Lets "fix" powered up!

[dr_spock]

Super simple inexpensive 2 channel radio control substitute for PF IR receiver and remote.  It was under $10 CAD. 

 

Could also work with the PU motors if the proper PU connectors are used.  Wire to PU connector pins 1 & 2.  Function like dumb motor on/off.

Disclaimer: It will not pass the purity test.

[2GodBDGlory]

Fun project! Maybe not much cheaper than an AliExpress PF remote/receiver combo, but definitely interesting.

Are those 3D-printed PF connectors? I had tried modeling and printing some myself, but with mixed success. If there's a file available for those, I'd love to see it!

[Lok24]

Hi all,

Today I want to show and explain some things regarding “programming” and “configuration” and show some examples, how this can be done and how difficult or simpel it is.

 

 

Powered Up App / Define a controller

Step 1: select desired elements from a list (of dozens of elements)  and arrange them on the screen as desired, note the assigned numbers (here: 0 and 1)

A

Step 2: switch to the program, select the two olive program blocks and assign motor “A” and slider “1” to the steering block(left), motor “B” and slider “0” to the driving motor block (right).

 

 

This is configuration only, the “program” is hidden in the two blocks.

Or use this combined  element:

And use the same blocks, but different control-Elements:

This is a way to configure and control a simple vehicle via the Power Up App and some smart device.

Both pictures show the complete “program”

Powered Up App / Use a LEGO remote

Yes, that’s a little more “complex”, but have a look at it:
First we see that all three parts are nearly the same. And if you start the program they all run simultaneously.
The yellow one is a trigger that waits for an event. If triggered,  the motor block (olive)  is executed, the upper left sets speed to -52, the lower to 50, the right to “stop”.
The pink blocks define the events.
They compare the remote buttons to 1 (=up), -1 (=down) or 127 (=stop)
The icon below with two hubs defines, that Hub2 is used for that (which is the remote) and the Button-Set, here “A”.
So this a complete mixture between programming and configuration.

 

Pybricks

Here is some Pybricks python code to show the difference between “configuration” and “programming “  

from pybricks.pupdevices import Motor
from pybricks.parameters import Port
from pybricks.tools import wait

# configure port and speed

driving_motor = Motor(Port.A)
speed = 500
degrees = 90
pause = 3000

# Make the motor run

driving_motor.run(speed)
wait(pause)
driving_motor.stop()
wait (pause) 
driving_motor.run_angle(speed, degrees)

Please note: this is a complete program that can be run via Pybricks

Of course, if you don’t know that’s all it is not possible to use. And Lego won't tell you.

But if you have minimal knowledge you can handle that, and  you’ll find a lot of tutorials and info.

Edited August 6, 2023 by Lok24

[Lok24]

On 8/4/2023 at 7:59 PM, vascolp said:

People can´t just use PU as easy as PF was.

Hum. Please explain, what is the difference:

vs.

On 8/4/2023 at 7:59 PM, vascolp said:

Building proprietary interface devices when everybody has an incredibly powerful computer in their pockets (we call it phone 😊) doesn't seems to make sense.

Agreed. In Germany 95% have one.....

And even if so: for programming it's not that funny....here's the comparison, both are 7 years old...and work

 

So go and get and old refurbished tablet or smart device for app. 80€, and you can use it however you want.

Just load a public program, start it and use your remotes(!) to control.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2023 by Lok24

[Bartybum]

48 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

Yes, that’s a little more “complex”, but have a look at it:
First we see that all three parts are nearly the same. And if you start the program they all run simultaneously.
The yellow one is a trigger that waits for an event. If triggered,  the motor block (olive)  is executed, the upper left sets speed to -52, the lower to 50, the right to “stop”.
The pink blocks define the events.
They compare the remote buttons to 1 (=up), -1 (=down) or 127 (=stop)
The icon below with two hubs defines, that Hub2 is used for that (which is the remote) and the Button-Set, here “A”.
So this a complete mixture between programming and configuration.

*snip*

I've gotta admit, that picture only makes sense when you actually explain what's going on. I feel like it could probably be more visually intuitive

[Lok24]

1 minute ago, Bartybum said:

you actually explain what's going on.

There are lots of tutorials  which explain Powered Up programming, and as you see: understanding one of the constructs makes the two other clear.

And I agree: LEGO should give tutorials and information to their clients, and they don't. They are "biggest" part of the "problem".

