Considering it can measure current - would it be possible to program something to soft-limit (rather than hard-cut) the max current available to each motor? I'm thinking that might help to avoid crunching gears and CV joints when changing direction, etc.

2 hours ago, amorti said:

Considering it can measure current - would it be possible to program something to soft-limit (rather than hard-cut) the max current available to each motor? I'm thinking that might help to avoid crunching gears and CV joints when changing direction, etc.

We are working on an option like a linear time curve, which lets you set the time needed for a motor to reach the wanted power. This would be useful for controlled acceleration.

2 hours ago, Limga said:

@Zerobricks, can you please confirm that BuWizz 3.0 supports servo mode and steering calibration for PU motors? This would be killer feature for me.

Yes, we are currently working on this option, so that servos run natively of firmware with a standalone PID controller.

@Zerobricks You rock, guys!
Christmas is coming early this year ))

@Zerobricks will it be possible to combine buwizz 2.0 and 3.0 in a single MOC and control it within the app? (Like MOC's that include 2 or more Buwizz's 2.0 for example?)

32 minutes ago, Jimrask said:

@Zerobricks will it be possible to combine buwizz 2.0 and 3.0 in a single MOC and control it within the app? (Like MOC's that include 2 or more Buwizz's 2.0 for example?)

Yes, app will support all BW types, even different types at once in same profile. 

Will Buwizz motor work with Buwizz 2.0 ?
Or is Buwizz 3.0 better for them, because with buggy motors and Buwizz 2.0 I experiment a lot of power cuts.
Will Buwizz motor remove this issue with Buwizz 2.0 ? Or is the issue linked to Buwizz 2.0 and therefore will persist with Buwizz motor ?
 

Edited November 25, 20204 yr by Touc4nx
spelling

1 hour ago, Touc4nx said:

Will Buwizz motor work with Buwizz 2.0 ?
Or is Buwizz 3.0 better for them, because with buggy motors and Buwizz 2.0 I experiment a lot of power cuts.
Will Buwizz motor remove this issue with Buwizz 2.0 ? Or is the issue linked to Buwizz 2.0 and therefore will persist with Buwizz motor ?
 

Of course the motor will work with 2.0 and 3.0. That's why the 3.0 has the PF plugs. 2.0 can drive one motor at full power and the 3.0 should be able to drive two of them at full power.

Like I said before we are currently focused on 3.0 and we won't do any changes to the 2.0.

 

Edited November 25, 20204 yr by Zerobricks

WoW!!!

Really leap-frogging. And very nice to see PU combined with the PF outputs. Although I like PU a lot, the downside is the LED lights stacking.. PF lights can easily be stacked, PU not (yet?). So now we have a solution for this as well without having 2 battery boxes (PU + PF) applied in a model.

Just a question: Is 3,0 capable of driving 2 PF XL-motors stacked on 1 PF output? Sometimes I use this (illegal?) way..... and with PF and Sbrick, I never have the current limit kick-in. I assume it will work, given the higher load BU supports.

3 minutes ago, designer-han said:

Just a question: Is 3,0 capable of driving 2 PF XL-motors stacked on 1 PF output? Sometimes I use this (illegal?) way..... and with PF and Sbrick, I never have the current limit kick-in. I assume it will work, given the higher load BU supports.

Of course, if you check tech specs; PF ports support up to 4A continious current which is enough to drive several XL motor at once.

Edited November 25, 20204 yr by Zerobricks

25 minutes ago, Zerobricks said:

Of course, if you check tech specs; PF ports support up to 4A continious current which is enough to drive several XL motor at once.

I saw couple of changes today on your site, so you are changing/correcting things as we speak :) But two things I wish to clarify :) One, you are talking that PF port supports up to 4A, and on the site I see " Max continuous current per PF channel: 2 A ". Second, I saw on the site two dates of delivery for BuWizz 3.0. One was January, but in other place it was February. So which one is correct?

29 minutes ago, keymaker said:

I saw couple of changes today on your site, so you are changing/correcting things as we speak :) But two things I wish to clarify :) One, you are talking that PF port supports up to 4A, and on the site I see " Max continuous current per PF channel: 2 A ". Second, I saw on the site two dates of delivery for BuWizz 3.0. One was January, but in other place it was February. So which one is correct?

That's a mistake, here's how it should be - it will be corrected.

4x PoweredUP outputs

– Max continuous current per PU channel: 2 A

– Max instantaneous current per PU channel: 3.5 A

2x Power Functions outputs

– Max continuous current per PF channel: 4 A

– Max instantaneous current per PF channel: 6 A

– compatible with older 9V system motors (RC/Buggy motor)

Max continuous power per PF channel: 48 W

Max total power: over 100 W

I can't say anything regarding delivery dates as of now.

Edited November 25, 20204 yr by Zerobricks

2 minutes ago, Zerobricks said:

2x Power Functions outputs

– Max continuous current per PF channel: 4 A

– Max instantaneous current per PF channel: 6 A

Now we're talking. Thank you for clarification, and in general for activity in this thread. You clarified many things today

I'm curious about the 3.0 version and like all the new features, but today suddenly face with problems with my 2.0 units.

About 4 or 5 months ago I leave 4 of my unit in the box at home, charged for about 75%, and today I open the box and saw two of them were swollen.

Spoiler

They are still in working condition, but cases are broken, and there no way to close them without glue. But the problem is that such distorted batteries will not fit into the case anymore.
Also, I think that it's dangerous to have these batteries because they are LiPo and distorted LiPo batteries are always meant fire hazard

What do you think about this, Buwizz Team? What are the guarantees that this will not be repeated in the third version?

