gyenesvi

Thanks, that would be nice. If it helps, in the Lego Wireless Protocol 3, it's the StartSpeed (0x07) output command, while in the BW3 protocol, it seems to be command "0x50 Set PU port function" with argument "0x14 PU speed servo". After a bit more searching, I see that there's a Settings > Display and Brightness > Auto-Lock feature on iPhone, that allows the user to specify system-wide screen auto-lock times. However, an app can override this setting. So one thing to try could be what happens if your app does not override it and it's set to a short period, like 30 secs, whether it actually turns off automatically, and whether notifications keep coming in.

I do have an old iPad mini, that's what I am using for control now, but it's a bit more difficult to carry around in your pocket if you want to play outside and control with a physical controller.. while shooting a video as well. Well, it's mainly for playing outside, so not such a good option. I could carry a power bank, but it's all starting to get ridiculously cumbersome then. In steering servo mode, you specify the angle at which you want to position the motor, and it moves there. In speed servo mode, you specify the speed, and it keeps that speed constant (it modulates the power to do so). It's not BW3 specific, the PU hub has that mode too. It's not trivial to see the difference between speed servo and simple PWM control, where you simply specify the amount of 'power' (~voltage, I know that's not so simple), because both can result in proportional speed control, but with PWM control you cannot control a heavier vehicle slowly with precision on rough terrain, but with speed servo mode you can very well. So basically the question is whether this setting is possible as opposed to PWM control? (I am sure that angular servo operation is possible as that's needed for steering) Hmm, I read that many foreground apps on the iPhone, that only use a foreground service but not the screen, actually turn off the screen after a while. I guess you are not using the screen. Isn't there maybe a setting for this in iPhone development (to allow automatic screen turn-off)? Though I assume you probably have given this a try already, just curious how other apps do it.

Oh, so that's why it looks a bit off on the photos of your Jeep. I guess it's because of the side profile of the tire, it is narrower in the middle. Thanks for noting that, and thanks for the links, I'll think about them.

Thanks, something like that would be okay for me. Will check availability. Thanks for the info about MFi compliance, and good news about BuWizz 3 support! As for the servo functionality, can it do both steering servo and speed servo mode (instead of simple PWM control, for precision climbing)? That's a pity, I thought I could use the phone for making videos at the same time. But then I'd have to use another device for control. So does that mean that the screen has to be on all the time (and drain battery), or does it turn off automatically after a while?

I get the difference between the original and the Aliexpress version, and I'd like a smaller and narrower one. Mainly I don't want to use it with trucks, but with Jeeps and similar offroaders. So the only question is whether it fits the rim well?

@imurvai I wonder if you could advise me a cheaper physical controller that works well with BrickController 2 on an iPhone/iPad and can be found easily in Hungary (Budapest). I have no experience with these physical controllers.. Also I'd have a few questions about the app. If I use it with a BuWizz 3, is it able to control PU motors in speed servo mode? How about when using a PU hub? Furthermore, while using the physical controller, can the app run in background mode? Currently one problem I have is that the battery of the tablet I use for control (with Control+ app) goes down faster than the battery in the lego model, and that limits playtime, and I hope using BrickController would also solve this problem (besides a better play experience). Thanks!

Oh maybe I misunderstood what you meant by MT, I thought it means Mickey Thompson, because you spoke about those in your Zetros video. So I meant the 1.55" Mickey Thompson Baja MTZ tires that you put on the Jeep in buggy mode (on the same rims as the Zetros I think, but in black?), they are 84x27 mm according to RC4WD, these ones: https://store.rc4wd.com/RC4WD-Mickey-Thompson-155-Baja-MTZ-P3-Scale-Tires_p_1433.html I am interested in whether that's a good fit for the Zetros rims. I know the 1.2" Rock Crusher M/T ones are for the Arocs rims, and I want to buy those as well because I have seen those on your models and they look very good, and for those I am sure they fit well :) But they are for a different scale. It's not for one specific build, but for more future builds in the scale, but I'd also like to try them on my 42129 alternates: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-99251/gyenesvi/3-in-1-42129-c-model-pack I think it would look nice on the Jeep and similar off-roaders, currently I have the Ultra 4 buggy built, and found some nice terrain for some hardcore testing, curious how much better it climbs with some good grippy tires and locked diffs.

