Control+ General Discussion

[kbalage]

1 minute ago, suffocation said:

Why go high-tech and expensive when low-tech and cheap works just as well in most cases?

Then why should we care about the PU motors and their control possibilities (and prices) if the work can be done with a dirt cheap PF M motor and PF IR control? 

[suffocation]

We should care because the PF system is being phased out and for most intents and purposes the Control+ system doesn't offer a fraction of what it should for the cost.

[Zerobricks]

46 minutes ago, suffocation said:

Most mocs don't really need a servo

Actually every steered vehicle needs a servo. Did you ever tried controlling a fast, capable model without a servo for steering?

Edited June 1, 2020 by Zerobricks

[suffocation]

Just now, Zerobricks said:

Actually every steered vehicle needs a servo. Did you evee tried controlling a fast, capable model without a servo for steering?

No, but two of my three tow trucks use L motors for steering and work fine

[Zerobricks]

Just now, suffocation said:

No, but two of my three tow trucks use L motors for steering and work fine

And what speed do they reach? Anything going over 50 cm / second is too fast to control preciesly without a servo.

Also why do all RC cars, slow or fast have return to center?

[suffocation]

9 minutes ago, Zerobricks said:

And what speed do they reach? Anything going over 50 cm / second is too fast to control preciesly without a servo.

Also why do all RC cars, slow or fast have return to center?

How many Mocs are super fast cars?

Looking at my line-up of mocs, I see I've used three servos, twenty L motors, six XL motors and eight M motors. It seems that, in my case at least, the servo function is far from a priority.

Edited June 1, 2020 by suffocation
can't count

[Zerobricks]

Just now, suffocation said:

How many Mocs are super fast cars?

Quite a few and it's not just about speed. Having a servo allows you to control the models much smoother and to center the wheels. A servo is and always be needed for precise control IMO.

[allanp]

Servos aren't just about steering. They have the potential to control gearboxes, pneumatic valves, landing gear, control surfaces and so on. But of course for that you would need configuration options, for example so you could set how far the servo travels. With these new motors you could go from 1/8 of a turn all the way up to 50 or more turns either side of centre if you need to gear it down a lot for huge articulated MOCs. 

I just noticed the PU interview today (thank you for that @kbalage ). I am glad they are aware of some of the gaps, particularly MOC support for those that, like me, aren't into coding. I really don't like playing on a phone screen or tablet for multiple reasons, coding just isn't much fun to me (and I don't really have any desire to learn it), and it's not what I would call a very Lego like experience. So this is welcome news  but I'll believe it when I see it. I posted a kind of rough sketch/idea of something they could do along those lines on the 1st page of this thread, which would cover that missing area not covered by really easy but un-customisable, pre-programmed apps and coding. 

He also mentioned they might be looking into configurable physical controllers? That would be great news. I think he also said something PU wise would be revealed the end of the month, that was yesterday so I wonder what it was/is.

Edited June 1, 2020 by allanp

[kbalage]

@allanp based on the interview I'm sure they've been working on these things already for quite a while, but the release schedule of the app and other priorities make things slow. Customizable controls are coming and the servo block as well. although probably not in a single update. The latest release of the app was last week or the week before if I recall correctly, that was related to the new Haunted house set so that did not include the servo upgrade yet. I expect an interesting update to come in a week or so.

Btw I don't think they'll fundamentally change the code-block approach in the app, but I think they realize the need to have a mid-level interface for folks who want a certain level of customization but who are not into coding at all. I expect this to come in the form of built-in composite blocks where a single task (e.g. servo calibration or control) can be added easily with minimal "coding".

[valenciaeric]

1 hour ago, suffocation said:

We should care because the PF system is being phased out and for most intents and purposes the Control+ system doesn't offer a fraction of what it should for the cost.

Exactly, 2 years down the line, PU still seems over-complicated and over-priced for the nominal benefits in brings and all the inherent and unwanted limitations. Do I need to have a degree in programming or electrical engineering just to be able to connect 3 or 4 motors to my own designs? Do we really need so many different iterations of battery boxes and motors? I also have to provide my own controller via a smartphone and depend on an app that may or may not exist or be compatible in a few years. All that just to get bluetooth connectivity.

