Concerned about the future of LEGO remote control options

[Bricktrain]

I love control+ and powered up but I no longer use tablets or phones but use Xbox controllers with Pybricks, I now have 9 Xbox controllers and I dont even have an Xbox. My sumo bots use them, I have 5 of them we use at shows for charity fundraising, and the others for my other Technic models. I still have plenty of power functions models but I am slowly upgrading them to Powered up. My RCXs havent been used in years.

[Aurorasaurus]

My two cents on the whole thing is just use hobby rc electronics, the wiring is more messy but the end result is you have far better control and power, often for cheaper. But for something like a bus or tractor with many functions, I see the concern.

[gyenesvi]

I think Lego electronics is at a point where one of two options can happen. Either they ditch RC stuff completely, which would be a really sad step backwards, but has some probability, seeing multiple things being discontinued, not just in Technic, but also Mindstorms, so I am also concerned. Or they come out with something new.

In that case, what could be the new thing? It seems that the new electronics in the education line would be separate from technic (I hope they don't try to make something like that for technic), and I hope they realise that PU was killed by the complexity of software / mobile app development, so they move towards something that has physical controllers and little software component to maintain (something like a firmware that can be updated and configured through bluetooth connection, just like RC controllers).

If they don't come out with something new, then we are stuck with the remaining PU stuff using PyBricks / third party PF electronics, or using custom made hobby RC stuff.

[Jockos]

2 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

I think Lego electronics is at a point where one of two options can happen. Either they ditch RC stuff completely, which would be a really sad step backwards, but has some probability, seeing multiple things being discontinued, not just in Technic, but also Mindstorms, so I am also concerned. Or they come out with something new.

In that case, what could be the new thing? It seems that the new electronics in the education line would be separate from technic (I hope they don't try to make something like that for technic), and I hope they realise that PU was killed by the complexity of software / mobile app development, so they move towards something that has physical controllers and little software component to maintain (something like a firmware that can be updated and configured through bluetooth connection, just like RC controllers).

If they don't come out with something new, then we are stuck with the remaining PU stuff using PyBricks / third party PF electronics, or using custom made hobby RC stuff.

I don't think TLG will ditch RC completely. At the very least it is needed for City trains. I suspect they're having a major overhaul of the whole system to regulate a bit all these shenanigans they did in the last few years.

[Toastie]

1 hour ago, Jockos said:

I suspect they're having a major overhaul of the whole system to regulate a bit all these shenanigans they did in the last few years.

Or in the last decades?

4.5V - 12V - 9V (plain vanilla = Train and/or ControlCenter, ControlLab, Mindstorms/LEGO RCX/NXT/EV3/Robot Inventor) - PUp - Spike ... all these were - in principle applicable to RC (some with some nerdy knowledge only, I know, but there was always huge >potential<, I believe)

Now there is the revolutionary Smart Play System. No RC in sight there, but who knows. I don't.

Overhaul? That would be nice. I personally doubt it though. Not long ago, PUp was to be the ever expandable system. Boom, (almost) gone.

To be honest, I believe these shenanigans are representing a well-thought-out system: Pushing people into new purchases. Heck, I did that all the way to the PUp system. And stopped right there. PUp is/was really nice, scalable, with enormous potential. Potential is worth nothing though, when there is no ground. Only with proper ground, potential can make sparks. It appears as if TLG always abandons ship, when things are getting a bit hairy and sales drop. Which is fine with me. But just imagine, they would have made a nice hardware "remote" for PUp control. Maybe it wasn't worth the effort = revenue increase to be expected? Perhaps, LEGO RC is not the cash cow, they are always after?

I am just speculating.

Regards
Thorsten

[Jockos]

29 minutes ago, Toastie said:

Or in the last decades?

4.5V - 12V - 9V (plain vanilla = Train and/or ControlCenter, ControlLab, Mindstorms/LEGO RCX/NXT/EV3/Robot Inventor) - PUp - Spike ... all these were - in principle applicable to RC (some with some nerdy knowledge only, I know, but there was always huge >potential<, I believe)

Now there is the revolutionary Smart Play System. No RC in sight there, but who knows. I don't.