I am looking for some narrow tires for Zetros rims, not for the Zetros itself, but in roughly the same diameter, I don't want too large ones. I have seen those AustarHobby ones, good price, but I am not so much into their looks. The RC4WD MT tries look really nice and good size, but quite expensive. When you say the MT tires are small and narrow, do you mean for the Zetros or for the rim in general? Do they fit the rim tight? I saw them on your Jeep Wrangler as well, but could not tell from the images if the fit is good; it seemed that the tires' inner diameter may be a bit bigger than what would be required. I am thinking of buying them but would only pay out that money if the fit is really good. The Aliexpress version also looks good for half the price, but it is 10mm larger, a bit too big for me..

That's some pretty smooth movement I have never seen before in Lego, exactly the pattern I have been looking for, I'll have to look into the mechanics behind it. Thanks for posting this cool incarnation of the machine!

Well, I don't see much difference between the utility of a 5L and a 6L, and have run into a couple of cases where needed a 6L. Of course I could do something about it, but by this logic then the same goes for the 5L.. That was in reference with 7L axles with stop. Yeah, just recently went through a couple of basic colors trying to build some bodywork and found that neither red, nor yellow was possible for what I wanted, because of some pretty basic parts missing. Even DBG is missing a few common panels. Right now orange seems to have the most potential to be complete! That's a useful trick I used already, although not in a position where it has to bear some load.

I agree that certain frequently used parts missing in basic coloros is also very annoying with Lego. I even observed some parts that exist in a few exotic colors, but not in basic ones, so probably the argument of "not everything can be made in all colors" does not really stand here. @dmaclego thanks for your input, I find it quite useful! I think we agree on that for all conceivable lengths, but my point was more about two missing ones (6L and 7L). I bet if those existed you'd also use them! ;) While I like that quote, I think about it this way. Lego has a bunch of inherent limitations coming from the material and the production method and the building block concept itself; it is a discrete system with limited types of connections (studs, pins, axles, bars, hinges, etc). And of course, all sorts of complex shapes will never be produced. That itself puts enough limitation on the hobby. So why make things even more limited by not producing certain simple parts (and in certain basic colors) that would conceptually fit into the system? Don't get me wrong, I do like building with a limited parts (I find B modelling really interesting), but it's a different kind of art than getting the maximum out of the system and focusing on different challenges, like reproducing complex mechanics, and I think there would be enough remaining challenges even if the parts palette would be broader. This is so true - I do agree that a bit of push for Lego to improve the technic line would be healthy :) Again, don't get me wrong guys, it's not that I am unhappy with it, it's more that I like it so much that I want to get the max out of it :)

I really like the shape of this car, one of those rare cases when the wheel arches are smoothly integrated into the rest of the curved body! The front also looks pretty good, and nice parts usage in many places. Indeed some more pictures including the drivetrain/steering would be appreciated.

