Lets "fix" powered up!

[Maaboo the Witch]

Here's how to fix Powered Up - discontinue it and reinstate Power Functions.

Hey, I can dream.

[Mikdun]

On 8/18/2023 at 3:43 PM, Lok24 said:

But thats not a failure of the PU system, but due to the fact that no remote is included.
For a city train set the answer would be yes.

That's it. That is why we want proper remote.

On 8/18/2023 at 3:43 PM, Lok24 said:

BTW: what do you think how many clients expect that?
And how many might have the set and are happy to use their smart device to handle today?
Outside the AFOL scene?

Did you have to ask? 

[Lok24]

6 minutes ago, Mikdun said:

That is why we want proper remote.

I see, but see no way to have this with the actual sets.

[allanp]

Just now, Lok24 said:

I see, but see no way to have this with the actual sets.

Control Center +. And upgrade the train remote to have proportional levers so it can still be used as the train remote but also it can be used in the smaller Technic sets.

[Lok24]

2 minutes ago, allanp said:

Control Center +

To complex, to expensive, not flexible, not compatible with the future.

[allanp]

2 hours ago, Lok24 said:

To complex, to expensive, not flexible, not compatible with the future.

Wrong on every count but I am getting bored of repeating myself on this forum.

[Lok24]

Then please explain.

We have the remote you proposed, with  proportional levers  and the display.
Then you have to configure - where would this configuration be stored? In the Remote? Or in the Hub

Where would a program be running? In the remote or in the Hub? And who did the programming?
How to share routines and programs with others?

It would be a regression to what we have now.

What would be the estimated price, compared to a technic hub or a spike hub (Which have no levers, no display?
 

 

 

 

 

[allanp]

50 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

We have the remote you proposed, with  proportional levers  and the display.
Then you have to configure - where would this configuration be stored? In the Remote? Or in the Hub

I have said a few time already that CC+ replaces the hub(s) so how can the program be in a hub that isn't there? You see what I mean about repeating myself? I've answered all of your concerns time and time again, I don't really think you care enough about anyone else's concerns with PU to listen.

 

50 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

It would be a regression to what we have now.

Nope.

Edited August 20, 2023 by allanp

[Lok24]

The idea of replacing hubs with dumb receivers would be  a regression to me.

You could not build even the simplest automated things without any remote, cause your "simple remote" can only start/stop a motor.
It has nothing to do with PU, but would be a complete different system,you called it PF 2.0 yourself.

How would you control a shuttle train? A railroad crossing? You wold need a separate huge remote whole time while they are operating  for each of these mocs, as the simple remote cannot be programmed.

Something like that, no remote, no smart device, only what you see:

Or I didn't understand the complete idea.

[allanp]

Ah okay, maybe I should rephrase or repackage the complete idea. By hub I mean the Technic hub. By hubs I mean the multiple technic hubs used in the Liebherr sets. I'm not too concerned with getting rid of the train hub shown in your video, if they don't require a smart device or an app, they would stay in my proposed PU revamp (which would be/remain open source). The train remote would be upgraded to have proportional levers (with some way to select between the levers being sprung and unsprung) instead of having push buttons. Maybe we would need a V2 train hub to work with it? But it should retain all the features and smooth, slow starting of trains (instead of starting too fast on speed 3), so I think that covers your needs right? 

Part of the reason for upgrading the remote to have proportional levers is to make it feel more premium (like their pricing) and train like than push buttons, but also because the train remote doesn't have to be exclusive to train sets, this upgraded remote would also be used in small to medium sized PU technic sets such as the top gear car and Audi, removing the need for a smart device and smart hubs in those sets.

The small/mid sized technic sets could use either the train hub or stackable receiver's on a bigger battery box, so for those of us that miss PF it would be very much like PF but with proportional remote and BLE instead of bang bang remote and IR. We would lose some stuff like the graphics and angle inclination on the phone screen but I think we'd much rather be looking at, and focusing on the toy we're playing with, as well as have a physical remote, as well as removing all the burdens of being reliant on a smart device, than the fancy graphics on the phone screen, so a tiny loss for many big wins.

Control Center + is for the flagship Technic sets to replace the Technic hubs and need for a smart device in those sets, and allow for the more advance features of PU (including config/programming) and allow for much more complex and physical controls without need for a smart device for it to be a complete product, but ideally CC+ would also be sold separately on bricks and pieces.

Edited August 20, 2023 by allanp

[Lok24]

Hi @allanp

Our approach is different. You start with sets and themes, I start with functionalities and above all Mocs, especially those that don't move but are more like machines or automatons, like the barrier I showed.

In your first suggestion there should only be battery boxes and receivers, that's how I understood it (maybe wrong). That would have been exactly the SBrick Plus.

Many hubs today do not require a smart device or an app. For example Move Hub, Hub, Duplo. Sets with these hubs can be used without a smart device, or additionally with the app.

The exception is the technic hub, it cannot be connected to the LEGO remote. A train control with proportional lever would be rather unusual, rather a rotary knob.

