Lets "fix" powered up!

[Lok24]

9 hours ago, Bartybum said:

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

or build your own remote ;-)

Can be used with smartdevice, ESP, Arduino, Pybricks and so on....

 

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by Lok24

[gyenesvi]

16 hours ago, Zerobricks said:

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

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.

While I agree with your observation of these two extreme ends, I wonder how difficult it would be to cater for both to some degree. Given that the capabilities of PU are tuned for the 2nd camp, the main issue here would be to make simple cases simple, to satisfy the 1st camp. Supposing that by that we mean something like the simplicity of the PF system, it would be a good start to have a PU remote that can achieve at least what the PF remote could do; that means channel selection (port mapping) and direction reversing. So I started to think what would be required for that.

If we consider that there would be at least 4 channels to select from (but 6 in case of the larger hubs), then the number of buttons and their states for configuration would be too many to be placed on a small remote (I think something like the PU train remote would be a good start if it had two continuous joysticks instead of the buttons, plus a few more buttons on the top). In case of PF there were only 2 joysticks on the remote, with a reverser switch and one channel selector per receiver, while the port mapping on a single receiver-remote pair (red/blue) was fixed. Now if the PU system had separate receivers from the battery, the same system could possibly work, but that would not work with the current PU hubs, something more complex is needed.

We could go in the direction of @allanp's idea with a small touch screen in the remote that would allow configuration of the remote, but that would be already too big/complex/expensive I think. I wonder if some simpler way of config would be possible with some buttons and using an LED as feedback.

Something like this: there would be 4 config buttons on the remote; 1 button to start/finish config, 1 button for port selection, 1 button for direction selection and 1 button for mode selection. Config could go something like this: press the start config button. Then press the port button repeatedly to get the corresponding port (A - 1, B - 2, etc). The number of light blinks would acknowledge the selected port. Press the direction selector to switch directions. The light color could indicate the acknowledged direction (e.g. green - forward, red - reverse). Press the mode selector repeatedly to select mode (speed/servo/etc), the light color would indicate the selected mode (similarly to direction, just more colors). Move one of the joysticks (or press one of the control buttons) to indicate that that's what you want to associate the port with. Press the config button again to store the config. Repeat this for each joystick/port pair. Note that multiple ports could map to the same joystick, or multiple joysticks/buttons could map to the same port with different modes for example, each config sequence would add a new mapping. A long press of the config button could clear all mappings to allow starting over.

I think that could be comprehensive enough as a start - no reliance on app or too complex remote interface. For more complex cases (such as power limits for ports), there could still be an option to connect to the hub from an app and do something more fine-grained.

[Lok24]

With two city hubs and one remote you can connect the remote with the two hubs at the same time on different channels.
Channel selection via green button on remote.
Assigning ports: just change A and B on the hub
Reverse:just turn the knob on the remote 180°

(its the same with the move hub, where you control 4 Motors with one remote)

Isn't that similar to what you descibed?

Not resolved yet: bang bang mode and proportional control.

A new remote would solve - like with PF.

 

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by Lok24

[gyenesvi]

1 hour ago, Lok24 said:

With two city hubs and one remote you can connect the remote with the two hubs at the same time on different channels.
Channel selection via green button on remote.
Assigning ports: just change A and B on the hub
Reverse:just turn the knob on the remote 180°

(its the same with the move hub, where you control 4 Motors with one remote)

Isn't that similar to what you descibed?

Not resolved yet: bang bang mode and proportional control.

A new remote would solve - like with PF.

 

 

Yes it is similar in a very simplified form. Port selection can be omitted and solved by changing the cables on the hub when you only have two ports, but that does not really generalize to 4 or 6 ports (sometimes some ports can be blocked by the build itself, or cables may be short to reach further ports, I have had both cases happening). Furthermore mode selection should be addressed at least, along with proportional control as you say. I did not know direction reversing is possible though, but it should be possible for all button groups. That would mean one extra swich next to each joystick/button pair, which may be feasible, so that's also a possible way. The point is that one way or another, a remote that can configure itself seems doable, and some proportional joysticks should not be too hard either.