Overhaul? That would be nice. I personally doubt it though. Not long ago, PUp was to be the ever expandable system. Boom, (almost) gone.

To be honest, I believe these shenanigans are representing a well-thought-out system: Pushing people into new purchases. Heck, I did that all the way to the PUp system. And stopped right there. PUp is/was really nice, scalable, with enormous potential. Potential is worth nothing though, when there is no ground. Only with proper ground, potential can make sparks. It appears as if TLG always abandons ship, when things are getting a bit hairy and sales drop. Which is fine with me. But just imagine, they would have made a nice hardware "remote" for PUp control. Maybe it wasn't worth the effort = revenue increase to be expected? Perhaps, LEGO RC is not the cash cow, they are always after?

I am just speculating.

Regards
Thorsten

I see your points and thank you for your comment! I also am speculating.

From my point of view (let me call myself an 'average consumer' who doesn't have any capabilities in programming) TLG should have 4 types of electronics: system-based RC, system-based programming and both of the above in Technic-based form.

Now me, the average consumer, neither have the programming venes nor interested in it, what I'd like to have is a simple RC system (as was PF). I don't see the need to use my smart phone with an app to put an excavator's arm in a specific position as I can do it myself, too, with a physical controller. This topic has been discussed several times before.

The ultimate solution would be these 4 systems with interchangeable outputs (motors, sensors, etc.). The only thing TLG need to do is to release new outputs and facelift the components from time to time. This way the transparency and clarity would improve greatly in my opinion.

[gyenesvi]

2 hours ago, Toastie said:

To be honest, I believe these shenanigans are representing a well-thought-out system: Pushing people into new purchases.

1 hour ago, Jockos said:

The only thing TLG need to do is to release new outputs and facelift the components from time to time.

I wouldn't think it's purely a way of making more sales. I would accept the idea that the electronics system needs to be upgraded from time to time (not just a facelift) because there's significant development on the field. More efficient motors, sensored motors, rechargeable batteries, communication technologies for control, etc. so there is room for development.

1 hour ago, Jockos said:

From my point of view (let me call myself an 'average consumer' who doesn't have any capabilities in programming) TLG should have 4 types of electronics: system-based RC, system-based programming and both of the above in Technic-based form.

I think the division between system and technic based electronics did exist somewhat in both PF and PU. But I don't get why we would need programmability for the non-technic stuff?

1 hour ago, Jockos said:

what I'd like to have is a simple RC system

I agree, I think the PU system is missing the most common case there; what most everyday people would want to use RC systems for is kind of hard to achieve. It's overcomplicated for the sake of configurability, which is I think the most difficult part. Some configurability is required (which probably needs some kind of software component), but it should be kept simple for the everyday user.

[Jockos]

16 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

I think the division between system and technic based electronics did exist somewhat in both PF and PU. But I don't get why we would need programmability for the non-technic stuff?

I'd like to believe there's demand for system-based programmibility for people who are not into Technic. TLG released and had programmable sets for system fans (e.g. 4095, 17101, RCX, WeDo), so probably there are people who would benefit from having studded, programmable hubs than having to learn a completely different building method.

[gyenesvi]

2 hours ago, Jockos said:

I'd like to believe there's demand for system-based programmibility for people who are not into Technic. TLG released and had programmable sets for system fans (e.g. 4095, 17101, RCX, WeDo), so probably there are people who would benefit from having studded, programmable hubs than having to learn a completely different building method.

That could be true, but I guess the rational is that programmable builds also require moving parts / mechanics, which is where technic parts need to come in, and that's just how technic evolved, from studded to studless for practical reasons. So the preference towards (studless) technic parts is not really about programmability, but more about the need for moving parts. If someone is into mechanics, then they may be better off with converting to technic anyway :) Maybe some exceptions I could imagine are trains and basic wheeled robots, where relatively simple fixed function electronics can be used with little actual mechanics involved. In those cases I do see the utility in programmability.

Anyways, as far as I understand that kind of programmable studded electronics, aimed at education of younger kids, is going to be covered with the latest wave of electronics that was already announced, no? You know those rechargeable motors, etc..

