allanp

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.

If by compact you mean using these new parts there isn't enough gear sizes.....yet. The light blue piece engages with a tow ball, so you can move anything if you put a tow ball on it. Likewise the orange shift fork can be moved by anything with a pin. And it should be fine for heavy duty applications IF you use it in a high speed, low torque situation and gear down afterwards. The low friction of the gearbox should allow that without too many losses. Now if only we had a high speed motor

Yesterday I put a single 9V ungeared motor right onto the crank shaft and drove it from not the freshest of batteries. However, in first gear the rear wheel spun nice and fast, it was a blur. Skipped neutral to second, and the rear wheel spun even faster! Previously Lego gearboxes had so much friction that they would just bog down, and in top gear the ungeared motor would just stall. Not so here, in third gear the Yamaha's rear wheel spun reeeeeeaally fast! I couldn't quite get that satisfying brrrrRRRR click brrrRRRR sound like in my previous concept gearbox but I think there is a small design floor in the shifter mechanism. The pawls that engage with the new yellow 8 spoke index wheel are clamped together with a piece in between via a white drive belt. The friction created here make it so it doesn't quite reset itself fully unless you manually place the gear selector foot pedal in the middle. However I think there should be a fix for that, and I would like to try to hide an ungeared 9V motor in there somewhere to make it an even more playable model even when it's stationary on its display stand.

If that's how it works with PU now then I don't see why it wouldn't work with the altered train remote. Instead of buttons it's proportional levers is all. The train hubs would be programmed to try to match the motor speed to the lever position. Maybe that could be done with way more steps, like 128 or something, instead of just 10 button presses?

Well yeah that's what I mean, we could keep the existing simple train remote but upgrade it to have proportional joysticks that stay put (like train levers do) but with a place to add a return to center spring or rubber band. not everything is based on CC+, that's only intended to be a part of the whole PU revamp. In fact, every set, including the most advanced RC sets, would require a simple battery box as the hubs would be replaced with BLE receivers, which you can stack as many as you like onto a simple battery box, like how PF was but with two way communication. I'd also want to see a simple switch introduced, again like we had with PF and even 9V. Can you explain what you mean by load control? Also what other functions are impossible, maybe we can make them possible? I really want to come up with something with the potential to please everybody.....even if it is just for the lulz and Lego ain't interested!

After a few days of itching to build this set I finally got round to it, and it's brilliant! And yes, I still can't help but notice the similarity with my parts.... ....I gotta say, the way they work is sublime! They definitely benefit from being injection molded over my 3D printed pieces. Their solution of using a tow ball to engage with the rotary cam is also sure to be more resilient over time than my version. The sliding forks take more force to slide due to the sliding surfaces only being one module in length which may lead to some binding, but when fully built into the model it moves lovely and freely. The use of a pin hole in the selector fork also means it can be moved via a beam/rod/level arrangement, and also that the rotary cam can be used to slide anything with a tow ball, not just the selector fork, so that's really quite ingenious. I also really like that the engine is geared up to spin at a decent speed in first gear, and with very low friction and in a more authentic way than ever! All I can say is that I am so happy with their new parts and so glad to see them in the lineup. They work so well with low friction and in a more authentic way than ever, and it makes me rather excited for the next 1:8 scale supercar! Maybe there will be more gear sizes? Maybe it'll be a stick shift? Whatever it is, it'll be a step up!

Trains would still have their remote, or do you want a simple remote with proportional joysticks? The train remote could be upgraded to have those though. The sticks would stay put acting like the accelerator lever on a train, but there could be a place to allow you to add a rubber band or a soft shock absorber to make it spring back to center.

