Lets "fix" powered up!

[Lok24]

33 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

Why would it not? Do you mean the encoders? They are integral to the PU system. Or I misunderstand you..

to me it's a difference if a "system" doesnt support some function or if the products just are too big, too weak or even missing.

In other words, it's not "PU" but the missing products with PU/Spike.

Of cause other remotes with other properties are possible - but not yet developed.

 

[Bartybum]

6 hours ago, Lok24 said:

What would be better with motors without encoder?
There is just one , the train motor. 

Or any skid steering vehicle, or any motor being used for drive, or any motor used for a two-way switch, or for a linear actuator, or winch - literally any function that doesn't require precision could be done without an encoder.

6 hours ago, Lok24 said:

But if you have a dumb motor and you build something new or do some experiments you then have to buy a new motor. 

Only if you have a smart hub. If you have a smart hub then it's likely that you already have at least one encoded motor. Have a look at all the RC C+ sets released to date - only the app-controlled transforming vehicle didn't come with any precision functions. It also just so happens that a skid steering vehicle is the only type of vehicle that doesn't require any precision, so while what you're describing is possible, it's also unlikely.

6 hours ago, Lok24 said:

What would be better with motors without encoder?
There is just one , the train motor

I'm also not suggesting to remove encoders entirely, just to offer both smart and dumb motors

[Lok24]

5 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

just to offer both smart and dumb motors 

Yes I understand that, but I asked: why? What is the idea selling motors without?

 

[Mikdun]

14 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

skid steering vehicle

I've build several skid steer vehicle and never ever both sides runs with the same speed. Small differences in motors, friction, no speed control and you are not going streigth.

With encoders you program speed and that's it, regardless of load (to the limit of course).

[Bartybum]

8 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

Yes I understand that, but I asked: why? What is the idea selling motors without?

To not have to spend $40AUD for a single medium motor. I could spend $20 back in the PF days for the same thing. It gives me the absolute sh*ts that they pulled PF from the shelves, stuck an encoder in its butt and slapped a 100% markup on it as if the motors became god's gift to mankind.

4 minutes ago, Mikdun said:

I've build several skid steer vehicle and never ever both sides runs with the same speed. Small differences in motors, friction, no speed control and you are not going streigth.

With encoders you program speed and that's it, regardless of load (to the limit of course).

Is the difference that big? In any case, I guess that just means that as long as you have a smart hub, then you're guaranteed to have an encoded motor already.

Edited July 29, 2023 by Bartybum

[Mikdun]

15 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Is the difference that big?

Can be. It's annoying to pay attention all the time to keep it straight.

16 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

I guess that just means that as long as you have a smart hub, then you're guaranteed to have an encoded motor already.

Not sure what You mean. Wit PF there is no control what's the motor is doing. With PU there can be.

The cost of encoders is really not that big, it's just Lego charging premium for it.

[Bartybum]

4 minutes ago, Mikdun said:

Not sure what You mean. Wit PF there is no control what's the motor is doing. With PU there can be.

Nah don't worry, it was to do with what I was talking about with the other guy.

4 minutes ago, Mikdun said:

The cost of encoders is really not that big, it's just Lego charging premium for it.

From memory even the PF servo cost almost the same as the PU L motor. LEGO's charging a premium for encoded motors, so I want basic motors back to get around having to pay that premium. I guess Bricklink exists though, so...

Edited July 29, 2023 by Bartybum

[Lok24]

39 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

To not have to spend $40AUD for a single medium motor.

Ok. Just had a look on lego page, it says medium Motor 27,99 $, train motor 22,99 $
The L-Motor is available too, 29,99 $

 

 

Edited July 29, 2023 by Lok24

[2GodBDGlory]

On 7/28/2023 at 9:16 AM, gyenesvi said:

Good to know some people use it and it works nicely. But I never seen it in MOCs or in FB either, not just here. And I think such drop-in replacements are sort of allowed here, just like Buwizz.

I've used those AliExpress receiver/remote setup quite a few times now, and it works very nicely! It's more reliable than my aging collection of PF receivers, and has great range. They do feel a little cheap in the plastic quality, and the levers on the remote don't move as far, but I've been quite happy with them.

