Lets "fix" powered up!

[allanp]

1 hour ago, Lok24 said:

No. You don't have to do that all. But you can do it and use it . And I know many people who do that. Looking at exhibtrions and see what is moved by PU is impressive.
PF in that area is dead since a long time, cause it doesn't work.
It was replaced by SBRICK and a cell phone long ago.

 

It is. Take a remote and a a hub, connnect and run up to two or four motors.

 

You mean most of the people in the world have no cell phone?

 

You know that - from which source?
And: do they complain about that?

Or do you only mean so called AFOLs ?

This seems impossible to me. Configuration yes , programming no.

 

It does not allow feedback, no sensors at all, IIRC.

This is valuable feedback so thank you for this.

Many exhibitors still use the old 9v train remote. It would be nice to have a mains power option for exhibitors. Maybe that could be integrated into the simple battery and control center + like it was with the first RCX. 

Using Arduino etc was things you suggested we could do (and I don't wish to remove those options from those that wish to take advantage of them). Why would you suggest them if there was absolutely no need for them?

It is as simple as PF for the most basic of control. Anything other than that requires a smart device to program. I know you are fine with that but I am not. I would like a solution that (at least tries to) please both of us as we lie at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I had a smart phone but when PU was released my phone was not compatible so I had to buy a new one, and I'm not the only one just in this forum whose phone wasn't compatible. Imagine not being able to buy and play with a new Lego model because your phone wasn't compatible, it's kinda rediculous to my mind. And things move on, tech moves on at a mind boggling rate such that things will not be supported in a short time and we shouldn't have to rely on third party enthusiasts to pick up the ball Lego dropped. The original control center and code pilot never needed continued support from Lego or from enthusiasts and I think it's possible to reboot PU such that it doesn't need it either.

When I said most Lego consumers don't know about that stuff, I mean like when I go to my local toy shop and observe the people in the Lego isle, I don't see a bunch of people who would know how to program an Arduino or know about brick controller 2 or anything like that. It's mostly kids and their parents or grandparents looking for something cool to play with. I feel something like CC+ would cater to them with its cool physical controls and easy setup with full documentation out of the box (whilst also catering to you).

I think it is possible to do basic programming on the hypothetical CC+, complex enough at least to control the previously released flagships but without the inverse kinematics. A few posts ago I wrote a few examples of programming on the proposed CC+. It is much more settings based, but there could be a LOT of settings on an EV3 style chip. There could be basic and advanced modes, basic mode just hides a lot of settings to keep things simple. I'm probably not explaining that side of things that well TBH. 

1 hour ago, Bartybum said:

Until they realise how much money they need to fork out.

Problem is that I could very easily see Lego charging upwards of $500AUD for a programmable transmitter (which is how much a Mindstorms hub cost here pre-Covid), based on the functions you've described. It's a huge software engineering challenge as well for a company like Lego. I'm not confident that it'd end up being as cheap as you think, not only due to that but also the low consumer demand causing it to not be able to take advantage of economies of scale as much as the smart hub or motors.

It's quite hard for us to guage customer demand, I really don't know, but how many potential buyers are put off a very expensive RC set by there not being a remote, but some app instead. How do we know what happens in the mind of some random person as they browse the isle? I think this is one of those things where people didn't know they wanted it until they see it. Perhaps unbrickme didn't know he wanted the gearbox parts of the Yamaha until he saw it, and now he sees it, it's more fascinating than even his beloved 8043. But yeah, the price is a big thing. I don't think it necessarily comes from the unit itself, the brain of the EV3 costs 10 bucks. Lego will charge what people are willing to pay. Maybe it wouldn't be quite as cheap as I think it could be but maybe not as expensive as you think it would be. 

Another way to look at price, the Liebherrs biggest criticism is the price. But let's say that massive price is set in stone by marketing and can't be changed. Okay, so how do we elevate the Liebherr and it's PU system to make it's massive price feel more justified to the average consumer that's not looking at price per gram of plastic while taking into account electronics and all that stuff that us die hard fans like to do? Well, they could just have made it much bigger and taller for the sake of just being bigger, but for me it has to start with having a physical remote, and having everything you need out of the box and none of the drawbacks of being reliant on a compatible smart device. Is there a better way to do that than having something like the control center + that I'm proposing?