[allanp]

3 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

While I agree with your observation of these two extreme ends, I wonder how difficult it would be to cater for both to some degree. Given that the capabilities of PU are tuned for the 2nd camp, the main issue here would be to make simple cases simple, to satisfy the 1st camp. Supposing that by that we mean something like the simplicity of the PF system, it would be a good start to have a PU remote that can achieve at least what the PF remote could do; that means channel selection (port mapping) and direction reversing. So I started to think what would be required for that.

If we consider that there would be at least 4 channels to select from (but 6 in case of the larger hubs), then the number of buttons and their states for configuration would be too many to be placed on a small remote (I think something like the PU train remote would be a good start if it had two continuous joysticks instead of the buttons, plus a few more buttons on the top). In case of PF there were only 2 joysticks on the remote, with a reverser switch and one channel selector per receiver, while the port mapping on a single receiver-remote pair (red/blue) was fixed. Now if the PU system had separate receivers from the battery, the same system could possibly work, but that would not work with the current PU hubs, something more complex is needed.

We could go in the direction of @allanp's idea with a small touch screen in the remote that would allow configuration of the remote, but that would be already too big/complex/expensive I think. I wonder if some simpler way of config would be possible with some buttons and using an LED as feedback.

Something like this: there would be 4 config buttons on the remote; 1 button to start/finish config, 1 button for port selection, 1 button for direction selection and 1 button for mode selection. Config could go something like this: press the start config button. Then press the port button repeatedly to get the corresponding port (A - 1, B - 2, etc). The number of light blinks would acknowledge the selected port. Press the direction selector to switch directions. The light color could indicate the acknowledged direction (e.g. green - forward, red - reverse). Press the mode selector repeatedly to select mode (speed/servo/etc), the light color would indicate the selected mode (similarly to direction, just more colors). Move one of the joysticks (or press one of the control buttons) to indicate that that's what you want to associate the port with. Press the config button again to store the config. Repeat this for each joystick/port pair. Note that multiple ports could map to the same joystick, or multiple joysticks/buttons could map to the same port with different modes for example, each config sequence would add a new mapping. A long press of the config button could clear all mappings to allow starting over.

I think that could be comprehensive enough as a start - no reliance on app or too complex remote interface. For more complex cases (such as power limits for ports), there could still be an option to connect to the hub from an app and do something more fine-grained.

My idea doesn't have a touch screen, just a monochrome inexpensive LCD screen, a touch screen would be even better, but probably not absolutely needed. Although some programming of MOCs is inevitable for certain things, I think it could be made simple enough so that it could be done via a simple LCD screen. The unit itself would do most of the work, all you would be doing is selecting different settings to configure the inputs and outputs.

Edited July 31, 2023 by allanp

[eric trax]

I have the best idea. Stop produce C+ and bring back Power Functions + S-motor (3x3x3 stud). This will fix all C+ problems which was a bug by design it :)

[kolbjha]

I also miss the simplicity of PF. Just to illustrate:

A while ago my son and myself found out that we want to play together with the 42030 and 42114. He should use 42030 to load small lego piceces on the 42114 (which I was driving). He turned on the PF BB... and was ready to play. Myself... well, I had to find my cell phone, find and start the app, wait for updates, pairing, etc. and 1-2 minutes later I was ready to play...

[Lok24]

8 hours ago, eric trax said:

I have the best idea. Stop produce C+ and bring back Power Functions + S-motor (3x3x3 stud). This will fix all C+ problems which was a bug by design it :)

C+ is a programming language, and "Control+" is only the name of a LEGO APP ;-)
The system ist Powered Up. And in my opinion it is designed very well, and it offers things which before could only be built with the very expensive EV3.

8 hours ago, kolbjha said:

 Myself... well, I had to find my cell phone, find and start the app, wait for updates, pairing, etc. and 1-2 minutes later I was ready to play...

