LegoMonorailFan

[Poll] Power Functions 2.0: receiver or no receiver?

[Poll] Power Functions 2.0: receiver or no receiver?  

3 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want a separate receiver unit for PF 2.0?

  2. 2. Do you want a combined receiver + battery box unit for PF 2.0?

  3. 3. How necessary is a separate receiver unit to you?

    • Necessary
    • Sort of necessary
      0
    • Not necessary


Recommended Posts

What's your opinion on Power Functions 2.0, and the potential that we may or may not have a separate receiver unit for the new system? Do you want a separate receiver unit like what we have currently, or do you want a combo unit composing of both a receiver unit and a battery box? Also, how important is a separate receiver unit to you?

(Shoot. It appears the poll isn't working.)

My personal opinion is the following.

1: Sort of.

2: Sort of.

3: Sort of necessary.

 

Edited by LegoMonorailFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of PF for domestic products is versatility.  Larger sets with PF have had multiple receivers from one battery box.

PF for education can stand more bespoke integration.  The kids are using it for a couple of hours at a time, to demonstrate concepts for the curriculum.

Versatility is a key attribute of LEGO parts and sets.  "It's a new toy every day" was the slogan for a long time.  The moment it becomes too bespoke, we might as well buy another toy that does the specific job.  I would never do that; I would cut up LEGO pieces before I lost my brand loyalty!  Dinosaur bodies and train front ends have long been lampooned as POOP, the most useless Parts that should be made Of Other Parts.

With the late-1990s technology, the Cybermaster was not as good as the RCX.  Cybermaster had radio rather than IR communications but it was stuck with 2 integral motors, making the unit bigger.  Once a motor failed, that was it; the RCX could be given replacement motors.  The same was true of the scout master units, with one integral motor.  Not too bad for a large-enough model (R2D2 or AT-AT) but this reached the limit of desirable unit size.

The PF philosophy, at least for domestic products, is to have inputs, processors and outputs.  Inputs are battery boxes for the moment, since TLG have not integrated a small button into the system yet.  Processors are the switch or the IR Receiver.  Outputs are motors and lights.  If a battery + receiver unit could be no bigger than the AAA or LiPo battery then maybe OK, but the WeDo2 unit is too big.

What we really need is a unit the same size as an IR receiver but with other comms, such as radio, Bluetooth or WiFi, which is where the S-Brick scores well.  It does need a suitable handset so that those without a phone can use it.  Otherwise a proportion of the market is lost instantly; TLG should have thought of that.

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I'm hoping for @Mark Bellis:sweet: A Bluetooth enabled receiver + remotes, and of course the option of using an app instead to control your model from your smart device or notebook. Everything else about the current PF system is fine the way it is currently IMO. But then on the flip side, it would be nice to have the receiver function compacted in to the battery box to save space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

... it would be nice to have the receiver function compacted in to the battery box to save space.

The biggest issue with the IR receiver is that it needs to be placed at the top (or facing the outside, if used sideways) of the entity, in order to maintain line of sight.  Without the line of sight restriction, it could be buried deep inside whatever you've created.  With this consideration, its size becomes less of an issue.   Unless the creation is some kind of small shunting locomotive, also wanting to employ a train motor and battery box in a minuscule package, where every surplus brick is a concern, a separate BT receiver "brick" should be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, icemorons said:

The biggest issue with the IR receiver is that it needs to be placed at the top (or facing the outside, if used sideways) of the entity, in order to maintain line of sight.  Without the line of sight restriction, it could be buried deep inside whatever you've created.  With this consideration, its size becomes less of an issue.   Unless the creation is some kind of small shunting locomotive, also wanting to employ a train motor and battery box in a minuscule package, where every surplus brick is a concern, a separate BT receiver "brick" should be fine.

I personally have never had problem with IR receiver in terms of connection even when the receiver is covered up. Sure maybe the range is diminished a bit, but that's never concerned me. :classic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would have said definately receiver and battery box combined, but having purchased 2 x sbricks now and Lego re-chargeable batteries its a moot point to a certain degree. However, the sbrick app and designing the controller for the ap is a pain. So if Lego done a combined receiever and rechargeable battery, and it used bluetooth I'd def purchase them!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of Bluetooth, but I like the feel of a LEGO remote, not a smartphone.

Edited by TechnicRCRacer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I entirely second Mark's judgement. Every aspect.

