aFrInaTi0n

wonderful, do I need to recreate all my profiles again or what stupid reason no controls are being shown / the buwizz unit is not connecting anymore into a profile after I hit "Drive"? In the settings I can still change the PU colors - so connection is possible there but not when I want to use the app.... %^&#^*%

I already thought it would be too narrow to be implemented.

Fingers crossed then!

Nice looking and very compact! One little comment: for other receivers than Buwizz it may br nice to switch one motor to be able to connect the two moters om the same PF port. But would need another transfer-gear. Render of my E-Kart MOC using this: As it would also allow for an old PF Servo to be used as consequence Another minor effect: the wheel axle is less stressed towards the longer distance side to the wheel

I can't tell any information - have you tried to message him on rebrickable directly already?

Thanks for the adds with the PCB / ICs possibly pulling ongoingly on the batt!

Maybe their bcs is shitty and destroying the batts in the long run - do you have a LiPO tester or charger? Because I would really be interested what those smart chargers would say to the Buwizz battery.. (think they have a plugable batt in the buwizz, so could be removed without soldering - but not sure if that connector would be fitting to regular LiPO chargers). For the costs: yeah 20 € per battery unit is much - but I think I may order two just in case as replacement (did look already if I can find the same type with the same connector, but internet didn't deliver anything fitting - at least none where small quantities could be bought, think I found a fitting one without connector, but one needs to order 1000+ units...). As also Buwizz may have limited stock on the replacements batteries, which would render the Buwizz units completely useless.

Yeah, I arrived at that opinion too - too many claims which weren't achieved or even tried to achieve (see their future app updates lie, nothing happening since over two years). But to be fair with them: I wouldn't blame them for degrading batteries... it is LiPOs in the end and they will degrade over time, doesn'y matter if they were used /charged at all, wrongly or correctly...

https://buwizz.com/shop/buwizz-3-0-pro-replacement-battery/ Here you go - their initial lies of free replacements were just scam... 🤷🏻‍♂️

I wouldnt rely on any chinese brand to respect IP besides CaDA.. so at worst even if you would reach out to them, chances are high they will screw you. Wrote you a pm with some recommendations..

@ZENE Thanks for adding your motivations - will copy to the main post.

https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-65204/ Buwizz2/3 or chin. battery/receivers fitting..

Its about their ujoint product which has shorter flanks towards the axles as it has a screw to fix the axles.. seems they just planned to be used with their ujoints to have the angling point being aligned correctly to the holes..

I think it is intentionally to have the joints anglepoint aligned with the two pinholes - but seems that is not 100% fitting in the pics... so may just be pics of a prototype?! But I only got the images from a preview from the vendor - so no hands on yet..

welcome! will update the main post again for the mentioned other new MTP parts available.. edit: possibly take the pics out of the quote - may allow for better readability - I should have put it in another spoiler box in the 1st place possibly.. edit2: thanks milan

@ZENE Added your products finally to to 1st post! Sorry for the inconveniences of me taking so long to do this! Feel free to hit me up with a private message if I need to change anything. Other little update for MTP: They released some more products, will update the post here accordingly within the next days.. but for now the big thing I am waiting for: Edit: Moved pictures to main post

Glad you seem to have a higher motivation & I am appreciating this! Besides the regular efforts to create a MOC manual, I am lately very unhappy with the stability of Studio over its updates.. different things are breaking left and right and one can't really tell if the next update may not deliver any new unforseeable errors.. And yes, I think I better search for a more or less recent version and stay with that.. but nevertheless the quality for me is not yet fitting "the new official lego digital building tool". Not blaming any of the devs, but I would wish for Lego investing a little in the app development to get the product into a polished state.

