42056 - Porsche Speculation

[deehtha]

And both the WeDo 2 and EV3 are Bluetooth.

[miguev]

I for one would prefer radio (maybe 2.4 GHz) and a dedicated N-channel controller (N > 2) with levers / stick you can *feel*.

While the SBrick is great for some uses, it has terrible latency and zero feedback (you can easily slide your finger out of steering control and lose control of the vehicle) both of which make it terrible for anything not slow (let alone fast) and I think would easily be non-issues with proper hardware controllers. And for those, you need no bluetooth, regular radio is fine and fast.

[flyboy01]

(...) it has terrible latency and zero feedback (you can easily slide your finger out of steering control and lose control [of the vehicle]. (...)

I could not agree more. so I am also hoping for radio (if they make it at all).

[cloud]

I for one would prefer radio (maybe 2.4 GHz) and a dedicated N-channel controller (N > 2) with levers / stick you can *feel*.

While the SBrick is great for some uses, it has terrible latency and zero feedback (you can easily slide your finger out of steering control and lose control of the vehicle) both of which make it terrible for anything not slow (let alone fast) and I think would easily be non-issues with proper hardware controllers. And for those, you need no bluetooth, regular radio is fine and fast.

True, from an R/C background I would agree.

For faster moving vehicles(these are not for use outside right?) lego could make a standardized multi-channel 2.4ghz controller and receiver as it would be great for fast R/C control, but it seems that TLG prefers to make slow moving indoor models more.

So what about having a nice panel interface (phone/tablet) specific to your model with a pile of controls?

Bluetooth is already built in to a phone or tablet, 2.4ghz general purpose programmable radio is not.

For an easily customized interface the 2.4ghz option would require a usb dongle radio or something like it that seems messy to me.

I'm envisioning getting this porsche, buying the necessary new motors and control (if not included), and going to the lego interface app to dowload some swanky looking porsche interface.

This same interface app could then be replaced with a swanky BWE downloaded skin to control the same motors applied to the BWE model once I get bored of a PF porsche and want it as a model only.

It could also be a super swanky way to control a pile of trains.

[flyboy01]

okay, your argument has some pretty valid points. I guess that we'll see more about it later on.

[zux]

Current system uses IR, which isn't built into phone or tablet and didn't make any problems. So what don't we have same but better, but RF based system? The main and important advantage (or BT disadvantage) is that you can use a "dumb" controller, so you feel the control and have a feedback. Some might say it is not customizable - you can check the internet for types of controller setups created for using IR system.

Interactive systems (which would be used in case of BT implementation) are great also. They are cheap and highly customizable, yet they have limited life span and can become obsolete pretty quick. Like Lego RC system was introduced 14 years ago. I can still use my dedicated controller and it just works. There were no iPhones or even IPads at that time. Technology moves very quick by introducing and decommissioning standards quite often. Remember Windows 98. LEGO used to rely on this, and while LEGO hardware still works you can barely use it nowadays. What's OK now, might not be in next 5 years, while dedicated controller will still continue to, simply, do what he was designed to do.

[allanp]

It would be pretty crap to invest in a lot of Lego PF that won't work in 5 years time due to relying on outside tech (smart phones and so on) that changes and goes out of date. The current PF will always work because it doesn't rely on outside tech. But it's still quite antiquated.

[deehtha]

What if they include a physical by controller as well. Iirc, all the major game systems use some form of Bluetooth, so that isn't out of the realm of possibility.

[flyboy01]

well, now you bring it up, it would be pretty useful. maybe they should/will do zblj's idea of technic pf v2. that would be fun.

[Tommy Styrvoky]

I think Bluetooth is unlikely, but if there was a system like the EV3 where there is the option to use a remote and a device, then It would work. Also not everyone has a device that works with the latest applications. It would be disappointing for children to get their new lego model and not be able to control it without stealing their mother/father's phone. Standard RC equipment would be much better suited for this application. I will be getting a Sbrick soon, so I can mess around with bluetooth in my models.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Tommy Styrvoky

[pgplay]

Tommy,

From what I could notice, kids have phones which are just as good as the ones adults use. What's more, kids are better at using their phones or tablets so I wouldn't worry about them using BT to play with Lego.