[Toastie]

40 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

I guess the rational is that programmable builds also require moving parts / mechanics, which is where technic parts need to come in, and that's just how technic evolved, from studded to studless for practical reasons. So the preference towards (studless) technic parts is not really about programmability, but more about the need for moving parts. If someone is into mechanics, then they may be better off with converting to technic anyway :)

Well, let us just do it again : (Technic) && (studless for practical reasons) = TRUE? I personally don't think so. My entire world here is System and studded Technic; only when I run out of studful Technic beams, I fall back to studless pieces. Some are good, even superior for bracing purposes, others because they provide all sorts of angles, pin extensions, and so on and so forth. Why? Because I mostly build "machines", (automation and robotics, not robots). Some of which are trains, others are machines that do things. None need any panels or such - I leave that up to the Chinese companies, which are simply way more creative and willing, when it comes to make things looking good.

When LEGO and programming began, studless Technic did not exist. TLG themselves provided instructions for myriads of studful Technic machines with so many rotating and moving parts (plotters, cranes, automated doors, etc.) that were operated by programs stored in a computer, which was hooked up to motor drivers and sensor data providers (Interface A/B, later RCX and so on). There was a lot of moving parts and rotating things. And yes, this was mostly happening in classrooms, in the DACTA world.   

Today, almost the entire GBC LEGO world is made of studful Technic elements and I wonder why. In this world, virtually everything is moving. These folks usually don't use programmable bricks, as they love the mechanical aspect of synchronizing things rather than cheating your way out with sensors. When a ball comes in, it comes in. Sometimes more than one. And a purely mechanical device has to cope with that. At least this is my recognition. 

Again: This is my take, within my world, and I am happy with that. Others feel differently, build other things, make them slick, fast and furious, and that is how it should be.  

All the best 
Thorsten 

    

[legomen]

I think Lego should go back to somehow early days of remote controls, for example IR transceivers and like. With that system and PF motors, one just grab the toy, switch the battery on, pick the transciever and play. With Control+ app you need to first find the phone, find the app, start the app, connect to the hub (god forbid not loosing the connection) and the ackwardly control through touch screen. Believe me, kids don't like it. I believe IR could be replaced with BT or BLE, but ditching the app and having a HW transciever with replacable battery (AAA), because those will be around for some time in the future.

 

[Toastie]

20 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

I wouldn't think it's purely a way of making more sales. I would accept the idea that the electronics system needs to be upgraded from time to time (not just a facelift) because there's significant development on the field. More efficient motors, sensored motors, rechargeable batteries, communication technologies for control, etc. so there is room for development.

Room for development, absolutely true. I also totally agree on upgrades vs facelifts. The thing I don't agree on is the "significant development on the field" issue. When classic two wired 9V (and entire system - across multiple themes) was abandoned for the PF system, TLG made these 9V/PF crossover cables - maintaining compatibility. I praise them for doing so! Now there were 4 wire cables, still stackable, which meant 9V was "wired through" from battery to receiver and actuators. Sensors? PF had no sensors. The 9V system had (1993: Temp, touch, rotation, light). As had the 4.5V system (1986: Touch, light/rotation). Was that an upgrade? For car/RC builders for sure! For machinery builders? No way; we lost sensors.

Then came PUp. Out with everything. They did that before with the NXT/EV3 line: New incompatible plugs/sockets. Some say it had to be that way; additional wiring simply prevents that old stuff can be connected reasonably, so that people don't blow up their expensive new stuff! I'd say: Not true. A PUp train motor is dumb as a rock, as were the PF, and 9V train motors. They know how to rotate, that's it. Is there a way of connecting a 9V train motor to a PUp hub? Of course there is, but TLG does not provide you with that knowledge, nor did they offer a simple adapter, which would allow using 9V/RC/PF train motors with PUp hubs. No, you have to buy the PUp train motors. That is not an upgrade, it is making more sales. 

I could go on and on ... see, this is where the (to many so laughable and despicable) Microsoft company is so strong: I run VB6, which had its end of life in 2008 on my Win11/64 laptop. Why? Because they made it happen. I also have MS VS Code/2026 on the same machine. Room for development is always good. Putting in some effort to keep old programs and hardware, if possible, compatible is so much better. Does it always make sense? Absolutely not. But almost radically pulling the plug every 5 or so years - without caring about compatibility - is, well, pushing people to buy new stuff.

