Gimmick

I would not call it "illogical", since you can always use "=" which reduces every remote-button-action to "is pressed? yes/no". But I agree: It's created with/for a coders mindset. But that's not a bad thing, you can and will learn some basic things while toying around with this app. It's just by far not the optimal solution for everything and everyone. And since I do not see the one approach that solves everything, I would add a second, graphical interface without any programming, but with direct control -> port connection.

@Andman Just an idea: Split the pneumatic system in two parts: left and right (or rear and front, but the angle might be to small) Condition1: on program start the current height is known. Increase height: save current angle. increase height on one side, calculate the height based on the angle -> stop if height is reached -> increase height on the other side until the angle is identical to initial angle. It depends on your requirements, if the function has to work on uneven surfaces. You can do some dry runs by turning the hub by hand and connect two motors for the valves. A reset button for setting current height = max or 0 will be usefull i guess :D

@technicfan Exactly my thoughts. But I'm a bit confused now, neither the rumored zetros pricing (and some say it will be even more expensive) nor the pricing of the d11t fits to the leaked images. >400€ for a set with one hub and this size? The dozer looks compairable to the 42114 - which could be ok, if reasonable priced.

Hi, the outputs of the joystick are X and Y and not the radius r. This results in 0 power if the stick is on the max left or max right (Y = 0 if stick moves on the horizontal X-axis). You can use the left/right output for steering as you did, but you have to calculate the current radius r as input for the power: r = sqrt(x²+y²) -> go to the white tab, you can find the square-root under "adv" (advanced), plus and square are directly available. Hope this helps.

Not sure if we're talking about the same thing: In your first video the motor reacts to new inputs, in your second video the motor reacts to the wiggle around 0 when you let go the slider. What happens if you constantly move the slider up and down for new inputs?

What I would do: PoweredUp App: Fixed value input without an interface (already done I think) Loop with fixed value input without interface Does it happen when you constantly move the slider a bit? Because the input seems to work, as the motor reacts when the slider wiggles around 0. Try one of the old interface presets Pybricks: (yes I know, that's nothing you want to do, but it can help finding the problem) upload a simplistic one-motor-one-port program that runs completely independent of any smartdevice Get a motor-hub combo that works from a friend and give it a try. What irritates me the most: "i have one MOC where i get a L motor and a XL motor to work as it should. but even when i switch out this hub to this new moc i get the same result." Maybe there are interferences...

So, different hubs, different motors, different apps tested systematically on the same smartdevice?

Happens with C+ App, too? Maybe try to reupload the firmware https://pybricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/restore.mp4 https://docs.pybricks.com/en/latest/start_pup.html#restoring-the-original-firmware If nothing works, get a replacement from Lego.

1) The main problem with toys is that interests change over time and companies cannot adapt to the same extent. Lego will not grow at the same rate or will even shrink - I agree with that, but until now, there is not a single other company that shows enough engagement to realy compete with Lego. Some people say things like "the chinese are learning fast", but if I take a look at the past few years: There is no improvement. The first big Cada set is now two years old and what changed? They stopped designing larger models by themselves... Another problem is: Often there is fast and tough competition from China, who ride on the 'advertising wave' of another company. Result: The 'original' companies cannot keep up and close -> Competitors are unwilling to invest and lose interest -> the whole market is dead. 2) I thought the something similar. If there were such a service that would change a lot. But it would destroy the market. Almost every model can and will be reverse engineered, there will be almost no reason to buy instructions... And companies will produce even more special parts to make sure you have to buy the set. But yes, the whole concept of "one system, every one can build everything and you do not have to pay for instructions" does not work anymore if there are enough competitors.

For simple driving (tracked or normal car) there is basically no difference in the steps, it just looks different. It takes seconds to set up ;). The tricky thing: You have to know how the blocks look like :D

PoweredUp App. Control+ is just a nice looking profile collection for standard models with some bonus stuff. It's okay for it to exist (it doesn't harm anyone ;) ) but in my opinion a quick guide in the RC models manual would help people a lot to understand the concept.

You can.

I realy like it! Great work!

@geoguvna The blue controller blocks are from predefined interfaces but PU now uses custom interfaces for new profiles. this should help:

Interesting. @Tcm0 can you maybe check that again? :) And strange that the technic hub seems to be the only one that cannot be controlled directly with the remote control - eventhough the boost hub has 4 ports, too.

