Technic 2023 Set Discussion

[vascolp]

5 minutes ago, allanp said:

Running the program on the Lego hub, like @kbalage also mentioned is an interesting option that I don't really know enough about but it does sound good. Looking at many inexpensive game controllers, they look like they have about the right amount of inputs in a good layout. They tend to have 2 fully proportional, dual axis joysticks (4 proportional imputs ideal for controlling excavators and the like), each joystick also can be pushed (2 push buttons), a d-pad (4 push buttons) , A, B, C, D buttons (4 push buttons) and 4 trigger buttons. That's 16 inputs (including 4 proportional inputs) even on fairly cheap and basic controllers, and some can have more than that.

And also: if you flash a specific program to the lego hub, say to control 42100, using some mobile phone or computer app that later is discontinued, the hub will not be able to be reconfigured, thats true, but you can still play with it forever at least with 42100...

But there are other issues for LEGO to consider... for instance it might be easier to find an android/ios developer than a developer to the hub platfom.

[Moz]

FWIW at work we build a couple of devices that include touch screens. It's ridiculous how cheap a complete Android touchscreen is compared to the exact same screen with no Android device built in. We're talking $30 for the bare screen, $40 for the Android version. Some don't even bother with the bare version, it's Android or nothing. So Lego could make a cheap-ish physical controller based on that if they wanted to, the main issue would be that we'd expect them to support it for the life of the sets it came with... 20+ years.

My fear is that in 4-5 years we're going to find that the Control+ hubs we have now won't talk to the Android/iPhone devices we have then. They won't run the app, or they won't use the right APIs, or some other trivial thing. I have a couple of kilos of power functions bits and they all work just as well now as they did when I bought them. Except for a couple of motors that have worn out after a couple of hundred hours of operation.

The business where I need to grind around the internet looking for Android devices that are compatible with Control+, compare prices and available in Australia, then buy one just so I can play with a Lego set I bought seems silly to me. I'm going to try PyBricks and "Remote Bla Bla" as a workaround, but it annoys me.

OTOH, there are so many bugs in Technic flagships these days that it's probably not much harder just to rebuild the models to use Power Functions. The issue UnBrickMe points out where some models require synchronised movement of multiple channels doesn't seem like a real issue for me, I already build MOCs that have limits like that.

[kbalage]

4 hours ago, Unbrickme said:

I strongly doubt LEGO will make technic sets with physical controllers. There are just too many issues that go along with them. I made a detailed video explaining why they are not the solution for technic sets.

As @vascolp mentioned you only need to use the controller as the input, like the sliders/buttons in the Powered Up app. The hubs are totally able to run code on their own (see Pybricks), so they should be able to run everything required to control e.g. the Liebherr set, including storing data for the calibration of the actuators. You'd need an app to initiate the calibration at the beginning, then configure the remote (or simply have a default layout to use), save that data to the hub(s) and afterwards you'd be ready to play without any further smart device requirement.

@allanp TLG does not need to reinvent the wheel with the controllers, any generic Xbox / PS controller layout would be more than enough to control most of the sets. The problem with the built in smart device is the cost of the full hw + sw development versus the interest and the lifecycle of the whole platform. Most kids nowadays are fine with touchscreen control, so developing a unique solution for a limited target audience simply does not worth it.

 

[allanp]

@kbalage while I still think a proper TLG controller with TLG smart device would be the absolute best solution, having the powered up app support already existing console controllers would be better than nothing and I agree that most of these controllers have enough inputs for all sets as well as 99% of mocs. 

[Unbrickme]

12 hours ago, kbalage said:

he hubs are totally able to run code on their own (see Pybricks), so they should be able to run everything required to control e.g. the Liebherr set, including storing data for the calibration of the actuators. You'd need an app to initiate the calibration at the beginning, then configure the remote (or simply have a default layout to use), save that data to the hub(s) and afterwards you'd be ready to play without any further smart device requirement.

 

I think the single biggest complaint about the new powered up system is that it requires a smart device or computer in some fashion. People are concerned with the lack of software support in the future as well as phones/computers being a requirement for kids. There is simply no way to make sets purely rely on physical controllers. You will always need to reprogram the hub itself or the controller, using an external device to do so.

While it may be a better solution, it still does not eliminate the necessity for a computer/smart device.

 

[iLego]

PF was around for many years. A proportional joystick controller for it would have been easy to make and would have greatly improved the playing experience. But Lego never bothered to make one.

Building a proportional joystick for C+ is a lot more complex because of the various considerations involved. I fear there is little hope of Lego making one.

A simple on-off physical remote would not be worth it for C+.

Edited October 30, 2022 by iLego

[howitzer]

31 minutes ago, iLego said:

PF was around for many years. A proportional joystick controller for it would have been easy to make and would have greatly improved the playing experience. But Lego never bothered to make one.

Building a proportional joystick for C+ is a lot more complex because of the various considerations involved. I fear there is little hope of Lego making one.

A simple on-off physical remote would not be worth it for C+.

Simple on-off physical remote already exists. What we need is couple of proportional control joysticks and few additional buttons.