And again, this is my personal view on this. I have no further insights than my own observations. That is all.

Best wishes
Thorsten     

[Glaysche]

This is divisive statement in this forum: the PoweredUp ecosystem is really good hardware.  The motors, sensors, hubs, lights, and remote can all plug together and communicate over Bluetooth.  The motors typically have pretty good rotation sensors and have enough mechanical power to be useful.  The hubs have a very useful IMU.  The sensors work as advertised.  You can build amazing things with the PoweredUp hardware, including remote controls. That's right, you can build your own remote control, shaped any way you want that has proportional inputs and talks directly to the vehicle or robot or whatever you want.  (See my 6 axis remote for a kind of ridiculous example).  They built general purpose hardware that can be composed together to build whatever you want.  From a hardware point of view, it is the true spirit of Lego.

However, TLG completely and utterly failed on the software side.  They built multiple incompatible and incomplete software systems that could not unlock even 10% of the hardware's potential.  Their software requires the smart device.  The hardware does not.  PyBricks built a software ecosystem that does work across all the PoweredUp hardware.  It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it is an existence proof that it is possible.  You can tie all this great hardware together and build some really neat contraptions including pretty great remote control cars with physical remotes.  It's all there.  It's all possible.

I think the most likely scenario is that TLG has decided good software is too hard to build and it would rather just cancel it all and abandon the hardware they have built without it ever seeing its potential.  If I had to guess, they've probably missed almost every deadline on the software schedule and had to continually cut scope until what they were shipping was basically useless to anyone building a MOC with PoweredUp.  They probably had high ambitions for PoweredUp but simply failed to deliver.  It turns out, writing good software with a high quality UX is actually really hard to do well.

All of this is super disappointing.  I exited my dark age about when PoweredUp was first shipped and I thought it was amazing with so much potential.  Now, after seeing failure after failure with software, I have very little hope left that TLG will produce any suitable electronics going forward.

[dr_spock]

Not really too concerned with the future.  It's simple enough to adapt a basic $5 toy RC control if one doesn't need programming, apps, IR, etc.  They are many other options for remote control depending on your needs, budget, and skills.

ors

[legomen]

Some time ago, I played with an idea how to simplify a remote for kids to play. Food for thought.

https://brickshelf.com/gallery/jturnsek/Remote/Motion.jpg

[vascolp]

8 hours ago, Glaysche said:

This is divisive statement in this forum: the PoweredUp ecosystem is really good hardware.  The motors, sensors, hubs, lights, and remote can all plug together and communicate over Bluetooth.  The motors typically have pretty good rotation sensors and have enough mechanical power to be useful.  The hubs have a very useful IMU.  The sensors work as advertised.  You can build amazing things with the PoweredUp hardware, including remote controls. That's right, you can build your own remote control, shaped any way you want that has proportional inputs and talks directly to the vehicle or robot or whatever you want.  (See my 6 axis remote for a kind of ridiculous example).  They built general purpose hardware that can be composed together to build whatever you want.  From a hardware point of view, it is the true spirit of Lego.

However, TLG completely and utterly failed on the software side.  They built multiple incompatible and incomplete software systems that could not unlock even 10% of the hardware's potential.  Their software requires the smart device.  The hardware does not.  PyBricks built a software ecosystem that does work across all the PoweredUp hardware.  It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it is an existence proof that it is possible.  You can tie all this great hardware together and build some really neat contraptions including pretty great remote control cars with physical remotes.  It's all there.  It's all possible.

Agreed!

[ord]

Also agreed. For me, Lego remote control has never been better than it is now with Pybricks and an Xbox controller.

[Toastie]

Exactly the same here.

And again: TLG did the same in the past over. As if it were internally an accepted approach: After some time, pull the plug, rather than watching out for collaborations with actually capable software developers. And since the customer base is there - they'll buy the new elements of a new ecosystem of endless possibilities. Technic Control, Mindstorms, PoweredUp - and now: Smart Play. OK, that was unfair. Delete Smart Play.   

