allanp

Agreed, and the way they basically designed and rebuilt the chassis and bulkhead from scratch and many of the peripherals from scratch is just amazing and speaks for itself, but they have great humor to go with it. Great stuff. I don't suppose you remember the ".....is born" series of videos created by Marc Evans do you? He did a car is born, a plane is born, a car is reborn (which was a beautiful Jag E type) and my favorite is a chopper is born. I think they're all on youtube...it gives me very similar vibes to project Binky...kinda! Binky is kinda unique really! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NizBRLMDp4o&list=PLz6rFlieI6zedp3m5wPTdw-LemjyOQcEZ Other technically focused channels I like are "smarter every day", "Adam Savages tested" and "The Engineer guy" amongst many others, as well as a bunch of machinists channels like "Abom79", "Oxtoolco" and "Keith Fenner", oh and a bunch of non technical stuff. I don't watch any TV at all anymore, it's all YouTube and Rumble and occasionally twitch for gaming stuff. Sorry to be off topic but hey, maybe you watch this stuff in your shed so technically it counts right?

Suggest ideas all you want, @Jim will likely read but not comment so as to not give people an early advantage.

Or maybe frontpage the voting results thread? I think that's what was done in the past wasn't it? As I understand it, when a topic is front paged, it's always the first picture in that topic that's chosen to be displayed on the front page, maybe there will be a collage pic as the first pic in the voting thread so they can all be on the front page, as we probably shouldn't front page all 23 topics.

Ah okay, So we could have one hub with one receiver and some "boosters" to add more ports without adding more hubs? Would these boosters be stackable? The BLE receivers I'm thinking of would only need power and so would be easily stackable. Pairing multiple of them would be like pairing to multiple trains or switching to the correct switches of the PF system. As the PU ports are fairly small, I could see a roughly PF receiver sized BLE receiver having 4 ports on one BLE receiver. Yeah, I do agree that some form of screen is a must for more complex programs. The code pilot could do very basic programs but for more than that I agree we need a screen of some sort. What do you use to load the program into the hub, a smart device? What do you use to create the program, a tablet? If these extra things are required it's not a complete system. I do think these extra things are fine for Mindstorms, as that theme is focused on the coding and programming side of things, and it was a shame they are ending it, but it's just not right for all the other Lego themes including Technic. That's correct. That's cool, but we still need a smart device to configure them.

Nice progress also only just noticed you are a fellow project Binky fan! You have excellent taste in YouTube content good sir!

I never know what to call that part, many call it a shock absorber but it's really only a spring. You could also use a rubber band/silicone drive belt. That might be an option, however it would require that we keep the technic hub yes? Why do we need to keep it if we can use small, stackable, PF style BLE receivers? The receivers can be controlled via the train remote, control center + or, if you really want , a smart device. Removing the smart hubs and moving the main computer chip(s) to the CC+ is to try to keep the cost reasonable. Buuuuuut, if you want to use a smart hub(s) with CC+ I guess you could still do so, as you might already have some or get them on the second hand market. Yeah, all my PU programming "fun" has been done on my smart phone which is smaller than 6". Are you suggesting that it's not enough to use any smart device, but we must now also buy a tablet in order for PU to be considered a complete product? I agree it should be made easier instead of harder, but remember, you can only configure one code block/bit of code at a time, you don't need a huge screen for that as long as you can scroll around, and a host of pre-programmed and configurable advanced code blocks should also make things a lot easier. Advanced steering of multiple axles and many different steering modes can be done from a single pre-programmed configurable code block, and we could have advanced code blocks for automatic gearboxes, manual/function switching gearboxes, sequential gearboxes, multi pneumatic valve control with automatic compressor output, winches and so on and so on. We could even have a blank advanced code block, into which you can create your own advanced code block and use it in another profile, like running a custom program within a custom program. I agree. There seems to be some confusion between the terms coding and programming and configuring, but on some level it's all the same, it's creating a custom profile for your model. This is why I am advocating going to PF style BLE receivers and upgrading the train remote to also be usable to control Technic models, and most other non train models. Most stuff would be similar to PF but with BLE in place of IR and a better, proportional remote, and the basic default functionality of PU with the train hub and remote. You don't need a whole new system I don't think, just get rid of the technic hub and replace it with BLE receivers and upgrade the train remote, oh and of course introduce Control center +, which is used for the BIG stuff (like the Liebherrs) and is what allows for the creation of custom profiles without need of anything else, no phones, tablets or anything, it all comes in the box and is as future proof as the original control center. But of course you can still use your smart devices with it if you want to. Having separate receivers also opens the future possibility of higher power V2 receivers for buggy motors in L-motor format and all sorts of things.

