Powered UP AFOL Community Answers

[TinkerBrick]

I just found this (kudos to zusammengebaut.de for posting this). I thought those informations would be welcome here as well.

Powered UP AFOL Community Answers

https://lan.lego.com/news/overview/powered-up-afol-community-answers-r146/

I haven’t made up my mind yet but I have to admit I have some mixed feelings about Powered UP.

[emielroumen]

Thanks for the link! Given the backwards compatibility statement and relying on AFOL community answer, I’m not impressed at this stage.

[TinkerBrick]

What puzzles me the most is this passage:

Quote

If not, why? What happened to "all LEGO bricks fit together" paradigm?
With the Powered UP platform our aim is to reach broader possibilities including integration with mobile smart devices.

Why would they sacrifice one of the Ten Commandments (literally spoken) that is THE main pillar of their success.

[Bublehead]

Well that was an as expected “nothing burger” response with major implications and I do not like where this is going either. So we will be stuck with Boost hubs and powered up hubs that can be networked together to control multiple motors with one input.  So get ready all you MOCers out there, no more 14 motors, three servos, and the kitchen sink models without having to shoe-horn in multiple hubs into your models, plus having to turn the hubs on and link them to same networks... this all gets pretty “common denominator” in their own models recently.  Limited number of motorized functions individually controlled by IR channels, and single motor, multiple functions via gearbox selector designs.  So the orange rotary catch of the Bugatti is going to figure prominently in future solutions since the number of and control of motors will be limited, the ability to switch the drivetrain between a single motor and multiple mechanical outputs seems to be the direction TLG is taking Technic. So a complex Technic model could have 4 individually controlled motors/channels on a Boost hub, and then add more PU hubs to add more motors for more functions.  So now we get onboard networking that replaces large runs of PF extension wires from centralized IR receivers but at the cost of the space of a PU hub, and any model using the Boost hub has to engineer around the location of the motorized shafts always being in the same orientation with respect to hub geometry. This all seems to support the majority of PF models we have seen recently where its single motor, mechanically switched drivetrains is the new normal fall back design.  And again, most of this just boils PU down the the lowest common denominator used by all platforms, edutainment (Boost), Trains, System (Tumbler), and the yet to be seen application to Technic.  And the lowest denominator is met via the Boost hub, with the PU hub giving us multiple motors from a single control output via networking.  I think we should push back, but I am hoping the educational community will be the loudest squeaky wheel to push back, especially since there is no cross over adapters mentioned yet and the amount of preexisting educational PF already in the classroom is quite large. There will be a lot of teachers screaming bloody murder if they have to budget purchasing all new classroom equipment just to keep pace with TLG’s offerings.

I’m not happy, Bob.

-Not-

-Happy-

[Andy D]

I am in a wait-and-see mode. Eveerthing does not have to be remote controlled. Most of my favorite sets are *not* remote controlled. I like to turn on a motor and then control functions with a distribution gearbox. One or two motors is typically enough for most models, some sensors might be nice in some cases.

Usually LEGO does good stuff... I hope this is the same... Wait-and-see!

Andy D

[RohanBeckett]

It's not about what comes in a Lego set... it's what we can DO with everything after the set/original model is long dismantled and forgotten

 

Things are not looking good for us who like to run GBC's for multiple day's at exhibitions! (and GBC is often the most crowded display at any fan-run show!)

 

If the motors can be identified by the controller... then I don't see why they couldn't develop an extension cord/splitter, which enables ALL motors on a battery unit to be connected/identified/controlled independently 

Then... what would be great - a rechargable battery unit, like Wedo2, that slots in.. or even better, an 'adapter' that slots in, and allows a 9V DC Adapter to power it!

It'd be awesome to have several Boost Hubs on a GBC layout, powered by mains.. linked to a tablet, where I can tweak/adjust the speed of each motor.. or even program certain motors to stop/start on a timer (new building possibilities!!)

And in any case.. if Lego don't provide.. I'm sure the guys doing SBrick/Buwizz/etc will soon step up to the plate and provide a solution where TLG fail to. Just like they did to complement the limitations of PF

[TinkerBrick]

It will be hard for 3rd parties to develop adapters to connect PF stuff.

