Lets "fix" powered up!

[Lok24]

1 hour ago, vascolp said:

In my opinion that is coding.

Ok ;-)

look at the lowest right sequence:
- 1. parameter : control-element you use (lever)
- 2. parameter: port of motor
- 3. parameter: speed
- 4. parameter : angle to move to (for the gear)

Three other sequences are the same, only with different parameters.

This is what you had to enter via the CC+ as well, I suppose.

The upper left drives two motors (and can still be simplified)
The upper right is calibration, and yes, that's programming, no doubt.
The lower left drives just motor C (and can still be simplified)

1 hour ago, vascolp said:

I mean, if I want to connect a PU motor to a motorless set just to see the fake engine spinning, I need to program?

No, you can use the "hub" and the remote.
The problem only occurs if you have a "technic hub". This is wrong has to be addressed to the COMPANY.

The picture shows the complete program for the CAT, and yes, sure, you have to learn it.
But it is far less complex than the gear in the CAT ....

[vascolp]

1 hour ago, Lok24 said:

look at the lowest right sequence:
- 1. parameter : control-element you use (lever)
- 2. parameter: port of motor
- 3. parameter: speed
- 4. parameter : angle to move to (for the gear)

Three other sequences are the same, only with different parameters.

This is what you had to enter via the CC+ as well, I suppose.

The upper left drives two motors (and can still be simplified)
The upper right is calibration, and yes, that's programming, no doubt.
The lower left drives just motor C (and can still be simplified)

I have had my share with visual programming... and I do prefer to program in text... I think I will never learn those code blocks!

But I fear those litle squares might frighten people that do not know about computers. 

[Lok24]

44 minutes ago, vascolp said:

But I fear those litle squares might frighten people that do not know about computers

Might be But they are used to wipe on their smartphone.

I was around for years with 2 EV3, 2 Boost, some PU Hubs on many exhibitions to show parents what their children would do with those sets.
No one was afraid, and in summary all children from 5 to 6 years on learned to solve a given task in less then 5 minutes

Here is the "lab"

http://www.werner-falkenbach.de/bricks/PUremote/lab.jpg

None of the parents complained about using a smart device, on the contrary : fascination about the combination of both, smart device and LEGO.

on the left: 3 MOCs to play with them, driven by EV3, in the middle the Boost (with Vernie (17101) and a simple MOC-robot, only 12 parts), on the right hand side the PU/Python area

I also have a quick tutorial: "learn to program in 5 minutes" ;-)
But now back to topic!

Edited August 22, 2023 by Lok24

[vascolp]

6 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

I was around for years with 2 EV3, 2 Boost, some PU Hubs on many exhibitions to show parents what their children would do with those sets.
No one was afraid, and in summary all children from 5 to 6 years on learned to solve a given task in less then 5 minutes

 

I know that there are many people interested. But look around, there are also those who don't like :-)

I think that a nice firmware with simple general purpose features like in ie remote bla bla, but configurable with specific app in a smartphone, would atract many more people.

[Lok24]

2 minutes ago, vascolp said:

I think that a nice firmware with simple general purpose features like in ie remote bla bla, but configurable with specific app in a smartphone, would atract many more people. 

Yes, that's the gap between  the actual remote, a remote "level 2" and the CC+.

But I showed already  how to create this (i.e. via Browser).
So we have Powered Up, we have your program, what's missing is only a website.

I had that for the ESP32, you could there configure your program/MOC while running via any browser, just by connecting to the ESPs WLAN.

[allanp]

7 hours ago, Mikdun said:

Why spring? Just place to add lego shock absorber (which isn't really shock absorber  ).

I never know what to call that part, many call it a shock absorber but it's really only a spring. You could also use a rubber band/silicone drive belt.

5 hours ago, Lok24 said:

I would prefer a "booster", that means: one hub, and a second small box, the booster,  connected to the hub, with two more lead-outs, C + D

That might be an option, however it would require that we keep the technic hub yes? Why do we need to keep it if we can use small, stackable, PF style BLE receivers? The receivers can be controlled via the train remote, control center + or, if you really want , a smart device. Removing the smart hubs and moving the main computer chip(s) to the CC+ is to try to keep the cost reasonable. Buuuuuut, if you want to use a smart hub(s) with CC+ I guess you could still do so, as you might already have some or get them on the second hand market.

5 hours ago, Lok24 said:

Did you  try to do programming on a 6" smart phone?  Here it is, with a 1x1 round to compare

I would recommend 10" as a minimum for programming, which is much easier on a touch panel.