1 hour ago, SilenWin said:

I'm curious about the 3.0 version and like all the new features, but today suddenly face with problems with my 2.0 units.

About 4 or 5 months ago I leave 4 of my unit in the box at home, charged for about 75%, and today I open the box and saw two of them were swollen.

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

They are still in working condition, but cases are broken, and there no way to close them without glue. But the problem is that such distorted batteries will not fit into the case anymore.
Also, I think that it's dangerous to have these batteries because they are LiPo and distorted LiPo batteries are always meant fire hazard

What do you think about this, Buwizz Team? What are the guarantees that this will not be repeated in the third version?

I would kindly ask you and any other member who have issus to send them to the support E-mail where we can track and resolve the issue. I don't think a public forum is a good place to resolve such issues.

I would like to ask some questions from Zerobricks about the 3.0 version, as I could not find the information on the website. Will the new version also support the 4 speed modes? On al ports, or on pf ports only? What will be the exact weight of the unit?

 

1 hour ago, Jantayg said:

I would like to ask some questions from Zerobricks about the 3.0 version, as I could not find the information on the website. Will the new version also support the 4 speed modes? On al ports, or on pf ports only? What will be the exact weight of the unit?

 

Speed modes will no longer be available due to a different battery infrastructure and there is no more need for it, since each PU motor's speed can be accurately controlled. Weight of the 3.0 should be simillar to the 2.0.

@Zerobricks 

After using for more than a year the Buwizz 2.0 which are excellent and work really great (the ios application also really improved with time), I was more than happy to see the Buwizz 3.0 and all those new features :).

I just had few questions If I may, in my MOC what I like to do is put a raspberry pi connected to a battery in a lego case, connect the raspberry pi and the buwizz using bluetooth and create a robot/vehicle and a program in python/JS directly on the pi :). 

For the Buwizz 3.0 pro obviously a lot is changing compared to the 2.0, and I have some question

• Will the bluetooth specification be published (or maybe an API): Characteristic/service UUIDs, bytes to send, bytes we'd receive etc.
• Will we have access to encoder read information on motors that have one ? I do not know if that's possible to begin with Spike motors and powerup/control+ motors
• I guess the upcoming buwizz motor because it's PF compatible will not have an encoder ?

I have really enjoyed tinkering with buwizz 2.0 + raspberry pi :), ordered 2 version 3.0, thank you for your work

Edited December 11, 20204 yr by sephiroth117

Just now, sephiroth117 said:

@Zerobricks 

After using for more than a year the Buwizz 2.0 which are excellent and work really great (the ios application also really improved with time), I was more than happy to see the Buwizz 3.0 and all those new features :).

I had just a simple question, in my MOC what I like to do is put a raspberry pi connected to a battery in a lego case, connect the raspberry pi and the buwizz using bluetooth and create a robot/vehicle and a program in python/JS directly on the pi :). 

For the Buwizz 3.0 pro obviously a lot is changing compared to the 2.0, and I have some question

• Will the bluetooth specification be published (or maybe an API): Characteristic/service UUIDs, bytes to send, bytes we'd receive etc.
• Will we have access to encoder read information on motors that have one ? I do not know if that's possible to begin with Spike motors and powerup/control+ motors
• I guess the upcoming buwizz motor because it's PF compatible will not have an encoder ?

I have really enjoyed tinkering with buwizz 2.0 + raspberry pi :), ordered 2 version 3.0, thank you for your work

• We plan to release the protocal, so third party apps can use it
• The idea is to have a full transparent acces to motors/sensors or anything else you plug to the PU ports
• No, there is no way to implement an encoder to the upcoming motor due to the limited available space and limitations of Power Functions

 

Just now, Zerobricks said:

• We plan to release the protocal, so third party apps can use it
• The idea is to have a full transparent acces to motors/sensors or anything else you plug to the PU ports
• No, there is no way to implement an encoder to the upcoming motor due to the limited available space and limitations of Power Functions

 

 

Thank you for your answers :).

7 hours ago, Zerobricks said:

Speed modes will no longer be available due to a different battery infrastructure and there is no more need for it, since each PU motor's speed can be accurately controlled. Weight of the 3.0 should be simillar to the 2.0.

Thank you,  

In this case what happens with the pf ports?will the voltage be limited to 9v? As I think the real benefit of using buwizz was the possibilitiy to runnthe motors faster. 

Just now, Jantayg said:

Thank you,  

In this case what happens with the pf ports?will the voltage be limited to 9v? As I think the real benefit of using buwizz was the possibilitiy to runnthe motors faster. 

BW 3.0 will work at around 12V, simillar to BW 2,0's ludicrous mode - 3S battery.

That sounds good. Will there be any option to reduce the max speed of the motors on pf ports? I would not want to give 12 V for pf servo for exapmle

Just now, Jantayg said:

That sounds good. Will there be any option to reduce the max speed of the motors on pf ports? I would not want to give 12 V for pf servo for exapmle

You can modulate the voltage with PWM. And FYI all lego motors are actaully 12V motors and can easily cope with higher voltage. I have yet to fry any servo or any other and trust me, I drove them hard!

Thank you for all the info. It makes it easy to decide how many buwizz2 to replace with the 3.0 :)

I'm very excited about this announcement ! :-)
There is one feature i really wish my buwizz 2.0 had tough : a direct connection to a Bluetooth physical remote control, without the need of a smartphone in between.

Is such a feature planned for the 3.0 version ?