 

 

[allanp]

3 minutes ago, kbalage said:

@allanp based on the interview I'm sure they've been working on these things already for quite a while, but the release schedule of the app and other priorities make things slow. Customizable controls are coming and the servo block as well. although probably not in a single update. The latest release of the app was last week or the week before if I recall correctly, that was related to the new Haunted house set so that did not include the servo upgrade yet. I expect an interesting update to come in a week or so.

Btw I don't think they'll fundamentally change the code-block approach in the app, but I think they realize the need to have a mid-level interface for folks who want a certain level of customization but who are not into coding at all. I expect this to come in the form of built-in composite blocks where a single task (e.g. servo calibration or control) can be added easily with minimal "coding".

Yeah I agree they probably aren't going to change the whole code block approach. I don't even think they should as it would be a compromise that's not ideal for either side. But for those that aren't into coding they could do with adding a completely different environment, maybe a new app or a new part of an existing app, that people can use instead of the code block environment, which enables the creation of custom control layouts and full customisation for how those controls work, much like in the hobby RC world that also doesn't use any coding at all. I wouldn't call it a mid-level interface, as it can be very simple to very complex, depending on how complex the user wants it to be. 

[Zerobricks]

Just now, valenciaeric said:

Exactly, 2 years down the line, PU still seems over-complicated and over-priced for the nominal benefits in brings and all the inherent and unwanted limitations. Do I need to have a degree in programming or electrical engineering just to be able to connect 3 or 4 motors to my own designs? Do we really need so many different iterations of battery boxes and motors? I also have to provide my own controller via a smartphone and depend on an app that may or may not exist or be compatible in a few years. All that just to get bluetooth connectivity.

 

 

Does your new car need touchscreen, Bluetooth, GPS, Internet acces and such? Maybe not. But most likely it has it. That's the way the world is progressing. There is obviously enough demand and that's the direction TLG is following.

And YES you need Bluetooth to control PU motors, there needs to be an programmable controller even for tasks as simple as moving a motor a couple of degrees. Moving a motor a couple a degrees is not as trivial as it seems, you need some kind of an intelligent controller with P, PI or even PID regulation. Having an active feedback loop on your steering ir other systems allows the models to self-correct. Just try to steer 42099's wheels while it's connected and you will feel the motor pushing agsint your force. All of these things require flexible, remote processing power which only a phone can provide.

[valenciaeric]

3 minutes ago, Zerobricks said:

Does your new car need touchscreen, Bluetooth, GPS, Internet acces and such? Maybe not. But most likely it has it. That's the way the world is progressing. There is obviously enough demand and that's the direction TLG is following.

And YES you need Bluetooth to control PU motors, there needs to be an programmable controller even for tasks as simple as moving a motor a couple of degrees. Moving a motor a couple a degrees is not as trivial as it seems, you need some kind of an intelligent controller with P, PI or even PID regulation. Having an active feedback loop on your steering ir other systems allows the models to self-correct. Just try to steer 42099's wheels while it's connected and you will feel the motor pushing agsint your force. All of these things require flexible, remote processing power which only a phone can provide.

I wouldn´t call PU flexible as it has more limitations in terms of what you can use it for and the number of motors that can be connected to one hub. I am pretty sure RC cars are not using bluetooth or any so complicated yet you get more power and can have proportional steering and acceleration. For me it´s an own goal by Lego that we will be stuck with for another ten or more years and goes totally against the product philosphy of building what you want.

[Bartybum]

2 hours ago, valenciaeric said:

I wouldn´t call PU flexible as it has more limitations in terms of what you can use it for and the number of motors that can be connected to one hub. I am pretty sure RC cars are not using bluetooth or any so complicated yet you get more power and can have proportional steering and acceleration. For me it´s an own goal by Lego that we will be stuck with for another ten or more years and goes totally against the product philosphy of building what you want.

Agreed, functionality needs flexibility to facilitate it.

For the Technic PU MOC scene to grow properly, PU needs a power distributor attachment to allow for more than four motors per smart hub, or more than two motors per PU hub to get around the size constraint of the smart hub. Until that happens, PU is not flexible enough.

Considering that such a piece would likely need to show up in a set to even get developed to begin with, I don’t think it’ll ever happen. As such, we’re probably stuck with this for the next decade.

Hail corporate.

Edited June 2, 2020 by Bartybum

[CrankyCraig]

1 hour ago, valenciaeric said:

For me it´s an own goal by Lego that we will be stuck with for another ten or more years and goes totally against the product philosphy of building what you want.

