Bartosz

That's exactly what I've been asking - whether it's possible to build extension for hub without altering hub (or its firmware) itself. Thanks. For those with electronic skills (which is like, probably everyone that's hacking on it right now ;)) it seems it'd be just way easier to roll own solution (some BLE-capable microcontroller + plethora of cheap peripherals that are available)...

Were you able to find out how device is identified? Does it send some info in some handshake, or maybe every message carries some identifier?

Right, that was the only thing I remember from that thread. But then - that'd be a waste, to have dedicated two lines to carry some hardcoded logic levels (which would give 2 bits of info?). But then I found info from @TrainDragon: which clearly indicates the lines are used for communications (their voltage levels seem to be 3.3V). This might indicate, the "dumb" devices are using "hardcoded" levels, whereas devices with some microcontroller can use it for communication, and hub should recognize it. To me it also seems like it'd be just impossible to mix such "dumb"/"smart" devices in one socket with some kind of "switcher" inbetween, because dumb devices don't receive commands, but are controlled "dicerctly" by the main voltage lines. But all that would also require a spec of a protocol of all those devices...

I'm gonna skim the thread in search of info on those IDs, bit before I do - maybe you know I'd there's some info on them somewhere? I'm wondering how to they work at all - given 2 lines are devoted to those...

Kind of OT, but I chime in regarding couple of the last messages here - I fit into this situation. I don't really crave for newer train sets from LEGO. I've missed almost all of them, and all I'd like to, is to have a nice way of somehow rebuilding/buying those without spending a fortune. So far got only tiny success with bricklink (no pretty, because I tried to not go overboard with budget) - I managed to recreate one loco and only two (simplest) wagons from a set (4564)... For me having some nice source of parts would be dream, but I find PAB to be expensive, and lacking rare parts (it's old stuff were talking about). Kind of lost case :(

I wonder what would it take to make a connection hub, and by the hub I mean a device that allows more inputs, and just routes the messages to the pup hub, and then back to proper device. Devices have those identifiers, yet currently there's no advantage made of them as compared to PF... // Edit With such limitations, for those more electronically inclined it seems to just be better to roll something on their own - some small microcontroller, a plug hacked to connect to hub (or BLE capable microcontroller and just scraping the official hub, whatever, possibilities are endless), and then add plethora of (cheap) sensors as you please...

But then, if there are 2 motors, where you'd connect the sensors? (it's the same 2-input hub as in trains, right?)

So, to have it git/svn friendly, you can store it as fodt: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice_and_subversion

Right, I think it's important not to confuse the tool used for collaboration (git/github, svn, wiki) with the format itself. The source code versioning tools are just tools for keeping files there and tracking updates, they also allow for contributions. The actual formats of the files are entirely up to the user - the text formats are preferred because it's easier to track changes for them. And here I guess the problem lies - to generate PDF like above, one would want to use the tool he prefers, but that's problematic (unless it'd produce some intermediate text file from which PDF could be generated)... It's also important that workflow that works now, might not work in the future. If @treczoks is commited to do some more reverse engineering and putting info in that document, then there might be no point in forcing him to some other tool. On the other hand, if, after some time he stops, then such document might easily get lost, as no one would be able to contribute there...

Sweet. And if there's anything coming (for me) out of the "Are the Creator Expert trains finished? " thread is that someone mentioned that Holiday Train is still being sold and I decided to just go for it (and throw in the station for good measure). I haven't even considered that train (seemed not that playable) earlier, I guess that's how Christmas atmosphere works :)

Right, I thought it's about putting it in the PU hub case (therefore not gaining on the size at all). Please do! (preferably in separate thread). I'm very interested in space savings - bringing some old locos to the modern controls/tracks was always what I wanted to do (though somehow I still haven't motorized the 4564 even now when I have all parts needed, except the time, aww :( )

What would the benefits be? AAA should have more mAh after all.

Was it really a case for those rolling stock sets, or was it a more general problem for TLG at that time?

@Giottistnice. May I ask, what are the dimensions? As I've mentioned earlier, for me one of the advantage of 9V battery (some of them at least), is that I can fit it in 2-stud wide space...

Nice, somehow I didn't know those were available. I guess they're not that common. To me the biggest advantage of 9V batteries is their size - some of them (not sure if the li-ion ones you mention), have the depth of 16mm which allows them to be fitted in 2-stud wide space.

Nice method of experimenting ;) Didn't come to say that though - I think it'd be good to extract those posts to separate thread (possibly the already existing "teardown" one. That's some valuable knowledge here...

How's the ID implemented in the hardware? What's needed to set it up, and what (possibly, maybe that's too far-fetched) would be needed to allow the conversion cable to have "switchable" ID numbers?

That doesn't sound bad though :) I wonder what they meant by engine. To me, as non-english speaking person it might mean just motor...

Got a question regarding stacking of the connectors. Now, I'm not that proficient in electronics, so bear with me:). My understanding is that stacking only makes sense (in context of train motors), if the motor driver is capable of sourcing more current than the motor draws. Otherwise, stacking more than one motor won't give us more power, because we hit the limit of current it can get, right? Given that - would using train motor powerful enough to consume whatever it can get from the hub, gives us same benefit as stacking more than one motor? Also - without knowing exact characteristic of those components, we can't say for sure that lacking the ability to stack is really hindering, am I correct?

Been wondering that too. After all, their prices are quite high compared toothed retailers, so they difference surely is enough for such service.

This. It was mentioned once, then I don't recall it being reported. It's very unfortunate, had anyone made some measurements?

Got me curious: given shipping costs - was it only for two parts? :) I haven't made yet any reasonably big MOC in my life, just gotta wonder how large percentage of costs are shipping costs...

That's exactly what FAQ says.

Looking at the hub electronics size, one can only imagine PF1 battery box could be smaller...but then this one would be bigger and there would be complaints. Now that's great planning ahead :)

Good idea with bricklink lists. Although sometimes when checking pages like this I wish I could check parts before buying instructions, just to see how pricey is gonna be. Understandable that bsx is available after purchase though...