I am absolutely thinking of MOCs, as well as peoples wishes and issues with PU. This is why I want you to be able to create your own profiles on the CC+ as well as having sets that include a CC+ include full step by step instructions on how to program your set without downloading it (though I have always said that the option to download a premade one via smart device should be available but not mandatory) so that customers can understand the process of creating a profile so that they may know how to create their own and also not need a smart device if theirs is not compatible for whatever reason, at any point, now or in the future. I was talking about Technic, not all themes. The train hub would remain in trains but could also be used in the small/medium technic sets that don't require more than 2 channels. As the train hub already exists, might as well use it in other themes where it is suitable, there's no need to have it be exclusively for trains. Sets that do require more channels would use battery boxes and receivers. The receivers would be able to be bound to either the train remote, or several train remotes put together (for the basic default functionality), or control center + (for the more advanced PU functionality). That's fine. As long as all functionality can be achieved without the need for an additional smart device it's all good. The option to use an app/smart device can stay but it should be an option, not mandatory for any functionality with the possible exceptions of tech support, and of course sharing/downloading programs. Your thinking seems to be limited to the use cases that you have for Lego products. I'm trying to think of all sides and use cases. Rotary knobs are fine for trains but not for cars or most other things anyone would want to control with a physical remote. But it's quite easy to come up with a solution to the lever vs knob debate. You could have a vertically mounted rotary knob that you can thumb up/down but with an axle hole to accept a lever, and pushing the axle in further allows it to engage with a return to center spring. Or you could have a lever with removable axle used as the lever, and the base of the lever has molded into it a bevel gear onto which you can put another bevel gear and attach a rotary knob. There's probably 100's of different things you could do, I'm trying to think of ways things can be done, not excuses why it can't. I was thinking of something similar. In fact, when you look at some of the example programmable remotes used in industry it does look like the controls can be removed and swapped out with other controls. They are screwed in in the example below (and CC+ wouldn't look quite like this) but I can imagine the controls being held in with Technic pins, but I am aware of the potentially high price so it might be even more expensive with swappable controls, as well as make the firmware and configuration more complex if the controls aren't able to be predefined. It would be very cool though. The display screen on the unit above is probably about the size of a phones screen so it should be just as possible even with an LCD display. But some thought should be put into making things easier, like you can only ever configure one code block at a time, so is there really any need to display more than one code block at a time in full detail? I posted a quick and dirty example image earlier in this topic showing what a dirt cheap monochrome low res LCD display can do, though a higher res colour screen would look nicer, and if we combine that with preprogrammed advanced code blocks then it should be even easier than it is now, not harder. You could have an advanced code block for multiple steering axles for example, where you just have to set the number of axles, which of the pre programmed steering modes you want to be able to select from, choose the button used to select between steering modes, select which is to be the main steering control (by default it's set to the right joystick X axis but can be changed), the number of steered axles and which servo controls which axle. Just make those selections and it's all done for you. Or you can of course program it yourself using the more generic code blocks, or you can still connect to a smart device and create a profile on the app, or because it's open source do what ever else you like, all options are available. Everything you want as well and all functions open to those that don't want to use a smart device for whatever reason. The EV3 didn't cost anywhere near 200 euro to produce. I'm all for Lego making a profit, but charging 600+ Euro for a set then hijacking the use of your smart device, then requiring you to download an app so you can control it from your smart phone with no tactile feedback simply takes the piss. For a 600+ euro plastic Lego toy with weak megablocks motors and no bearings I want a fully Lego like physical remote (being Lego like it should be fully compatible with MOC making, meaning it is easily reprogrammable), not a requirement to download an app and have no tactile feedback because they are too stingy to include a remote! Fully agree, that's why I want CC+ to have a screen and be fully programmable like I keep saying. It's not very compatible with MOCs if there's no documentation, or no worked examples to allow you to program the sets from scratch yourself (like you could with previous control center sets and the code pilot), or if you don't want to have the use of your smart device hijacked by your Lego toy, or if you upgrade your smart device at a time when Lego no longer supports PU, or if Lego upgrade PU to a newer version at a time when you don't want to upgrade your smart device, or....... Yes, I have said maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany times that the option to use a smart device should remain available. But it shouldn't be the only option to access all features, including creating custom programs/profiles/configurations or whatever you want to call it. When I'm being asked to pay 600 euro for a Lego, plastic toy crane with no bearings, plastic counterweights and weak megablocks motors I am certainly not looking for Lego to offer me the cheap and easy option, or excuses like their mahoosive profits aren't even more mahoosiver, I want the expensive reprogrammable remote option! If all they are offering is the cheap and easy option then their prices should reflect that, cheap and easy. With CC+ you don't have to only get by with the properties of the small remote.