Edited August 2, 2023 by allanp

[Lok24]

6 minutes ago, allanp said:

Imagine not being able to buy and play with a new Lego model because your phone wasn't compatible, it's kinda rediculous to my mind.

You kow that a link to the actual Device-list on the LEGO-page is printed on the box?
And: there a very few PU-Sets that need a smart device.

 

9 minutes ago, allanp said:

I think it's possible to reboot PU such that it doesn't need it either.

Perhaps I missed  your point, but there is no need to update your hub, except there are new sets which are integrated.
So if LEGO stopps support, the "old" version still runs, cause there is no change in FW any more.  

BTW your "CC+" must be updatedas well, if erros in the FW are detected or new sets have to be supported or new motors and sensors will be available.
So you have to connect it to BT and the Internet....
It needs a display, battery, storage, porocessor, touch screen...

It seems to me like another "smart device", sold by LEGO. 

 

17 minutes ago, allanp said:

I think it is possible to do basic programming on the hypothetical CC+

I think:no. Please don't mix up configuration and programming.
And I doubt that there are many users who want to use 16 Motors in a MOC.

What's missing (in my opinion) is just another simple(!) remote. The existing PU system and protocol would allow that.

And - of course - extension cables.

 

[allanp]

I should just quickly say that this topic isn't just for me to promote my suggestions, please feel free to add your own ideas, maybe simple changes to the existing system or a whole new system, or even just go back to 9v/pf!

[vascolp]

In my opinion PU hardware is good. But, for many people, the need to program is not acceptable. While programming can be a valuable thing, that should not avoid the entire usage of PU. And this IS happening.

There should be a piece of software with a simple interface that would make possible to use PU motors and hubs in a simple way. Given the richness of PU, this software will always have to use a smartphone or a computer, but not for playing, only to configure.

Basically, there are two types of users: the ones who can program and take advantage of PU (like @Lok24), and the ones that want to use it without programming. I guess @allanp is representing this second group, where I find myself many times even if I know my ways in programming.

This is the biggest flaw of PU. And it is mainly a software issue.

The remote is another story. Yes we could have a better remote. But the existing one is enough in many situations. A better remote by itself does not solve the real issue. What we need is to be able to easely use any remote, either new or old.

[Mr Jos]

1 hour ago, Lok24 said:

...

I think:no. Please don't mix up configuration and programming.
And I doubt that there are many users who want to use 16 Motors in a MOC.

What's missing (in my opinion) is just another simple(!) remote. The existing PU system and protocol would allow that.

And - of course - extension cables.

I would love a 16motor hub [Outputs, O], but would also need some Input ports [Input, I] so total of 32IO ports. My warehouse has stacker crane [4I 3O], Conveyors [5I 8O], 6-axis robot [5I 6O]. So a total of 14I and 17O (Total 31). If they are dedicated I or O ports I would need 2 of these new hubs unfortunatly. But I already want to expand the conveyor system for a long time, but 1 corner transfer (1x chain + 1x roll conveyor incl a lifting system) takes up 3 motors already, so nearly a full EV3 hub. Having 16motors 'with encoders!' available would make me happy and make a large logistic system.

Extension cables would be 100% needed, the EV3/NXT system was perfect, cheap to make them yourself and all parts easily available.

Having Anton's LMS ESP32 connected to the EV3 already makes for a great GUI (Graphical User Interface) with a touchscreen attached to the model.

So for now I'm just going to stay with EV3's, but wouldn't mind a newer version with 32 IO's.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Mr Jos

[Lok24]

1 hour ago, vascolp said:

There should be a piece of software with a simple interface that would make possible to use PU motors and hubs in a simple way.

Thanks for your statement.
IMHO the discussion goes the wrong way.

It's in a first step necessary to define what's missing, what are the requirements, and then(!) present possible solutions.

Two examples:

If you buy a train set, everything ist ok.
If you use the city hub and connect a remote, everything its fine.

What exactly do you mean, what is missing in these two cases?

1 hour ago, vascolp said:

There should be a piece of software with a simple interface that would make possible to use PU motors and hubs in a simple way.

What would you like to configure?

Give an example, please, THX.