Yeah, I keep hearing that argument and can totally see its danger, but as far as I understand that was a different situation, involving many crazy new part types, many of them with limited use. However, I am mostly talking about generic parts with lot of usage potential. I think the hard part of the calculation is how filling those holes in the parts palette would simplify future builds/structures and thus save costs on requiring less parts to build the same thing, that way counteracting the cost of introducing the new part. Sure, I get what you mean here, and totally agree that all possible combinations would be infeasible, and that's not what I'd hope for. Only that when there's a type of part that can vary along one dimension, such as length, then all possible lengths up to a reasonable point would be desirable. For example, with axles with stop, I don't think any length beyond 8 would be required, but length 6 and 7 are missing and would often be useful. Same with liftarms, only 4, 6, and 8 are really missing I think, because the shorter ones are more difficult to work around than the longer ones, and also when used in a bodywork for example, their lack of existence results in a more visibly worse result. This is a different but interesting example I think, though falls into a more specific use case of suspension systems, not totally generic parts (though cars are so much widespread that they represent an important use case). Again, I would not hope for many different sizes, indeed that would be exaggerative. However, I see some clearly missing parts for smaller scale: we do have 5L towball liftarms that can be used to build independent or even live axle suspension. However, some accompanying parts are missing; for a correct steering geometry, a 5L towball link would be required, furthermore it is not possible to build a 5L double CV-joint driveshaft that would be required for a driven independent front suspension for example, and would also be useful for shorter driveshafts going into live axles. Another related 'hole' in the system is mounting the new planetary hubs. It would require some new smaller connector piece with a towball socket to mount those hubs to a live axle for example in a way that does not result in a super bulky structure. (I know we are talking Cada here, but just as an example, Lego had a "need" for both of those use cases last year in the Raptor and the Zetros sets, but instead of introducing those parts, they worked around it resulting in clearly inferior builds; an RWD Raptor with wrong steering geometry (big rolling resistance) and the Zetros with axles that are bulky and have very little ground clearance). So I guess what I am trying to say here is that just a couple of parts that complete an existing array of parts would be really useful, no need to think in tons of parts in all conceivable lengths. That's an interesting aspect, I do welcome unicolor chassis builds, though I think a small amount of color coding that helps less experienced builders is not irritating. Something like two of the greyscale colors, but definitely not all over the rainbow.. And that could be already enough to differentiate adjacent sizes. Thanks, that's informative! I do really like the positioning of the Cada master series models, you seem to confirm that they do fill a market gap with builds that are both technically complex but with well detailed exterior at the same time, often not being afraid to mix classic bricks with technic parts. I always wondered why Lego does not do that (probably part count / price considerations), and whether there would be market for that. Also, I like the focus on motorization, either built in or addable later. After all, what's one of the first mods people would do to any (car) set? Motorize it :) Those improved RC components sound interesting! I always wondered whether / when Cada would try to offer an alternative to the PU system.

You are right about the clutch gears bigger than 24T not being usable, but I think even the 24T can be built without blocking the changeover catch, though it needs a bit of working around, but definitely doable I think. And even if it would be usable only with the rotary catch (which is easily buildable), it would be a useful part! Another size that would be usable is a non-bevel version of the 20T clutch gear. Somehow I don't like this argument, we are talking about a few tens (maybe a hundred in total) of missing parts, I just can't believe that they would become a significant loigistic burden compared to the number of already existing parts. It all depends on the scale I guess. At larger scales we often have the option to do that, but if we go smaller and more compact/dense, then there are less options. Even if it can be worked around, it just sounds silly to me that something that would be very simple, has to become quite complicated just because someone thought that only one stud shorter/longer parts should exist. Though this might be true to some extent, most Lego sets come with liftarms / axles of adjacent lenghts in different color for this reason (and color coding in general is applicable to other parts as well). And there are size guides to help with that. And again, I find the argument a bit silly that we don't have liftarms in all lengths because people cannot count number of holes..

A question to all those involved with Cada, especially who participated in part design as well. I was wondering if Cada would be willing to produce parts that don't exist in Lego, but could and would be very useful. I am not talking about designing brand new parts, just the usual often missed ones; well tested concepts in sizes that don't exist but could, such as 4L / 6L / 8L liftarms, thin liftarms in more sizes, L shaped liftarms in more sizes, 6L / 7L axles with stops, 4L pins or pins with stops, 24T clutch gear and different gear sizes in general, towball liftarms in different sizes, CV joints with different axle sizes.. and I'm sure that there's a ton more. I wonder why they stick with only the sizes that exist in Lego. I think adding the missing but useful sizes would be a great way to differentiate themselves from Lego and to make building things quite a bit easier. Sometimes that (generic) part in the right size just simplifies things enormously to where they really should be, and I hate that Lego just makes their own (and our) life harder by not adding those parts. Has such thing been discussed with Cada? Or is there anybody who could strike up that conversation with them?