Developing "intelligent hardware" is so much easier than developing suitable firmware and operational software that truly exploits the hardware-enabled applications. But that is well-known since decades and decades, even Konrad Zuse had to come up with suitable software for his Z3. That has certainly escalated with the ever-increasing hardware complexity and applicability. But principally, it remained the same: It all relies on good software.

Best wishes
Thorsten   

[gyenesvi]

13 hours ago, Toastie said:

(Technic) && (studless for practical reasons) = TRUE?

13 hours ago, Toastie said:

Some are good, even superior for bracing purposes, others because they provide all sorts of angles, pin extensions, and so on and so forth.

@Toastie I'm not sure what you are questioning there, as in the next sentence, you seem to acknowledge the practical advantage of studless technic parts. I didn't say you cannot build certain mechanisms with studful parts. I just said that technic evolved to be studless because many things became possible that were not possible with studful parts.

So going back to my original argument, what I was trying to say is that since most mechanical builds nowadays are happening with studless technic, I could imagine that it could make sense for TLG in the future to focus programmable hardware to be mainly compatible with those studless parts, just as it was the case with Mindstorms (and with EV3 as well already?) for example. I did not say that you could not build programmable things in the past with studful parts.

13 hours ago, Toastie said:

The thing I don't agree on is the "significant development on the field" issue

Again, not clear what the argument is here. What I tried to say is that there had been significant developments on the field of remote control in the past say 3 decades, so it makes sense that TLG overhauls their hardware from time to time. For example Bluetooth technology appeared, sensored motors / brushless motors appeared, advanced motor controllers appeared, rechargeable batteries got widespread, etc. I think those were all practically non-existent in the 90s. So not sure what you don't agree with..? Maybe you thought I was implying significant improvement of Lego components themselves? No, I did not mean that :) I agree with you that we lost components we had before, which is a pity. But I guess we lost those because it was not worth keeping up their production. The group of people who'd like to use them is just too small, unfortunately.

 

@Glaysche I agree with most of what you said, except the remote controller part :) It is true that you can build a remote controller that way, but it has quite little practical utility; it simply has too much lag for proper control of many things, and the parts used in there are probably way more expensive than an actual good generic controller would be (say, an XBox controller).

Now the bigger problem is that I believe simple easy-to-use remote control is probably the most frequent use case that every-day lego builders would want to use when they use some kind of electronics in their builds. So not providing a simple solution for the most frequent use-case is a problem.

 

1 hour ago, ord said:

Lego remote control has never been better than it is now with Pybricks and an Xbox controller.

I agree, and in the beginning I was hoping that TLG would do it too, as an alternative to mobile device based control. In the beginning, Mindstorms did have some sort of integration of Xbox and PS controllers, so it seemed to have been on their radar when PU was born. My guess is that the problem was the hub firmware design philosophy, which focused on the lego wireless communication protocol instead of being programmable with a proper API, and so 3rd party devices could not fit into the picture.

[2GodBDGlory]

12 hours ago, Glaysche said:

This is divisive statement in this forum: the PoweredUp ecosystem is really good hardware.  The motors, sensors, hubs, lights, and remote can all plug together and communicate over Bluetooth.  The motors typically have pretty good rotation sensors and have enough mechanical power to be useful.  The hubs have a very useful IMU.  The sensors work as advertised.  You can build amazing things with the PoweredUp hardware, including remote controls. That's right, you can build your own remote control, shaped any way you want that has proportional inputs and talks directly to the vehicle or robot or whatever you want.  (See my 6 axis remote for a kind of ridiculous example).  They built general purpose hardware that can be composed together to build whatever you want.  From a hardware point of view, it is the true spirit of Lego.

However, TLG completely and utterly failed on the software side.  They built multiple incompatible and incomplete software systems that could not unlock even 10% of the hardware's potential.  Their software requires the smart device.  The hardware does not.  PyBricks built a software ecosystem that does work across all the PoweredUp hardware.  It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it is an existence proof that it is possible.  You can tie all this great hardware together and build some really neat contraptions including pretty great remote control cars with physical remotes.  It's all there.  It's all possible.