Best
Thorsten 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. Difficult to answer. 

1. For small MOCs one may want to go with a combined version (BuWizz style)

2. For larger MOCs one may want to have several combine-able components (current PF style) , so you dant need to worry about having several batteries that you probably won't need and which will add weight.

3. For smartphone fanatics, BT / BLE is a cool way to control your creation, offering customise-able controls with buttons and sliders.

4. Downside of BT / BLE is the dependance on your hardware (smartphone). All companies and even their phones have different receivers so you are never assured 100% compatibility.

5. The above mentioned hardware has a touch-screen , which sincerely is a crappy thing due to there being no feedback at all. (Although solvable by using separate wireless controllers, we will multiply by 2 the amount of lag and connectivity problems).

6. 2.4Ghz. Extremely extensive & popular way of RC control. Easily connetctable between controllers & receivers, with thousands of controllers available to suit your taste & style, offering real feedback which helps you control better.

Having in mind all written above here are my 2 cents:

- Separate receiver and battery-box , as long as both are small-sized and ARE rechargeable (while being used in sets) ; 

- 2.4Ghz way of control ( as long as it is compatible with 3rd party controllers which is not that sci-fi , since current PF protocol is open source)

- Somewhat smaller PF components (micro-motor or maybe smaller servo)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I'd like in PF 2.0: (probably...)

Essential:

  • Fully compatible with current PF
  • Separate BT or 2.4Ghz RC receiver, with matching Lego remote.
  • Real-time proportional control.
  • S-Motor

Optional:

  • Slightly smaller battery box. (maybe about the size of a M-motor)
  • Fast-Motor. (a PF buggy motor)
Edited by mocbuild101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mocbuild101 said:

Here's what I'd like in PF 2.0: (probably...)

Essential:

  • Separate BT or 2.4Ghz RC receiver, with matching Lego remote.
  • Real-time proportional control.
  • S-Motor

According to what is happening (and I have seen) in Nuremberg regarding trains, TLG is likely to introduce a kind of Bluetooth receiver AND remote, for PF 2.0.

This will be the best, cheaper and most flexible way to switch to radio controls, today: by including a BLE remote (like the one that will be in the new trains system), TLG will be able to grant a perfect “out of the box” experience, while allowing for more complex and advanced control (even programmable) by means of a mobile app.

BTW, the trains remote have a sort of “proportional control” (exactly like it was for previous version, that is perfectly compatible with current Technic PF, should someone forget it), so it is likely that something similar will come in next year PF v2.0 for Technic.

An S-Motor would be much appreciated, but I dunno if it will ever come.

Edited by Rikus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rikus said:

An S-Motor would be much appreciated, but I dunno if it will ever come.

Well first there was "Medium" and "Extra Large" motors, then about five years later, TLG released a "Large" motor which filled the gap perfectly, so it's hard to see why they wouldn't release a "Small" motor in the future to fill the other gap in the sequence...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GPS and solar power with HD cam and sd slot and USB port for charging and external light's ... might as well think big!!  ...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sirslayer said:

GPS and solar power with HD cam and sd slot and USB port for charging and external light's ... might as well think big!!  ...  

:drool: If only! :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

This is my first post, and maybe the admin will consider this off-topic, but talking about the PF 2.0 I would like to have a feedback from you guys.

I am working on a large 1:20 crawler crane (4 x XL Motors per crawler side, 4 x XL motors for the slewing, etc) so this will use up a lot of current, and drain batteries fast.

So, as I didn't want RC accu-packs visible, I started working on a custom battery pack with 2600mAh and 5200 mAh capacity Li-Ion (the crane would have multiple of these) with integrated charging management and selectable output voltage (9-10.8V)  /amperage (1-2-3A). So you can use it with normal IR receivers, but also with the Sbrick.

The size of the casing would be 5x9x11 studs for the 2600 mAh (so just slightly larger then the PF Battery box) and 7x9x11 studs for the 5200 mAh.

I was playing with the ideea to start a Kickstarter/Indigogo campaign to manufacture these, but I kinda decided to wait what the PF 2.0 will deliver, also in terms of connectors (if they will be the same) and separated/integrated receiver.

Would you be interesed in this? and if yes, feedback would be nice.

 

BTW...I voted for separated receiver, obviously for the above mentioned custom battery pack.

Thanks,

Bogdan

 

Edited by Bogdan Valceanu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.