The central question is: with the proposed device with many buttons and a tiny display: would that make it better?
I fear: no.

[vascolp]

1 hour ago, Lok24 said:

Hum. Please explain, what is the difference:

...

Can't see your pictures...

[gyenesvi]

2 hours ago, Lok24 said:

Hum. Please explain, what is the difference:

I guess the difference is that if you are a Technic builder, you don't get to see that remote controller and that hub. It's for trains mainly. When you are a Technic builder, you only see a huge Technic hub and phone control. Even if people were aware of the remote controller, it would not cut it, as the expectations for PU are higher than it was for PF. We expect proportional control with joysticks at least.

 

I want to bring attention to the problems with the Technic hub (and touch on the size of the motors as well) when building / designing space constrained technic models such as RC cars. I remembered this after building the Audi and having a detailed look at its structure and strengths and weaknesses.

The Audi is a medium sized vehicle (about 1:10 scale), many smaller ones have been built in Technic, yet it is visible that they struggled with the placement of the electronics as it takes the interior of the car, leaving not much room for seats, yet (as a result) much of the inside feels empty and unfinished at the same time. It all starts with the hub. Where to put it? It is huge, so even in such a large model, there is not much possibility. If that was not enough, it needs to satisfy other constraints as well; you need to be able to reach the turn-on button, on the top, and you need to access the batteries at the bottom (even worse, the screws with a screwdriver, that's crazy) so you can't actually bury it somewhere in the model (like it could have been buried in the back of the Audi where it has ton of space). So the only practical possibility they were left with is the middle of the cockpit, the battery cover facing down. Now that brings in other problems. If the hub blocks the middle of the car, then there is no way for example to route all-wheel drive through the chassis (either with single or two coupled motors), so the only way to do it is splitting the two motors to front and rear, which in itself can even be useful for splitting torque, but it is only making the space issue even worse, as you can't put the two motors side by side. And all this forces the steering motor high into the cockpit as well, so all these together block the space from building the interior of the car, which just feels lame. Also, as a consequence, the steering system needs to have a gear mesh inserted, which reduces responsiveness and precision (though with touch control, you would not notice the difference anyway), but also makes it harder to center the steering, as now the center position of the servo does not result in centered steering due to the gear mesh.

That's a bunch of compromises because of suboptimal electronics components, mainly the large hub in this case, but a smaller servo could also have helped. Imagine how hard it is to build a 1:12 scale car, which would be better suited for the power of lego electronics.. Also, rechargeable hub could help, as then it would be possible to charge it inside the model without needing to take out either the batteries or the whole hub (not to mention the screws), and that would allow for better placement of electronics, more space in the model, etc..

[Lok24]

3 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

I guess the difference is that if you are a Technic builder, you don't get to see that remote controller and that hub. It's for trains mainly. When you are a Technic builder, you only see a huge Technic hub and phone control. Even if people were aware of the remote controller, it would not cut it, as the expectations for PU are higher than it was for PF. We expect proportional control with joysticks at least.

it was @vascolp who in point 1 declared PU not being that simple as PF.
There had never been proportional joysticks.

 

 

 

[Lok24]

25 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

We expect proportional control with joysticks at least.

Then you could use BrickController 2, this is a major advantage of PU: it's an open system.

To your proposal of entering the config via the remote buttons: how should that be save under a specific name for reuse?
I Think that would require some kind of display.

[vascolp]

49 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

I guess the difference is that if you are a Technic builder, you don't get to see that remote controller and that hub. It's for trains mainly. When you are a Technic builder, you only see a huge Technic hub and phone control. Even if people were aware of the remote controller, it would not cut it, as the expectations for PU are higher than it was for PF. We expect proportional control with joysticks at least.

...

I agree, having smaller versions of 4 port hubs and motors would be very nice additions to the current PU line. And without major disruptions.

The remote with proportional controls and such might not be so easy. I think the problem is that PU talks BLE, not Bluetooth (which uses more power). If you look around, all RC remote controllers are Bluetooth (or 2.4GHz...). There are no BLE RC remotes, only garage door or tv set like remotes. I suspect that that's because BLE is not enough for a proper RC remote? 

@Lok24, for some reason I can't see your pictures, but I suppose they are screen dumps of the Powered Up app. If that's the case, my feeling is that your post summarizes very well what average people without programming knowledge aren’t available to do. Even if it is that easy. And that, together with the lack of documentation.... 