I think the most likely scenario is that TLG has decided good software is too hard to build and it would rather just cancel it all and abandon the hardware they have built without it ever seeing its potential.  If I had to guess, they've probably missed almost every deadline on the software schedule and had to continually cut scope until what they were shipping was basically useless to anyone building a MOC with PoweredUp.  They probably had high ambitions for PoweredUp but simply failed to deliver.  It turns out, writing good software with a high quality UX is actually really hard to do well.

All of this is super disappointing.  I exited my dark age about when PoweredUp was first shipped and I thought it was amazing with so much potential.  Now, after seeing failure after failure with software, I have very little hope left that TLG will produce any suitable electronics going forward.

I think the core of the hardware is pretty great, but there's a few little things that just make it way harder to use than it should be.

1. No extension cables. This one is huge! It would be such an easy part for them to make, but until they do, models are severely restricted in size. The advantage of electric motors is that they can be placed anywhere, so it's pretty sad to see MOCs where the motors are placed in mechanically suboptimal locations, just so that the wires can reach!

2. No splitter cables, to run multiple wires off the same port (To be fair, I'm not sure if that's actually realistic with the way the software works)

3. Relatively large, non-rechargeable hubs. I regularly build models with 6-8 motors, and the size difference between two PU Technic hubs and PF/Chinese alternatives is pretty dramatic, especially when you consider that in many models it's a lot easier to fit a lot of small components, than a few big ones, even if the total volume is similar.

Otherwise, it is a pretty great system! I love the way you can use any motor as a servo, in way better ways than you ever could with PF, and the whole PyBricks/Xbox thing is really cool! I don't even mind programming it!

It's disappointing, since it's so close to being a great system (at least for more advanced builders/programmers), but it's still got some fatal flaws, for my use cases.

Though, now that I've enumerated these drawbacks, and since I'm used to using 3rd-party electronics anyways, I wonder whether I can solve those problems myself...

[2GodBDGlory]

12 minutes ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

I think the core of the hardware is pretty great, but there's a few little things that just make it way harder to use than it should be.

1. No extension cables. This one is huge! It would be such an easy part for them to make, but until they do, models are severely restricted in size. The advantage of electric motors is that they can be placed anywhere, so it's pretty sad to see MOCs where the motors are placed in mechanically suboptimal locations, just so that the wires can reach!

2. No splitter cables, to run multiple wires off the same port (To be fair, I'm not sure if that's actually realistic with the way the software works)

3. Relatively large, non-rechargeable hubs. I regularly build models with 6-8 motors, and the size difference between two PU Technic hubs and PF/Chinese alternatives is pretty dramatic, especially when you consider that in many models it's a lot easier to fit a lot of small components, than a few big ones, even if the total volume is similar.

Otherwise, it is a pretty great system! I love the way you can use any motor as a servo, in way better ways than you ever could with PF, and the whole PyBricks/Xbox thing is really cool! I don't even mind programming it!

It's disappointing, since it's so close to being a great system (at least for more advanced builders/programmers), but it's still got some fatal flaws, for my use cases.

Though, now that I've enumerated these drawbacks, and since I'm used to using 3rd-party electronics anyways, I wonder whether I can solve those problems myself...

So, on the topic of solutions to those problems:

1. Assuming these work, Chinese PU extension cables now exist, and are cheap! $25 CAD for 5x 25cm cables from this store, with free shipping: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005008072773914.html?algo_exp_id=beb71eb1-c11c-426f-b3f1-52ddd6e1eac1-17&pdp_ext_f={"order"%3A"55"%2C"spu_best_type"%3A"price"%2C"eval"%3A"1"%2C"fromPage"%3A"search"}&utparam-url=scene%3Asearch|query_from%3A|x_object_id%3A1005008072773914|_p_origin_prod%3A

2. If they technically work, and I imagine they can to some degree (though it would probably require removing the data pins and just using the motors as "dumb" 2-pin wires), it would be easy enough to make one using some of those cheap Chinese extension cables.