52 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

I'm also not suggesting to remove encoders entirely, just to offer both smart and dumb motors

The modern M-motor doesn't have encoders, does it? It's just rarely used in sets (so expensive on Bricklink), and was very expensive from Lego (2X the essentially identical PF one? I think), though it appears to be retired on at least their Canadian page

[Lok24]

7 minutes ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

The modern M-motor doesn't have encoders, does it

There ist only one "medium", the 88008 "Medium Linear Motor", and it has an encoder and was sold with the Boost Set.

Perhaps you meant the old 45303, looking like the PF-M? This isn't sold any more (since last year)? (and had no encoder)

 

[2GodBDGlory]

5 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

There ist only one "medium", the 88008 "Medium Linear Motor", and it has an encoder and was sold with the Boost Set.

Perhaps you meant the old 45303, looking like the PF-M? This isn't sold any more (since last year)? (and had no encoder)

 

Yeah, that's the one I mean

https://www.lego.com/en-ca/product/simple-medium-linear-motor-45303

[dhc6twinotter]

23 hours ago, Bartybum said:

This is an interesting solution, but I think the component would have better luck being used as a distributor, since the smart hub already has BT.

Each time the smart hub receives a command from the paired smartphone, it could send a signal out to one of the ports which has a distributor plugged in, along with an ID corresponding to one of the four ports, which then receives a signal.

There are a couple downsides that I could see, the most significant one being that once you have sixteen motors, you're really starting to chew into the battery capacity each time you play. Secondly, the circuitry would need to be beefed up to be able to accommodate four times the power and information. At that stage it might just be be easier to have two smart hubs, each with eight motors, or a distributor with 2 ports instead of 4. There will probably be extra costs with the new hub, which means that any time the smart hub is being used for small-potatoes MOCs, you're stuck with a huge beefcake of a hub that you just don't really need - I rarely ever see MOCs that need more than ten motors, let alone sixteen.

Yes, you’re right.  Using BT in the hub and simple distributer would work even better.  

I would be ok with there being some sort of limitation that only allows one port on each distributer to be powered at a time.  That would still allow four motors on a hub to run simultaneously, and that’s good enough for me.  I’ve never needed to run more than four motors at once.   

A hub with eight ports would work well too.  

I’ve never built a moc with 16 motors.  9 motors is the most I’ve ever used in a MOC, but I did have a MOC planned with 13.  Never got around to building it though.  
 

 

[Moz]

1 hour ago, dhc6twinotter said:

I’ve never built a moc with 16 motors.

I've built a few, but they tend to be either repeats like the road train (six trailers, each with gate open + tip) or are complex enough that you probably don't want to operate more than a few functions at a time (tractor with bucket and backhoe).

What would be good is two channels with more current capacity so you can put a couple of XL motors on each for powering things like large crawler cranes. But still maybe 5A tops, at 9V or so.

In many ways having two 8 channel receivers makes more sense, it lets you put them in different parts of the model. It's still one part from the manufacturers point of view, it "just" requires software that can control more than one at a time. Which is useful anyway, letting you the owner have one controller for multiple models and even control more than one at a time, or switch between them quickly and easily (using a forklift or digger to (un)load a truck for example)

I do wonder whether standard RC controllers would be the way to go, with the design effort going into a dedicated brick-compatible receiver. A basic 8-10 channel transmitter is about $100 from China and there's a few decent brands to choose from. Or you can get the RC car style pistol grip things that are simpler to operate (at the high end RC transmitters have several analogue joysticks as well as a bewildering array of buttons and switches)

[allanp]

I don't think the control center + with PF2.0 idea is quiiiiiite as bats%$t crazy as it sounds.

In terms of cost, yes, the control center itself would be more expensive to make than a single smart hub, but larger and more expensive sets require multiple hubs. You would only ever need one control center, and it would also double as a physical remote better than any third party one you could buy as it would be designed specifically to control Lego creations and somewhat mimic the real life controls of real machinery. How much would it be to buy 2 hubs directly from Lego and a decent but smaller and way less cool looking third party physical remote? And in my case a smart phone to go with it? Control center + would have a decently powerful computer chip (like maybe what EV3 had or something, about $10?) in a large but mostly empty enclosure with some physical controllers, 2.4gHz radio and an inexpensive LCD screen. It would have a massive "WOW" factor that I think would appeal to younger people. And because it uses separate receivers, smaller models could also use a much smaller and much cheaper remote for basic, direct control. The control center is only needed for the big and expensive sets but would also be available separately. 