By the way, I think brick controller 2 works by having an android device in the middle, isn't it?. Not what I would want, I prefer a remote talking directly with the hub.

Edited August 6, 2023 by vascolp

[Lok24]

5 minutes ago, vascolp said:

programming knowledge aren’t available to do

They show that it has nothing to do with programming, just configuration, if you use the smart device as a controller.

 

11 minutes ago, vascolp said:

smaller versions of 4 port hubs

You could use two, one without battery-box ;-)

[lcvisser]

4 hours ago, Lok24 said:

LEGO should give tutorials and information to their clients, and they don't. They are "biggest" part of the "problem".

I think this is the bottom line. PoweredUp is quite a good system, but the possibilities are not well worked out and/or advertised by LEGO. The system has so much potential that is now hidden and only comes out by "3rd party" efforts. I'm circling back to what I said earlier (I didn't read all of the intermediate 4+ pages of text walls and gave up somewhere around page 2 - I admire @Lok24's perseverance): there's no satisfying everyone, but PUP is a good step forward for the majority. 

[gyenesvi]

3 hours ago, Lok24 said:

it was @vascolp who in point 1 declared PU not being that simple as PF.
There had never been proportional joysticks.

But you asked for the explanation between the two. In case of PF technic sets, the remote was part of the sets, hence people got used to it. In case of PU, it is not. And I know there never had been proportional joysticks, that's why we would like them. And the phone control shows people that motors are possible to control proportionally, that is why they expect it.

3 hours ago, Lok24 said:

Then you could use BrickController 2, this is a major advantage of PU: it's an open system.

I have been using it for long of course. But having a phone in between is a problem. For example, I cannot take a video of the model I'm controlling using the same phone (before you ask how I would do that, I mount the phone onto the controller). Also, the phone apps need maintenance, and all existing apps lack proper support for all motors.

3 hours ago, Lok24 said:

To your proposal of entering the config via the remote buttons: how should that be save under a specific name for reuse?
I Think that would require some kind of display.

It does not need a name, it's enough to assign a number to it, and the current config could be selected with the number of presses on the start config button (and could be acknowledged with the number of blinks of the light that you are editing the one you want). Not super user friendly, but much better than nothing.

3 hours ago, vascolp said:

The remote with proportional controls and such might not be so easy. I think the problem is that PU talks BLE, not Bluetooth (which uses more power). If you look around, all RC remote controllers are Bluetooth (or 2.4GHz...). There are no BLE RC remotes, only garage door or tv set like remotes. I suspect that that's because BLE is not enough for a proper RC remote?

Both the PS5 and the Xbox Series controllers are BLE capable. It should be doable, only FW support is required.

3 hours ago, vascolp said:

I prefer a remote talking directly with the hub.

Exactly. It can almost be done with Pybricks, it is probably just lacking some parts of FW support to open up some generic Bluetooth connection capabilities, the same way it connects to the PU remote (I looked into the FW code and discussed this with the Pybricks guys). I am trying to convince them to work on it, at least the core Bluetooth code so that I could pick it up and work on interpreting the gamepad signals. I believe if that could be done, I could implement the above described config protocol in a Pybricks program, similar to Remote Bla Bla (since the gamepads have enough buttons that could be used for config purposes). If you guys support the idea, please help me push the Pybricks guys to put more effort into this (for example in the Pybricks thread)!

[vascolp]

42 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

Exactly. It can almost be done with Pybricks, it is probably just lacking some parts of FW support to open up some generic Bluetooth connection capabilities, the same way it connects to the PU remote (I looked into the FW code and discussed this with the Pybricks guys). I am trying to convince them to work on it, at least the core Bluetooth code so that I could pick it up and work on interpreting the gamepad signals. I believe if that could be done, I could implement the above described config protocol in a Pybricks program, similar to Remote Bla Bla (since the gamepads have enough buttons that could be used for config purposes). If you guys support the idea, please help me push the Pybricks guys to put more effort into this (for example in the Pybricks thread)!

If PS5 and XBox can support BLE I do support that! 

It makes sense to support those remotes widely available. 

I suppose it ends up somewere here : #262 . 

 @Pybricks guys are you there?! 

[dr_spock]

Any way to fix this PU app problem without having to buy a new smart device?

 

On 8/5/2023 at 11:09 AM, 2GodBDGlory said:

Fun project! Maybe not much cheaper than an AliExpress PF remote/receiver combo, but definitely interesting.