[allanp]

Well here's another pie in the sky idea! What about 3x3 or 4x4 studs in size remote input modules. There could be a button module, a d-pad module, a proportional slider module, a 2 axis proportional joystick module, basically physical representations of the powered up inputs that you can click together to build your own remote. This would allow TLG to do a phased introduction of the physical remote (they wouldn't need to release all the different modules at once) and for the next first half smaller PU vehicle they include two proportional slider modules. For the next train they include an unsprung version of the slider and a toggle button module for the lights. Depending on how they communicate this would be as cheap, if not cheaper, than the already existing train remotes yes? And it would allow fans to build up their collection of modules to build anything from simple push button remotes all the way up to giant full size consoles that surround you with buttons and levers and foot pedals (that you build) and so on. Imagine controlling 42100 with a full sized replica of the real life excavators control interface built out of your own Lego collection! Again, I guess it's not possible for whatever reason but why would these simple remote modules be any less possible than the current train remote? It would allow for Lego to do a phased introduction to the physical remote and it would be future proof in the sense that, no matter what model they release, they (or we) will always be able to build a remote for it. It also feels like a very Lego like solution. They provide the elements and we can build it how we want.

[kbalage]

9 hours ago, Unbrickme said:

While it may be a better solution, it still does not eliminate the necessity for a computer/smart device.

You really cannot improve the system and add features without introducing a proper way to tweak the settings. Any "advanced" solution developed by 3rd parties for PF like BuWizz or SBrick had to use a smart device, otherwise you simply cannot set inputs and outputs properly, or you'd have to limit the possibilities of the system which does not make much sense. 

I don't think a strict physical-only solution would be the way to go after PF, or even after PU. Tactile feedback is important for the controls, but it wouldn't be that hard to build a system that relies on some default behaviors for physical switches, buttons or proportional remotes, and would allow further tweaking and uploading of their configuration with a smart device. Ideally it still wouldn't require a smart device to run in every scenario, but would offer the possibility to run either a saved code on the hubs themselves or run live code from the smart device, similar to the way Mindstorms operated. 

Default behavior of hubs and remotes was something that even the PU team explored a few years ago when we had workshops with them, but apparently didn't make it to production. They still might come, we'll see. 

[AVCampos]

10 hours ago, Unbrickme said:

People are concerned with the lack of software support in the future

I'm not concerned about that: for example, the RCX was discontinued before some people here were even born, yet it's still usable nowadays thanks to Bricx Command Center (and a USB-to-serial adapter, in most cases). What I'm concerned regarding long-term usability is proprietary rechargeable batteries, like those of the two SPIKE hubs.

2 hours ago, iLego said:

Building a proportional joystick for C+ is a lot more complex because of the various considerations involved.

LEGO could implement support for standard Bluetooth HID devices, and then we could use our gamepad of choice. If TLG wants to keep everything LEGO-branded, they can slap a LEGO shell around an off-the-shelf gamepad PCB, like they did with that Logitech webcam.

But assigning button X to function A would indeed still require a computer/phone for initial configuration, unless TLG did the extra step for each copy of a set and pre-configure the hub that comes with it for that specific set. "Luckily" there's even no need for B-model configurations.

[SNIPE]

6 hours ago, allanp said:

Well here's another pie in the sky idea! What about 3x3 or 4x4 studs in size remote input modules. There could be a button module, a d-pad module, a proportional slider module, a 2 axis proportional joystick module, basically physical representations of the powered up inputs that you can click together to build your own remote. This would allow TLG to do a phased introduction of the physical remote (they wouldn't need to release all the different modules at once) and for the next first half smaller PU vehicle they include two proportional slider modules. For the next train they include an unsprung version of the slider and a toggle button module for the lights. Depending on how they communicate this would be as cheap, if not cheaper, than the already existing train remotes yes? And it would allow fans to build up their collection of modules to build anything from simple push button remotes all the way up to giant full size consoles that surround you with buttons and levers and foot pedals (that you build) and so on. Imagine controlling 42100 with a full sized replica of the real life excavators control interface built out of your own Lego collection! Again, I guess it's not possible for whatever reason but why would these simple remote modules be any less possible than the current train remote? It would allow for Lego to do a phased introduction to the physical remote and it would be future proof in the sense that, no matter what model they release, they (or we) will always be able to build a remote for it. It also feels like a very Lego like solution. They provide the elements and we can build it how we want.

I'm with this idea, but it would require yet another type of electrical connector, and lego nowdays are using the control+ connectors for all product ranges.

The current control+ cables and connectors would not fit in a gamepad and it would be a mess of cables.

Also it would be expensive to produce and wouldnt fit into legos current line up (in marketing terms I mean). lego would have  to basically make this idea its own lego theme which would be short lived.

Edited October 30, 2022 by SNIPE

[Void_S]

Sorry for making a wrong turn. I still didn't catch it - did TLG announce the physical controller, or are all these speculations based on that timeline image?

[kbalage]

17 minutes ago, Void_S said:

Sorry for making a wrong turn. I still didn't catch it - did TLG announce the physical controller, or are all these speculations based on that timeline image?

