allanp

Actually, it wouldn't have worked out of the box for me as my smart phone was not compatible, I had to get a new one. It is clearly very difficult to please everyone, from those that want the simplicity and out the of the box readiness of PF to those that want the capabilities of PU. Both systems leave something to be desired from one side or the other. I get that we don't necessarily need a whole new system, but if we are to address all the issues and complaints surrounding PU you would need new motors, a new hub, the ability to program or at least basic configuration without the need for a computer or smart phone and so much other stuff that it basically amounts to a whole new system anyway does it not? Or at the very least a soft reboot of PU. @Lok24 appears to believe everything we want is already there, we just have to expect that third party devs will always be there, write code, use Arduino, buy a smart device, buy a third party remote, just do all that and it's all there! However, most Lego consumers don't know much about all that stuff, and many that do know of it's existence have little desire to learn it just to play with their Lego. Besides the batteries, Lego always came with everything you needed, including all documentation out of the box. Predecessors to PU such as the 90s control center and code pilot allowed all programming to be done on the unit itself, no firmware updates or computer needed. Mindstorms was understood to be an exception because coding was part of the idea of mindstorms. By melding mindstorms into Technic they seem to have compromised both. Simply putting "smart device required" on the box, whilst honest, doesn't actually do anything to help provide such a device, nor does it help to alleviate the issues that come directly from having to use a third party smart device, such as having more screen time, having to allow little Timmy to have a smart device or worse, borrow yours, having to wait for firmware updates, becoming obsolete landfill and the list goes on and on. The idea behind my.....idea....was to try to meet in the middle. It's a compromise that probably won't please many people 100%, but would hopefully mostly please most people. Being Bluetooth based, it can still have optional compatibility with smart devices and computers enabling everything the PU crowd like, but a computer or smart device is no longer a necessary requirement even if you want a custom program for a custom MOC. By having separate receiver's, basic battery box with high current limit and retaining the already existing train remote for basic sets we can have the plug and play simplicity of PF, while for the big expensive flagships we can have the control center + which enables control, configuration and programming for something like 16 motors/sensors in a simple and easy way without the need for a smart phone or computer (though the option to do so will still exist it's not mandatory for programming custom MOCs) whilst also being a totally sweet physical remote that's far better for controlling your Lego creations than a third party remote because it was specifically designed by Lego to do exactly that, instead of being designed to play computer games. Besides being unfeasible (which I don't agree with as I think it's completely feasible), what's not to like? CC+ wouldn't have to cost more than the combination of two hubs and a decent third party remote and the separate receiver's mean that smaller and/or less electronically advanced sets wouldn't have to be as expensive as the current small sets with an entire smart hub just to control two motors. It can be as simple as PF, removes all concerns over the need for a smart device while retaining all the benefits of PU.

My idea doesn't have a touch screen, just a monochrome inexpensive LCD screen, a touch screen would be even better, but probably not absolutely needed. Although some programming of MOCs is inevitable for certain things, I think it could be made simple enough so that it could be done via a simple LCD screen. The unit itself would do most of the work, all you would be doing is selecting different settings to configure the inputs and outputs.

I use spread sheets at work, they are very powerful indeed and fairly easy. But it still feels like work, the opposite of fun!

@Lok24 Well yeah of course you'd have to configure all that, by "just pairing" I meant for the communication between the control center + and the receivers. In this post I give a few examples of how you can configure to the point of being able to fully program control center + right from the unit itself, it's essentially a fully programmable physical remote, everything you need right out the box with no smart device required: But a few posts after that I said we could ditch 2.4gHz in favor of bluetooth connectivity to make compatibility with the current PU system, as well as smart devices an optional feature, but not required. A lot of complaints revolve around the need to use a smart device, the need for more screen time (one thing that playing with Lego should aim to reduce, not increase) and no physical remote being available from Lego. Doing this kind of soft reboot of PU with control center +, new motors with removable and stackable leads, separate receivers and so on aims to solve all those complaints whilst retaining as many of the benefits as is practical to do so (though things like inverse kinematics might have to go unless they supply advanced premade programs, which is also a possibility, but I don't think I'd miss inverse kinematics TBH). "Just use a smart device" is not a solution to all the complaints that stem from having to use a smart device, especially not for parents and children but not for adults fans either. With a blue tooth based control center +, Lego can still release premade programs for sets and you can still have all the same coding options available if you want it. But it's optional, you are not forced to, if you don't want to do any coding, that doesn't matter because control center + is fully programmable/configurable right on the device itself. If your smart device stops working and becomes obsolete and Lego has moved on and stopped supporting it, well that wouldn't matter either, just like the original control center from the 90s it'll still work and be fully configurable even if the 3rd party developers aren't there. Control center + would not require continued support from Lego, your smart device or any third parties to be fully functional, and it all comes in the box (as it really should for $700!) If you want to buy little Timmy a mahoosive liebherr excavator but you don't want to set him loose on a smart device, again, that doesn't matter because the set instructions come with step by step instructions on how to program your control center + based model right from the unit itself, just like they did with the previous control center sets and the code pilot of the barcode truck (which also still works), so full documentation will also be provided, which is another common complaint of PU. Exactly so if a program didn't exist you would have to code your own program.

