Control+ General Discussion

[kbalage]

1 minute ago, Tcm0 said:

For normal RC controllers for remote controlled vehicles, the joysticks often are for one direction (top/down OR left/right), not both at the same time. And a configuration would make everything more complicated.

Not sure why an x/y axis selector in the configuration would make things even more complicated. The current PU remote requires to define the behavior of 3 different buttons per side (+/-/red), this one would have an x/y axis selector for A and B joysticks. I would not call this one more complicated for sure.

Joysticks are totally common and intuitive to be used with only one axis being active, e.g. throttle left Y axis and steering right X axis. Additionally it gives people the freedom to choose the left/right assignment for throttle and steering, and also provides flexibility for other use cases where more channels are required, or if people prefer a single handed control with both axes used.

[Tcm0]

2 hours ago, kbalage said:

Not sure why an x/y axis selector in the configuration would make things even more complicated. The current PU remote requires to define the behavior of 3 different buttons per side (+/-/red), this one would have an x/y axis selector for A and B joysticks. I would not call this one more complicated for sure.

That would depend on how the remote can be configured. Powered Up App and probably powered up vm or another way.

[gyenesvi]

This discussion got me thinking about how some details about configuring a physical remote could actually be implemented. While I agree with @kbalage that a simple controller with joysticks and a few buttons would be great for a lot of basic models, configuring it apart from the simplest use cases (like a car with throttle and steering) could be quite tricky. Two use cases I have in mind, that were made possible with PU technology and becoming more and more used are 1) linear actuators with end limits and 2) auto gearboxes (I guess people sticking with PF still don't appreciate advanced PU features that much and that the 'Up' in PU is not about more power, it's about more advanced control). While predefined control configs could be available for stock models, the question of configuration would still need to be solved for custom builds. And I guess doing so without an app would be preferable.. So how could it be done?

1) To configure the end limits, one would have to move the motor to both ends and then for example press and hold some buttons. Given that all joysticks and buttons could in principle be used with end limits, that would require either some way to select which one you want to configure first and then use a dedicated reset button, or quite a few extra buttons just for configuration for each joystick/button (along with switches for reversing control, as on a PF remote). That would require adding about 4 extra buttons to configure a 2-axis joystick.

2) The auto gearbox is even more complicated (but it's a pretty useful feature, since we can use 2 motors to control 4 functions, so I'd expect it to spread, as will be in the CAT dozer). In order for that to work, when you want to move for example a linear actuator, the app first issues a command to move the gearbox to the right position, and then say half a second later, it starts moving the motor itself. How would you configure that on a physical remote? I have no idea..

I guess all of this config could be easier done with the help of an app bridging between the controller and the hubs. After the config, the app would not be required. But even then, the config could become pretty involved. For the auto gearbox example above, I guess a dedicated auto gearbox control module would be necessary, where you'd have to configure how many functions it has with which motors, the gearbox positions, then for each function which joystick it's controlled with, in which direction, and with what end limits.

And then I guess there are other use cases that we don't even think about but TLG is investigating. So altogether, I'd say it's much more complex than the PF system, and I can understand why the app control was chosen first (although I'd also really like a physical one), and why it takes some time to come up with a satisfying solution.

[Tcm0]

3 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

1) To configure the end limits, one would have to move the motor to both ends and then for example press and hold some buttons. Given that all joysticks and buttons could in principle be used with end limits, that would require either some way to select which one you want to configure first and then use a dedicated reset button, or quite a few extra buttons just for configuration for each joystick/button (along with switches for reversing control, as on a PF remote). That would require adding about 4 extra buttons to configure a 2-axis joystick.

I really dislike solutions that use button combinations. Yes, it's often the only possibility but I forget them really fast and then I have to look them up all the time (yeah, you can also stick a paper to the controller with the combinations etc). Also, there would have to be some kind of feedback which mode/combination got activated via LEDs or something.

Also, you need configuration for everything. You have to configure if you use a normal car (one motor for steering and one for speed) or if you use tank controls (one motor for the left side and one for the right side). What about models that use 2 motors per side? I don't think that there is an alternative to an app for the configuration of the remote. There are simply too many possibilites (and maybe even hubs in the future which we don't know yet). An app would also be required to get updates to support new hardware (new motors etc).

And what about other models? GBCs, trains etc? Would a normal remote be good for them as well?

[howitzer]

I see no need for the possibility to configure the controls using just the remote. I think it's perfectly acceptable that you must make the control profile with a smart device, but after configuration it needs to be possible to have the program loaded into the hub so that you can disconnect the smart device and just use the controller to do whatever you want to do. Of course MOC makers who give away/sell instructions could provide the controller program along with the building instructions and so on.

[kbalage]

I agree with @howitzer, I don't think there's a need to be able to configure the controller on its own. All other similar environments require in-app configuration, like BC2 or SBrick. Pybricks obviously needs some coding before installing the configuration on the hub, and the LEGO VM solution would also require a similar (visual) configuration of the motors and/or other items in the app, so the controller setup can also happen there.