Are those 3D-printed PF connectors? I had tried modeling and printing some myself, but with mixed success. If there's a file available for those, I'd love to see it!

The small receiver and a 9V li-ion battery are also useful for squeezing into small builds.

The connectors are 3D printed.  I found a STL file on Thingiverse.com a while back.

[2GodBDGlory]

42 minutes ago, dr_spock said:

Any way to fix this PU app problem without having to buy a new smart device?

You could try downloading an APK for an older version of the app from somewhere like APKPure--I've done this before for non-Lego apps, and maybe it could work for you

43 minutes ago, dr_spock said:

The small receiver and a 9V li-ion battery are also useful for squeezing into small builds.

The connectors are 3D printed.  I found a STL file on Thingiverse.com a while back.

Thanks!

[Lok24]

13 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

But you asked for the explanation between the two

Yes , cause @vascolp wrote: "People can´t just use PU as easy as PF was. This is true. "
And I cant see a difference in use there.

13 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

In case of PF technic sets, the remote was part of the sets, hence people got used to it. In case of PU, it is not.

In case of PF the speed control remote was only part or train sets, the servo was never included in a set, as far as I remember.

Nevertheless it was used for technic Mocs. (but then widly replcaced by many many users with  phone and SBRICK)

13 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

Not super user friendly, but much better than nothing.

Indeed, but the idea of @allanp was a remote+ with display, that would solve that. With PU you could the displays for that?

13 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

But having a phone in between is a problem. 

I sometimes used an old, separate phone for that .
I think everything is better than waiting for LEGO to offer such a extended remote.

You get a fully functional controller, all possibilities to control, you need a (separate) phone and a controller, mine is less than 20 €.

13 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

and all existing apps lack proper support for all motors. 

That's poor, these are the three angular motors? They still dont' work with Powered Up App?

 

5 hours ago, dr_spock said:

The small receiver and a 9V li-ion battery are also useful for squeezing into small builds.

You cold then use only the elctronic part of one or two(!) city hubs.

5 hours ago, dr_spock said:

Any way to fix this PU app problem without having to buy a new smart device?

Uh, is this a new picture?

I had the same mid of 2022 or so, I thought it was because they did not support 32bit OS any more.

To my great surprise I could update all my three 2016 Samsung tablet and phone  yesterday with the latest version (the one with the new design).

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Lok24

[allanp]

Which one sounds more rediculous?

I can't play with my Lego because my phone isn't up to date.

I can't play with my Lego because a bird pooped on my neighbours car when I was a little boy.

Answer: They are both the same! 

Edited August 7, 2023 by allanp

[Lok24]

9 minutes ago, allanp said:

I can't play with my Lego because my phone isn't up to date.

I have three Android devices, all from 2016. Seven years old. They work .
Only 11% in Germany use cell phones older than 3(!) years.

And there are lots of alternatives, as discussed.

 

[gyenesvi]

5 hours ago, Lok24 said:

Yes , cause @vascolp wrote: "People can´t just use PU as easy as PF was. This is true. "
And I cant see a difference in use there.

You are right that PU could be used like PF with the remote for the simplest use cases, I just pointed out that regular technic builders might not know about the existence of some PU components, and that expectations are higher for PU, nobody wants to go back to bang-bang control.

5 hours ago, Lok24 said:

the servo was never included in a set, as far as I remember.

It was introduced in 9398, and also used in 41999, and also in 42030.

5 hours ago, Lok24 said:

I sometimes used an old, separate phone for that .

Of course I also do that, but that's the situation we'd like to improve.

5 hours ago, Lok24 said:

That's poor, these are the three angular motors? They still dont' work with Powered Up App?

Not sure about PU app, but I meant the 3rd party apps that support a gamepad controller. For example none of them can do proper speed servo control of the PU motors (only PWM control and rotation servo).

 

[allanp]

42 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

I have three Android devices, all from 2016. Seven years old. They work .
Only 11% in Germany use cell phones older than 3(!) years.

And there are lots of alternatives, as discussed.

 

I was half joking, but is 11% an acceptable failure rate right off the bat? And now I'm wondering, I bought my current phone to be able to use PU, which is now over 3 years old and I have no desire to change until it stops working. I still consider it to be my new phone. But if I was to just now get my first PU set I'd be well disappointed if I found my phone wasn't new enough. What phone I happen to have shouldn't have anything to do with anything. 