Oh, I ditched the physical code block idea, that was my first idea in this thread but others pointed out that it would take up way too much space. PF2.0 with it's control center + doesn't use physical code blocks. Programs can be created via the integrated LCD screen or via optional connection to a PC And a year or so ago, I would have completely agreed with you. I did see a lot of potential in PU and I bought a whole new bloody smart phone because of it, but I don't think it's coming to be honest. They seem to have given up on adding physical remotes, the driver chips in the hub can only just barely handle the current motors let alone anything like a buggy motor, PU will always be smart device dependent if you want anything more than the most basic of control and I don't recall there being a new PU component this year or last year (in the Technic theme anyway). PF was only around for 10 years, PU has been around for half that already. Or maybe I am thinking of things a bit wrongly here. What if, instead of control center + being based on 2.4gHz and a whole new system, it is based on bluetooth like PU? Hmmmmm, but for control center + you would still need the smart hub to communicate with and drive the motors, yes? Or maybe not....... if they released a new basic battery box (no driver chips, current limit of 7 amps or something to protect the cables) and a new stackable bluetooth receiver (which has beefier motor driver chips in it), but the PU cables aren't stackable which is another common complaint, but the new motors could have removable and stackable leads.....hmmmm.....we are getting close to a whole new system now. Okay, so instead of PF2.0 what if it was PU2.0. It's basically the same idea I have above, with the control center +, basic battery box, separate receivers, new motors etc, but instead of being 2.4gHz it's now blue tooth based, but the cable plugs are now reverted back to the PF format, allowing stacking of plugs and compatibility of all formats including optional smart devices, PU, PF and even 9V. I mean, the PU trains didn't require a smart device did they? You just paired the hub to the physical remote. So I guess you could have any number of receivers connected to a basic battery box in the model, and then just pair them to the control center +. Is blue tooth any cheaper or better than 2.4gHz? I guess for the first year you would get a small model with basic battery box and a regular motor, a medium model with a basic battery box, a couple different motors, basic remote (like the current train remote) and receiver (with the motor driver chips). No programs, just basic RC functionality. Then for the big flagship you get a bunch of motors and receivers and basic battery boxes and control center +. It's all bluetooth based and cross compatible so they wouldn't have to call it a whole new system, but a kind of soft reset of PU with these new components. It makes the use of smart devices possible but optional. Please forgive my noobishness, load what program? If I make a MOC and there's no program that exists for that MOC, what program would I load onto it?