What kind MOC, how many hubs and remotes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Lok24

[vascolp]

Any MOC!

1)      If I have a Technic Hub and a motor and want to connect the motor to the wheels of a motorless MOC to see the fake engine spinning… I must program something!

2)      A car: two driving motors and a motor acting as steering (servo).

3)      Another car: two driving motors, each one on its direction a motor acting as steering (servo), a motor acting as gearbox command.

4)      A wheel loader, several motors, driving, steering, shovel up and down, tilt shovel….

I tried to make something to help in these situations, and it does help, but it is really awkward to configure:

 

[Bartybum]

3 hours ago, allanp said:

but how many potential buyers are put off a very expensive RC set by there not being a remote, but some app instead.

I would imagine very few who are in a position to buy it, to be honest. I think most people would look at it and think of the app control as a cool bit of tech.

3 hours ago, allanp said:

I don't think it necessarily comes from the unit itself, the brain of the EV3 costs 10 bucks.

Well yeah, the price of an electronic gadget is so much more than the material cost, it includes the cost of the whole R&D of the product. Then on top of that there's marketing as well.

3 hours ago, allanp said:

Okay, so how do we elevate the Liebherr and it's PU system to make it's massive price feel more justified to the average consumer that's not looking at price per gram of plastic while taking into account electronics and all that stuff that us die hard fans like to do? Well, they could just have made it much bigger and taller for the sake of just being bigger, but for me it has to start with having a physical remote, and having everything you need out of the box and none of the drawbacks of being reliant on a compatible smart device. Is there a better way to do that than having something like the control center + that I'm proposing? 

And now you've just added another billion dollars to the MSRP, or are you asking for free stuff?

Edited August 2, 2023 by Bartybum

[allanp]

3 hours ago, Lok24 said:

You kow that a link to the actual Device-list on the LEGO-page is printed on the box?
And: there a very few PU-Sets that need a smart device.

 

Perhaps I missed  your point, but there is no need to update your hub, except there are new sets which are integrated.
So if LEGO stopps support, the "old" version still runs, cause there is no change in FW any more.  

BTW your "CC+" must be updatedas well, if erros in the FW are detected or new sets have to be supported or new motors and sensors will be available.
So you have to connect it to BT and the Internet....
It needs a display, battery, storage, porocessor, touch screen...

It seems to me like another "smart device", sold by LEGO. 

 

I think:no. Please don't mix up configuration and programming.
And I doubt that there are many users who want to use 16 Motors in a MOC.

What's missing (in my opinion) is just another simple(!) remote. The existing PU system and protocol would allow that.

And - of course - extension cables.

 

Linking to a list of smart devices does nothing to supply you with that device. It doesn't solve the issues that come with needing a compatible smart device.

I would hope that CC+ wouldn't require an update. My guitar effects pedal, which also is fully programmable on the integrated LCD screen while having the option of connection to a computer, never needed an update despite having its own integrated computer that I literally stomp on. The .....um.....wadjacallit....system architecture? That would be decided before release and any subsequent motors or sensors would follow that right? Alternatively the separate receiver's would support it (like how we had v1 and V2 recievers). 

For new sets, the manual would include step by step, button press by button press instructions on how to program the CC+ to control your model, all done on the CC+ itself, much like control center 2 and code pilot sets did. But you would also have the option to connect via Bluetooth to download a premade program from Lego if you want. 

For customer support, you would contact Lego as usual, and they can guide you through the process of having them connect to your CC+ and varify/fix any issues. Once Lego has moved on then it would be like any other Lego hardware, buy one from the second hand market and use the manual to program it yourself. 

Could you define the difference between configuration and programming? If we take the Liebherr load sensing as an example, and in the model we have motor a driving the winch that moves the boom in towards the crane when rotating clockwise (decreasing load) and out away from the model when rotating ccw (increasing load), and we have a touch sensor that is mechanically actuated vie some spring/lever arrangement when the load gets too heavy, and then we configure it on the CC+ such that when the sensor is activated, motor a's ccw rotation is disabled and we also set a red light to come on on another output, would that be at least a simple form of programming? If the hook is connected to motor b and we can also disable that motor as well, or tell it to half its speed of rotation. We could also add logic blocks, mathematical blocks and so on, and just select what communicates with what. I agree a touch screen would be even better, but I am trying to think of ways to keep the likely high cost as low as practical.