3. I just opened up a Technic hub, and unsurprisingly, the actual circuit board isn't particularly big.

The majority of it is <5 studs wide, <9 studs long, and <2 studs tall. If you could in fact get it into a 3D printed 5x9x2 case, and use an external battery, that would be much more workable! Alternatively you could include some kind of rechargeable battery (A USB-charged Lithium 9V?) and increase the case to 5x9x4.
I'm not sure if we can actually get it down to <5 studs in width, though. That would require finding smaller equivalent capacitors, or maybe re-positioning the existing ones, and also cutting/filing down the lip on the opposite side of them. There certainly doesn't seem to be much going on in that portion, but there is printed ANT1 on it, and there are some little perforations, so I'm not sure.

Anyways, it could be a cool system to use more often, if I could work out some of those issues!

[Good old Lego builder]

I came across this message at Brick Fanatics. 
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EDdiNkie5/?mibextid=wwXIfr

At the end of the survey there is an open question about how to improve Lego. Maybe post the grievances there. I did.

Edited March 25 by Good old Lego builder

[Glaysche]

5 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

 I agree with most of what you said, except the remote controller part :) It is true that you can build a remote controller that way, but it has quite little practical utility; it simply has too much lag for proper control of many things, and the parts used in there are probably way more expensive than an actual good generic controller would be (say, an XBox controller).

Just a correction here.  When used with PyBricks where the hubs talk directly to each other with no smart device involved, there is basically zero lag.  If you try to use it with the PoweredUp app through the smart device, there is quite a bit of lag.  The hardware supports this use case quite well.

In my original message, I forgot to mention using an xbox controller.  The hardware obviously supports that as well.

[ord]

7 hours ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

1. Assuming these work, Chinese PU extension cables now exist, and are cheap! $25 CAD for 5x 25cm cables from this store, with free shipping: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005008072773914.html?algo_exp_id=beb71eb1-c11c-426f-b3f1-52ddd6e1eac1-17&pdp_ext_f={"order"%3A"55"%2C"spu_best_type"%3A"price"%2C"eval"%3A"1"%2C"fromPage"%3A"search"}&utparam-url=scene%3Asearch|query_from%3A|x_object_id%3A1005008072773914|_p_origin_prod%3A

I think I bought this exact pack of 5. They work well, just the plugs were a bit tight so I filed them down. I bought some 50cm ones a few years ago and those plugs are fine.

On 3/25/2026 at 7:25 AM, Toastie said:

But almost radically pulling the plug every 5 or so years - without caring about compatibility - is, well, pushing people to buy new stuff.

This is frustrating and I think goes against what Lego is all about, which is backwards compatibility. Technic I buy today is compatible with Technic from the 1980s, but electronics I buy today are not compatible with electronics from 5 years ago. It's a shame that, for example, the two Power Functions XL motors I have (which were so useful) now sit in my drawer as effective paperweights.

[gyenesvi]

4 hours ago, Glaysche said:

Just a correction here.  When used with PyBricks where the hubs talk directly to each other with no smart device involved, there is basically zero lag.  If you try to use it with the PoweredUp app through the smart device, there is quite a bit of lag.  The hardware supports this use case quite well.

That's interesting to know, in that case two hubs would be in a central/peripheral relation, right?

4 hours ago, Glaysche said:

In my original message, I forgot to mention using an xbox controller.  The hardware obviously supports that as well.

You mean just because the HW has Bluetooth capabilities, right? I mean it's obviously true in that sense, but kind of useless without supporting (official) firmware. I think the firmware is an important part of the equation, because it's really rare that we users have the knowledge to change the firmware of a company's proprietary hardware, we are kind of super lucky with the existence of PyBricks. If that would not be the case, it would be as if the hardware did not support the Xbox controller, so I would give that to TLG.

5 minutes ago, ord said:

It's a shame that, for example, the two Power Functions XL motors I have (which were so useful) now sit in my drawer as effective paperweights.

True, especially if we realize that they could actually simply be controlled by a PU hub if there was a conversion cable. Do such 3rd party cables exist?

7 hours ago, Good old Lego builder said:

At the end of the survey there is an open question about how to improve Lego. Maybe post the grievances there. I did.

That's great to know, let's do it :)