1.) You dont' have to use a cell phone, PU is an open system
2.) The possibilties to control the two sets are completely different....

 

[dmaclego]

9 hours ago, eric trax said:

I have the best idea. Stop produce C+ and bring back Power Functions + S-motor (3x3x3 stud). This will fix all C+ problems which was a bug by design it :)

 

Yes, please!  But one more thing is necessary to make Power Functions even better: switch from the ridiculous IR to RADIO control. Oh, and by the way,  I want my fully-rotating 9V polarity switches in the new Power Functions as well! :)

Also, I believe that killing off the Mindstorms line and including some of its capabilities into Powered Up was a huge mistake. Many of us are just interested in simple (or not so simple) mechanics+electrics  and do not need to pay extra money for tilt sensors, huge hubs, phone apps etc. Others, I daresay, would be happier with full-blown Mindstorms sets, with multiple sensors, programming and the whole shebang.

[gyenesvi]

51 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

C+ is a programming language, and "Control+" is only the name of a LEGO APP ;-)

Just for the record, the (widespread) programming language is called C++  ;-)

9 hours ago, eric trax said:

which was a bug by design it :)

A "bug by design" sounds like a contradiction.. (a bug is something that you did not really design)

But yeah, an S motor has always been missing from the lineup. I wonder if they actually had plans to produce one, as the naming would suggest, or maybe all the naming is just marketing crap..

3 minutes ago, dmaclego said:

But one more thing is necessary to make Power Functions even better: switch from the ridiculous IR to RADIO control.

Indeed that could have been also great but only with a proper multi-joystick proportional controller produced by Lego. It's sad that there was so much potential left on the table even for the PF system.

[eric trax]

3 hours ago, Lok24 said:

C+ is a programming language, and "Control+" is only the name of a LEGO APP ;-)
The system ist Powered Up. And in my opinion it is designed very well, and it offers things which before could only be built with the very expensive EV3.

Is that captain obvious? :O From the beginning I use the C+ shortcut which means Control+ and no one have problem with this :D

Lets be honest. The Control+ is mostly a duplication of the mindstorms system that few people used because of programming problems. It must be admitted that motors are easier to implement in the model.

For a long time after the introduction of the new system, a lot of people did not know how to use it outside of official profiles in applications. Still a lot of people don't know how to set it up. This system is the opposite of the Lego idea where anyone can build anything from a kit and easily make it work.

Another disadvantage is the cost of the C+ system. The components are very expensive. It's not about prices on the secondary market, but how they affect the prices of sets. The only one that had a relatively good price was 42100 where this system first appeared, but I assume that Lego priced this set at cost to convince customers to the new motors. After all, we all now complain that the Lego sets are too expensive

I know that encoders in engines give a lot of possibilities and gearboxes in sets are a nice feature, but in general for the average customer they are very frustrating. In addition, the encoder uses a lot of space inside the motor, which makes it much weaker than the equivalent power functions The PF system was ready for use. You need a phone and an application that must configure the model and update profiles frequently. This is a real problem that cannot be solved.

Once again. I know you can configure control+ to use a physical controller with the brickcontroler2 app but the average Lego user usually has no idea and is forced to use the phone. Just look at how people reacted negatively to Buwizz abandoning technic hub support for their app some time ago. End of the story :)

3 hours ago, Lok24 said:

1.) You dont' have to use a cell phone, PU is an open system.

How do you control Technic Hub without using your phone? I'm asking for a friend

 

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by eric trax

[Toastie]

8 minutes ago, eric trax said:

How do you control Technic Hub without using your phone?

With a hardware device that features Bluetooth low energy (BLE) functionality, as this is what PoweredUp/Control+/whatever name is using as communication means. This device can be i) a cell phone/tablet (TLG wants you to use) running LEGO software, ii) a computer/tablet - in that case PyBricks is one popular software to access/program the hubs via web interface, iii) a microcontroller, e.g., a board that features an ESP32 wroom module running Legoino, and iv) other alternatives that I am unaware of but bet there are.