9 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

I would imagine very few who are in a position to buy it, to be honest. I think most people would look at it and think of the app control as a cool bit of tech.

Well yeah, the price of an electronic gadget is so much more than the material cost, it includes the cost of the whole R&D of the product. Then on top of that there's marketing as well.

And now you've just added another billion dollars to the MSRP, or are you asking for free stuff?

A billion dollars? Okay, maybe I don't need the whole national power grid in the box, we could probably leave that out! 

[Bartybum]

3 minutes ago, allanp said:

A billion dollars? Okay, maybe I don't need the whole national power grid in the box, we could probably leave that out!

Not actually a billion dollars obviously, but the price they currently have is already the way it is, without a programmable physical transmitter. I guarantee they'd up the price even more as a result of including your CC+ idea.

[allanp]

30 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Not actually a billion dollars obviously, but the price they currently have is already the way it is, without a programmable physical transmitter. I guarantee they'd up the price even more as a result of including your CC+ idea.

What if they didn't up the price? The goal is trying to justify an already high price in a way that addresses as many control+ issues that people have as possible. How would you suggest they do it, assuming the high price is set in stone by marketing? Or do you think it's not possible?

[Bartybum]

29 minutes ago, allanp said:

What if they didn't up the price? The goal is trying to justify an already high price in a way that addresses as many control+ issues that people have as possible. How would you suggest they do it, assuming the high price is set in stone by marketing? Or do you think it's not possible?

I just think you're dreaming a bit too big. I don't think asking for a highly programmable Lego-brand transmitter with all the gadgets and gizmos, and expecting that won't bump up the price, is reasonable. Especially when you look at programmable hobby RC transmitters... those things are EXPENSIVE.

In any case, I think the problems with the Liebherr's cost are more based in plastic than electricity...

Edited August 2, 2023 by Bartybum
Removed my idea, probs also too expensive...

[gyenesvi]

2 hours ago, allanp said:

Could you define the difference between configuration and programming?

Configuration is when you connect things up in a simple GUI, like in the Buwizz/BrickController apps, basically connecting which joystick controls which port, and what are some parameters, like motor mode and max speed.

Programming is when you write arbitrary math formulas that calculates the outputs (motor speeds), given the inputs (such as motor positions and joystick position). It's the coding canvas in the Powered Up / Mindstorms apps.

And I agree that the first is significantly easier to grasp for the average lego user. Also agree that a CC+ would jack up set prices significantly.

As I suggested, the simplest alternative I can imagine is a lego remote like the current PU remote, but

- has two proportional joysticks

- has some more buttons (maybe two on the top as gamepad controllers have), some may be dedicated for configuration (for example 3 buttons in the middle) as I explained above.

I really like the direction swap feature of the remote, that is neat. Two remotes could even be combined into a larger one, that should be enough for many things.

Actually the configuration protocol I suggested above stems from the Remote BlaBla idea of @vascolp. Only that with more/dedicated buttons available on the remote, a less awkward / more intuitive configuration sequence could be possible.

[vascolp]

25 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

Actually the configuration protocol I suggested above stems from the Remote BlaBla idea of @vascolp. Only that with more/dedicated buttons available on the remote, a less awkward / more intuitive configuration sequence could be possible.

Nice .

Yes but, unless you place lots of buttons and/or a screen, it will always be difficult and limited. Thats where an APP running on a computer (laptop, smartphone, mainframe, whatever!) is handy.

 

[gyenesvi]

5 minutes ago, vascolp said:

Nice .

Yes but, unless you place lots of buttons and/or a screen, it will always be difficult and limited. Thats where an APP running on a computer (laptop, smartphone, mainframe, whatever!) is handy.

 

Well originally I proposed 4 buttons for config, that's not that much. Since then I realised that direction swapping is already taken care of by the remote via rotatable button groups, so that's one config button less. So the 3 buttons needed would be:

- initiate/finish mapping a port to a controller button/joystick

- port selection

- mode selection

+ configuration sequence would make use of the actual control buttons / joysticks for control selection

The config sequence for a single mapping would be

- initiate mapping

- select port (number of presses)

- select a joystick / button by pressing / moving it

- select mode (number of presses) - this step could be optional, default mode would be using the port as a regular DC motor output

- finish mapping (same button as initiate)

You'd have to config each port/joystick mapping separately. An existing mapping would be edited, otherwise a new one would be added. A long press on the initiate button would clear all mappings.