Yeah, all my PU programming "fun" has been done on my smart phone which is smaller than 6". Are you suggesting that it's not enough to use any smart device, but we must now also buy a tablet in order for PU to be considered a complete product?

I agree it should be made easier instead of harder, but remember, you can only configure one code block/bit of code at a time, you don't need a huge screen for that as long as you can scroll around, and a host of pre-programmed and configurable advanced code blocks should also make things a lot easier. Advanced steering of multiple axles and many different steering modes can be done from a single pre-programmed configurable code block, and we could have advanced code blocks for automatic gearboxes, manual/function switching gearboxes, sequential gearboxes, multi pneumatic valve control with automatic compressor output, winches and so on and so on. We could even have a blank advanced code block, into which you can create your own advanced code block and use it in another profile, like running a custom program within a custom program.

4 hours ago, vascolp said:

In my opinion that is coding.

I agree. There seems to be some confusion between the terms coding and programming and configuring, but on some level it's all the same, it's creating a custom profile for your model. 

4 hours ago, vascolp said:

I mean, if I want to connect a PU motor to a motorless set just to see the fake engine spinning, I need to program? That is what make people complain so much and wanting to go back to PF.

This is why I am advocating going to PF style BLE receivers and upgrading the train remote to also be usable to control Technic models, and most other non train models. Most stuff would be similar to PF but with BLE in place of IR and a better, proportional remote, and the basic default functionality of PU with the train hub and remote. You don't need a whole new system I don't think, just get rid of the technic hub and replace it with BLE receivers and upgrade the train remote, oh and of course introduce Control center +, which is used for the BIG stuff (like the Liebherrs) and is what allows for the creation of custom profiles without need of anything else, no phones, tablets or anything, it all comes in the box and is as future proof as the original control center. But of course you can still use your smart devices with it if you want to. Having separate receivers also opens the future possibility of higher power V2 receivers for buggy motors in L-motor format and all sorts of things. 

Edited August 22, 2023 by allanp

[Mikdun]

16 hours ago, Lok24 said:

you mean the coding blocks in the power Up app

Yeah, I mixed those. 

16 hours ago, Lok24 said:

and here it is:

Yes, but... 

It's just pure block description, and not even for all blocks! And it should be available from day one, not few years after launch.

If you want to see what I mean for good documentation look for Commodore 64 users guide.

16 hours ago, Lok24 said:

This what I wrote, you should operate your MOC without if you like, and this possible today. And many people do so.

Haven't seen any yet, but for sure there are some.

Using your example, I set it up and what's next? Shut down the phone/tablet and my Cat will work without it? I'm not using anything other than stock Lego parts and programs.

If I understand correctly You are showing that "programming" is not that scary (and I agree), but here device with screen is still necessary.

16 hours ago, vascolp said:

I mean, if I want to connect a PU motor to a motorless set just to see the fake engine spinning, I need to program?

Not if You use non-BT Powered Up box 

[Lok24]

3 hours ago, Mikdun said:

It's just pure block description, and not even for all blocks!

Really? To me it seemed complete.What is missing?
You used the link I posted and not any old one? (the BOOST i.e ?)

3 hours ago, Mikdun said:

Using your example, I set it up and what's next? Shut down the phone/tablet and my Cat will work without it?

No, the idea is to load the program permanently into the hub and use a remote.
This is what pybricks does and what is planned by LEGO (VM-Ware), already announced.

3 hours ago, Mikdun said:

If I understand correctly You are showing that "programming" is not that scary (and I agree), but here device with screen is still necessary.

Yes. Like with the proposed CC+.

@vascolp For adding a motor to your you could just use a Battery Box. Or the remote, and yes, this is missing for the technic hub.

 

[Mikdun]

8 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

Really? To me it seemed complete.What is missing?
You used the link I posted and not any old one? (the BOOST i.e ?)

OK, you are right, when I download the PDF seems to be full.

How about "real guide" and not only list of blocks? Hope you see the difference.

11 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

No, the idea is to load the program permanently into the hub and use a remote.
This is what pybricks does and what is planned by LEGO (VM-Ware), already announced.

So good direction, but it's not here yet.

12 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

Yes. Like with the proposed CC+.

No. What @allanp is proposing is SuperRemote. Here you have to use smartphone/Tablet to play with your bricks.

[Lok24]

16 hours ago, allanp said:

Why do we need to keep it if we can use small, stackable, PF style BLE receivers?   Removing the smart hubs and moving the main computer chip(s) to the CC+ is to try to keep the cost reasonable.