That's what I thought the part count limit on the base set would solve, no? You are right about the licensed models though, I can see that with MOCs in general. Sure, for a car contest I can see that work, because the shapes are box-like and similar for all contestants.

And I thought that is as simple as it gets :) Not sure what you mean by hard to regulate and verify though. It does not sound harder to me than a pure B-model contest (or is that already too hard?). Contestants would have to explicitly list all extra parts used and that's it. Of course it would rely on contestants being honest, but the same would be required for a pure B-model contest as well. Furthermore, as some means of checking, people could spot parts on photos that are neither listed as extra nor in the set. I actually find the cubic size limit mentioned above more problematic because it would put models with highly non-cubic shape into a disadvantage.

I like this approach for a B-model contest! Sometimes one or two extra parts could open up new interesting possibilities. I think this combined with a part count limitation (on the base set) could result in meaningful and easy-to-define rules.

Beautiful builds with nice motorization, seems to work smoothly. I like the one-click load/unload instructions, cool idea with great potential!

That’s pretty hardcore! Interesting work pushig the limits of lego building, even if custom parts are used. I like that massive suspension and it’s articulation, nice work with the triangulated 4-link and the pushrod system. What pin do you use to mount the A-arms onto the ends of the links? Is that a 3L cut to 2L? Or are those just 1.5L pins? Can you tell more about those motros? How come that such powerful motors can be packed into such a small housig? Though I always suspected that it could be done better than lego motors. Though I like the way you use the planetray hubs, especially in the middle, I don’t quite get what is the purpose of speeding the drivetrain up and then slowing it down equally. It only seems to loose efficiency because of all the extra friction. Is it that the axles could not take the amount of torque? Have you tried it wihout the planetaries? Or is it that otherwise it would be hard to transfer the drive? On the driveshaft, are the springs to prevent the axle end from slidig out of the frame? Doesn’t it work wihout them?

Glad someone else asking the same.. I have been preaching this in other threads for a while, glad you confirm :) Agree with you on the revolutionary aspect (more compact and stronger builds), although may not be as big of a change as studless transition I guess. And they play together well with frames, and also flat panels have some flip-flop aspect (actually, they can also be very useful as structural elements, since they have connection points in 3 directions). Besides the odd lengths, I really hope that the 4L would come for Lego eventually. I could use that one in quite a few cases. Did you get them from complete Cada sets, or elsewhere by piece?

To control a BuWizz? That's my problematic point here.. You probably meant for the Technic Hub version, but for that I have the PU App. While I like the concept, unfortunately I don't have that controller either, and the fact that it cannot do proportional control is a big minus for me (as far as I understand it cannot). I understand it can increase/decrease the speed/angle in steps by pushing the button multiple times, but that's another not so controllable option. For me PU is about precise control. Thanks anyway!

The renders did not take much time, I used Studio. This was designed first virtually, and I built it physically only afterwards, so the virtual model was already done, so I just had to make some renders from a few angles. For the inner parts, I just hide parts that I don't want visible and that's it. I think the grey background helps make the images look better :) Well, given that the whole essence of this is to use Powered Up, I don't have plans to try that. I am using some key properties of PU here, so it would be harder to do with PF, if possible at all. For example, the shape of the motors and the hub make them better suited as structural elements. Even the BuWizz 3 can be used here better as a structural element because of the position of its pinholes, which I make crucial use of. And you could not use a PF L motor as a gearbox control motor. As I noted in the intro, many people before me have made similar chassis builds using PF (like Madoca, RM8, Sheepo), so I don't want to replicate those. However, when it comes to an RC gearbox for example, things get cumbersome with PF. I am trying to make use of the advantages of PU here, and also modern parts, like the orange shifter part, planetary hubs, etc. A planetary hub with a PF XL motor would be super slow for example (PU XL motor is 50% faster, and it's still slow).

Thanks, I have been thinking of trying out BrickController 2, but I don't have a physical controller. I want to buy one though, just not sure what brands work well with the app. Can you suggest some?

Yeah, that would be really useful. I have seen flex axles used for this, but don't know how good they are. They seem too soft and not so easy to mount.