And yes, that industrial piece of kit pictured above is very expensive, everything industrial is very expensive and the E-top being on there is also telling, there is a significant safety element involved in controlling a 5 axle crane with one of these things which costs a ton of money in testing and certification, and it certainly isn't sold in the numbers Lego would sell. All Lego has to do is put stupid little screws on the battery cover!

I really don't know anything about Python, or using it to control smart hubs or whatever, but if you wanted to control your own MOCs then wouldn't you need to be able to code your own program or at least know how to lift parts of existing code and mash them together? Maybe I'm just from a different generation, I know as a kid I would have wanted to play with something like what is pictured above than mess about with any kind of coding software. As an adult I can better appreciate it's uses but my 12 year old self would have just seen that as "boring nerdy s$%t". Control center + somehow feels both much more like a cool toy to play with, and also much more like playing with the real thing or build for real.

Part of the reason for creating this thread, and trying to come up with a new direction for when TLG eventually replaced powered up was all the complaints of no physical remote and the need for third party smart devices. Not everyone is happy for their kids to own a smart device or having to have more screen time to play with Lego, which has for me always been a way to reduce screen time. And not everyone likes buying things made by Chinese child labor to play with their Lego. And yes, I did have to buy a new smart phone as my current one at the time wasn't compatible, but I did it because I saw quite some potential in it, but less than a quarter of that potential has been reached in 4 or 5 years and now I know more about the system I think it never will be. And while 3rd party options exists, Lego Technic never used to have to rely of the existence of third party options just to make it a desirable product, doing so now is a step backwards. It's not for the sake of just wanting Lego to make everything, it for the sake of all these things mentioned above as well as having everything come in the box, no additional stuff needed, reducing screen time, increasing longevity, no need to code even for complex MOCs and if we are to have $700 price tags, making it feel more worth that price.

And I must re-emphasize, PU is not here forever and will be replaced with a whole new ecosystem eventually with all new hardware being developed for it. It has happened a few times before and will happen again, each time they do they try to address the concerns of the previous system. If you would have suggested the current PU system in the PF era people would have called that bats$%t also. 

But please don't think I don't like or enjoy reading all your comments either in support of or against it, although I firmly support my idea I am under no illusion of it being a fully formed idea and there's always room for improvements and completely different points of view. And I admit that when I suggested the PF2.0 idea with the control center +, I did think there would be a few more people excited for it. I guess it just goes to show how hard it is to come with a successor to PU or PF that pleases everybody 

Edited July 30, 2023 by allanp

[gyenesvi]

19 minutes ago, allanp said:

And I must re-emphasize, PU is not here forever and will be replaced with a whole new ecosystem eventually with all new hardware being developed for it.

I wonder when that time will come though. More concretely, I am trying to think what would trigger that. I think the transition from PF to PU was triggered by the need to replace the IR communication with something more reliable, and the need to be able to create more complex things by relying on programmability, like inverse kinematics, robotics, etc, and trying to keep up with concurrent products like Sbrick and Buwizz at the time. I believe in these regards the current PU system is far from getting old anytime soon. By that I mean the systemic aspects. Probably / hopefully components will evolve over time, such as new motors / sensors may be introduced, new hubs / new firmware could even be introduced, rechargeable battery could be introduced, I could even imagine a separate battery and receiver be introduced, existing remotes could be supported. But all that is still not a new system, that is just making the current system fulfil its potential. Because there's a lot of potential left on the table yet. But I don't see the need for a fundamentally new system right now, as long as there's no technological innovation that supersedes the current one. Even if motor technologies change, for example to go brushless (highly unlikely), the current system could absorb that, as it is quite flexible in its current form. And I think the future is more SW driven and digital, as opposed to the physical building block idea that you have, simply because digital is much more capable and flexible. True that lego traditionally operates more in the physical realm, but I think in terms of RC control, a balance of physical and digital as we have currently is necessary and quite okay for the future.

