Gimmick

Hub-to-Hub communication is planned for Pybricks 3.3. Until that you need one remote per hub.

The last point is what they announced. I understood that as "upload a PU program as firmware to the hub". Which is by no means trivial if you want to support every option in PU (multiple hubs/controllers...). Edit2: And maybe it's not even possible and this feature needs its own interface.

They are working on it, but it is not clear (at least for me) from the slides if the release will be this year or 2022...

having a physical remote without an additional smartdevice :) If you just want a physical remote, you do not need pybricks.

In my opinion, the bulldozer does by design not benefit as much from many functions that can be operated at the same time as an excavator. So it adds a bit more to the building- and "there are things moving"- experience and reduces the playability not by that much. It's a close call in this case for me tbh. The 42100 with gear switches for every different movement would be horrible to control :D

From my perspective: Good news for the model, bad news for the PPP :)

Tilt and pitch? Aren't those 5 functions?

And multiple Colosseums to get enough debris to push around x)

@Ngoc Nguyen Besides the not-motorized chain adjuster, there might be some other manual function. But for motorized function I would agree with you.

@Lok24 It would just not surprise me, if they drop 32 bit support for all apps, step by step. And depending on the libraries they use, they may have no choice. Only the OS version 32/64bit and the app matters. There even were and still are some cheap PCs with 32bit Win10 - who knows why someone would do that and who knows why smartdevice manufacturers used 32bit android (internet sais even some newer "A" tablets from samsung only have 32bit android wtf...) ... It seems like there are some guides for upgrading the OS on your tablet on the internet, but I would only recommend that if a total failure (device -> irretrievable dead) is acceptable (and double check everything before doing that). And maybe ask LEGO again if they realy dropped 32bit support. :D

Realy cool, I like it. Since this is only using 4 ports it should work with a technic hub, too. And thanks to your instructions, you can certainly convert the model to other motors from technic-world :).

32 bit is basically dead, especially on 'mobile'-devices. Some CPU manufacturers are beginning to remove the 32bit instruction set completely, google removes 32 bit only apps from the store and Apple has already dropped support for 32 bit... I guess 32 bit support will be removed for C+, too. Depending on the libraries 32 bit may not be possible anymore anyway.

Not an overflow, more like a miscalculated direction of rotation, that occures when the reported current angle is above 100 % or below 0 % (who knows) of the calibrated area. But that's just a wild guess... However, if it happens to you regularly, it should be reproducible with a custom build/manually limited steering while calibrating - and reproducible bugs are likely to be fixed if reported with detailed information :) But again: Just a guess...

But since this occures on different sensor hardware, firmware, software and the motor by itself does not know anything about the models orientation, it sounds a bit like a wrong sign in the "go to position"-function when the angle exceeds the maximum calibration angle.

@Rebel_Lego So the truck stops, or does it keep moving if the "last value" is not 0? Are the dials linked to the motor-output (for the real value) or to the sliders? Maybe add some simple blocks to the coding area so you can start the motors without sliders and use that if the problem occures again. Just to check if it's a problem with the interface or maybe some kind of overload protection on the hub that kicks in.

Not possible, I think. Buwizz droped support for Powered Up and BrickController 2 does not support Buwizz 3 (yet? Not sure if there are any published protocols, he can work with, atm))

I hope that's not the case, but if it is, well... :< Ground clearance is not flawed for me. It fits more or less the original at that scale. Some kind of final words from me: I understand the critics, I just do not see the choice of scale and 'template' (ground clearance etc.) by itself as mistake or "incompetence". But the steering for example looks realy bad - atleast until someone convinces me, that it's not possible to do better in this case. @JaBaCaDaBra I remember that, but I'm not sure if he realy was surprised or if there was something lost in translation :D @Bartybum I thought that was one complaint from sariel "Unlike MOC builders, LEGO can make any new part they want. New tires? Sure. Limited slip differentials? Not a problem. New suspension pieces that allow building compact axles with decent ground clearance? Absolutely." Adequate to what? A 4x4 zetros at this size? A $300 RC model? I think the main difference in our perception is that some / many others here take the price as it is and criticize the model for not doing what the price suggests in their eyes (valid opinion, but you know Lego prices...and therefore every model is basically bad, because, as I said, Lego prices...). On the contrary, I tend to accept the decisions made / the chosen truck type but then critisize specific solutions (like the steering, a not properly working gearbox,...) and I prefer to seperate the price in my ratings of the model, because if something is not working properly, making it cheaper does not fix it :D and the other way around :). And therefore it's hard for me to comprehend critics like "it's their fault to build it this way, they could have done a 6x6". It's true, but if you want to build a 4x4 you're not doing it automatically wrong by definition ;)

Ah yes 42064, thx :) But they were expecting a Lego model with all types of new parts and only one goal: best possible real-life-offroad-action. Isn't that close enough to impossible? And then they say "but the picture on the box..." sry :( For me the set has 3.5 major flaws: turning circle, suspension not soft enough, the price and maybe the rare axle problem. But the turning circle is the main point for me. Bigger wheels and a bigger scale would make the model way to big for my taste, even at this scale it is almost too large. But the toy-ish feeling/handling get's completely ruined by the turning circle. If the steering can be changed without that much effort I would rate it much higher.

Hopefully no one ever dares to build a small RC-model with 42122 wheels and adds something like "offrad" in the name somewhere. And that's so much more valuable information than all this gibberish about the scale/wheel-size. It's cleary a mistake in the design. Since there are some spacers on this "flip flop lift arm" it looks like they knew that this lift arm can move a bit, but underestimated the force generated by the black gear. Maybe it can be improved/fixed without taking the model apart by connecting some reinforcement to the frame and lift arm behind the frame. Ahh yep yep, like the 42062 is shown in water, the 42066 clearly flies and the 42055 obviously works in a real open-cast mining. There is so much potential... I'm realy looking forward to all those videos of someone trying to dig a hole in the garden with a Lego excavator, throwing a Lego plane out of the window... and then just sais "I expected more for $XY" xD

Are you serious? You look at the model and your conclusion is: "They clearly wanted to build the best trail truck possible, but they were too incompetent?" With your years of experience with Lego(tm,R,c,..) models, is this your educated guess? xD

Senior Designer, Element Designer,...

@howitzer Ah, now I got it. No, you have to chose between the control-variants, there is no [Control+]-controller. The challenges must be done with the C+ app.

Well, if it's just about the physical controller like PF and not about general demonization of smart-devices: There is a out-of-the-box solution since 2019. Just use the train remote and the PU App: One side for steering, the other side for driving and the red buttons for the diff-lock.

Does the app not connect to more than 1 hub (in the connect/bluetooth menu) or do you have problems accessing the ports in the code area? If the hubs are connected, you can use the "hub block" in the white menu to select the hubs/ports.