Quote

Is the socket and plug something cooked up and patented by LEGO, or are these parts actually available on the market?
The Powered UP plug is designed and patented by LEGO to best deliver to the needs across the platform. This has among other things given us a male and female plug that fits very well inside the LEGO building grid.

The PU connectors are patented. If TLG refused to licence them, we getting the same scenario as with Apple and its depreciated MagSafe power plug.

[JopieK]

2 hours ago, TinkerBrick said:

It will be hard for 3rd parties to develop adapters to connect PF stuff.

The PU connectors are patented. If TLG refused to licence them, we getting the same scenario as with Apple and its depreciated MagSafe power plug.

Except for the fact that you will only use the MagSafe thing for powering the device and the TLG stuff is much more desirable for modding etc. (e.g. creating lighting solutions for your models).

[Ngoc Nguyen]

I feel like Sue in The Last Leaf.

"There are only two left now."

"Two what, dear?"

"Power Functions. In the Technic sets. When the last one is discontinued I must go [from the Technic line], too. I've known that for several weeks. Didn't the doctor tell you?"

Edited August 7, 2018 by Ngoc Nguyen

[allanp]

So something like sheepos land rover would need 24 batteries, and that's without any controllers! If they are to incorporate the motor outputs into the battery box (not good, but I guess it's cheaper to produce than separate units) they should have AT LEAST 4 outputs (though 8 would be better) and 6 AA batteries, not puny AAA batteries. Having 6 batteries for every 2 motors is not good enough. Geez! Third party options looked to be better than PF, and PF looks to be better than PU! And will we see motors with buggy motor levels of power and speed, or un geared motors like we had in the late 80s to mid 90s, or micro motors? It's surely no longer due to nostalgia to say the stuff we had in the past was objectively more fun!

[rm8]

6 hours ago, TinkerBrick said:

It will be hard for 3rd parties to develop adapters to connect PF stuff.

The PU connectors are patented. If TLG refused to licence them, we getting the same scenario as with Apple and its depreciated MagSafe power plug.

This is the rare situation when I will be happy to buy this adapter even from Aliexpress and other sites, where licensing is no problem   since LEGO don't plan this adapater by themselves and ignoring our needs

but still hoping for happy end

Edited August 7, 2018 by rm8

[andythenorth]

My £0.02 on 'power functions let me have lots of motors'.

I've built MOCs with 4 motors for drive, 1 for steering, and 1 or 2 more for additional functions.  These need

• multiple IR receivers, as 4 motors overload a single channel on an IR receiver (thermal protection kicks in)
• multiple battery boxes, as one battery box can't deliver enough power for 6 or 7 motors

So I'm not traumatised by the idea of using multiple PU hubs with batteries included.

Also, don't miss the bit where they say that there are 2 power lines in the PU cable, and they perform the same as the 2 power lines in the PF cable.  This is blatant hint for people who can work a soldering iron 

So I'll wait and see on PU.  The automated train layout video in the train forum is pretty impressive imho.  

 

[M_longer]

23 minutes ago, andythenorth said:

This is blatant hint for people who can work a soldering iron 

Well, I'd rather have plug&go solution right from the box. It is not a good thing when something is downgraded. Buwizz offers much more within similiar dimensions.

[Tommy Styrvoky]

I hope they will keep both the powered up line and the power functions lines, as if they decide to phase out power functions, that would be really irritating to do anything with more than 2 motors, not to mention these components are probably more expensive. I wonder if this is there way of preventing 3rd party controllers from being used. it also seems that the PU hub is worse than the Sbrick Buwizz in terms of range. The ironic thing is I have seen several posts on Lego's FB with models involving Sbricks and Buwizzes. As if they kept the two lines seperate, one could be better tailored to coding and education, the other for more simple general purpose motorization.

[Timoonn]

39 minutes ago, Tommy Styrvoky said:

I hope they will keep both the powered up line and the power functions lines, as if they decide to phase out power functions, that would be really irritating to do anything with more than 2 motors, not to mention these components are probably more expensive. I wonder if this is there way of preventing 3rd party controllers from being used. it also seems that the PU hub is worse than the Sbrick Buwizz in terms of range. The ironic thing is I have seen several posts on Lego's FB with models involving Sbricks and Buwizzes. As if they kept the two lines seperate, one could be better tailored to coding and education, the other for more simple general purpose motorization.