I don't think the control center + with PF2.0 idea is quiiiiiite as bats%$t crazy as it sounds. In terms of cost, yes, the control center itself would be more expensive to make than a single smart hub, but larger and more expensive sets require multiple hubs. You would only ever need one control center, and it would also double as a physical remote better than any third party one you could buy as it would be designed specifically to control Lego creations and somewhat mimic the real life controls of real machinery. How much would it be to buy 2 hubs directly from Lego and a decent but smaller and way less cool looking third party physical remote? And in my case a smart phone to go with it? Control center + would have a decently powerful computer chip (like maybe what EV3 had or something, about $10?) in a large but mostly empty enclosure with some physical controllers, 2.4gHz radio and an inexpensive LCD screen. It would have a massive "WOW" factor that I think would appeal to younger people. And because it uses separate receivers, smaller models could also use a much smaller and much cheaper remote for basic, direct control. The control center is only needed for the big and expensive sets but would also be available separately. And yes, that industrial piece of kit pictured above is very expensive, everything industrial is very expensive and the E-top being on there is also telling, there is a significant safety element involved in controlling a 5 axle crane with one of these things which costs a ton of money in testing and certification, and it certainly isn't sold in the numbers Lego would sell. All Lego has to do is put stupid little screws on the battery cover! I really don't know anything about Python, or using it to control smart hubs or whatever, but if you wanted to control your own MOCs then wouldn't you need to be able to code your own program or at least know how to lift parts of existing code and mash them together? Maybe I'm just from a different generation, I know as a kid I would have wanted to play with something like what is pictured above than mess about with any kind of coding software. As an adult I can better appreciate it's uses but my 12 year old self would have just seen that as "boring nerdy s$%t". Control center + somehow feels both much more like a cool toy to play with, and also much more like playing with the real thing or build for real. Part of the reason for creating this thread, and trying to come up with a new direction for when TLG eventually replaced powered up was all the complaints of no physical remote and the need for third party smart devices. Not everyone is happy for their kids to own a smart device or having to have more screen time to play with Lego, which has for me always been a way to reduce screen time. And not everyone likes buying things made by Chinese child labor to play with their Lego. And yes, I did have to buy a new smart phone as my current one at the time wasn't compatible, but I did it because I saw quite some potential in it, but less than a quarter of that potential has been reached in 4 or 5 years and now I know more about the system I think it never will be. And while 3rd party options exists, Lego Technic never used to have to rely of the existence of third party options just to make it a desirable product, doing so now is a step backwards. It's not for the sake of just wanting Lego to make everything, it for the sake of all these things mentioned above as well as having everything come in the box, no additional stuff needed, reducing screen time, increasing longevity, no need to code even for complex MOCs and if we are to have $700 price tags, making it feel more worth that price. And I must re-emphasize, PU is not here forever and will be replaced with a whole new ecosystem eventually with all new hardware being developed for it. It has happened a few times before and will happen again, each time they do they try to address the concerns of the previous system. If you would have suggested the current PU system in the PF era people would have called that bats$%t also. But please don't think I don't like or enjoy reading all your comments either in support of or against it, although I firmly support my idea I am under no illusion of it being a fully formed idea and there's always room for improvements and completely different points of view. And I admit that when I suggested the PF2.0 idea with the control center +, I did think there would be a few more people excited for it. I guess it just goes to show how hard it is to come with a successor to PU or PF that pleases everybody

Yes but let's remember that PF was around for ten years before it was replaced. Powered up has been around for about half that time already, and judging by the lack of development of the app and the hardware, I get the feeling it's time is limited. It certainly won't be around forever and will be replaced eventually by..... something. So what is that something? What direction should it take? Do people really want it to be just more of the same with total reliance on third party computers/smart devices and third party software just to make it usable for MOCs and limited use of third party physical remotes with the need to program in python or whatever? Not everyone is proficient, or even wants to be proficient in coding or python or whatever else. Is that really the most desirable thing you could want if you could design everything from scratch? Control center+ would have USB connectivity for optional computer control, so if TLG were to make everything public so that enthusiasts can make their own software (like a train manager or something) they can still do so. If PU is going to be retired and replaced, which it will be, with all new motors and hardware developed just like they did with PU and PF before that, which they will do, then what should replace it? This is what I am suggesting PF2.0 for, for when PU is eventually replaced. And yes I am suggesting it very early, years in advance, but these things take years to develop. Better to let TLG know what you want now, instead of a few months before it's released.