Can just agree to @smazmats. Creating manuals is really a PITA and only people who tried may understand what amount of efforts are going into this. Building a digital model alone is just peanuts vs doing the steps of sorting the parts into the right buildorder, do all the groupings, adjusting the views etc pp... I had bad mood at my ~700 pieces models already, I just can't imagine to have to do this with plenty thousends of parts as I think I would go nuts before I finish... :D On the other hand for me it is also just a Hobby and creating (my small) MOCs manuals was fun (to a certain amount.. ) and I would recommend to any person doing it to primarily earn money to search for a better paid job :D

thanks in advance for picking up the idea ♥

As you just asked in a private message about my experiences with my two units: I am not there yet and hope I can test em in the next weeks. Nevertheless for me the two units are an kickstarter invest and for me it was obvious in the first place that the first generation of a product may have flaws or issues - so to say you can put my two units off any list in your head for doing a callback, they are mine now however they end up, as I find it much better for you staying interested in your product and us all in the future having a cool product (and you finally then some RoI, as I guess currently you are paying us with your efforts of soldering and producing the units with "bare hands". Happy to support you also in the future for next rounds (after I finally may have time to test the 1st iteration :D). I was questioning myself why nobody is doing R&D in that field as I see a working design filling a huge gap.. Edit: The other think I would miss of right now: some little update in the main post with some written up "how to use & better not use" part or something. That would really be helpful to run it in the desired conditions to not easily cook one's units :D

@Toastie time marker -> may be helpful for a person which is more into pcbs and functions of components than me... edit: but not sure how much of the electronics of the old & original servo motors may be related to the PU L Motors, as the difference is PWM vs old non-PWM? Just realized that possibility in that second.. :o edit 2: mixed two threads and had wrong, non fitting content in here -> deleted... seems like thinking is not my strength today... *sigh

Question here: Have you opened a MK Servo once to look at the PCB? If I remember correctly, it has just 5 different contact-fields: +100 position "between" (>0 and <100) 0 position "between" (>0 and <100) -100 position (dont kill me for the greater / lesser than fieldsnot being changed accordingly... :P) I am still not sure from the cost / decision perspective to not directly 1:1 copy a "fully stepped" version or investing in some other electronical solution to read the values in analogue values. But I think it may have been "good enough" back then and as they are still selling those (or we are buying them), why changing a working concept which may just result in more prodution costs per unit.. :D

If I got it correctly the calibration should lead to the PWM algorithms finding the correct stopping points on each side and should map the position to the range of the controller / the virtual input range (-100% to 0 to +100%). As I am no satisfied customer of Fortronik, my personal opinion may go into the direction of them possibly not offering the best product in regards of their software stack - but it may be my very singular experience which is kind of the same but other: Setup of connection and other stuff should work better, sometimes one feels just "betrayed" by the software doing things "on its own" which may drives at least me crazy very often... But to think in solutions instead of complaining: I would doublecheck if both endpoints have the exact distances or if they may bend from the pressure of the calibration attempt (possible solution: The amount of power for the calibration can be set between high/medium/soft - putting it to lower values may result in less bending & more resulting accuracy) The "suddenly going off center / doing crazy things" I can't really explain from my perspective, I have just an idea of the PWM signal getting another value and the buwizz software may missread it as "centered already" - because PWM signals of their exact position need much rpm for this to work, theory here is: too less rpm for the position-recognition ever being able to work in a sharp and precise way. Hope that somehow helps, possibly others may have better tipps, fingers crossed for getting your issues solved! Best regards Disclaimer: I am not electrician nor do I have deep knowledge there, but from what I understood of PWM, the calculation of the position can be done with the different phases which are creating the impuls(es) for the motor to turn. That all is done in a pulsed way of setting the signals - as I am an IT person: may it be for some reason one or more pulses may be eating because of real-time passing as the controller board may be still busy with working on the commands of the last cycle possbily leading to "skipping a pulse" in consequence and creating the "sudden" offset in center? That may be a question for @Toastie or @oracid - sorry for mentioning you both, can one of you help me out here to say if this theory may be total bs?! If one can, thanks in advance (I think both of you should have plenty of experience with PWM..)!

But the latter is also true, at least there are GoBricks and CaDA which are resellers to other brands within the chinese marketwhich use the parts to then create their (possibly same model) sets to be published under their brand.. Hope I did not Voldem%$# with calling the other brand already, if so some mod may adjust to the better..

Gave them my implementation but it is that easy to program - those are talented people and I guess they found their own implementation. So I am more than happy for them having the functionality included on their page than I would be mad about it - less maintenance for me Edit: Fun fact: lately before LDraw released their functionality, more and more Facebook users recommended it to other users - so it was a nice feeling of the tool being "good enough" to be recommended.