Ah okay, maybe I should rephrase or repackage the complete idea. By hub I mean the Technic hub. By hubs I mean the multiple technic hubs used in the Liebherr sets. I'm not too concerned with getting rid of the train hub shown in your video, if they don't require a smart device or an app, they would stay in my proposed PU revamp (which would be/remain open source). The train remote would be upgraded to have proportional levers (with some way to select between the levers being sprung and unsprung) instead of having push buttons. Maybe we would need a V2 train hub to work with it? But it should retain all the features and smooth, slow starting of trains (instead of starting too fast on speed 3), so I think that covers your needs right? Part of the reason for upgrading the remote to have proportional levers is to make it feel more premium (like their pricing) and train like than push buttons, but also because the train remote doesn't have to be exclusive to train sets, this upgraded remote would also be used in small to medium sized PU technic sets such as the top gear car and Audi, removing the need for a smart device and smart hubs in those sets. The small/mid sized technic sets could use either the train hub or stackable receiver's on a bigger battery box, so for those of us that miss PF it would be very much like PF but with proportional remote and BLE instead of bang bang remote and IR. We would lose some stuff like the graphics and angle inclination on the phone screen but I think we'd much rather be looking at, and focusing on the toy we're playing with, as well as have a physical remote, as well as removing all the burdens of being reliant on a smart device, than the fancy graphics on the phone screen, so a tiny loss for many big wins. Control Center + is for the flagship Technic sets to replace the Technic hubs and need for a smart device in those sets, and allow for the more advance features of PU (including config/programming) and allow for much more complex and physical controls without need for a smart device for it to be a complete product, but ideally CC+ would also be sold separately on bricks and pieces.

I have said a few time already that CC+ replaces the hub(s) so how can the program be in a hub that isn't there? You see what I mean about repeating myself? I've answered all of your concerns time and time again, I don't really think you care enough about anyone else's concerns with PU to listen. Nope.

Wrong on every count but I am getting bored of repeating myself on this forum.

Control Center +. And upgrade the train remote to have proportional levers so it can still be used as the train remote but also it can be used in the smaller Technic sets.

@Mikdun I really like the toggle switch idea, to be able to switch the spring return on and off. I wonder though, if having you physically add or remove the spring might me a cheaper option and also feel more "Lego like" as it requires you to add or remove a piece. On the other hand, having a little toggle switch as you suggest would be a nice feature. I'd be happy with either option. I think there was some issues mentioned by Lego with regards to using PS style, or other third party remotes but I can't find where I read that now. In any case, whilst third party remote compatibility would be vastly better than touch screen only, it is still relying on additional purchases of products made by third parties to make PU a complete system. It would be nice if, 50 years from now you could buy a MISB excavator and everything you need to build, program and play with your excavator, including all needed documentation, came on the box. It's a big ask I know, but the prices they are charging for the Liebherr is also a big ask. As for your comments about start phones and apps in general, I completely agree. Slightly off topic but last week, long after I started this thread and in a big surprise to me, my own place of work insisted I download their new company app on my phone as it would be the only way to book time off going forward. I have refused. If they think they can refuse me my contractually obligated holidays just because I don't want yet another sodding app on my phone they are in for a shock, and court action if necessary. This is indeed the way the world is going and it because we have allowed it to. Oh just download and use the app? NO! Bugger off with that virtual crap, that's what the last week has made me feel like. I want a person to speak to, a physical remote, something real!