German version:

First question, first problem: Older/more experienced builders. That's not the same. Second qustion, same problem: There are so many adults out there who have no idea what they're building - but they like it anyway. I'm almost sure when TLG talk about "adult audience" they are not saying "experienced" for a reason. You should have made separate answers out of this (as TLG should have made seperate subthemes ;D).

Tip: Use motor angle as input value for other motors. Example: Simple remote control, build in speed/power/direction control in mechanical sets. Code-Image: What it does: Set the angle of motor C as input on the speed control of motor A, set 'a' to 1, save current C position as 0°, limit the max power of C to 15% and force C to return to 0 constantly [can be changed to check if angle != 0, this could save battery]. In this example the max possible angle of C is +/- 40°, but the speed control needs a normalized -100 to 100 input. Optional: Run calibration on C. The calibration in the blue custom object can not be started from the mainprogram, if you include the calibration block in the main screen it will start immediately and can not be stoped without stopping the whole program. But the loop does somehow overwrite the behavior of the calibration, so if you insert a "wait 3 seconds" block before A is set to 1 it can be ok. Optimal solution could be: Use the 'old' self-made calibration from @kbalage wich can be found on racingbrick.com. Optional: Angle of C is multiplied by 'a' to make it easier to stop and to prevent uncontrolled behavior if you play with the calibration block. -> If you let go of the wheel/gear/lever which is connected to C it returns to 0. The force and speed needed depends of the construction and personal preference, mechanical assistance like a rubber band can be useful to make the movement smoother.

And I think they listened, and now we have super- and not-so-super-cars. :p Btw. the Liebherr wasn't 18+ but the CAT seems to be. So who said anything about motrized functions? Maybe it's just a display model? xD

And none of the points are self-explaining. What does "for kids/for adults" or "built better" even mean? Is a 42100/42030 for adults because it's expensive or for (richie rich) kids because it's not complicated and very playable? Should Lego release "Technic" toys, that have to be assembled first but than behave like other toy? Or is Lego Technic more about the technical aspect and every set should be an incentive to build something technical, no matter what it is (more like Fischertechnik)? And what does this mean for adults? Most adults-talk-about-Lego-videos on youtube are about putting things on a shelf, so adult = put things on shelf? Or adult = adult level of complexity for people with years of technic experience (things can escalate here quickly)? Or adult = same toy just bigger? :D What's the point of Lego Technic? I don't know... but there are obviously multiple interest groups. They brought programmable hubs and sensors to Technic, bridging the gap with Mindstorms. That occupies me for a while and when pneumatic sets come onto the market again I'll be happy for the time being. What do I care about cars that can be put on the shelf and what do I care about someone who likes/dislikes them? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If you ask me I would remove the C+ app completely and "here you have another instruction book - have fun 'programming' in PU" ;D and make 'Technic' more technical in general (robots like mindstorms and other not car and not construction machine related sets). But that's only my opinion... And in my experience: Yes Lego does listen to some extend, but a noticeable change can easily take two or three years.

Thx for the review, great images :) I like the idea, but it is difficult to implement with the parts provided. So 8 or 12 or even more tiles per set would increase the useability a lot (maybe some in white for better scaling).

As small addition: If the hub is not perfectly leveled it will measure acceleration on x/y axes. If you only measure the acceleration, changes in speed or angle will be indistinguishable, if I remember correctly the hub has a gyro sensor for angle/change in angle measurement. Maybe it's useful for corrections. Depending on the calculation method it could be useful to flatten/smooth the measurements before integrating. And if it's more of a theoretical experiment rather than for practical use: Maybe use a longer slide with adjustable angle as track and gravity+counterweight for acceleration.

I always wondered how the development is structured internaly. Control+, PU, HiddenSide, Mindstorms, Spike, the learning material, firmware, hardware,... it all has to be developed and payed. The only question is: How are the costs distributed among the products.The high individual costs of the PoweredUp products lead me to suspect that such costs are not passed on to all products. But maybe you are right and I underestimate the production cost of the hardware itself by a lot.

Hmm, why not?

@kbalage Well we can argue back and forth and discuss whose descision it might have been to create a buggy in the first place, how it should look like, which digital functions it should have and so on... All I wanted to adress is: Maybe the developer costs are a great part of the price tag of C+/PU and if it is so, a shi**y interface of a buggy will not reduce the price in general :) And sorry nevertheless, I did not want to start a discussion, jumping into the breach at exactly this point is kind of a job related mental illness which is hard to control :D