[Lipko]

If I have to buy a smartphone just for operating this model, than I won't buy this model.

[tibivi]

If I have to buy a smartphone just for operating this model, than I won't buy this model.

Indeed, plus the fact that you have no feedback from the 'remote' at all. So in my opinion this beats the purpose of Bluetooth,

you can indeed go further and have better signal than IR for e.g. fast models but you can't control them properly.

I still think RC is the way to go; precise proportional controls, good range and a proper remote you can handle without looking at it.

[Cwetqo]

You need to look at it from broader perspective. From TLGs point of view, biggest threat to their product are electronic devices or more specificaly: smartphones and tablets. TLG knows that it could not stop it, so they made several things where children could enjoy both at same time, such as lego action games, lego buildable games, lego augmented reality games.

Moving to bluetooth control is part of this. not because it would be cheaper or have any other advantages, but most of all because it will allow children to use their beloved phones and tablets with lego product.

[Jim]

Exactly!

[XAxles]

Wait a sec. All this talk about controllers, and we haven't even known just how heavy the model can get. If it's RC, then it better have damn powerful motors if speed is a priority.

[Lipko]

That's okay, make it optional, but include a controller device too. Nothing is more disapoining than buying a thing (as a present for examle) for quite a lot of money that's simply not working out of the box. (yup, it's also a bit annoying that batteries are not included, but they are cheap and easy to acquire, and usually there are a few of they lying around in a household at any time). And yes, there are people like me who don't want their kid to have a smartphone at the age of 9 but would buy such a complex model for them because they are able to build it, would love it and would learn a lot with it.

[maxxens]

I have the feeling in our time it is more probable, that someone has a smartphone lying around than some old fashioned AA batteries.

But let's first see if the Porsche will even have any kind of RC before we discuss the the how ;)

Edited February 3, 2016 by maxxens

[frankvanderboom]

all this speculating. Does anybody know when TLG will release any new info on this?

[GoldVillage]

I for one would prefer radio (maybe 2.4 GHz) and a dedicated N-channel controller (N > 2) with levers / stick you can *feel*.

While the SBrick is great for some uses, it has terrible latency and zero feedback (you can easily slide your finger out of steering control and lose control of the vehicle) both of which make it terrible for anything not slow (let alone fast) and I think would easily be non-issues with proper hardware controllers. And for those, you need no bluetooth, regular radio is fine and fast.

For me (being RC fan and have alot of cars, and some boats) "regular radio" is like AM27 mhz but i guess thats pretty much old school now. Theres no need for lego to develope new fancy digital RC systems, unless they start using hotter motors but that requires stronger chassi build, better suspension, stronger drivetrain with nylon gears, and perhaps metal axles... so where do we draw the line between whats lego and whats not?

[Kumbbl]

Stability and robustness are IMHO the most relevant counter-arguments against RC of the forthcoming Porsche... if RC at all then it will be slow and children-proof RCing like current IR stuff - regardless if 16+ is mentioned on the pre-box - without throwing time-honored and essential lego principles right out the window lego technic car are not suitable for real and fast RC driving - and i can not imagine that TLG would change these principles - so what i can imagine is:

- The Porsche will come without any RC

- or it comes with RC like current IR-based PF which can be switchen on / off - so vrooming is possible - and people who want necessarily remote control the car they can do it as well..

[NevynPA]

The Helicarrier and Tumbler were both "display models" with a price quite close to this one. My personal feeling is that it'll be a 'display car' possibly with some lights. While there are kids who will receive this set, it really isn't targeted towards them for the price point and complexity it has.

But that's just me.

[Boulderer]

NevynPA ... it's not just you.

[AlphaX]

The Helicarrier and Tumbler were both "display models" with a price quite close to this one. My personal feeling is that it'll be a 'display car' possibly with some lights. While there are kids who will receive this set, it really isn't targeted towards them for the price point and complexity it has.

But that's just me.

Thats probably why it's 16+.

[Lipko]

A Technic set as a display set sounds stupid.