They didn't announce anything, and it is not explicitly mentioned in the timeline image so it is mostly wishful thinking 

[dhc6twinotter]

Since we’re on the topic of PU, I’ll add my $.02. 
 

 I will probably always find PF superior for as long as PU only allows four motors per hub and lacks extension wires.  
 

For me to jump 100% to PU, LEGO is going to have to create a hub that has at least 8 ports, find a way to port stack, and offer extension wires.  Otherwise, I have no choice but to use PF on some projects.  
 

IMO, LEGO dropped the ball with PU.  They should’ve just gone the S-brick route and offered Bluetooth receivers.

Edited November 1, 2022 by dhc6twinotter

[HydroWorld Outlook]

On 10/30/2022 at 10:13 AM, SNIPE said:

I'm with this idea, but it would require yet another type of electrical connector, and lego nowdays are using the control+ connectors for all product ranges.

The current control+ cables and connectors would not fit in a gamepad and it would be a mess of cables.

Also it would be expensive to produce and wouldnt fit into legos current line up (in marketing terms I mean). lego would have  to basically make this idea its own lego theme which would be short lived.

Actually, it could still be done. These modules would not need wires, since they would be designed to fit together. In that case, you could just have a male and female PU connector embedded into each part, then fit them together to create your controller. Almost like the modular system we have seen in the LEGO City Space and Deep Sea Sets from 2019 and 2020. Unfortunately, you would probably need some sort of central battery/microcomputer module with a charging port or something so that the modules would be powered, but then again, that wouldn't be much different than the controllers we have now. So, good idea, that could actually work.

[Kostq]

Based on previous years - when will the eyecandy flow this year?

I know the discussions on PU/C+ will never end, I agree with the fact that we lost some features, but gained others, life goes on.

[allanp]

13 minutes ago, GTS said:

Based on previous years - when will the eyecandy flow this year?

I know the discussions on PU/C+ will never end, I agree with the fact that we lost some features, but gained others, life goes on.

It's hard to say based on previous years as it changes year to year. It used to be that we would have seen the first half sets by now and the summer sets would leak just after Christmas. But leaks are getting less and less due to the counterfeiters. The first half sets could leak anytime between now and their release.

[Maaboo the Witch]

56 minutes ago, GTS said:

I know the discussions on PU/C+ will never end, I agree with the fact that we lost some features, but gained others, life goes on.

Funnily enough, aside from the Liebherr, none of the sets revealed thus far seem to use C+.

[Jundis]

48 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

Funnily enough, aside from the Liebherr, none of the sets revealed thus far seem to use C+.

There is only the Peugeot Racecar (maybe the Ford GT) with a price tag high enough for a C+ set. Also there are simply not enough interesting stuff in this lineup to put C+ in...  

But I am actually curious, what TLG would come up with as a next RC racer. The transformation vehicle was actually a new idea never done before. Maybe a RC bike?

First leaks surely come out in a week or two. Even the first theme is officially revealed by LEGO (Avatar Series).

[Maaboo the Witch]

4 hours ago, Jundis said:

First leaks surely come out in a week or two. Even the first theme is officially revealed by LEGO (Avatar Series).

The 1H2022 leaks appeared on YT and Insta on the 30th October last year, so leaks for '23 are officially overdue.

[kbalage]

5 hours ago, Jundis said:

There is only the Peugeot Racecar (maybe the Ford GT) with a price tag high enough for a C+ set. Also there are simply not enough interesting stuff in this lineup to put C+ in...  

If the related piece count is correct then none of these seems to have any electronics included. Adding the sets expected to retire to the equation, in 2023 HY1 the only available sub-$300 Control+ set will be the Transformation Vehicle 

[Jundis]

41 minutes ago, kbalage said:

If the related piece count is correct then none of these seems to have any electronics included. Adding the sets expected to retire to the equation, in 2023 HY1 the only available sub-$300 Control+ set will be the Transformation Vehicle 

That's really sad... I hope we get a decently priced one in H2, in the price range of the 42114. (@TLG: A tractor with a trailer pleeeeeese!)

1 hour ago, Maaboo35 said:

The 1H2022 leaks appeared on YT and Insta on the 30th October last year, so leaks for '23 are officially overdue.

Right, but I think TLG is doing rightly so, trying to prevent any leaks.

[AVCampos]

49 minutes ago, Jundis said:

@TLG: A tractor with a trailer pleeeeeese!

If TLG does that, people will be moaning that they already did the John Deere and they're lazy and we get the same thing over and over again, and other complaints.

[MarkyMark42]

I saw somewhere where someone had made a Peugeot 9x8 and it looked really good but i'm pretty sure it was made out of standard bricks and not technic

So in summary, this probably doesn't help :)

[Void_S]

1 hour ago, MarkyMark42 said:

I saw somewhere where someone had made a Peugeot 9x8 and it looked really good but i'm pretty sure it was made out of standard bricks and not technic

So in summary, this probably doesn't help :)

Yeah, but all of them (I found 3 ones in Google) are made of bricks so far and could be taken as Speed Champions or Creator.
Well, possibly finally we're going to get DBG wheelarches