Thanks for the input guys, I know it's not easy trying to come up with a solution that fixes all problems while retaining a lot of the benefits of control+, it requires a LOT of thought on a subject that's already been discussed quite a lot here so I really appreciate all of your comments. So it seems the physical code block idea isn't that popular so far. The idea was from the industrial machine panels, which used to use a bunch of physical relays, contactors, delay times etc., and you could do some fairly complex control of industrial equipment without a PLC or computer. Just like with PF or 9V, If it ever broke down you just repaired or replace the faulty component and away you go. But I think the comments about the size and space requirements are correct, so it likely isn't feasible. So then if we have any kind of complex control, is there any other way to do it without a computer/smart device? I think there is. Okay now time for another unfeasible idea from Allanp....Control Center +! So now we have a system that's similar to PF, with basic battery boxes and separate receivers just like before. In fact, it probably could just be PF2.0. It's like PF but replaces IR with 2.4GHz. We also have much higher quality (and much more compact) servo motor, a micro motor, a regular motor and a buggy motor but in the shape/format of the current large motor. We also have a small, cheap, basic PF style remote for the smaller cheaper sets. But for the flagship we also have a new PF2.0 control center +. This would be a new physical remote but could also be mounted directly to the model like in control centre 2. It's quite large, almost the size of the original control Centre, it is just small enough to be comfortably hand held but just large enough to be on your lap when sat down. It also has an inexpensive LCD screen, like this remote has (though the control center + wouldn't look like this): This would be designed and made by Lego and not using pre-existing remotes like the one pictured above or from a console. That's because it's not being used to play a game or fly a plane but most likely it will be controlling excavators and other such heavy machinery, so it would be nice if the controls you are operating closely mimicked the controls of the kind of machinery you tend to find released as a Technic set. There would be several buttons and so on, but the two main controllers that catch the eye would be two large, fully proportional 2 axis joysticks with a two way rocker switch on each, allowing the simultaneous control of six functions from your thumbs on these two controls, but of course there would be other buttons and stuff elsewhere for more functions. This is like a real life excavator where the two arm movements are controlled by two axis joystick and the bucket is controlled by a two way rocker switch. The screen allows programming. For some programming examples: Load sensing of the Liebherr. There is a touch sensor that is pressed when the load is too high. On the control center +, press the "program" button, select the touch sensor, select "when activated", select the motor output channel that moves the arm in and out, select the direction or motor rotation which moves the boom outward away from the crane, select "disable". The arm will now not move outwards when the load gets too high but will still move inwards. You can also add any number of other actions to the sensor trigger, such as disabling the motor and direction that moves the hook upwards, turn on output 3 at 55%, into which you have a speaker, which when given a signal of 55% plays sound 11 of 20 preloaded sounds, a warning sound in this case. Additionally you can select to turn on "light 2" which is a indicator light built into the control center +. For an RC pneumatic excavator, we have 3 servos, connected to 3 receiver outputs which we can label what ever we want, like "shoulder", "elbow" and "bucket", or simply leave it to the default 1, 2 and 3 if we choose, in the control center, controlling 3 valves for the 3 arm movements, and a powerful buggy motor for the compressor plugged into a 4th receiver output and labeled "compressor". For the shoulder, press the "program" button, select "joystick 1", select "X-axis", select "proportional control", select "shoulder", go back a few steps and select "on/off control", select "compressor". Now repeat for the elbow and bucket and you're done. You now have 3 proportional arm movements that will also automatically switch on the compressor at full power when any of them are used. There would also be some tweakable settings, such as limiting how far the servo can move, ramp up/down settings and so on. Alternatively we could also have a pneumatic pressure sensor to control the compressor. For a manual gearbox, we have 3 drive rings in a six speed gearbox. Each of the drive rings are controlled by a servo, 3 servos in total connected to receiver outputs which we have labeled 1, 2 and 3. We also happen to have a bunch of push buttons on the control center which we can program. So press "program", select "push button 1, select "output "1" and set it to +40 degrees, select output "2" and set it to 0 degrees and do the same for output 3. Repeat that for all the other gears, selecting the correct servo positions for all servos for each gear and it's done. For a sequential gearbox, we would have the rotary cams in the model controlled by one motor, and instead of moving to absolute positions we program the motor to either move one way or another in 45 degree steps with each push button press. For more complex programming there could be programmable sequencers and look up tables and so on. When pressing the "program" button, the various controllers on the control center + are now used to select and alter setting in the LCD screen. Everything is fully programmable and do-able from the control center itself. However, to make things easier for the more advanced stuff such as when programming the sequencers or look-up tables, there is an option to plug it into a computer via USB. There is a free program you can download and it will enable very easy editing and program creation. This program can be used to download ready made programs for the big flagship sets that come with the control center +, but the sets will also come with detailed step by step, button press by button press instructions on how to program your model all on the control center itself. This option of being able to plug into a computer via USB while also being able to program on the unit itself is taken from my guitar effects pedal! It has an LCD screen which enables full control and programming capabilities: ...but it also has a free to download computer software which allows for much easier programming and from personal experience, it's an absolute joy to use! It makes it much easier but i have no concerns over longevity. So what do we think, do we like this PF2.0 idea? Does this combo of having a 2.4gHz version of PF with basic remote for smaller sets and a totally baller control center + remote for the more expensive sets (also available separately so they can sell more units and take advantage of economies of scale) address everything?