This would be enough for simple config, but for more detailed config (such as setting max speed / max servo angle, etc), you could still have the app.

I was actually wondering if this would be doable with the existing remote, as it does have 3 spare buttons (the green one and the two red ones)..? Though the green one probably cannot be used for much as it turns the remote on/off.

[vascolp]

You can use the green button in the remote.

The problem with this interface is that the hubs have not many memory and the config program consumes significant space. For instance in Remote Bla Bla, the CityHub, (which has half the memory of TechnicHub) simply has no space for the config part of  Remote Bla Bla. It only has space for the play code and, even so, trimmed from the support for 4 ports.

All this, of course, because we are programming in modern memory hungry languages like python... C and probably C++ would be a different story....

[kolbjha]

I have been looking a little into Pybricks today, looks very promising.

I am trying to achieve the following:

1. Prepare a Technic Hub with a small, standard program in Pybricks to get simple control of 4 motors using two PU remotes.
2. One of the ports (for example B) to be used fixed for a "servo" (for example PU L motor). The other ports for simple power control of 3 motors.
3. I want to use this Technic hub (with its fixed program) + (upto) 2 PU remotes as a replacement for PF Battery Box + (upto) 2 PF receivers + (upto) 2 PF remotes.
4. Simple power on and initialization when I want to use the system, close to what I am used to with PF.

Questions:

1. Is this possible?
2. Can I use both L and XL motor for each of the ports without changing the program?
3. Do I need to use all ports or can I connect only the (random) ports I want without changing the program? Of course the "servo" port will be dedicated servo functionality.
4. Can I use only one remote if I for example want to use only one motor + one "servo" without changing the program?

Edited August 3, 2023 by kolbjha
Typo

[vascolp]

 

1 hour ago, kolbjha said:

1. Is this possible?

Hi,

Almost eveything possible exept the 2 remotes at the time. But one remote can control all 4 ports.

Probably my Remote Bla Bla stuff would do the job for you? Tell me if you like it!

 

[kolbjha]

27 minutes ago, vascolp said:

Probably my Remote Bla Bla stuff would do the job for you? Tell me if you like it!

Cool! I will try it out and get back.

[Lok24]

8 hours ago, kolbjha said:

Can I use both L and XL motor for each of the ports without changing the program?

Of course,even train motors with no encoders, also mixed .
Each motor type has a special ID and sends it to the hub, then can be determined what kind of control is need (i.E. load control max Speed etc)

I once developed the program "Motor control" which does (almost) exactly this, for hub city hub and technic hub.
It  does (like all the other program already available as substitute for all control+ controlled sets) do not require knowledge of any programming language.
It takes a web browser and app. 5 minutes to get that up and running.

But if someone is able to understand and change this line

dirMotorA = 1       # Direction 1 or -1

or i.e.

maxSpeed = 38   # range is 5 to 100

it's can even be configured without "programming"

I propose to set up for this very exiting question a new thread, i can there explain the idea behind "motor control", @vascolp could talk about Remote Bla Bla  and get some new ideas.

Then we could use this set to discuss the input from @gyenesvi  and  @allanp and all others.....

[gyenesvi]

42 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

I propose to set up for this very exiting question a new thread, i can there explain the idea behind "motor control"

There's already a dedicated thread for Pybricks, as the question of @kolbjha was specifically for that, so indeed it's better to post questions like this in that thread.

[kolbjha]

The reason for my questions was that I want to challenge my own perception that PF for some uses is far better than PU because of its simplicity and physical remote. Of course we still have the issues with non-stackable connectors and missing switch as well,
but for now I wanted to simply see for myself if PU can do more or less the same job without spending too much time with configuring and whatnot.

I will spend some time testing vascolp's Remote Bla Bla, and after that I will share my experience. I am not so worried by the fact that Pybricks is a 3rd party solution. As far I can see, this solution can be used as long as we can maintain BLE communication with the hubs, regardless of what Lego does or not.

