Lok24

No, because this routine is independent form the geometry or size of the model. yes, insert two pins into the motor holes for testing. What happens?

Adding two pins in any motor holes for testing will do.

Oh, thanks. A hint: You could variables and "my blocks" to make it easier to follow the code.

Then you have just 8mm to move button of the sensor. As I understood till now: - you want to move the LA precisely - therefore you move it by a motor in steps of x degrees - reading the number of rotations from motor gives you the position - or just add all steps form the beginning the only problem I see to get the zero position Is that correct so far?

As far as I know the Liebherr 42100 has LA too, and I think it does exactly the same. (without glue ;-) ) You can do that with the powered App as well. I'have shown many examples here.

Then you have to move the LA manually back to zero before starting program. a usual way is - set force to a desired value (here: when LA stops, before clutch slips) - start driving back to zero - when motor stalls : stop motor - set current angle to 0

That sounds like programming..... To move to a defined relative position you once need and absolute position. Perhaps I missed the problem, sorry.

Sure. But when driving with a motor and the LA not being on one specified end when starting programm?

No, it's the normal way of calibrating something, therefore you can select the force the motor runs with. I'm pretty sure all the technic sets use that. But then you would not have to modify the LA.

How could that be done? How could I tell the LA to move exactly to 12 mm from bottom?

correct. And doing this and detected in a program enables enables you to learn how many rotations/degrees you need from one end to the other of the LA. Or how many to move to a desired position. Like with steering a car. It's very interesting question. Could'nt you replace the "clutch" with a 3D-printed part?

I meet many people on exhibitions who use SBrick or Buwizz and a smart device. Since many years, even at times with PF only. A great advantage is that you have more options and a display for feedback. And there are many MOCs that don't drive around. And very many that don't need a tactile feedback. Trains, for example. And I agree that there is missing a extended proportional remote (which never had been there with PF) And extension cables. I wrote that many times. Sure, it is the point "is a CC+ with complex software needed"

There are two steps: - click the BT-button in WebPoweredUP - window with all available BT-Devices opens - select one and pair Does your controller appear in this list? (mine does not .....) Then it is an issue between OS, Browser and controller, and has nothing to do with the program.

Yes, indeed, works as designed. Will now (which is weekend) take a look at "calibrating" Nice tool! BTW: where are the control schemes stored?

With PF I buy a simple battery box and a motor. With PU I buy a simple battery box and a motor. With two motors they do different things, but PU is better, you can control the motors separately. Where is the "extra stuff"? Yes, no doubt, that's what I say. But with PF there wasn't either. That depends on you. But that wasn't the point. I agree that it should be possible to control a MOC with a remote without anything else. (= just simple playing) But: if you want to configure the behaviour of remote and hub (that means: which button has which function for which port , e.g step up 10,20, 30 or run with 100 or accelerate while pressing) the smart device would be the simplest and cheapest way.

Ok, I'll try later today. But looks good! It's a little bit like BrickController, but with out a special app

@nvsukhanov Thanks, helpful! No "manual" needes - at the moment -) Here it is: And yes, it Works! Immediately. Great. How to run a motor permanently? (is "milky way" the same time zone as Berlin?)

I think no, it's completely different. With Pybricks you do programming, program resides in the hub No External device needed while controlling WebPoweredUp "only" translates commands while controlling the model. And you configure what actions (press button) result in action (run motor A) Device with browser needed while controlling. @nvsukhanov Great work, can start (chrome), can easily add Controllers (oops, writing this my PC Keybord popped up....) Brilliant. But how to "connect" a hub and the remote? Is there an example I could Import? A short description?

Sure, that's why I proposed port extentions/boosters There's a difference between configuration and control.... Its pretty simple, you need something like a RaspberryPi or ESP, and some potentiometers, that's all For my applications, I did that all with a M5Stack ATOM, configuration via web interface (just connect to WLAN,that's all), or the Pi, with graphic user interface on the raspberry. This is nearly what you mean with CC+, but in a very simple form, just as a proof of concept. "Profile" may be stored in the hub or in the device, as you like. There are many users who just use something like that as "hardware", removed all electronics, and inserted to a micro-controller to send the PU protocol https://www.modellbau-metz.com/img_big/1d07460a054a7dc315a0552c176cb9e9.jpg

The consequence would be two concurrent system, which are not compatible. And difficult to handle, cause you have to pair each receiver separately with the controlling device, this had to be solved. It is ;-) In fact it is much more simple if you take the MOCs in account, too. This is my experience. Perhaps someone will develop and sell such a CC+, who knows? All others like SBrick, BUWIZZ, BrickController 2 use smart devices. I think this is not an argument for the majority.

of course you can, you can connect it simultaneously with up to five hubs to one remote, makes in summary up to 10 up to 20 motors With PF you had 8 channels, which always interfered with your neighbour.... With other external programs you should be able to control up to 40(!) motors. Depends on your HW. No, you can use a remote instead ...... You don't like that, but it is possible It's written on the front side of the box: "Smart Device" required, but not included", directly under the "No. of Pieces". And it doesn't require a Smart device really, you can control it with whatever you want to. There are lots of ideas and tutorials in the web. BLE is the Bluetooth Low Energy Protocol, all them use 2,4 GHz, as long this is reserved it will work.

There is 88015 Battery Box available, connect up to two motors and turn on and off. There is 45607 TECHNIC Small Angular Motor There is a remote 88010 available, so no need to use a 3rtd party device If you buy a set that is explicitly designed for control with a smart device? What did you expect? No, by far not, look at WeDo (2016) and Boost (2017) Yes, with the remote. yes, if batteries are still available and BLE is still available. LEGO is more than LEGO technic , and enables users like , who don't like technic, to control their MOCs easily. BTW: the huge technic sets are not very helpful to "learn" gears and technic, much too complex.

You dont't have to use a 3rd-party device Just buy a battery box, and it works. Very many MOCs are mobile.... You dont' have to do that, just use city hubs and a remote There is a "small" motor The city hub is smaller, the technic hub is nearly same size (they do include the with PF needed 2x2x3 receivers and cables) What you don't mention is primary property of the Powered up concept: You can use just use any motor, without any external gear, cause all the rest is done via configuration. Driving, servo, switch, all purposes. Concerning GBC: you can tell a motor to keep its speed at a dedicated rotation in °/sec. Always. Really?and instead of creating and testing complex mechanical gear-boxes just need a smart device and say "Motor A speed 37" ? Had two kids here last weekend, 3 and 5 years old, they didn't complain using a smart device (cause it belongs to the world they live in), and they had no problems with "programming".

Ok, back to the new ideas. What I understood : Possible with PU the architecture extension cable extended remote (4 channels, levers, configurable) small(er) motors connect remote to technic hub stronger motors no smart device needed while operating partially possible easy as pf motors without gear/decoder sustainable Different/mixed architecture stackable battery box stackable motors simple receivers CC+

Thanks a lot @BrickTronic I'm still wondering why this is used instead of using a "general purpose" program in the powered up app. Wouldn't that simplify the control of MOCs?