Well that's good cos my PU overhaul would have all that

Yeah I guess so . But a bespoke smart device that comes in the box that doesn't need updating (hopefully!) and with a bunch of built in physical controls. I would hope that it wouldn't come with a bunch of errors in the code, surely they should fully test this stuff before release? But my thinking here is that it would still have Bluetooth and therefore still have connectivity to the internet. However, while it's always there as an option, it's not as reliant on it as it is now. The sets that come with CC+ (the most expensive ones that otherwise would have come with multiple hubs) would have in their printed instructions a complete, step by step guide on how to program your model on the CC+ itself. While you have the option to download a premade program, you don't have to because the book would guide you through programming it yourself. This would also help with providing documentation and helping the customer understand how to do it. So no need for internet connection for new sets, and no need for a smart device to create your own. But sure, things might still go wrong, at which point you would usually call customer service. They can then guide you through the process of allowing them to connect to your CC+ and verify the issue and either fix it for you in most cases or replace it. The optional app allows you to download premade programs and update your CC+ if you want to but it's optional. It would only ever be strictly needed for customer support to fix unforeseen problems. So it's all still there if you want or need it, but the reliance on it to make it a complete and usable product is vastly reduced, and it should still work in its current form and is still programmable long after it is no longer supported by Lego or third parties or your smart device is no longer compatible, much like the original control center and code pilot today, all while not hijacking the use of the smart device you paid for. In terms of the delay to send and receive commands via Bluetooth, is that not the case as it is now, maybe not with pybricks running on the hub, but certainly with PU as it is now? We still have to send and receive data between the hubs and the smart device don't we? Also, for programs/models that don't require feedback from sensors/encoders, would it not actually be a bit quicker, maybe about the same as pybricks, as all the program is executed on the CC+ where the controls are, and it only needs to send commands to the BLE receivers? I could be wrong on that though, as well as everything else! In any case, if you were told that this is all going to happen, with the CC+ programmable physical controller being developed as part of a complete overhaul of PU (not a whole new system, more or a revamp to try to address everyone's concerns with it), including buggy motors in an L-motor format, removable leads from the motors, micromotors and so on, what would you add/remove/change to make it a more enticing prospect to you? What really concerns you about it that we could try to address? I'm not trying to come up with something just to please me, I want us to "fix" PU together! However you must bear in mind everyone's concerns and wishes. You might not be concerned with PU being so dependent on your smart phone/tablet to be a complete package but many other people are. I'd probably be happy just going back to the simplicity of PF but having better proportional remotes, but many people like the more advanced capabilities of PU. Maybe I'm trying the please everyone and maybe it's not possible but not trying feels like giving up before you begin.

This is very impressive, well done

I wonder if we could have a whole bunch of preprogrammed blocks. For example, for an automatic gearbox we know we need to have a speed measurement from the main drive motor, so in the automatic gearbox block we can select which motor is the main drive motor and it would then know to measure its speed, and also have some control over it. We also need to know the position of whatever the control is for the accelerator, so we can select what is that control. We can select the number of gears in our sequential gearbox, the servo which rotates the cams to change the gears and the number of degrees of rotation needed for each gear change, we can also select if we have neutral and reverse gears, and where the servo needs to be rotated to to reach those gears, and which controls we want to use to get neutral and reverse. And bingo, with a single code block we have a fully functional automatic gearbox. The code block would be an actual block of code with everything already programmed, you only configure it to your needs, it would automatically work out everything for us, like it would always start in first, and shift down to first when we stop, and shift up gears if we keep the accelerator control on full, and shift down gears when the motor slows down but the accelerator is still maxed indicating a hill or heavy load, and slightly reduce motor power during shifts, speed match the motor for smooth shifting (the code block would allow you to set the ratios) and allow the shift to fully complete before making another shift and so on. Behind the scenes it could be as complicated as we want, but on the surface it only needs an easy to do configuration from us. There could be bespoke code blocks for all sorts of things, like a code block for steering multiple axles, where we can set the servos for each axle, define how many steered axles we have, define what is the main steering control and define what button should be used to switch between steering modes as well as select what preprogrammed steering modes we'd like to have. There could be another code block for RC pneumatic creations, where we can set how many circuits there are, the servo limits in either direction as well as a bias towards one way or the other, weather or not the servos should move linearly or logarithmically, an additional output that runs maxed out whenever any of the servos are at a non central position (for automatic control of a compressor) and an additional input for a pressure sensor (for if you want to control a compressor using a pressure sensor instead). Of course you could always try to configure these functions yourself using the more generic code blocks but having a whole bunch of these advanced and bespoke, preprogrammed blocks would really help to make creating custom programs for your MOCs a lot easier. And I think that not only is true for my CC+ idea (as they would come preprogrammed into the CC+ ready to use from day one) but also for PU in it's current form. What other bespoke code blocks would you find useful for any MOC you could think of building? Maybe one for controlling a manual sequential gearbox using two buttons for up/down shifts, or a block for a manual gated gearbox to mimic a stick shift (where you can select different gears directly by pressing different buttons) which would also be useful for multifunction gearboxes, or maybe a limits block which lets you set limits on the number of motor rotations due to string length on a winch drum or a linear actuator, or a load sensor block (could be more generically called a disabling block) which lets you disable different motors/outputs/inputs in certain directions when a given an input either from a sensor or some other part of the program.

You'd get that many boom pieces from 2 sets it looks like.