So many of us, myself included, find powered up/control+ to be problematic to say the least. Every great musical artist or band has a bad song or two in their set list, and control+/powered up is TLGs bad song! It pushes up the price of sets, which might be tolerable if it wasn't for it's downsides, namely no physical remote and it's reliance on apps and third party smart devices which removes all confidence in it's longevity. MOCability is also pretty poor, and set costs can be inflated due to components such as driver chips, tilt sensors and encoders being included in the hub and motors but not actually used by the model. However, it does have some advantages over previous systems, such as it's ability to do more complex things, being able to use motors as motors or as servos, being able to flip the controls when the transforming vehicle flips over, the inverse kinematics of the Leibherr excavator and so on. So what if we could design the next generation of electronics, how would we fix all the issues whilst retaining all of it's benefits? Firstly, I think it's best not to even try to retain ALL of it's benefits. Inverse kinematics is a fun novelty but it soon wears off, is set specific and just not worth the previously mentioned issues that comes with it, but I think it's possible to retain most of the other benefits. I would love to hear your ideas, maybe we can come up with the next great thing! To get the ball rolling, my current idea would look like this: EDIT: over the course of this topic I have listened to feedback and my ideas have evolved quite a bit since this first post. On with the topic.....end of edit. Possibly a 4 wire system, 2 for main power, and 2 more for PWM/data, with stackable plugs. It could possibly reuse the PF plugs for backwards compatibility. A large physical PlayStation style remote with lots of buttons, a couple d-pads, a couple of rotary knobs and two large fully proportional twin axis joysticks, each with a two way rocker switch. Bluetooth enabled, you can pair controllers to receivers by turning on each receiver and activating the controller you would like to control that receiver in turn. A basic battery box. Receiver. Has an input from a basic battery box, an output and a push button for pairing. It has a direct, unfused through path for main power but does not do any switching/pwm control of the main power rail as it doesn't contain a motor driver chip. It controls the data signal only. 3 motors. One is a POWAH motor, one is a regular motor and one is a micro servo motor. They contain their own motor driver chips so it can be better paired to the motor it is driving. There is no internal gear reduction or rotation sensing on the regular and power motors. Gear reduction box. Similar to the internal gearing included in the current motors, this is now a separate unit, allowing you to have as little or as much internal gearing as you want. These units can also be used in other places in the model. Rotation sensor/encoder. Convert the regular and power motors into servos by adding one of these. Can also be used as rotation sensors in other parts of the model. Force sensor. You can add more springs (shock absorbers or drive belts) to get the desired spring force (this would be the load sensor of the Liebherr) Speaker. This would come with a bunch of preloaded sounds (petrol and diesel engines at various RPMs, horns, sirens, helicopter sound, train sound etc) as well as a few spare slots in case a model designer wants to add a few set specific sounds (like for a merry-go-round or steam train or whatever). Different signal strengths would play different sounds. Can optionally be plugged into a computers USB port to load in your own sounds but not strictly required. Has a factory reset button to restore the original sounds. "Code" blocks. Instead of an app/smart device, you have physical blocks that are real life physical representations of them. Most of these affect the PWM signal only with through paths for main power. There would only be a couple to start with but more would be added over the years as sets require them. These could included a NO/NC relay switch, various logic gates, math bock (for multiplying/dividing/adding/subtracting of the PWM signal), servo controller, sensor reader block, delay timer with mode and time selector dials, ramp up/down block, etc. Sounds ambitious, but these blocks allow for much more complex control while eliminating the need for an app or a smart device. It is all "programmed" by the way you build and wire it all together. If the current system is "un-Lego like" will how much more like Lego can you can than physically building your "program" out of physical blocks?! I think that's plenty of options and controllability for any Technic set. It might remove some capabilities, you couldn't use inverse kinematics or control a CNC type machine or robot arm, but isn't that what Mindstorms was supposed to be for? Maybe much of the problem stems from unfortunately trying to make Technic into Mindstorms, resulting in control+ and killing off Mindstorms in the process! Sorry for the long read, but it's not an easy thing to get right and what I suggested might not even be feasible! I should have run it past my embedded systems expert buddy first! I would love to hear your thoughts, improvements, criticisms and ideas.