[Lok24]

1 hour ago, allanp said:

I really don't know anything about Python, or using it to control smart hubs or whatever, but if you wanted to control your own MOCs then wouldn't you need to be able to code your own program or at least know how to lift parts of existing code and mash them together?

No, not at all.
You just have to load a program into your hub. That's all.

But you also can use Smart Devices, then programs can be shared via LEGO Life.

And such control centers could  be used (and are used) due to the open architecture with the existing PU/Spike-Hubs.

It's just a question where the operative code is placed.
 

 

[allanp]

2 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

I wonder when that time will come though. More concretely, I am trying to think what would trigger that. I think the transition from PF to PU was triggered by the need to replace the IR communication with something more reliable, and the need to be able to create more complex things by relying on programmability, like inverse kinematics, robotics, etc, and trying to keep up with concurrent products like Sbrick and Buwizz at the time. I believe in these regards the current PU system is far from getting old anytime soon. By that I mean the systemic aspects. Probably / hopefully components will evolve over time, such as new motors / sensors may be introduced, new hubs / new firmware could even be introduced, rechargeable battery could be introduced, I could even imagine a separate battery and receiver be introduced, existing remotes could be supported. But all that is still not a new system, that is just making the current system fulfil its potential. Because there's a lot of potential left on the table yet. But I don't see the need for a fundamentally new system right now, as long as there's no technological innovation that supersedes the current one. Even if motor technologies change, for example to go brushless (highly unlikely), the current system could absorb that, as it is quite flexible in its current form. And I think the future is more SW driven and digital, as opposed to the physical building block idea that you have, simply because digital is much more capable and flexible. True that lego traditionally operates more in the physical realm, but I think in terms of RC control, a balance of physical and digital as we have currently is necessary and quite okay for the future.

Oh, I ditched the physical code block idea, that was my first idea in this thread but others pointed out that it would take up way too much space. PF2.0 with it's control center + doesn't use physical code blocks. Programs can be created via the integrated LCD screen or via optional connection to a PC

And a year or so ago, I would have completely agreed with you. I did see a lot of potential in PU and I bought a whole new bloody smart phone because of it, but I don't think it's coming to be honest. They seem to have given up on adding physical remotes, the driver chips in the hub can only just barely handle the current motors let alone anything like a buggy motor, PU will always be smart device dependent if you want anything more than the most basic of control and I don't recall there being a new PU component this year or last year (in the Technic theme anyway). PF was only around for 10 years, PU has been around for half that already.

Or maybe I am thinking of things a bit wrongly here. What if, instead of control center + being based on 2.4gHz and a whole new system, it is based on bluetooth like PU? Hmmmmm, but for control center + you would still need the smart hub to communicate with and drive the motors, yes? Or maybe not....... if they released a new basic battery box (no driver chips, current limit of 7 amps or something to protect the cables) and a new stackable bluetooth receiver (which has beefier motor driver chips in it), but the PU cables aren't stackable which is another common complaint, but the new motors could have removable and stackable leads.....hmmmm.....we are getting close to a whole new system now.

Okay, so instead of PF2.0 what if it was PU2.0. It's basically the same idea I have above, with the control center +, basic battery box, separate receivers, new motors etc, but instead of being 2.4gHz it's now blue tooth based, but the cable plugs are now reverted back to the PF format, allowing stacking of plugs and compatibility of all formats including optional smart devices, PU, PF and even 9V. I mean, the PU trains didn't require a smart device did they? You just paired the hub to the physical remote. So I guess you could have any number of receivers connected to a basic battery box in the model, and then just pair them to the control center +. Is blue tooth any cheaper or better than 2.4gHz? I guess for the first year you would get a small model with basic battery box and a regular motor, a medium model with a basic battery box, a couple different motors, basic remote (like the current train remote) and receiver (with the motor driver chips). No programs, just basic RC functionality. Then for the big flagship you get a bunch of motors and receivers and basic battery boxes and control center +. It's all bluetooth based and cross compatible so they wouldn't have to call it a whole new system, but a kind of soft reset of PU with these new components. It makes the use of smart devices possible but optional.

1 hour ago, Lok24 said:

No, not at all.
You just have to load a program into your hub. That's all.