Ah okay, good to know. Been trying to figure out what would be possible config/programming wise with a simple, even monochrome LCD screen for CC+, though of course a nicer looking color screen or even a touch screen would be much better. Can we do only configuration or are code blocks doable? I'm thinking it could be kinda node based, you just select what input goes to what output and configure the blocks. Also trying to cut down on writing massive walls of text so here's a few ugly looking sketches, some screens are programming an excavator, others like the sequencer are for programming a sequential gearbox. I think I spent too long on this!

@Lok24 I think the modern Hornby train sets have a system of sending both power and data through just the two rails but enabling separate control of multiple trains on the same rails. Not sure how that would work with two way comms though, like for sensors.

This has got me thinking. I think I have some left over lead flashing in the shed, easy to cut with tin snips. I could get some grey PLA filament, though I have some in yellow already, make them twice as tall and cut rectangles of lead flashing to fit inside.

I was half joking, but is 11% an acceptable failure rate right off the bat? And now I'm wondering, I bought my current phone to be able to use PU, which is now over 3 years old and I have no desire to change until it stops working. I still consider it to be my new phone. But if I was to just now get my first PU set I'd be well disappointed if I found my phone wasn't new enough. What phone I happen to have shouldn't have anything to do with anything.

Which one sounds more rediculous? I can't play with my Lego because my phone isn't up to date. I can't play with my Lego because a bird pooped on my neighbours car when I was a little boy. Answer: They are both the same!

I was thinking more manned vehicles to outer space but yes you are right, and thanks for sharing Good question. Would we prefer a colourful mess inside a sleek all black shell or would we prefer all black gears and so on, so we can see all the gear trains working whilst not being an ugly mess. I think I'd prefer the latter, perhaps the only time I'd advocate for actually all black, to match the black backdrop of space and even the invisible forces of gravity that hold the planets in orbit. Alternatively it could be a purposely decorative and ornate mechanism, but that sorta brings to mind creator rather than Technic.

Sorry I'm late to the 2024 party. Names alone are hard to get a feel of how excited I should be. A space wheel loader would probably look similar to an Earth wheel loader in white I guess, with different proportions maybe. Maybe it could be autonomous and without a cab? Hmmmm. I doubt a real life one would be solar powered as it would work slower than wind erosion! But as real life ones don't exist yet I guess it'll be a futuristic design. The VTOL space cargo ship also sounds futuristic and also slightly humorous to me, I mean, is there such a thing as a space ship that isn't VTOL?! But with all these space sets I wonder if this is a whole new subtheme like the arctic sets. As much as a space shuttle could be really great, the existence of future concepts on this lineup kinda makes me doubt it a little bit, but who knows, maybe in Legos world of the future the space shuttle still flies! Oh, and one other thing, space sub theme? Technic minifigures?! @ralphie Moon is a fantastic movie, if you haven't seen the film Sunshine I'd also check that out.