It could certainly take more weight by the looks of it, but I hope it isn't a tester set for pricing, although it likely is TBH. I don't get the feeling that this set is aimed at casuals like other 18+ sets but for the more hardcore Technic fan with some cash to spend on a big Technic set. I could be wrong about that but if I'm right, I'm not sure this is a fair test because I am a hardcore Technic fan with some cash to spend, but I'm not paying full price for this. If it had a PlayStation/Xbox like physical remote with more buttons and proportional joysticks and d-pads than 99% of MOCs could ever need, heavier counterweights and no concerns over the longevity of the control+/powered up system then it would have been a day one purchase at full price.

Yeah but it's mechanically authentic to the LR13000 is it not? I mean, to be mechanically more authentic I guess it could have used two motors to drive hydraulic pumps to drive various hydraulic motors, each winch having several hydraulic motors to drive it on the real one, but besides that how is it not mechanically authentic to the LR13000? I agree it doesn't look authentic but he has a separate score for looks, and in the Technic theme authenticity shouldn't only be about the look of a model but about the mechanical nature of it as well as the looks, perhaps more so than the looks. In that regard "big red", 42100, the hauler, the cat D11 and 8043 would score a zero long before the Liebherr if we're being truly objective.

Ignoring the price difference, and control+, and the Tri colour crane boom (the all yellow brigade has risen to take on the all black brigade!) just as a model I prefer the Liebherr over big red simply because it's far more mechanically realistic, the physics of it seem more real, and it's a lot stronger (big reds boom tended to bend and snap with a heavy load) Aside from a few bright blue gears, the colour coding is also much better as opposed to big reds festival of confetti! It also seems to use it's parts more efficiently, big reds part count feels too over inflated I really like how well all the functions work with decent power and speed. Speaking of power (and also build strength) how much could it lift if you physically held down the rear end? I also appreciate the new boom pieces, without them it would be a very tedious build. The load sensing is also cool. But as for the negatives, I also tend to agree with much of what others have said. It is too dissimilar to the real LR 13000, but that can be taken two ways, either the set is wrong or the marketing/licence is wrong. The price is also even harder to swallow knowing the much anticipated counterweight pieces don't weigh very much, and no metal hook. The new spools would have looked much better not being white (they look like prototypes) and it still has all the downfalls of control+. I found it a bit odd that the zero stars was for authenticity, when it's quite mechanically authentic for a crawler crane. Unfortunately Sariels view of authenticity is only skin deep, focusing on the looks only (despite having a separate score also just for the looks) whilst ignoring the mechanics, which again I find odd for a Technic review.

You could also add I will wait for a good discounted price. Maybe worth adding a poll to the topic?

Good point! Okay, so about half (value wise, the control+ bits)...... of a small number of sets are......hmmmm.......okay so perhaps the term single use is way too strong, and thinking back I'm not sure why I agreed with it in this context. I guess it feels a bit that way compared to all the previous generations of Lego electronics which are still working fine (except the Li-ion batteries like @AVCampos mentioned, which is also a fair point).

It might not be true for the whole theme, but sets with control+ are certainly staring to feel like expensive and single use products. The app isn't great for making custom things after you are done with building the kit from the instructions, especially if you are a kid with no coding experience or desire to learn coding, and when the app is no longer supported, it's destined for landfill in many cases. I'm not sure it's hyperbole to say *some* Technic sets, mainly the ones with control+, are expensive single use merchandise.

It's okay though because now it's a rescue crane! I highly doubt it'll be cancelled, and will probably sell quite well once discount sales start happening. I often think the discount price is actually the real price, but they raise the RRP because they know some people will buy it at the raised price.

The model is not good or the control+ system is not good?

Awesome work as always Grum I very much look forward to reading more . If I may ask, has the skills you have gained by building Lego Technic helped you in day to day life?

I already did that. I don't think it's all that bad though, the airbus with it's new swash plate, the various pneumatic sets, 42099 with it's awesome planetary reduction drives and now the Yamaha with its more realistic than ever gearbox shows that there are still some good sets. And I don't need every set to be to my liking, just a few a year is enough for me. Having said that, where I do think there's an issue is the flagships. I don't think they are too expensive, there's clearly a market for big money sets like the Titanic and the millennium falcon, but Technic needs to find its way a little bit when it comes to the really expensive sets. What functionality or what new level of mechanical realism requires that kind of price tag? Maybe for a supercar it would be a 7 speed version of the new gearbox found in the Yamaha, a more detailed engine with a timing chain driving a working valve system or working pneumatic brakes? For a back hoe maybe it's a miniature pneumatic valve with integrated micro servo, about 10 or 12 of them, to enable remote control of that amount of pneumatic functions combined with a super powerful compressor and an x-box style physical remote? For a front end loader maybe it's fewer functions but done with actual real hydraulics (maybe using water instead of oil incase there's a spill) and an x-box style physical remote? Bigger only for the sake of bigger is one thing, but bigger for the sake of increased/more realistic functionality is something else, which would you prefer? Which do you think offers more value?