Edited August 4, 2023 by kolbjha

[allanp]

On 8/2/2023 at 3:14 PM, gyenesvi said:

Configuration is when you connect things up in a simple GUI, like in the Buwizz/BrickController apps, basically connecting which joystick controls which port, and what are some parameters, like motor mode and max speed.

Programming is when you write arbitrary math formulas that calculates the outputs (motor speeds), given the inputs (such as motor positions and joystick position). It's the coding canvas in the Powered Up / Mindstorms apps.

And I agree that the first is significantly easier to grasp for the average lego user. Also agree that a CC+ would jack up set prices significantly.

As I suggested, the simplest alternative I can imagine is a lego remote like the current PU remote, but

- has two proportional joysticks

- has some more buttons (maybe two on the top as gamepad controllers have), some may be dedicated for configuration (for example 3 buttons in the middle) as I explained above.

I really like the direction swap feature of the remote, that is neat. Two remotes could even be combined into a larger one, that should be enough for many things.

Actually the configuration protocol I suggested above stems from the Remote BlaBla idea of @vascolp. Only that with more/dedicated buttons available on the remote, a less awkward / more intuitive configuration sequence could be possible.

Yeah, it seems there could be quite some overlap between configuration and programming. I am thinking that in CC+ you could do basic configuration of course, IE control this motor from this controller in a way that's about as easy as with PF, but you could also apply and adjust ramp up/down settings, set a servo/motor to match a given proportional control input but also use maths, multiply it's position/speed by either a percentage which you can adjust, or multiply its position/speed by the position of another proportional control input such as a rotary dial on the CC+ (I'm thinking there would be two rotary dials) or by the value given by a rotation sensor for example. I think someone could be forgiven for calling that level of configuration a basic form of programming. 

It probably doesn't matter if it's called configuration or programming, I think a sophisticated enough form of programming/configuration for 99% of MOCs can be done on an LCD screen and the inbuilt controllers, of which there would be many. I think what I'm dreaming of is not too dissimilar to you, I'm dreaming a bit bigger as someone said!

In any case, weather it can be done this way or that, I just feel like something like this....

....would be really cool, as well as more authentic (real life cranes are operated from this thing!) on top of everything else including making the use of a smart device purely optional even when you need a custom program for your custom creations. It just feels more Lego to me. I may be an engineer by trade, and as such my adult engineer self can certainly appreciate the efficiency of the make do with what you have already solutions, but my inner child self, the part of me that wants to play with Lego, wants a bwiiiiiig contwollah! 

Edited August 4, 2023 by allanp

[vascolp]

Here are some thoughts, feel free to (dis)agree!

This thread is important, it shows us in what ways people are dissatisfied with PU. I could resume this way:

1. People can´t just use PU as easy as PF was. This is true. TLG focused too much in the mindstorms perspective, where programming skills is assumed. And forgot a vast group of people who want to be able to MOC/MOD Lego stuff, by using motors and remotes with no programming involved.
2. People fear that the dependency of smart device will in the future void the usage of PU hardware. While this can be true, this is the world where we live in. The enormous amount of features PU can have, require proper interfaces to deal with it. Building proprietary interface devices when everybody has an incredibly powerful computer in their pockets (we call it phone 😊) doesn't seems to make sense. And this is a general trend in many areas, not only Lego. So, I simply would not worry with this.
3. The remote! LEGO has a remote. People don’t use it but with appropriate configuration it could control every set Lego has or had with PU hubs…. including SPIKE Prime/Inventor Hub. Even many MOCs. The problem is that the only way to configure its usage is by programming. Focus is the “only” word.
4. The remote, take 2. There could be a remote with more buttons, proportional controls, etc. No questions about it. However, it seems to me that sometimes people confuse the remote (a device to remote control Lego creations using PU hardware) with a device to configure PU usage. This falls in item 1.. So, if Lego produces a better remote without fixing 1., things will be the same. Now we have a remote that most people can’t use. Then we would have 2 remotes that most people wouldn’t be able to use! In my view, a new remote, while desirable, is not an issue in the subject of trying to improve PU usage by people.

@Lok24 we certainly could start another thread to discuss possibilities of improving PU usage. Basically, trying to improve item 1 above. I would like very much to ear about the abilities of your Motor Control program.

