3rd Party Controllers and Powered Up!

[Hod Carrier]

I have to confess that I am a little disappointed that more makers of 3rd party controllers haven't gone with the change from Power Functions (PF) to Powered Up! (PU). As it stands, it seems that the only option is the frighteningly expensive, but no doubt excellent, BuWizz 3.0, but that seems like overkill for most train models. I am aware that the PU plug/socket are TLG proprietary designs which may be holding some developers back, but that doesn't seem to be stopping BuWizz. So why the inertia from other manufacturers?

Looking to the future, it seems that the most realistic option would be to source 3rd party motors that continue to follow the PF design philosophy, in conjunction with the existing designs of controllers. The official PU hub, with it's two input/outputs, is limited in terms of it's usefulness, but PU allows for motor functions that have been proven to be very desirable. I know that many here are confident enough to take the DIY route with great success, but not everyone here has that level of ability to make that a realistic option. For folk like me who could probably crimp a bespoke connector but not much more, plug-and-play is still a valuable route, but one that is starting to look a little bit precarious.

I'm not so bothered about why we find ourselves in this situation, but as a builder I am starting to find that the decisions around power and control are starting to get increasingly complicated when before it was a more straightforward choice. I am not averse to 3rd party elements, although obviously I would like to be at least fairly sure of the quality that I am buying before parting with my hard-earned.

Thoughts...?

[Lok24]

8 minutes ago, Hod Carrier said:

Thoughts...? 

Not quite sure what you mean, but:

- using the hubs  with the remote other than in 0/1 mode would help
- having a LEGO remote with proportional control is needed.

"controller" means hub or remote?

Would that help? What's the use case ?

 

[Hod Carrier]

Apologies if I've been unclear. Controller = Hub. So SBrick, PFx Brick and so on.

The PU app is actually not too bad (although it is far from perfect and does have some rather annoying features) and can be useful in accessing some of the features that PU offers that you don't seem to be able to get by using the remote, but the hub itself is the limiting factor because of the number of outputs. The use case is a fairly common one; that being a train with one or two motors and controllable lights. PFx Brick looks like the best option in terms of features and value, but it still has PF rather than PU sockets.

[Lok24]

10 minutes ago, Hod Carrier said:

that being a train with one or two motors and controllable lights

Yes, it's the architecture.

I proposed years ago a "booster module", say 4x4x1 stud, connectable (via cable) to the hub and provide two more ports.
With no additional intelligence or batteries.
This could be done even today by a third party provider (HW + SW)

(a stackable hub instead of stackable devices...)

But to be honest: yes, this a common request, but from LEGOs point of there only exist very simple trains with one motor and one light, all other is "technic" with the four port hub or even two of them.

Some Y cables or extension cables could help, but only for train motors an light.
Is there really a reason to use the train motor? speed, perhaps?

 

[Hod Carrier]

20 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

But to be honest: yes, this a common request, but from LEGOs point of there only exist very simple trains with one motor and one light, all other is "technic" with the four port hub or even two of them.

Yes absolutely, which is why I'm not looking to them for an answer.

Which brings me back to my starting point, which is why are the other manufacturers persisting with PF sockets and not kept up with PU, because it's pushing me towards further 3rd party involvement on the motor front in order to preserve compatibility.

21 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

Is there really a reason to use the train motor? speed, perhaps?

That's the main one, as using the train motor does get around all the additional space needed to gear a Technic motor up to the necessary speed.

[1963maniac]

Battery Powered Bricks has a solution: 

He is all about saving some money and keeping it as simple as possible.

[Selander]

Personally, I'm using the 4channel Technic Powered Up hub with 2 x train motors and 2 sets of LED:s, all controlled by a program made in the Powered Up APP. I found making my own program in the APP was not that difficult, and I am NO programmer whatsoever professionally speaking, 

So, it's an all Lego solution, and to my point of view it tics all the boxes....hence no need for 3d party solutions.

As long as the size of Technic hub can be accepted...it takes a bit of engineering, and a reasonably sized locomotive....my Swedish RC locomotives measure 8*34 studs.

 

[dr_spock]

12 hours ago, Hod Carrier said:

Yes absolutely, which is why I'm not looking to them for an answer.

Which brings me back to my starting point, which is why are the other manufacturers persisting with PF sockets and not kept up with PU, because it's pushing me towards further 3rd party involvement on the motor front in order to preserve compatibility.

That's the main one, as using the train motor does get around all the additional space needed to gear a Technic motor up to the necessary speed.

It could be that the PU connectors have an active patent and may need licensing agreement with the TLG.  Also PF is no longer produced or sold by LEGO so there is an easy niche market for 3rd parties to fill.

I don't use 3rd party.  Much cheaper and simpler to 3d print them and reuse old CAT5 wires. It is kind of fun learning to make your own stuff.

PF train motors were cheaper than PU train motors and PU remote doesn't need line of sight to control like PF IR.

[Toastie]

17 hours ago, dr_spock said:

I don't use 3rd party.

Hehe - OK. Now: First party is TLG, right? And third party is ... whoever exists in non-first party land other than ... me/everyone? Is that right as well? So second party is - personal party, correct? If so, this is definitely the way to go!

All the best,
Thorsten

[Hod Carrier]

On 2/29/2024 at 3:54 AM, dr_spock said:

It could be that the PU connectors have an active patent and may need licensing agreement with the TLG. 

That seems to be the accepted explanation...

... and yet, BuWizz...?

On 2/28/2024 at 8:33 PM, Selander said:

As long as the size of Technic hub can be accepted...it takes a bit of engineering, and a reasonably sized locomotive

And there's the rub. It's waaaay too big for most things.

So it's looking increasingly like I'm going to have to go down the route of creating some manner of hybrid system or go further yet with 3rd party motors and/or connectors. Any feedback on alternative products from suppliers such as Green Gecko?

[CastleRail]

It's probably just as simple as manufacturers knowing that there is a wide range and availability of 3rd party components using PF connections and only a limited range using PU. Why target a smaller market?

I thought I'd heard rumours that PU was for the chop soon anyway in favour of the next generation.