The major difference between PyBricks and Legoino is that the code you compose in PyBricks is downloaded to the hub and then runs autonomously on the hub, whereas Legoino runs the code on the microcontroller board autonomously, which sends and receives data via BLE to/from the hub - sort of intelligent hub remote control, as you can use built-in hub features such as speed control and the like.

As far as I know, others may know much more on this!!!

Best,
Thorsten

[eric trax]

1 minute ago, Toastie said:

With a hardware device that features Bluetooth low energy (BLE) functionality, as this is what PoweredUp/Control+/whatever name is using as communication means. This device can be i) a cell phone/tablet (TLG wants you to use) running LEGO software, ii) a computer/tablet - in that case PyBricks is one popular software to access/program the hubs via web interface, iii) a microcontroller, e.g., a board that features an ESP32 wroom module running Legoino, and iv) other alternatives that I am unaware of but bet there are.

I know it, however, setting it up requires proper knowledge. Does the average Lego customer own it? NO. It's all about simple solutions that are understandable to everyone, not custom solutions for people who study this topic.

[Lok24]

15 minutes ago, eric trax said:

You need a phone and an application that must configure the model and update profiles frequently. This is a real problem that cannot be solved.

Only if you use Control+, which is just an App.
Not if you use Powered Up  with all it's other features.
One City hub and one PU remote do the same as a PF Remote Control Unit + Battery box + IR-Receiver.
But much smaller.

And does (and could always)  do the same as the PF Speed Control. Only a cable is missing.
Or a switch on the remote; thats what the discussion is about.

21 minutes ago, eric trax said:

How do you control Technic Hub without using your phone? I'm asking for a friend 

Just load a program into it.
Or use an ESP or Aduino.
Fell free to chose whatever is suitible for you.
This is essential to me, cause I have no cell phone....

BTW.: The fact that you can't connect a remote to a technic hub is not a fault in the "system", but not (yet) designed by LEGO.
Or is that available now?
For the move hub with 4 motors this is possible.

[eric trax]

12 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

Just load a program into it.
Or use an ESP or Aduino.
Fell free to chose whatever is suitible for you.
This is essential to me, cause I have no cell phone....

BTW.: The fact that you can't connect a remote to a technic hub is not a fault in the "system", but not (yet) designed by LEGO.
 

How many people in your environment do you know who can configure it? I'm not saying it can't be done, but hardly anyone wants to learn such things. It should be readily available right now after unboxing the set.

Yes, this is a system problem by design whole control+ concept. It should be as user-friendly as possible. The only elements that meet this condition are the small City hubs you mentioned. However, they should have 4 outputs for motor plugs, not two. Any model using more than two motors has to accommodate another hub, and this is often very difficult to do.

 

P.S Don't you think that an application that allows such configurations should be given to us by Lego? If it wasn't for the people who created these apps, it still wouldn't be possible. This is another big lack that Lego has not supplemented, as well as information on how to configure their application with a description of the individual functions of programming blocks.

Edited August 1, 2023 by eric trax

[Lok24]

4 minutes ago, eric trax said:

How many people in your environment do you know who can configure it? I'm not saying it can't be done, but hardly anyone wants to learn such things. It should be readily available right now after unboxing the set. 

It is.

5 minutes ago, eric trax said:

It should be as user-friendly as possible.

Or: it should be very flexible.

6 minutes ago, eric trax said:

Any model using more than two motors has to accommodate another hub,

2 hubs are the same size as a PF-Battery Box + 2 receiver

[eric trax]

1 minute ago, Lok24 said:

It is.

For you yes. For the average lego user, no.

We have a completely different view on this subject. You justify the problems of this system with patches created by kind people that improve its usability in some way. I say that its assumptions are wrong because it is simply too complicated for the needs of an ordinary person who plays with lego. Thats the point.

[Lok24]

14 minutes ago, eric trax said:

This is another big lack that Lego has not supplemented, as well as information on how to configure their application with a description of the individual functions of programming blocks.