But you also can use Smart Devices, then programs can be shared via LEGO Life.

And such control centers could  be used (and are used) due to the open architecture with the existing PU/Spike-Hubs.

It's just a question where the operative code is placed.
 

 

Please forgive my noobishness, load what program? If I make a MOC and there's no program that exists for that MOC, what program would I load onto it?

Edited July 30, 2023 by allanp

[Lok24]

11 minutes ago, allanp said:

So I guess you could have any number of receivers connected to a basic battery box in the model, and then just pair them to the control center +

Yes it's all there.

Just use a Smart device, perhaps with the Powerd Up App or BUWIZZ app or BrickController 2, perhaps with Pybricks, perhaps with BAP, perhaps with an ESP or Arduino.
It's all there and all possible, foryears.

And of course you can use all motors, just need an adpter for the cables.

14 minutes ago, allanp said:

So I guess you could have any number of receivers connected to a basic battery box in the model, and then just pair them to the control center +.

Whatever this "Control center+ " might be, you have to configure witch element (Buttons i.e.)  influeces a special port on a special hub. Thats far more than "just pairing"

19 minutes ago, allanp said:

If I make a MOC and there's no program that exists for that MOC, what program would I load onto it?

For all LEGO Sets there are programs available.
For a MOC it depends on the requirements.
Even pretty simple looking things need some kind of "programming", if you want to use any of the features that PU offers.

26 minutes ago, allanp said:

PU will always be smart device dependent if you want anything more than the most basic of control 

Sure.Exactly what I meant.
And the "control center +" would be a special product as replacement existing solutions?

There is missing just a cabel converting an encoder motor to a dumb motor.

[allanp]

@Lok24 Well yeah of course you'd have to configure all that, by "just pairing" I meant for the communication between the control center + and the receivers. In this post I give a few examples of how you can configure to the point of being able to fully program control center + right from the unit itself, it's essentially a fully programmable physical remote, everything you need right out the box with no smart device required:

But a few posts after that I said we could ditch 2.4gHz in favor of bluetooth connectivity to make compatibility with the current PU system, as well as smart devices an optional feature, but not required. A lot of complaints revolve around the need to use a smart device, the need for more screen time (one thing that playing with Lego should aim to reduce, not increase) and no physical remote being available from Lego. Doing this kind of soft reboot of PU with control center +, new motors with removable and stackable leads, separate receivers and so on aims to solve all those complaints whilst retaining as many of the benefits as is practical to do so (though things like inverse kinematics might have to go unless they supply advanced premade programs, which is also a possibility, but I don't think I'd miss inverse kinematics TBH). "Just use a smart device" is not a solution to all the complaints that stem from having to use a smart device, especially not for parents and children but not for adults fans either.

With a blue tooth based control center +, Lego can still release premade programs for sets and you can still have all the same coding options available if you want it. But it's optional, you are not forced to, if you don't want to do any coding, that doesn't matter because control center + is fully programmable/configurable right on the device itself. If your smart device stops working and becomes obsolete and Lego has moved on and stopped supporting it, well that wouldn't matter either, just like the original control center from the 90s it'll still work and be fully configurable even if the 3rd party developers aren't there. Control center + would not require continued support from Lego, your smart device or any third parties to be fully functional, and it all comes in the box (as it really should for $700!) If you want to buy little Timmy a mahoosive liebherr excavator but you don't want to set him loose on a smart device, again, that doesn't matter because the set instructions come with step by step instructions on how to program your control center + based model right from the unit itself, just like they did with the previous control center sets and the code pilot of the barcode truck (which also still works), so full documentation will also be provided, which is another common complaint of PU.

19 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

For a MOC it depends on the requirements.
Even pretty simple looking things need some kind of "programming", if you want to use any of the features that PU offers.

Exactly so if a program didn't exist you would have to code your own program. 

[Lok24]

Okay, I think I quit.

To me it seems rather impossible to "program" on such an RC-device with a small Screen, it's difficult enough on a tablet.
(Configuration is ok)

The really simplest is an ESP, which holds different progs and can be configured with any device via web-browser.
And please note that the idea of PU includes the way to VM.
 

[Zerobricks]

I think the issue is there are 2 basic camps of users.