The difference from my point of view is: you need thew BLE-Part of the electronic in each receiver, and you have to pair every receiver separately. And address them separately.
With a booster you would have one receiver (in the "hub") and only increase the number of ports.

If you are looking for a battery-box 88015  : 35 €. A PF IR Receiver as a pricing example for two ports : 20 € 
Means : 55 € for two ports, the hub 88009  is about 50,-- €
Or 75 € for four ports, where 88012  is about 80 €.*
I doubt that you can save money when buying LEGO ....
As you said: the pricing has nothing to do with the production cost.

Another disadvantage would be that you have two concurrent "systems".

16 hours ago, allanp said:

Are you suggesting that it's not enough to use any smart device, but we must now also buy a tablet in order for PU to be considered a complete product?

No, not all. I understood that that you wanted to do programming on the CC+ with a pretty small screen. (and not only configuration), here:

16 hours ago, allanp said:

can only configure one code block/bit of code at a time, you don't need a huge screen for that

 

16 hours ago, allanp said:

oh and of course introduce Control center +, which is used for the BIG stuff (like the Liebherrs)

There are 5 Sets in 5 years, i doubt that there there are that many pieces to get an acceptable price.

16 hours ago, allanp said:

and we could have advanced code blocks for automatic gearboxes, manual/function switching gearboxes, sequential gearboxes, multi pneumatic valve control with automatic compressor output, winches and so on and so on. We could even have a blank advanced code block, into which you can create your own advanced code block and use it in another profile, like running a custom program within a custom program.

This is the concept of the apps since 2017, starting with 17101 "BOOST" set.
Very many of the coding blocks in the app are such "combined/predifined functions", and the "own" function  blocks you mentioned are called "composite blocks".

I already showed the the two function blocks for a car, one steering, one driving.That's all.

So it's all there, the main differences:
- using a smart device
- using icons instead of text  (languge independent)
- creating complex programs possible

BTW
** Real prices for the both Hubs on BL: 25-30 € , new, sealed.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Lok24

[Lok24]

31 minutes ago, Mikdun said:

How about "real guide" and not only list of blocks? Hope you see the difference.

Sure. I think what you expect is something like a "how to start coding" with examples. This is missing.
It was there with the BOOST App. It's really a pity that this isn't available any more.

But if you are interested in that you find lots of tutorials and books. Or just try it ;-)

33 minutes ago, Mikdun said:

So good direction, but it's not here yet.

This thread is about something that isn't here yet ;-)

[Lok24]

6 hours ago, Lok24 said:

It was there with the BOOST App. It's really a pity that this isn't available any more.

Ooops, just see that set is still buyable, would not have expected that.

But the prices....
 

 

[allanp]

8 hours ago, Lok24 said:

The difference from my point of view is: you need thew BLE-Part of the electronic in each receiver, and you have to pair every receiver separately. And address them separately.
With a booster you would have one receiver (in the "hub") and only increase the number of ports.

Ah okay, So we could have one hub with one receiver and some "boosters" to add more ports without adding more hubs? Would these boosters be stackable?

The BLE receivers I'm thinking of would only need power and so would be easily stackable. Pairing multiple of them would be like pairing to multiple trains or switching to the correct switches of the PF system. As the PU ports are fairly small, I could see a roughly PF receiver sized BLE receiver having 4 ports on one BLE receiver. 

8 hours ago, Lok24 said:

Yes. Like with the proposed CC+.

Yeah, I do agree that some form of screen is a must for more complex programs. The code pilot could do very basic programs but for more than that I agree we need a screen of some sort.

9 hours ago, Lok24 said:

No, the idea is to load the program permanently into the hub and use a remote.

What do you use to load the program into the hub, a smart device? What do you use to create the program, a tablet? If these extra things are required it's not a complete system. I do think these extra things are fine for Mindstorms, as that theme is focused on the coding and programming side of things, and it was a shame they are ending it, but it's just not right for all the other Lego themes including Technic.

8 hours ago, Lok24 said:

I understood that that you wanted to do programming on the CC+ with a pretty small screen.

That's correct.

8 hours ago, Lok24 said:

This is the concept of the apps since 2017, starting with 17101 "BOOST" set.
Very many of the coding blocks in the app are such "combined/predifined functions", and the "own" function  blocks you mentioned are called "composite blocks".

That's cool, but we still need a smart device to configure them.

