kbalage

Just look at the amount of alternate models available on Rebrickable for the different small- and mid-size studless Technic sets. I don't think that there's such a difference between studded and studless Technic, it does not limit creativity at all.

You can take a look at a comparison here.

Honestly I really hope it does not look like this. Designers should come up with something new regarding the extra functions, there were so many cranes on wheels..

And boom, 42070 reloaded :)

@Ngoc Nguyen the VW group limitation seemed to be only valid for the 1:8 supercars so far. TLG has several other car IPs used, just have a look at the Speed Champions line or the Land Rover from last year. If the rumors are correct CAT license will be introduced next year so they can easily sign new deals as well.

The 18+ label is there because TLG has a strong focus now on sets for AFOLs and casual adult builders. Besides creating brand new product lines for them the easiest is to reposition some sets that were 10+ or 14+ previously. The Ferrari is very much like the 42096 Porsche that was a 10+ set, it has a license and not many playable functions so it is pretty easy to say that it is more about the building experience and it will become a shelf queen -> perfect for the 18+ category.

I agree. At this point TLG should show something new with the Powered Up system, something beyond installing 6-8 motors and 2 hubs for directly motorized functions. There are several interesting solutions to replicate from the original, some of them could use sensors and hub telemetry data. Hope to se some innovation here.

@u118224 SBrick is not official so LEGO would not offer that for sure, if you wish something to be released with PF than it'd be the good old IR :) Personally I had no issues with Powered Up components so far regarding lag or anything. I prefer physical controls so the PU remote is an option (although it lacks proportional control), or BrickController2 is a solid alternative that can be used with a game controller.

I'm wondering, what would be the advantage of PF here? IR range would be limited so no real chance to run it outdoors, no proportional control and the PF battery box would be a pain to integrate unlike the hub. It'd be a bit more powerful but that's all.

He could use the Powered Up app as well, but I guess the point is to review with the official solution (which is really not worth to wait for this time...)

Thanks! I nailed it in the video, only had to correct the description :)

Here's my detailed building review of the set. I think the buggy itself is great, a much more balanced setup than the Rally car, but the Control+ profile is lazy, does not have user friendly control with the joystick and the extra "features" are totally useless.

@Jasseji I don't think it is a wise choice to assign multiple controllers to the same motors the same time, what shall be the expected output if both are used? You can make a code to switch between them, although that one is not that simple either. A solution like this requires more knowledge about coding in general, it's not really specific to LEGO's implementation.

I created that guide before the custom controllers were introduced, it is using the stock 2-slider interface. With the customization it is much easier to create controls for multiple trains. I don't have the possibility to update the guide at the moment but I will do it when I'll have a chance.

That would not make sense for a system that supposed to be useable for kids without much coding experience. The current solution should be simplified, not made more complicated. Pybricks is there if you want to use Python with the PU hubs, or the Mindstorms hub comes with native support and the same connectors.

@chekitch I did not say the implementation of PU happened the best way possible, but a custom connector is a logical solution in a system designed for kids. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be able to connect a motor directly to a USB adapter or a power source to the output of a hub. TLG developed this connector for WeDo 2.0, and then they decided to go with it for the whole system. I'm actually quite happy to see now the exact same connector in all product ranges. And don't forget TLG is a multinational company, and as such it is terribly slow with the product development cycle. Small independent companies are much more agile and they can react quickly to the demand of customers. PV productions can release an adapter with a 3d printed case, but this wouldn't work with LEGO. Last year I talked to the hardware dev guys responsible for PU, and we discussed the adapter as well. A simple adapter (like the one I linked above) is cheap, but it cannot handle e.g. the Servo motor or the WeDo 1.0 sensors with PF plugs. It might be acceptable from a 3rd party product for AFOLs, but not from LEGO. So they would need to make a smarter adapter, but then it'd be more expensive and people would complain about that. There's no easy solution for proper backwards compatibility. I was also very vocal about the lack of a complete product range as a replacement of the PF ecosystem when it was released. But the sad truth is that the focus (and the money) is on the sets and not on the custom builds, and the PU-equipped sets offer a solution out of the box with the Control+ app. I'm sure we will see more things coming on the customization side, but the development is slow I agree, much slower than it supposed to be. But this does not mean that the whole concept of Powered Up is wrong and Power Functions should stay here forever. If anyone prefers to use Power Functions they are totally free to do it, not having the ability to buy things directly from LEGO does not change anything. We can complain about the system all day or actually start to use it where it shows its benefits.

PU needs to be more mature and accessible on the software side, there's still room for improvement there. A simple and clean interface besides the advanced coding options and documentation is a must. The hardware is already very capable, yes I know there's no connector stacking but that was a sacrifice to make for the interactive motors and sensors. If anyone wants to run PF motors with the PU hubs then a converter cable is quite easy to make, or you can buy pre-made converters, extension cables, USB adapters and pretty much everything from 3rd parties. One additional thought - TLG will never produce again buggy motors or anything similar strong/fast solutions, so there's no point of complaining about it. But there are plenty of 3rd party solutions to look at so we have even more options than before.

This is a corporate product strategy planned for years in advance. I appreciate your enthusiasm but there's really no point to start petitions for such things. On the other hand Power Functions parts won't be sold as new anymore, but considering the amount circulating on the market you'll be probably fine for the next 10-15 years if you want to buy anything. And I did not even mention all the compatible stuff that you can still buy as new...

Don't think PF is overstocked besides this set, as all PF parts are out of stock (some of them like the Servo since May). They might still have stock of 42095, that seems to be the last opportunity to get some PF parts.

Or someone happily posted the box of a review sample

I won't start a new topic for this, managed to finish my review even in a pretty challenging environment :)

Here's the promo video:

Might seem useless for you, but that set (and all the 1:8 cars) is more about the building experience and less about the functions.

Practically the torque difference is similar to the one that is between the PF L and XL motors when they are geared to a similar RPM. You can check out my first test here:

I'm sure Philo's research was far more scientific than mine, but when I tested the motors after the release I measured the XL motor to have ~10% higher RPM and ~15% more torque than the L one. I'll try to come up with more comparative real-life tests when I get access again to my LEGO :)