Yes, it has been there: the Boost Set 17101.
7 years+, with more than 60 lession to learn that all.

 

4 minutes ago, eric trax said:

it is simply too complicated for the needs of an ordinary person who plays with lego.

1.) Buy a set
2.) it is indicated on the box, that smart device and app are needed
3.) Built the model
4.) Install App (only once for city and only once for technic, the PoweredUp App or control+)
5.) start and play

 

 

 

 

[gyenesvi]

I agree with @Lok24 that as a system, Powered Up is not inherently flawed, so we don't necessarily need a new system, the problem is that it does not live up to its potential, and as @eric trax says, many components have shortcomings. The hubs for one, and the motors as well, the PU variants are both larger and weaker at the same time, to the point that the XL misses its point of existence against the L. And NO, it is not readily available for the average user without some programming knowledge (which technic users don't want to have to learn). I for example only make alternate models of PU sets that are controllable with the original C+ profile because otherwise much fewer people would buy them.. (many actually ask if it is controllable)

 

 

13 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

1.) Buy a set
2.) it is indicated on the box, that smart device and app are needed
3.) Built the model
4.) Install App (only once for city and only once for technic, the PoweredUp App or control+)
5.) start and play

@Lok24, we are talking about the usability of the system for building your own models, not official sets. Nobody said that official sets would not work out of the box.

Edited August 1, 2023 by gyenesvi

[eric trax]

12 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

 

@Lok24, we are talking about the usability of the system for building your own models, not official sets. Nobody said that official sets would not work out of the box.

Unfortunately, our friend does not understand this. He picks up only those elements of posts that are easy for him to relate to.

[Lok24]

Ok, sorry missed that point.

Is referred to:

41 minutes ago, eric trax said:

It should be readily available right now after unboxing the set.

Did you ever try the PowerdUp app, the predefined customizable controls and all the other features?
I've been around on many exhibitions with boost, powerup Up and EV3 to play and learn with children, they could set up a simple(!) program in less than five minutes.

 

 

 

[dhc6twinotter]

It seems LEGO is thinning out the PU items available for purchase on their site.  The LED light, XL motor, and m are no longer listed on their PU page.  The Large Hub and medium angular motor are now 20% off.  

Even a lot of the PU related reviews on TLG website are bad.  Only the train stuff seems to be getting decent reviews.  

It would be neat if TLG offered a RF remote and receiver (either as part of a BB or a separate device).  They need to overhaul PU or replace it with something different. 

 

 

 

 

[allanp]

4 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

I agree with @Lok24 that as a system, Powered Up is not inherently flawed, so we don't necessarily need a new system, the problem is that it does not live up to its potential, and as @eric trax says, many components have shortcomings. The hubs for one, and the motors as well, the PU variants are both larger and weaker at the same time, to the point that the XL misses its point of existence against the L. And NO, it is not readily available for the average user without some programming knowledge (which technic users don't want to have to learn). I for example only make alternate models of PU sets that are controllable with the original C+ profile because otherwise much fewer people would buy them.. (many actually ask if it is controllable)

 

 

@Lok24, we are talking about the usability of the system for building your own models, not official sets. Nobody said that official sets would not work out of the box.

Actually, it wouldn't have worked out of the box for me as my smart phone was not compatible, I had to get a new one. 

It is clearly very difficult to please everyone, from those that want the simplicity and out the of the box readiness of PF to those that want the capabilities of PU. Both systems leave something to be desired from one side or the other. 

I get that we don't necessarily need a whole new system, but if we are to address all the issues and complaints surrounding PU you would need new motors, a new hub, the ability to program or at least basic configuration without the need for a computer or smart phone and so much other stuff that it basically amounts to a whole new system anyway does it not? Or at the very least a soft reboot of PU.

@Lok24 appears to believe everything we want is already there, we just have to expect that third party devs will always be there, write code, use Arduino, buy a smart device, buy a third party remote, just do all that and it's all there!  However, most Lego consumers don't know much about all that stuff, and many that do know of it's existence have little desire to learn it just to play with their Lego. 