@vascolp you and @Lok24 are more than welcome to discuss your thoughts and other ideas in this topic if you wish. I didn't call this topic "I'm going to fix powered up", it's "let's fix powered up". All ideas are welcome. Maybe it can also encourage us to look again at our own ideas and try to come up with ways to include other people's concerns. It was other people's comments that made me realise I should drop the physical code blocks from my first idea in this thread and also to continue with Bluetooth instead of 2.4ghz. However if you want to start a new dedicated topic you are of course free to do so. To your points in your post above. 1) We are agreed 2) It is true that this is the world we live in but I don't like this argument. We could say that we should just go along with many undesirable, and even terrible things because that's the world we live in. I don't think that should be an allowable excuse. Having optional connectivity is fine and even great, but when it's mandatory we have to deal with things like mobile phones moving on and no longer supporting PU when Lego moves on unless we rely on third party developers which we shouldn't have to do when we are paying a premium price and spending yet more time on our phones which playing with Lego should reduce and so on and so on. And besides, I want to use my phone as a phone whenever I want. I paid a lot of money for it to be hijacked by another product. Maybe I want to let someone watch YouTube on it or listen to music on or use it to follow a tutorial on how to program PU or make a phone call to my mate so I can chat to him discussing how great this Lego thing is that I'm playing with or whatever. The fact that I can't use my phone because I'm playing with my Lego, or maybe the idea that I can't even buy that Lego because my phone isn't compatible, it's all just silly to me especially when paying a premium. I could buy a tablet or some other bloody smart device, but I'd still lack physical controls, but I could buy a playstation remote and use brick controller 2, but then I would only have basic control and after all that expense I really wish I could just buy something proprietary from Lego instead that would be 1000 times better, and I know won't ever require external support from Lego or third parties. 3) Lego has a that basic train remote. I remember getting a cheap AF toy car as a child, probably £10 in today's money, and it had a similar in size and feel push button remote. For a little toy car, fine. For a £200 train set, that's on the insulting side of cheeky cost cutting. For a £580 Technic flagship, no f**king way, not even close £580? Just no! 4) we agree that a bigger remote with proportional joysticks and more buttons is desirable. I think pretty much everyone wants that! But didn't they say they struggled to make that happen, even compatibility with preexisting remotes? I can't remember the issue exactly. But if you are already willing to go as far as a bigger remote with proportional joysticks and more buttons and stuff, why not go a step further with an EV3 style chip (about 10 bucks) and an inexpensive LCD screen, and a proprietary piece of firmware in the vien of remote bla bla that allows for a whole bunch of settings and configuration options such that I have described previously? With those extra steps you can solve whatever issue is preventing them from enabling third party remote compatibility (because now they have a better one of their own) as well as elimination of all issues that stem from a smart device being mandatory, enabling more complex control from a physical remote operated creation (I think brink controller only allows for more basic configuration?) whilst still enabling everything you are asking for as it is still able to connect with a smart device as an option. So far the biggest arguments against it is that it is dreaming too big, they'll never do it, I'm pretty sure I've heard that before but we have all kinds of things that were previously only dreamt of like longer pneumatics, planetary reduction hubs and now a whole new gearbox system in the Yamaha. If you would have said in 2015 that you wanted a whole new app controlled Bluetooth based system to replace powered up and it to be released in a 4000 piece excavator with 7 motors, you would have been told "you're dreaming too big". Another big argument is the cost. Well we are already willing to pay for a bigger remote with proportional controls and Bluetooth and so on. It's really not that much of a step from there to move from having multiple chips in multiple hubs, to having a singular, more capable chip in the remote and an LCD screen and some firmware. The model itself would only need basic Bluetooth receiver's that do whatever the remote tells it to do. The final big argument is do we really need this when other things are available? Not really I guess. But I can happily leave the next big expensive flagship on the shelf. And I guess we actually do need this if you want to ditch reliance on a smart devices, ditch reliance on third parties picking up the ball Lego will drop and have complex programmable physical control. It's not about need, Lego is an expensive luxury toy, if they want to charge luxury prices then what do I want in return?

Yeah, it seems there could be quite some overlap between configuration and programming. I am thinking that in CC+ you could do basic configuration of course, IE control this motor from this controller in a way that's about as easy as with PF, but you could also apply and adjust ramp up/down settings, set a servo/motor to match a given proportional control input but also use maths, multiply it's position/speed by either a percentage which you can adjust, or multiply its position/speed by the position of another proportional control input such as a rotary dial on the CC+ (I'm thinking there would be two rotary dials) or by the value given by a rotation sensor for example. I think someone could be forgiven for calling that level of configuration a basic form of programming. It probably doesn't matter if it's called configuration or programming, I think a sophisticated enough form of programming/configuration for 99% of MOCs can be done on an LCD screen and the inbuilt controllers, of which there would be many. I think what I'm dreaming of is not too dissimilar to you, I'm dreaming a bit bigger as someone said! In any case, weather it can be done this way or that, I just feel like something like this.... ....would be really cool, as well as more authentic (real life cranes are operated from this thing!) on top of everything else including making the use of a smart device purely optional even when you need a custom program for your custom creations. It just feels more Lego to me. I may be an engineer by trade, and as such my adult engineer self can certainly appreciate the efficiency of the make do with what you have already solutions, but my inner child self, the part of me that wants to play with Lego, wants a bwiiiiiig contwollah!

What if they didn't up the price? The goal is trying to justify an already high price in a way that addresses as many control+ issues that people have as possible. How would you suggest they do it, assuming the high price is set in stone by marketing? Or do you think it's not possible?