Advanced settings like the mentioned endpoint setup for actuators or the stepper configuration for the gearbox should be made in the app anyway. I don't think the goal is to have a completely app-less system for the setup, since the smart motors require some setup anyway. The aim is to give users the ability to download and run the completed configuration to the hub and to be able to play with the remote without the constant need of the smart device acting as a bridge between them. Of course the app could provide some ready made configurations to download for the official sets to use and to tweak for the inexperienced users.

[gyenesvi]

I agree with you guys as well that an app would be needed for config, just wanted to point out some difficulties for those who might think a totally app-free controller is reasonable to expect, and the complexities that are present event with an app-based config.

[2GodBDGlory]

So, I was doing some coding in the Powered Up app tonight, and I started noticing some glitches. I wondered if maybe the app needed to be updated, but I couldn't find it in the app store anymore. Eventually I managed to get to it in a roundabout way, only to find a message that "This app isn't compatible with your device anymore. Contact the developers for more info."

My device is a Motorola G5 Plus, but strangely the Boost, Mindstorms, and Control+ apps still seem fine. Has anyone else had a similar problem, or know why this would be? If not I guess I might need to contact the developers!

Also, are there any other apps that allow a similar level of programmability for the Technic hub?

[ord]

@2GodBDGlory there was a topic in the Mindstorms forum recently that might help:

As far as I know, there are no other apps that offer both the programmability and the control (buttons, sliders, etc.) that the Powered Up app does. 

[Tcm0]

I think that sbrick supports powered up devices but it costs 10€. I'm also not sure about the features/programmability. There is a current app and a beta for a new app.

[kbalage]

I checked and my cheap Android tablet is 64 bit so it runs the latest PU app version, but the RedMi 7a phone does not since it has a 32 bit Android version. I'll try to reach out to the PU team for further details about this change.

[2GodBDGlory]

Thanks for the response, guys!

Fortunately, I figured out my current issue in the code, and I can still use the already-downloaded version, so I guess I'm alright for now, though I'll likely miss out on all updates.

[Akbalder]

How to redo the building tests of a model? The app seems to try to connect to the full model (the 2 hubs of the Liebherr) instead of letting me select the first building step!

[kbalage]

52 minutes ago, Akbalder said:

How to redo the building tests of a model? The app seems to try to connect to the full model (the 2 hubs of the Liebherr) instead of letting me select the first building step!

You go to the profile, tap on the menu button (top left), then on the settings icon (bottom right with the sliders), and there you have an icon with gears and a magnifying glass. That's the testing.

[Akbalder]

21 minutes ago, kbalage said:

You go to the profile, tap on the menu button (top left), then on the settings icon (bottom right with the sliders), and there you have an icon with gears and a magnifying glass. That's the testing.

When I do that, the app asks me to switch on the second hub instead of the first one. It doesn't let me select the first building step.

[kbalage]

2 hours ago, Akbalder said:

When I do that, the app asks me to switch on the second hub instead of the first one. It doesn't let me select the first building step.

Interesting, I don't have the set with me but if I recall I could tap on the previous steps to do them again. On Android devices you can delete the app's data, that will practically reset it. Or you can reinstall and that'll have the same effect.

[Akbalder]

I had to reset the data of the model to be able to select the first test.

The app is badly done if the only solution to select a building test is to reset all the data of a model.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

Death to the false PF! 

[leonema]

i'm having issue linking the control + android app to the 42124 buggy

because even if the location service is turned on the icon in app stays grey... :/

any hint how to solve that?

thanks

[Ngoc Nguyen]

2 hours ago, leonema said:

any hint how to solve that?

Reject C+, embrace PF 

[Maaboo the Witch]

1 minute ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Reject C+, embrace PF 

"he intoned, capering about a bonfire of burning smart hubs".

Glory to the hallowed infrared remote. 

[AVCampos]

Y'all will miss good ol' Powered Up by the time its successor comes, mock... I mean mark, my words! I remember people bashed PF left and right when it replaced 9V, and I bet people would have bashed 9V when it replaced 4.5V if the Internet were widespread in those days, yet PF is now beloved.

Anyway, regarding the specific problem at hand... @leonema if location is on but its icon in the app is greyed out, did you allow the app to access the location services when it first asked to? If you refused, you need to re-allow it in the app's properties page, in your device settings.

[Jundis]

@leonema Dumb question, I know, but did you activate Bluetooth?

[leonema]

16 hours ago, AVCampos said:

Y'all will miss good ol' Powered Up by the time its successor comes, mock... I mean mark, my words! I remember people bashed PF left and right when it replaced 9V, and I bet people would have bashed 9V when it replaced 4.5V if the Internet were widespread in those days, yet PF is now beloved.

Anyway, regarding the specific problem at hand... @leonema if location is on but its icon in the app is greyed out, did you allow the app to access the location services when it first asked to? If you refused, you need to re-allow it in the app's properties page, in your device settings.

i allowed the app to access the location services, even checked in the app's properties page...

 

14 hours ago, Jundis said:

@leonema Dumb question, I know, but did you activate Bluetooth?

yes, the bluetooth is turned on and in fact the bluetooth icon is green

 

seems all so weird, before it worked... 

[Akbalder]

When nothing works, you can try to reboot your phone.