It's also what I would like, but the text does not say that.

[Andy D]

It seems to me that even if TLG decided to only use PoweredUp in new sets, that they would keep power functions items for sal as lots of builders (not just AFOLs) use quite a lot of power functions in MOC's. If they were to discontinue power Functions and quit selling replacement parts that would make it very difficult for som MOCs to be built.

Andy D

[Timoonn]

Quote

Over time the Power Functions platform will be phased out as the Powered UP platform is further developed.

The Power Functions platform will not disappear from one day to the other and components will be available through shop@home in an overlapping period.

And PF elements are so damn expensive, it will be hard to purchase a stock before they disappear (and I hope i'll never buy PU).

Edited August 7, 2018 by Timoonn

[pleegwat]

13 hours ago, RohanBeckett said:

If the motors can be identified by the controller... then I don't see why they couldn't develop an extension cord/splitter, which enables ALL motors on a battery unit to be connected/identified/controlled independently 

I could well imagine a USB-style bus system. Probably a big reason they won't use USB is that it only allows for 5 volts traditionally. You could feed more via type-C connectors but that's probably more expensive.

And I don't think custom-plug USB is allowed.

[Appie]

I am willing to bet the 6x AA Powered Up battery box will have more than 2 inputs, most likely 4. To accomendate any current Technic set motor set up (since they never went beyond 2 IR recievers). MOCs that need more are in for a bad time, but perhaps Lego surprises us with 6 inputs or some sort of extension wire that allows multiple wires plugged in. We'll see.

[pleegwat]

Doesn't 4 motors put you at about their stated limit for the power a single battery box can provide?

[Tommy Styrvoky]

Another thought is for many outputs is a multiplexer, like for EV-3's, as there are 6 pins in the connectors, this could work to power multiple motors individually. 

[andythenorth]

51 minutes ago, pleegwat said:

Doesn't 4 motors put you at about their stated limit for the power a single battery box can provide?

Sometimes.  4 L motors won't trip the thermal protection on the AA box, but it won't perform well if performance is a concern.  If motors are only run intermittently, then it's much less of a concern.  

Also, some (wild) guesses based on actually reading the TLG official answers and not just 'omg it's all awful posts :) 

1. Nowhere in the TLG official answers does it say that the final form factor for all time is 2 outputs.  It just says no daisy chaining / stacking in the official plugs.  TLG have a track record of multi- motor sets like 8043 (excavator) or 42030 (Volvo loader) or 9398 (crawler).  There'll be nothing in the electronics that prevents TLG doing a 4 output control hub.  There's also no promise of course that they will.  It's a definite 'wait and see'.

2. Power Functions is dead for any future development. The official answers are quite clear about that.  But the official answers are a nothing-burger about when PF parts will be discontinued.  I can't see them keeping the SKUs around for a long time though.   It's likely they'll want a big back-inventory for providing replacements on recent sets, but how long for sale on lego.com, anyone's guess right now.

3. I'm with M_longer that soldering is daft.  It's just interesting that TLG are aware of the issue and provide the hint.  The undertone seems to be an interesting open-ness to modding outside the official system.  PF and 9v were very closed complete systems compared to the 4.5v/12v system where you could literally unscrew the wires.  My school had Lego Education and Dacta sets where this was directly encouraged, to integrate Lego with primitive robotics systems like the Deltronics buffer box.  The bold move would be opening up the connector design for third parties, but sadly I doubt TLG will do this.

4. Every time Lego changes an electrical system (Technic or Trains), the sky falls in Lego communities.  Search for the "OMG Power Functions is the plague" thread.  There is a certain type of AFOL who likes posting on the internet and dislikes change.  Takes all sorts to make the world eh.  https://www.lugnet.com/general/~1285/traumaticevents

I'm on the fence about PU being awful or awesome until I've got my hands on some.  "On the fence" literally means holding judgement until I have experience.  Maybe TLG got it right, maybe they got it wrong.  I know that the Boost component is solid though, my kids have it.  And the PU education stuff is also solid, I've worked with it.  