Linking to a list of smart devices does nothing to supply you with that device. It doesn't solve the issues that come with needing a compatible smart device. I would hope that CC+ wouldn't require an update. My guitar effects pedal, which also is fully programmable on the integrated LCD screen while having the option of connection to a computer, never needed an update despite having its own integrated computer that I literally stomp on. The .....um.....wadjacallit....system architecture? That would be decided before release and any subsequent motors or sensors would follow that right? Alternatively the separate receiver's would support it (like how we had v1 and V2 recievers). For new sets, the manual would include step by step, button press by button press instructions on how to program the CC+ to control your model, all done on the CC+ itself, much like control center 2 and code pilot sets did. But you would also have the option to connect via Bluetooth to download a premade program from Lego if you want. For customer support, you would contact Lego as usual, and they can guide you through the process of having them connect to your CC+ and varify/fix any issues. Once Lego has moved on then it would be like any other Lego hardware, buy one from the second hand market and use the manual to program it yourself. Could you define the difference between configuration and programming? If we take the Liebherr load sensing as an example, and in the model we have motor a driving the winch that moves the boom in towards the crane when rotating clockwise (decreasing load) and out away from the model when rotating ccw (increasing load), and we have a touch sensor that is mechanically actuated vie some spring/lever arrangement when the load gets too heavy, and then we configure it on the CC+ such that when the sensor is activated, motor a's ccw rotation is disabled and we also set a red light to come on on another output, would that be at least a simple form of programming? If the hook is connected to motor b and we can also disable that motor as well, or tell it to half its speed of rotation. We could also add logic blocks, mathematical blocks and so on, and just select what communicates with what. I agree a touch screen would be even better, but I am trying to think of ways to keep the likely high cost as low as practical. A billion dollars? Okay, maybe I don't need the whole national power grid in the box, we could probably leave that out!

I should just quickly say that this topic isn't just for me to promote my suggestions, please feel free to add your own ideas, maybe simple changes to the existing system or a whole new system, or even just go back to 9v/pf!

This is valuable feedback so thank you for this. Many exhibitors still use the old 9v train remote. It would be nice to have a mains power option for exhibitors. Maybe that could be integrated into the simple battery and control center + like it was with the first RCX. Using Arduino etc was things you suggested we could do (and I don't wish to remove those options from those that wish to take advantage of them). Why would you suggest them if there was absolutely no need for them? It is as simple as PF for the most basic of control. Anything other than that requires a smart device to program. I know you are fine with that but I am not. I would like a solution that (at least tries to) please both of us as we lie at opposite ends of the spectrum. I had a smart phone but when PU was released my phone was not compatible so I had to buy a new one, and I'm not the only one just in this forum whose phone wasn't compatible. Imagine not being able to buy and play with a new Lego model because your phone wasn't compatible, it's kinda rediculous to my mind. And things move on, tech moves on at a mind boggling rate such that things will not be supported in a short time and we shouldn't have to rely on third party enthusiasts to pick up the ball Lego dropped. The original control center and code pilot never needed continued support from Lego or from enthusiasts and I think it's possible to reboot PU such that it doesn't need it either. When I said most Lego consumers don't know about that stuff, I mean like when I go to my local toy shop and observe the people in the Lego isle, I don't see a bunch of people who would know how to program an Arduino or know about brick controller 2 or anything like that. It's mostly kids and their parents or grandparents looking for something cool to play with. I feel something like CC+ would cater to them with its cool physical controls and easy setup with full documentation out of the box (whilst also catering to you). I think it is possible to do basic programming on the hypothetical CC+, complex enough at least to control the previously released flagships but without the inverse kinematics. A few posts ago I wrote a few examples of programming on the proposed CC+. It is much more settings based, but there could be a LOT of settings on an EV3 style chip. There could be basic and advanced modes, basic mode just hides a lot of settings to keep things simple. I'm probably not explaining that side of things that well TBH. It's quite hard for us to guage customer demand, I really don't know, but how many potential buyers are put off a very expensive RC set by there not being a remote, but some app instead. How do we know what happens in the mind of some random person as they browse the isle? I think this is one of those things where people didn't know they wanted it until they see it. Perhaps unbrickme didn't know he wanted the gearbox parts of the Yamaha until he saw it, and now he sees it, it's more fascinating than even his beloved 8043. But yeah, the price is a big thing. I don't think it necessarily comes from the unit itself, the brain of the EV3 costs 10 bucks. Lego will charge what people are willing to pay. Maybe it wouldn't be quite as cheap as I think it could be but maybe not as expensive as you think it would be. Another way to look at price, the Liebherrs biggest criticism is the price. But let's say that massive price is set in stone by marketing and can't be changed. Okay, so how do we elevate the Liebherr and it's PU system to make it's massive price feel more justified to the average consumer that's not looking at price per gram of plastic while taking into account electronics and all that stuff that us die hard fans like to do? Well, they could just have made it much bigger and taller for the sake of just being bigger, but for me it has to start with having a physical remote, and having everything you need out of the box and none of the drawbacks of being reliant on a compatible smart device. Is there a better way to do that than having something like the control center + that I'm proposing?