[gyenesvi]

3 hours ago, allanp said:

Ah okay, So we could have one hub with one receiver and some "boosters" to add more ports without adding more hubs? Would these boosters be stackable?

The BLE receivers I'm thinking of would only need power and so would be easily stackable. Pairing multiple of them would be like pairing to multiple trains or switching to the correct switches of the PF system. As the PU ports are fairly small, I could see a roughly PF receiver sized BLE receiver having 4 ports on one BLE receiver. 

Not sure I understand the booster idea, could you guys elaborate? What electronics would be in the hub, and what in the booster? And through what cable would the booster connect to the hub? I guess the same PU wire does not suffice, because then the data of multiple ports need to flow through 1 cable at some point (not impossible, but more cumbersome to implement and potentially slower). As for the electronics, I guess there is need for a generic processor for running the FW processing the inputs and generating the control signals, and there is a need for a BT receiver and some motor controllers somewhere. In the PF system, there was no generic processor for running any FW, that is why it was probably easier to make a separation. A possible way of separation could be duplicating all the electronics into the receiver unit (processor, BT receiver, motor controller) and the hub would contain just a battery, as for PF. But that would probably be the same price as the current hub, and even its size could become considerably bigger than that of a PF receiver due to the processor included, and the remote controller would need to connect to two processors (like two hubs now), which would make configuration even more complicated. I don't think it would be easy to keep the processor in the hub while separating out the BT receiver and the motor controller into a booster unit, because the data flow between them would need more bandwidth than a single cable can allow.

I think a good compromise could be a hub that has 6 ports but at the size of roughly 9x5x4 studs (length x width x height) with a rechargeable 2s LiPo battery. But that's probably never going to be included in regular Technic sets due to more complicated distribution regulations for rechargeable batteries. Also another big problem is that often motors need to be stacked / coupled for driving larger models, and that uses up multiple ports. That is why motors with larger power would be very much needed.

3 hours ago, allanp said:

That's cool, but we still need a smart device to configure them.

I'd already be happy with a system that allows some basic configuration using the buttons of the remote (and some lights on the remote as feedback), and advanced configuration using a smart device (but then the smart device would not be required for playing). And I think that would be possible with existing BLE compatible gamepad controllers and an appropriate FW.

[Mikdun]

18 hours ago, Lok24 said:

But if you are interested in that you find lots of tutorials and books. Or just try it ;-)

Cannot agree more. Just Lego should give us few simple examples, like you did few pages ago.

19 hours ago, Lok24 said:

This thread is about something that isn't here yet ;-)

I got impression that you claimed Control+ is on the same level of user friendliness as PF. 

[allanp]

10 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

Not sure I understand the booster idea, could you guys elaborate?

@Lok24 correct me if I'm wrong but I think Lok24s booster idea involves keeping the Technic hub with the same electronics and then having smaller boosters (with motor driver chips inside) to increase the number of ports beyond 4 where required. The advantage of this is that the program can be stored and potentially run inside the model itself. I assume we could also have higher power boosters with better driver chips for more powerful motors. The downside of that is cost, as we are doubling up on main processor chips by keeping the more expensive Technic hubs, and where a model has two sections separated by a turn table we may still need multiple hubs. So while I'm not sure I would recommend it for sets, as Technic hubs are already available and will remain so on the second hand market, you can still do that with your own creations if you wish. 

My idea is to get rid of the Technic hubs altogether and just have PF style BLE receivers, which would have the motor driver chips (although I would probably prefer it if they found space inside the motors itself for their driver chips, as then you can have a better pairing of driver chip to the motor) and BLE communication. The program is stored and run on either the smart device or the control center +.

The downside of this is that no program could be stored directly inside the model, the receivers are "dumb" in that they just relay data from sensors back to where the program is actually running (either smart device or control center +) and drive the motors as they are told to. You would also have to bind each receiver to the device the program is running on, like how you would select one of the 4 channels on PF receivers, you bind the PU BLE receivers in order of the number you have designated to them in the program.

The upsides is that if you don't want to use a program, or if you want to make an electrically simpler MOC, then it is much more similar to how PF was with the separate battery box and stackable receivers, the only difference is that we are using BLE instead of IR and there's a better remote (as the train remote would be updated to be proportional also). So we are trading having the ability to have the program run in the model itself with bringing back the simplicity of PF when it's desired, while keeping the rest of PUs capabilities where it's needed. 

