AnonymousStone

Wow it looks like a potentially awesome set. I just hope it being an 18+ doesn't mean it's going to be a display-only model and it's going to fit onto current lego tracks and can be motorized.

You can find them here here. If the direct link doesn't work just go to https://www.lego.com/en-us/service/buildinginstructions and enter the set number.

Hey everyone, Can we talk about the banner on the forum/website, for a moment? While the banner looks pretty nice, it makes the text on top right extremely difficult to read. I agree there isn't a lot of text to be read up there, but initially finding the "sign-in" link proved more difficult than it ought to be. I suggest to either change the font-colour or use some darker background for that area, or something completely different.

The set looks absolutely awesome. I somehow managed to miss all of the 90s pirate sets, so makes up nicely for that. Also the 2 in 1 idea is fantastic. I really appreciate the slight retro look and colour scheme too. Not to mention: NO STICKERS. The original ideas set looked nice as well, so both look nice, I'd say. The original was a bit more building style, this is a bit more open might allow for more interaction, I appreciate that. Does anyone know if there's going to be some GWP with the new set, to give a greater incentive to buy it on day 1? Else I'll probably wait a bit longer

Okay thanks for the answer. I was afraid that this was Lego's approach. I was hoping to see actual programming of the controller and/or hub, i.e., you create a program and it gets transferred to the controller and/or hub and then you can do the stuff with the controller without your smartphone. Now you basically use the controller as an input device for your smartphone, which is kind of a "meh" solution. They came up with a better solution even with mindstorms about a decade ago.

Thanks for sharing! I've got a few questions on how this works: Do you actually program the remote? Put differently: Is the program transferred to the remote controller and works even if the smartphone is disconnected? If yes: does the program stay on the controller even if the controller, and/or hub is turned off and on again, i.e. is power cycled? If no: Which device needs to be connected to which? Does the smartphone need to be in reach of the controller or the hub, or both? Thanks

Does anyone have a link to the exact website they are talking about? I couldn’t find anything on the Lego website so far.

I don't have a second remote to test it, but when using a single remote the remote will turn off shortly (like 5 seconds) after losing its connection. So it might not be 100% the solution. If you hide one remote in the train and use the second one for speed adjustments if the train is within reach, one could make it work though. But nevertheless that's very interesting, if not for exactly my issue at least it's handy for other cases, I didn't know that one can do that, thank you.

I fail to see how an *option* for this would be horrible. Of course some kind of watchdog, given it allows for a sufficiently large timeout, offers even more possibilities, but is also more effort for Lego to implement. I'd say it's debatable if it's a good or bad default for TRAINS. Or why exactly is it a horrible default? It's basically the behaviour one would expect coming from the metal tracks or the infrared power function system. It's probably a bad default for cars and stuff like that, though. While it's certainly also be useful for shows, it's also an important feature for kids that allows them to build train tracks all across the house/apartment and between rooms. We have some sturdy walls around here and atm it's not fefasible to build a track between some rooms, as the train will halt half-way due to losing the signal. Putting the controller on the train to work around that isn't quite the same as having a remote controller. BLE should be designed for such a scenario so power consumption shouldn't that much of issue here, powering the motors certainly requires more energy.

That indeed sounds promising. A pitty they don't have anything to try out with the powered up hub, yet. But for now all we have is some vague promise of them doing that, at least I couldn't find any planned release date or release window? Is there a list of already submitted ideas/improvements somewhere around here? I assume someone already put it on the list, but trains continuing to go places even if the controller is disconnected would be an easy and basic improvement to add there. If they want to be fancy, and are actually that worried about trains falling down stairs and stuff, they can hide it behind some long-short button press combo you have to do once to unlock the hub, but it'd make it actually usable.

Hey everyone, Some background (and venting), tl;dr below: So I've got myself my first powered up train (passenger train 60197). To a large extend I appreciate that its Bluetooth (no line of sight necessary,... ) and also that there's a dedicated remote. However, I soon noticed that they programmed the hub to halt the train if it loses the connection, which is... let's say...dumb. More so if you plan to make long tracks around the house and have sturdy walls. And if you plan on using your Smartphone it's even worse as need to keep the screen on. I even contacted Lego about it and they don't seem to plan on changing that right now and argue stuff like it's to prevent draining the battery if it's going the tracks and left unattended and to prevent the train from falling down the stairs as you might not be able to stop the train in time and/or reach and stop it. (If that hub behaviour bothers you as well, make sure to contact Lego about it, more feedback is better just saying...) Tl;dr: I'm stuck with a Powered-Up train that can't drive on tracks without being attended, due to Lego being afraid of trains falling down stairs. But on positive site: The firmware is update-able, so it can be changed. Has anyone reverse engineered the Powered Up Hub Firmware yet or planning to do so? Is there an alternative Firmware (that allows trains to go on if it lost it's connection to remote is lost)? Do we know if they protected the firmware or the microcontroller in any way? Thanks