I wonder what the price would be if it didn't have any powered up/control+, like if Lego were to release this set exactly the same as a bare version so that you can add your own if you already happen to have 2 hubs and 6 angled motors already in your collection, how much would it be then? Maybe £350/$400 with all the large pieces in it? Really that's the deal I'm looking for if it ever happens. I really want it but the control+/power up issues bother me to the point that I really don't want to pay any extra for that stuff. It's lack of physical remote is still not something I can get behind after years of trying to like using a touch screen, and it's dependance on a smart device means it'll probably not work in 10 years time, whereas my control center 1 and 2 sets will still be working just fine. No physical remote + no longevity on the control+/powered up system = no way I can convince myself to pay anywhere near full price, and I really tried as I miss not building the big technic flagship of the year, I skipped the last 2. I never want to see a Technic set not sell well and make lots of money for TLG, but if it does fail, it's not because it was too big or too expensive. Lego have sold bigger and more expensive things and people love them and they sold very well, like the UCS millennium falcon or the Titanic. I think Technic has great potential for making these huge sets, but when I think of a Technic set that costs the big money, I can think of lots of things that would go well in the set wishes and speculation topic, something that can be passed down to the kids like old Lego. I don't think of something that will be obsolete and in the landfill in 10 or 20 years time, and I don't think of something that requires my phones touch screen to operate. Obsolete doesn't mean it's old, obsolete means no longer useful, in that regard I fear powered up will (probably soon) become obsolete while PF and 9V before that will never be obsolete because it still works and is still fun to play with.

TBH I'm starting to feel a little bad for unbrickme. Every time he posts anything here we seem to jump on him, whether it be for pulling weird faces or self promotion or whatever, I mean, we share our MOCs and reviewers share their reviews so why not share his interview with racing brick? While I do agree with others to some extent, I'm not sure the page of negative comments is equal to his "crime" so I also want to balance it out a little, so thanks for sharing @Unbrickme. He's clearly excited to share his stuff with us so maybe unbrickme could start a new topic called "unbrickmes YouTube happenings" or something like that, which he can keep updating with whatever he wants to share with us?

You could have a 12 tooth if you have it with an inbuilt extension ring, but that would make it an extra stud longer. Personally I'd prefer 18 and 22 tooth gears, but that would also require 10 and 14 tooth regular gears to mesh with. Edit: It's also theoretically possible to go bigger than 24t, up to 28t if you move the lay shaft (the shaft with the regular gears on it) over one module, and make one of the two axles the shift fork slides on (the one directly above the dog clutch gears) unsupported at the end, which might be okay as it would be supported at other places.

Or how about a few more gears instead . I think I'd prefer a more realistic 4, 5 or 6 speed over a less realistic 8 speed gearbox. I also showed in my original concept that a tooth count difference of 2 was enough to see a noticeable increase in speed with this kind of gearbox. It would be great to see a motorisation option (with wheels jacked up off the floor) to really demonstrate the gears working, and it is a lot of fun and satisfying to play with going brrrRRRR click brrrRRRR!!!.... In other videos I showed it working well, changing gears under load so we might also get some RC cars with remote switching gearboxes also. I would think TLGs version should perform at least as well as my FDM 3D printed parts. And yes I am still taking partial credit for the new parts, you're welcome

Now ya talkin' That would be great.

Indeed it's a brain workout. You can also flip the cam so positions A and D (if A is at the top and you rotate about the vertical axis) is now lined up with positions A and F. You then rotate that second one 90 degrees on the axle so they line up with positions C and G. So now you have A, C, D and G covered, so now .....to cover B, E, F, and H....you need to....because the shaft is offset 45 degrees so....um.....Allanp.exe has stopped working. I could just grab a pen and paper and work it out but the brain needs exercise too ya know! But yes, as it seems quite difficult to make a four speed, it seems much more geared towards a 6, 7 or 8 speed, which is more realistic anyway.