While that may have been the company's founding philosophy, is it still relevant in Technic today?

It feels as if the priority was very much on optimising each models function/performance when decisions were being made about the future of Lego electronics, but while an AFOL might consider it an oversight that simplicity/flexibility wasn't afforded a higher priority, I wonder what proportion of large sets sold are built into anything other than the official model. We don't see B-models being produced for (Lego claims) this reason, and it seems reasonable to estimate that those making MOC's would be less than those prepared to make a B-model.

It's just speculation, but perhaps those willing to create a MOC from a given set represents such a small pecentage of sales that it's just not worth considering in design decisions to any great degree. Perhaps it's now no longer about building what you want, but instead building the best possible official model that drives sales.

I'm not disagreeing with what you said BTW, just serving some food for thought and trying to rationalise what seems like an otherwise large omission.

[Bartybum]

20 minutes ago, CrankyCraig said:

It's just speculation, but perhaps those willing to create a MOC from a given set represents such a small pecentage of sales that it's just not worth considering in design decisions to any great degree. Perhaps it's now no longer about building what you want, but instead building the best possible official model that drives sales.

I'm not disagreeing with what you said BTW, just serving some food for thought and trying to rationalise what seems like an otherwise large omission.

Basically, hail corporate

[valenciaeric]

I think they may have given priority to Boost and a few other side applications like the SW Droid and Batmobile and forgot the core values of Technic and Lego in general. Another glaring omission in this day and age is no rechargeable battery pack. Not very ecological  as some users will buy one use alkaline batteries as they are so cheap.

When Powered Up was first unveiled, all these limitations were discusses in the community yet 2 years later, little to nothing has been done and likely never well. PF was getting long in the tooth and had the basic I/R limitation as well as the difficulty in integrating motors and battery boxes due to the lack of connection points but it seems that we lost a lot of the flexibility and simplicity that system had.

 

 

[Bartybum]

1 hour ago, valenciaeric said:

Not very ecological  as some users will buy one use alkaline batteries as they are so cheap. 

I wouldn't lay the blame on TLC for that. If anyone's still using alkalines and doesn't have a recharging station at home then that's their own fault

[CrankyCraig]

7 hours ago, Bartybum said:

Basically, hail corporate

Yes, minus the implied anti-corporate connotation. 

<insert Lego movie gif>

[dhc6twinotter]

Holy smokes, those are some steep prices!  

The more I hear about PU, the less I'm inclined to convert over from PF.   The lack of port stacking, lack of extension cables, lack of programable interface, and larger battery boxes makes it all seem pointless to "upgrade".   I've been a Lego purist, but seeing the poor implementation of PU makes me want to have a closer look at the third party options. 

[Rudivdk]

11 minutes ago, dhc6twinotter said:

I've been a Lego purist, but seeing the poor implementation of PU makes me want to have a closer look at the third party options. 

Same for me. Considering how I use my PF, having Buwizz or Sbrick and probably the Brickcontroller app would achieve the same as what I would do with C+, for way less money. Just gotta make a final score on some extra PF (or even buggy)motors before the prices go up...

[AVCampos]

26 minutes ago, dhc6twinotter said:

lack of programable interface

What do you mean? All PUp hubs (except perhaps the Duplo train) are programmable, and in the case of SPIKE, having a device permanently connected isn't required.

[howitzer]

I wonder if there will be an option to and share your programmed control profiles easily online for others to download? It could be one way to implement easy-to-use custom controls for those who don't want to code, while enabling complex functions. Vehicle operation aside, I believe GBC community would appreciate such an option, to create novel programmed modules with shareable building instructions and control profiles.

Of course you can share the instructions to make the code but sharing them online would be much easier for everyone involved.

[OlSom]

I regret buying the Liebherr because of how bad PU is. I tried a couple of thing but still haven't built a complete MOC with the PU stuff, I always go back to my PF motors, LiPo battery and SBrick. Should've spent that money on some PF servos, and a second SBrick or BuWizz :(

Edited June 3, 2020 by OlSom

[kbalage]

Just now, OlSom said:

I regret buying the Liebherr because of how bad PU is. I tried a couple of thing but still haven't built a complete MOC with the PU stuff, I always go back to my PF motors, LiPo battery and SBrick. Should've spent that money on some PF servos, and a second SBrick or BuWizz :(

I'm just wondering what's "bad" in PU and what was not possible to do with it that you could perform with SBrick & PF.