1st camp is people, who just wanna build a simple MOC like a car, plug and play with minimum or no programming/setup required, they couldn't care less about how the motors/stystem works and they want physical control.

2nd camp are people who want very a very flexible, complicated, fully programmable system with inverse kinematics, advanced functionality, compatiblity, who are very interested in the workings behind the system and the individual components and want to see all kinds of statistics, data, information shown, etc...

The issue is, I don't think there's an easy way for a singular system to satisfy the needs of both camps... So IMO there's no simple way to fix PU, since what needs fixing depends on each individual's needs.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Zerobricks

[Lok24]

10 minutes ago, Zerobricks said:

I think the issue is there are 2 basic camps of users.

Yes, and a wide variety in between.
I know many users (no AFOL,Mocs etc) wo just have bought the Liebherr (or similar)  and play around with it. None of them complains  using a smartphone, the opposite is true.

Even more: it is expected.

15 minutes ago, Zerobricks said:

1st camp is people, who just wanna build a simple MOC like a car, plug and play with minimum or no programming/setup required, they couldn't care less about how the motors/stystem works and they want physical control. 

Yes. Have a look what's missing.
If someone wants to use a smart device to control a car there is no problem, I assume.
If someone wants to use a remote to control a car there is a problem, which popped up with the 10277 "Krokodil".

The remote only works in bang-bang mode for motors with encoder.
Changing this (and allow to pair remote with technic hub) would help a lot.
Or a simple new remote with knobs which can be configured (with small switches like the PF Reciever)
(Note : PF had two remotes, too)
Or a cable which decodes a motor always as a train motor.

42 minutes ago, Zerobricks said:

2nd camp are people who want very a very flexible, complicated, fully programmable system with inverse kinematics, advanced functionality, compatiblity, who are very interested in the workings behind the system and the individual components and want to see all kinds of statistics, data, information shown, etc...

Thats all there.
It's just irrelevant for LEGO how and where the BT commands come from.

That's the idea of the PU System.
Something that was a sensation with SBrick and BUWIZZ, and now it's declared as "wrong"?

If you want to build complex Mocs (If Sensor = red then MotorA = Stop) then there is no way without programming - which can be simple.
If you just have a windmill and want to turn it on and or vary speed - train motor .

But the idea should be to solve this with simple things and not with a complex box or selling motors without encoders.

[Bartybum]

Radical idea - build an adjustable size cradle for your phone, with adjustable brickbuilt switches, buttons and joysticks with touch pads on the bottom to hit a corresponding button on the phone screen

Edited July 30, 2023 by Bartybum

[Mikdun]

On 7/29/2023 at 4:21 PM, Bartybum said:

Nah don't worry, it was to do with what I was talking about with the other guy.

Cheers then! :-)

On 7/29/2023 at 4:21 PM, Bartybum said:

so I want basic motors back to get around having to pay that premium

The issue here is economy of scale. Simple medium motor or Medium linear motor is barely used in lego sets so it's expensive on the market even when it's cheap to produce.

 

The good old PF required your brain do do the logic, PU shifts most of it to the smard device. In reality we have no choice - the world around is more and more computerized and the better kids understands how it works, the easier it will be for them to exist in future.I can see it around me, when some ones are left in the void because their wireless mouse has stopped working (yeah, just the battery is dead). Similarly usage of spreadsheets - how many in your office can do anything more than just typing in the numbers? Simple formulas are too much, but it's really very easy one you try.

[allanp]

8 hours ago, Mikdun said:

Cheers then! :-)

The issue here is economy of scale. Simple medium motor or Medium linear motor is barely used in lego sets so it's expensive on the market even when it's cheap to produce.

 

The good old PF required your brain do do the logic, PU shifts most of it to the smard device. In reality we have no choice - the world around is more and more computerized and the better kids understands how it works, the easier it will be for them to exist in future.I can see it around me, when some ones are left in the void because their wireless mouse has stopped working (yeah, just the battery is dead). Similarly usage of spreadsheets - how many in your office can do anything more than just typing in the numbers? Simple formulas are too much, but it's really very easy one you try.

I use spread sheets at work, they are very powerful indeed and fairly easy. But it still feels like work, the opposite of fun!