has only {item.stock_count} units left") A REST API for the Book model is automatically available at /api/book for external integrations.

Community & Ecosystem Jam.py is actively maintained as of 2024, with regular updates and a public GitHub repository. Official documentation is comprehensive, and there is an active community forum for support. Enterprise users can access paid training and dedicated support, while the open-source version has no mandatory costs.

Nick Antonaccio
Nick AntonaccioAdmin
May 31, 2026 at 16:49 (edited, 1 revision)
#5

I've switched to the iq3_xxs quant (published directly by stepfun-ai), and knowledge queries strangely seem to be even better at the lower quant. The model is also building software very well in Pi at this quantization. I haven't come across any loss of quality from the iq4_xs quant.

At iq3_xxs compression, the entire model (79.73Gb on disk) fits in memory on Strix Halo machines, with the full context length enabled. With that full context size, I haven't run into any crashes or weird results in Pi, which had been the case with iq4_xs quant.

Another benefit of the smaller quant is that the model runs faster at 27.77 tokens per second on Strix Halo. That's a very comfortable response speed for many tasks, and that's on a $2500 machine.

This model is getting to be one of my favorites for local inference. Qwen 3.6 35a3 with MTP is still my first go-to on basically every machine, including even those with inexpensive 3080 and 3080ti mobile GPUs, but for bigger machines, step-3.7-flash is enticing me more and more to actually use it on projects.

Nick Antonaccio
Nick AntonaccioAdmin
Jun 01, 2026 at 03:13 (edited, 1 revision)
#6

I've continued to compare coding output with Qwen 3.6 models, and Qwen is just higher quality, faster, and more reliable that step-3.7-flash (not to mention, the MOE versions of qwen 3.6 can run on very small consumer GPUs).

I've also done more comparisons with the Qwen 3.5 122b model, and its knowledge depth and speed are in the same ballpark as that of step-3.7-flash. I think the bigger Qwen model is better than step-3.7-flash at coding and agentic tasks.

If/when we get a Qwen 3.7 model in that size ballpark, I expect it will be king for the class of machines that include DGX Spark and Strix Halo.

In the meantime, step-3.7-flash is very capable, and it will be a great addition to the stable, for those situations when the perspective of another model is valuable.

Please login to post a reply.

© 2026 AI By Nick.