Edited August 7, 2018 by andythenorth

[M_longer]

6 minutes ago, andythenorth said:

There is a certain type of AFOL who likes posting on the internet and dislikes change.  Takes all sorts to make the world eh

Maybe, but PF were not a game changer like PUP, because it was still more or less compatible with 9V than PUP. Only thing you needed was a extension wire, now the whole system is redesigned from scratch. Funny thing is that 9V had two wires, PF added another two. Now with PUP we have additional two, so next generation of LEGO electronics will have eight wires? ;)

[Timoonn]

2 hours ago, andythenorth said:

 o changes an electrical system (Technic or Trains), the sky falls in Lego communities.  Search for the "OMG Power Functions is the plague" thread.  There is a certain type of AFOL who likes posting on the internet and dislikes change.  Takes all sorts to make the world eh.  https://www.lugnet.com/general/~1285/traumaticevents 

Mh, transition from 9V to PFS wasnt a huge move. Good ol' 9V just passed away.

9V was better than PFS for one point: separated cable from the motor

Otherwise, PFS added a lot of things: Remote control, a wide and user friendly range of motors (M/L/XL/S/E/Train), easy lights, two formats of battery box, two kind of controlers, pole reverser included on the switch/RC, etc.

And, the most important, it was (partially?) compatible with the 9V system.

 

PU doesnt add so much, its a huge step back (atm) and it will not be compatible with PFS (I personnaly have around 30 PFS motors, so i'll never purchase any PU stuff if Lego choose not to produce an adaptator).

I think the PFS is totally fine, its appropriate for most uses. Lego remove a entire system just to add a touchscreen control. wow...

the best would have been (from a customer perspective) to have 3 separate systems, PFS for technics and simple motorised sets (Creator caroussel), PU for trains or small educational and robotic stuff, and then the Mindstorms.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Timoonn

[Bublehead]

@Timoonn, the whole purpose of PUp is to consolidate all the motorized functions of all Lego products with a one size fits most solution that allows them to capitalize (literally) on the economies of scale. Our dreams and wishes take back seats to profitability and long term company survival, and that helps the the sole supplier of my favorite hobby, building with Lego. If PUp turns out to be inedible and we all spit it back up, I am sure they will have the next attempt waiting in the wings like fresh red meat to throw to the wolves. We either have to be even more vocal about our displeasure (if it turns out rancid) or with our pocket books by not buying PUp sets, or we do like we usually do. Which for a majority of us is we will pony up the hard earned dinaro at the beginning just to get our hands on it for our own test drive.  Couple that with a really cool Flagship set to showcase the new PUp system, and we soon forget all about NOT purchasing the new platform. And once you have been infected, the damage is done, you capitulate, make up good reasons to move to the new system, drink the koolaid, deliver the party line that 1+1=3, Coke is better than Pepsi, cats and dogs are living together, society as we know it collapses, Anarchy reins, and the toilet overflows.

For the most part, we will grumble, we will gripe, we will open our wallets, we will hang our heads in defeat, and we will walk out of the Lego Store with a big yellow bag, a wallet that is $400 bucks lighter, a little pep in our step, and if we don’t pop the seals on the box before we drive home, we will think of nothing but that all the way back home. And then we will go through our ritual as we dim the lights and get ready for our ABS plastic high mass. The caressing of the box, turning to look at all sides, the little pop of each seal, the careful dump as we try and catch the instructions and stickers before they get creased. The rustling of the bags as we lay them out in numbered order and straighten them till they lay flat. The slow perusing of the instructions, and the contemplative stare at the sticker sheet. Then the violent ripping open and dumping the parts out on the table and sorting through the parts, looking for the ones you don’t have, or ones in colors that you have never owned before. Looking at each new element, be it a plastic gear, a motor, or battery box and controller. Immediately putting the tires on the rims and fiddling with any new part to see how it interacts with other pieces.

Yes, we will forget all about NOT purchasing the new PUp platform....

Edited August 7, 2018 by Bublehead
Typos