Edited August 4, 2023 by vascolp
typo

[allanp]

@vascolp you and @Lok24 are more than welcome to discuss your thoughts and other ideas in this topic if you wish. I didn't call this topic "I'm going to fix powered up", it's "let's fix powered up". All ideas are welcome. Maybe it can also encourage us to look again at our own ideas and try to come up with ways to include other people's concerns. It was other people's comments that made me realise I should drop the physical code blocks from my first idea in this thread and also to continue with Bluetooth instead of 2.4ghz. However if you want to start a new dedicated topic you are of course free to do so.

To your points in your post above.

1) We are agreed

2) It is true that this is the world we live in but I don't like this argument. We could say that we should just go along with many undesirable, and even terrible things because that's the world we live in. I don't think that should be an allowable excuse. Having optional connectivity is fine and even great, but when it's mandatory we have to deal with things like mobile phones moving on and no longer supporting PU when Lego moves on unless we rely on third party developers which we shouldn't have to do when we are paying a premium price and spending yet more time on our phones which playing with Lego should reduce and so on and so on. And besides, I want to use my phone as a phone whenever I want. I paid a lot of money for it to be hijacked by another product. Maybe I want to let someone watch YouTube on it or listen to music on or use it to follow a tutorial on how to program PU or make a phone call to my mate so I can chat to him discussing how great this Lego thing is that I'm playing with or whatever. The fact that I can't use my phone because I'm playing with my Lego, or maybe the idea that I can't even buy that Lego because my phone isn't compatible, it's all just silly to me especially when paying a premium. I could buy a tablet or some other bloody smart device, but I'd still lack physical controls, but I could buy a playstation remote and use brick controller 2, but then I would only have basic control and after all that expense I really wish I could just buy something proprietary from Lego instead that would be 1000 times better, and I know won't ever require external support from Lego or third parties.

3) Lego has a that basic train remote. I remember getting a cheap AF toy car as a child, probably £10 in today's money, and it had a similar in size and feel push button remote. For a little toy car, fine. For a £200 train set, that's on the insulting side of cheeky cost cutting. For a £580 Technic flagship, no f**king way, not even close £580? Just no! 

4) we agree that a bigger remote with proportional joysticks and more buttons is desirable. I think pretty much everyone wants that! But didn't they say they struggled to make that happen, even compatibility with preexisting remotes? I can't remember the issue exactly. But if you are already willing to go as far as a bigger remote with proportional joysticks and more buttons and stuff, why not go a step further with an EV3 style chip (about 10 bucks) and an inexpensive LCD screen, and a proprietary piece of firmware in the vien of remote bla bla that allows for a whole bunch of settings and configuration options such that I have described previously? With those extra steps you can solve whatever issue is preventing them from enabling third party remote compatibility (because now they have a better one of their own) as well as elimination of all issues that stem from a smart device being mandatory, enabling more complex control from a physical remote operated creation (I think brink controller only allows for more basic configuration?) whilst still enabling everything you are asking for as it is still able to connect with a smart device as an option. 

So far the biggest arguments against it is that it is dreaming too big, they'll never do it, I'm pretty sure I've heard that before but we have all kinds of things that were previously only dreamt of like longer pneumatics, planetary reduction hubs and now a whole new gearbox system in the Yamaha. If you would have said in 2015 that you wanted a whole new app controlled Bluetooth based system to replace powered up and it to be released in a 4000 piece excavator with 7 motors, you would have been told "you're dreaming too big". 

Another big argument is the cost. Well we are already willing to pay for a bigger remote with proportional controls and Bluetooth and so on. It's really not that much of a step from there to move from having multiple chips in multiple hubs, to having a singular, more capable chip in the remote and an LCD screen and some firmware. The model itself would only need basic Bluetooth receiver's that do whatever the remote tells it to do. 

The final big argument is do we really need this when other things are available? Not really I guess. But I can happily leave the next big expensive flagship on the shelf. And I guess we actually do need this if you want to ditch reliance on a smart devices, ditch reliance on third parties picking up the ball Lego will drop and have complex programmable physical control. It's not about need, Lego is an expensive luxury toy, if they want to charge luxury prices then what do I want in return?

Edited August 4, 2023 by allanp