[gyenesvi]

23 hours ago, vascolp said:

I suppose it ends up somewere here : #262 . 

Exactly, and more recently they also split out a separate discussion issue for the remote, this one: #1024.

[dhc6twinotter]

On 8/6/2023 at 5:48 AM, Lok24 said:

Hi all,

Today I want to show and explain some things regarding “programming” and “configuration” and show some examples, how this can be done and how difficult or simpel it is.

 

 

Powered Up App / Define a controller

Step 1: select desired elements from a list (of dozens of elements)  and arrange them on the screen as desired, note the assigned numbers (here: 0 and 1)

A

Step 2: switch to the program, select the two olive program blocks and assign motor “A” and slider “1” to the steering block(left), motor “B” and slider “0” to the driving motor block (right).

 

 

This is configuration only, the “program” is hidden in the two blocks.

Or use this combined  element:

And use the same blocks, but different control-Elements:

This is a way to configure and control a simple vehicle via the Power Up App and some smart device.

What is the difference between the two Olive blocks?  I think the fact I have to ask that shows it’s not as simple as you make it out to be.  

I tried to put together a program for a PU backhoe.  Creating the button layout was pretty easy, but putting together the code blocks sucked.  There was no explanation for what each block was, and I ended up googling a bunch of stuff.  I was trying to create flashing lights, a multiple position gearbox, and a way to change the color of the LED on the hub to correspond with the position of the gearbox.  None of it worked.  I probably could’ve eventually figured it out, but I spend all day in front of a computer at work, and the last thing I want to do is to go home and spend hours on the computer again. 

On 8/6/2023 at 6:23 AM, Lok24 said:

Hum. Please explain, what is the difference:

vs.

That’s easy.  The PF example is running all motors off one battery box.  The PF example will allow you to add more motors through port stacking.  PU won’t let you do that.  The PF example will let you add lights.  The PU example has no more ports, so can’t do that.  The PF example will allow you to use extension cables for larger MOCs.  The PU example won’t let you do that.  PU extension cables don’t exist.  The PF example will let you add as many motors and lights as you want to a battery box (provided the overcurrent protection doesn’t kick in).  PU will only allow 4 things plugged in. Nothing more.  PF has switches available.  PU does not. PF has backwards compatibility with the old 9V stuff, particularly speed controllers. PU does not.  PF had a rechargeable battery pack. PU does not (unless you want to count the $250 Spike Prime hub).

The only benefit that PU has is the ability to program motors.  I have never built a MOC that needed programming though.  PF servo motors and the ocasional stepper mechanism has solved all my needs.  PU will also allow up to 16 individually controlled items (lights, motors) in a MOC (with four hubs), whereas PF was limited to 8 channels.  

There are advantages to both, and I do plane on using PU for some things I have in the works, but as a whole, PF was a much better, complete system.

[Lok24]

19 hours ago, dhc6twinotter said:

What is the difference between the two Olive blocks?

The symbols try to explain: the left moves a motor in a certain angle, the right regulates the power of a motor.
The blocks are explained here:

https://www.lego.com/en-us/service/help/Power_Functions/LEGO-Powered-Up-programming-blocks-kA06N000000g04eSAA?locale=en-us

quote:

Sets a tacho motor on the defined port to the given
position in degrees.

Sets power to the motor attached to the selected port and
runs until the program runs without the need of a loop.
Positive numbers rotate clockwise, and negative numbers
rotate counterclockwise.

19 hours ago, dhc6twinotter said:

The only benefit that PU has is the ability to program motors.

The main benefit is to have sensors. This is the reason whay it is not that simple to stack the plugs.
 

19 hours ago, dhc6twinotter said:

I have never built a MOC that needed programming though.

I did, this why I have 4 very expensive EV3 here.
And controlling a gearbox with 3 or 4 Positions isn't that simple with PF, I think.

19 hours ago, dhc6twinotter said:

PU will also allow up to 16 individually controlled items (lights, motors) in a MOC (with four hubs), whereas PF was limited to 8 channels.  

That's wrong. You can use as much hubs and remotes as you like. And the limitation for one controlling device depends on you BT controller.
I already tried 8 hubs, no problems.

I agree: the properties of PU and PF are different.

But for a simple control of 4 motors with one remote (this is what my picture showed) it's not that difficult.