As the receivers only need power, and data is sent via BLE, they could be easily stackable to have as many as you want. Getting rid of the more expensive Technic hubs should also help to reduce costs for smaller to medium sets, while freeing up some budget for the CC+ in the biggest sets. There could also be 2 different receivers, one with 4 low power ports (like we have now on the Technic hubs) and one with 2 high power ports (good for buggy motors). Or, if we could move the motor driver chips to the motors themselves then we could just have one with 4 high power ports.

[Lok24]

12 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

What electronics would be in the hub, and what in the booster? And through what cable would the booster connect to the hub? I guess the same PU wire does not suffice, because then the data of multiple ports need to flow through 1 cable at some point (not impossible, but more cumbersome to implement and potentially slower)

A hub contains

- BLE support
- Storage an processor to run a program
- motor controller/sensor controller for each port

With an additional driver you need for wiring
- 2x 9V (from hub)
- 2x Data
- 2x 3,3 V (optional, from hub)

And as electronic components only motor controller/sensor controller for the additional ports.
No BLE, no processor, no button or LED at all.

No stacking, but daisychain.

So when programming/configuration/connecting you see i.e. one hub, but 6 ports.

 

5 hours ago, Mikdun said:

Cannot agree more. Just Lego should give us few simple examples, like you did few pages ago.

describe a simple ;-) MOC to be controlled and we could discuss in a separate thread how to solve it....

Edited August 24, 2023 by Lok24

[gyenesvi]

41 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

With an additional driver you need for wiring
- 2x 9V (from hub)
- 2x Data
- 2x 3,3 V (optional, from hub)

And as electronic components only motor controller/sensor controller for the additional ports.
No BLE, no processor, no button or LED at all.

No stacking, but daisychain.

So when programming/configuration/connecting you see i.e. one hub, but 6 ports.

Ok, I get what you mean, but where would to connect the booster? Into one of the PU ports? Then you'd end up using up one, so you'd have 5 in the end. Also, how can the software tell the difference between the data coming from the two booster ports, when they are connected to the same port on the hub? Even if the FW would handle this by some kind of multiplexing, what would happen if you plug a booster into a booster?

Or do you mean that the booster could have some dedicated connection port? Then it's the same as having more than 4 ports on the hub. So it's not clear to me how this could actually work.

[Lok24]

2 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

but where would to connect the booster? Into one of the PU ports?

No, a special port.

3 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

Also, how can the software tell the difference between the data coming from the two booster ports, when they are connected to the same port on the hub?

Exactly how it works when you attached a self made or third party sensor into the existing PU distance sensor (LPF2)

Please note: This is a hypothetical thread about how PU "next generation" could look like.

[gyenesvi]

1 hour ago, Lok24 said:

No, a special port.

Oh, okay.

1 hour ago, Lok24 said:

Exactly how it works when you attached a self made or third party sensor into the existing PU distance sensor (LPF2)

But that's still just one sensor and does not need multiplexing. The booster could accept more than one sensors (up to 4?), and the data of those needs to be differentiated. But if it's a special port on a hypothetically new system that could probably be solved with some special communication protocol between the booster and the main hub :)

 

[Lok24]

5 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

But that's still just one sensor and does not need multiplexing.

That's true, I missed the "Multiplexing" but it should be possible to solved with a appropriate protocol.
It was just an idea, LEGO has already rejected ;-)

[Lok24]

I just changed my old doc "How to control PU", here is the result.

1 to 4 are the simple solutions

and 5 -7 what we discussed her, hope didn't forget anything.

This was I understood, is that correct?

Of course there are lots of other ideas like RemoteBlaBla, using browsers for easy config or ESP.

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Lok24

[gyenesvi]

9 hours ago, Lok24 said:

This was I understood, is that correct?

The gamepad controller could be theoretically added to the Pybricks solution as well, and it would need a smart device only for configuration. It is not implemented yet though.

[Mikdun]

18 hours ago, Lok24 said:

describe a simple ;-)

Operating 42131 Cat D11T.  But it's not about making tutorial now (not for me anyway), it's about what Lego should provide from the beginning.

17 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

but where would to connect the booster? Into one of the PU ports?

Then you will be limitin total booster current to what single port can deliver.

16 hours ago, Lok24 said:

and 5 -7 what we discussed her, hope didn't forget anything.

Option 4 but smartphone only for configuration is missing. 

[allanp]

6 hours ago, Mikdun said:

Operating 42131 Cat D11T. 

Hmmmmmmmm. How's this for hypothetical?! You might need to zoon in a bit!