I had my hypnodisk entry into the robot wars contest disqualified for reasons I didn't agree with, contests ran by unpaid talent for free won't be perfect but they are always fun to build for. People with bigger parts collections are like people with better genetics for running. You can't legislate for that and it's not pay to win. I don't have the genetics to win the 100 meters gold medal but I'm not gonna cry about it, that's life, and I'm still going to enjoy exercising if I choose to! And you do have a clear path to run this race. You know the rules to get you to the start line and where you need to go, you know how they will be judged and what makes an impressive model (the questions you've asked and the good quality of your build are evidence of this) to get you over the finish. Just do the best you can with what you have, that's all any of us can do. Anyway, I can only repeat myself so many times. I'm moving on from this to enjoy the contest and many more to come.

So far I think Jim and Milan have done a near perfect job of running what is one of the best competitions we've had in years, with some of the best entries and lots of people having fun. If you are a runner in a race, you don't get on the podium by passing the drugs test. Likewise, in this competition, meeting all criteria 100% only gets you in the competition, every eligible entry that the jury will be voting on will meet the criteria 100%. Therefore it necessarily follows that they will be looking at things that we all already know makes a good model such as build quality, number of functions, clean-ness of the design, build sturdiness/wobbly-ness (easy to tell by looking in most cases), centralized controls vs localized controls, number of functions and complexity as well as competition specific things such as creativity in replicating functions while sticking to the rules and amount of shrinkage (a teeny tiny build is obviously going to impress more than a build that's only slightly smaller, all other things being equal). All of these things will just have to be looked at from the very start because all the entries will be compliant otherwise it wouldn't be allowed as an entry. I don't think there is any need to fully write out as part of the competition rules all of the things that we already know makes a good build. It's up to the contest participants to know what makes a good build just like it's up to the runner of a race to know good training techniques, despite specific training techniques not being clearly stated in the rules. We could go on all day saying, what about this, what about that, but never mind the details, if you're asking about it then you already know it's worth thinking about. As for who wins based on all those details, that's for the jury to worry about, that's why we have one. Just make the best and most impressive entry you can.

I would imagine the jury will be made up of staff (Jim and Milan) or maybe members from this forum, not some algorithm interpreting rules in a script. I'm sure they will see many variations of ways in which the rules have been interpreted by the contestants and will judge accordingly, mostly by how impressed they are, like those ice skating judges holding up cards from 1 - 10. You don't always know why they scored what they did, you just got to impress them. Besides, the contestants aren't being paid and it's all for fun, so I don't think the jury members would want to say "your submission sucks because....."

Ah yes, I was thinking of tens of thousands of dollars and got confused

Thanks for the considered comments @thekoRngear

Making a MOC worth selling can take tens of thousands of hours, at a technical designers hourly rate, what do you think it would cost?

Agreed, but thank you @SaperPL for clarifying. It could be that most of us here are Technically minded, good at solving problems and therefore also good and finding ways around things, including rules. You can't really define a rule for every scenario otherwise you'd need a 500 page document written by a lawyer! So just try to have fun

@SaperPL the competition is run by Jim in his free time. You have some complaints which you feel are valid, fair enough, but please at least try to see Jim's side instead of being confrontational by saying things like "organising contests in a way where rules don't matter". I'm not sure how you got to that statement based on your complaints TBH.

Maybe some white parts are for next years space sets?

Because it's better to have TLG post them directly to the winner, but Jim has to request the prizes from TLG by a certain deadline, which means the contest deadline must be before that. That's how I read it anyway.

They did it with the arctic sets, maybe this is something similar?

True true. We have had inaccurate set lists in the past when they have been this early.

That is some good feedback. And yes my ideas are evolving over time as I gather more feedback. Some of the things you mentioned like the automatic gearbox of the hauler and function switching gearbox of the catd11 I think could be solved with the previously mentioned advanced code blocks, which are very complex blocks of code for such functions, but on the surface is easy to configure to your model. I did also ask the question what other code blocks could we need. I actually do think it's possible to release enough of them to cover 99% of every scenario. "Apply wiggle" could be a toggleable setting. Everything in an official set released so far could easily be covered with the exception of inverse kinematics, which we can't easily code now anyway. But maaaaaaybe that could be done with an advanced code block, where you would input the number of boom arms, the length of the booms between pivot centers, the angles and number of motor rotations required to reach travel limits, maaaaaaybe a code could be written which calculates everything just from that? But I'm not sure what you'd do with the graphical interface.