Besides the batteries, Lego always came with everything you needed, including all documentation out of the box. Predecessors to PU such as the 90s control center and code pilot allowed all programming to be done on the unit itself, no firmware updates or computer needed. Mindstorms was understood to be an exception because coding was part of the idea of mindstorms. By melding mindstorms into Technic they seem to have compromised both. Simply putting "smart device required" on the box, whilst honest, doesn't actually do anything to help provide such a device, nor does it help to alleviate the issues that come directly from having to use a third party smart device, such as having more screen time, having to allow little Timmy to have a smart device or worse, borrow yours, having to wait for firmware updates, becoming obsolete landfill and the list goes on and on.

The idea behind my.....idea....was to try to meet in the middle. It's a compromise that probably won't please many people 100%, but would hopefully mostly please most people. 

Being Bluetooth based, it can still have optional compatibility with smart devices and computers enabling everything the PU crowd like, but a computer or smart device is no longer a necessary requirement even if you want a custom program for a custom MOC. By having separate receiver's, basic battery box with high current limit and retaining the already existing train remote for basic sets we can have the plug and play simplicity of PF, while for the big expensive flagships we can have the control center + which enables control, configuration and programming for something like 16 motors/sensors in a simple and easy way without the need for a smart phone or computer (though the option to do so will still exist it's not mandatory for programming custom MOCs) whilst also being a totally sweet physical remote that's far better for controlling your Lego creations than a third party remote because it was specifically designed by Lego to do exactly that, instead of being designed to play computer games. 

Besides being unfeasible (which I don't agree with as I think it's completely feasible), what's not to like? CC+ wouldn't have to cost more than the combination of two hubs and a decent third party remote and the separate receiver's mean that smaller and/or less electronically advanced sets wouldn't have to be as expensive as the current small sets with an entire smart hub just to control two motors. It can be as simple as PF, removes all concerns over the need for a smart device while retaining all the benefits of PU.

[Lok24]

13 hours ago, allanp said:

we just have to expect that third party devs will always be there, write code, use Arduino, buy a smart device, buy a third party remote, just do all that and it's all there! 

No. You don't have to do that all. But you can do it and use it . And I know many people who do that. Looking at exhibtrions and see what is moved by PU is impressive.
PF in that area is dead since a long time, cause it doesn't work.
It was replaced by SBRICK and a cell phone long ago.

 

13 hours ago, allanp said:

It can be as simple as PF,

It is. Take a remote and a a hub, connnect and run up to two or four motors.

 

13 hours ago, allanp said:

buy a smart device

You mean most of the people in the world have no cell phone?

 

13 hours ago, allanp said:

However, most Lego consumers don't know much about all that stuff,

You know that - from which source?
And: do they complain about that?

Or do you only mean so called AFOLs ?

13 hours ago, allanp said:

configuration and programming

This seems impossible to me. Configuration yes , programming no.

 

13 hours ago, allanp said:

Predecessors to PU such as the 90s control center

It does not allow feedback, no sensors at all, IIRC.

And it is not wireless, an important point.

Could you save different / how many "programs"?

Edited August 2, 2023 by Lok24

[Bartybum]

14 hours ago, allanp said:

It's a compromise that probably won't please many people 100%, but would hopefully mostly please most people.  

Until they realise how much money they need to fork out.

14 hours ago, allanp said:

Besides being unfeasible (which I don't agree with as I think it's completely feasible), what's not to like? CC+ wouldn't have to cost more than the combination of two hubs and a decent third party remote

Problem is that I could very easily see Lego charging upwards of $500AUD for a programmable transmitter (which is how much a Mindstorms hub cost here pre-Covid), based on the functions you've described. It's a huge software engineering challenge as well for a company like Lego. I'm not confident that it'd end up being as cheap as you think, not only due to that but also the low consumer demand causing it to not be able to take advantage of economies of scale as much as the smart hub or motors.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Bartybum