In my eyes, a remote control should be as modular as LEGO itself.
Assume:

- a block with batteries and electronics, on-off-connect,
- various input modules like proportional levers, knobs, buttons.
- Up to four, configurable, suitable for all hubs.

Overall, I think the idea with the Control Center + is difficult because configuration on a small display is hardly possible, programming in my opinion not at all. That was it with the EV3. That cost around €200 ….

I think we agree, there are deficits in the remote controls.

But whoever owns any Powered Up parts, no matter what kind of sets, should also be able to combine them into new MOCs, and also be able to program them. Especially if you establish a connection between sensor events and engines.
And the cheapest and easiest way to do this is with a smart device, which is why this option should be available.

The decisive factor: this can be used to operate the Moc, but it shouldn't be a must.
Or get by with the properties of the "small" remote.

What would be needed in the low/mid range?

- No changes to the hubs
- "only" a better FB
- Modular, up to four elements
- knob, button, lever
- Switch for "Port" it refers to
- mode (on/off, prop, calibration)

 

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by Lok24

[Mikdun]

19 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

Many hubs today do not require a smart device or an app. For example Move Hub, Hub, Duplo. Sets with these hubs can be used without a smart device, or additionally with the app.

I have no experience with Move hub, but the manual for 75253 Droid Commander on Lego site states:

Quote

These building instructions are recommended only for builders who would like to display the droids and they do not lead to the full build, code, play experience. To enjoy the complete galactic adventure, download the LEGO BOOST Star Wars app to control the droids, go on missions to build the extra accessories and learn new coding features.

Can you tell me how can I use this set without smart device?

[Lok24]

3 minutes ago, Mikdun said:

I have no experience with Move hub, but the manual for 75253 Droid Commander on Lego site states:

Yes sorry, that was wrong. it should be:

Many sets with these hubs can be used without a smart device, or additionally with, 
i.E. Trains, duplo

For the Boost 17101 (which I have)  you can move Vernie with the remote.
What I wanted to explain:
If you don't build the sets, you can use some Powered Up components without the App, i.e. for own experiments, with the technic hub this doesn't work.

 

 

[Lok24]

@Mikdun

I knew there was a tutorial

here it is:

You see: it works, with a slightly improved remote (see above, configure) and levers as @allanp proposed this could be even better

Imagine that this would be possible too with the technic hub ....

Edited August 21, 2023 by Lok24

[vascolp]

1 hour ago, Lok24 said:

The exception is the technic hub, it cannot be connected to the LEGO remote. A train control with proportional lever would be rather unusual, rather a rotary knob.

The Technic Hub can connect to a remote. You probably should say: LEGO does not provide software out of the box to connect its sets to the remote.

[Lok24]

5 minutes ago, vascolp said:

LEGO does not provide software

True. It is just the FW on on the hub. It could and should work exactly like the Move hub.

I sent all the infos already, have a look here, Brick2Brick network

 

 

[allanp]

5 hours ago, Lok24 said:

Our approach is different. You start with sets and themes, I start with functionalities and above all Mocs, especially those that don't move but are more like machines or automatons, like the barrier I showed.

I am absolutely thinking of MOCs, as well as peoples wishes and issues with PU. This is why I want you to be able to create your own profiles on the CC+ as well as having sets that include a CC+ include full step by step instructions on how to program your set without downloading it (though I have always said that the option to download a premade one via smart device should be available but not mandatory) so that customers can understand the process of creating a profile so that they may know how to create their own and also not need a smart device if theirs is not compatible for whatever reason, at any point, now or in the future.

6 hours ago, Lok24 said:

In your first suggestion there should only be battery boxes and receivers, that's how I understood it (maybe wrong). That would have been exactly the SBrick Plus

I was talking about Technic, not all themes. The train hub would remain in trains but could also be used in the small/medium technic sets that don't require more than 2 channels. As the train hub already exists, might as well use it in other themes where it is suitable, there's no need to have it be exclusively for trains. Sets that do require more channels would use battery boxes and receivers. The receivers would be able to be bound to either the train remote, or several train remotes put together (for the basic default functionality), or control center + (for the more advanced PU functionality).

6 hours ago, Lok24 said:

Many hubs today do not require a smart device or an app. For example Move Hub, Hub, Duplo. Sets with these hubs can be used without a smart device, or additionally with the app.

That's fine. As long as all functionality can be achieved without the need for an additional smart device it's all good. The option to use an app/smart device can stay but it should be an option, not mandatory for any functionality with the possible exceptions of tech support, and of course sharing/downloading programs.

6 hours ago, Lok24 said:

The exception is the technic hub, it cannot be connected to the LEGO remote. A train control with proportional lever would be rather unusual, rather a rotary knob.

Your thinking seems to be limited to the use cases that you have for Lego products. I'm trying to think of all sides and use cases. Rotary knobs are fine for trains but not for cars or most other things anyone would want to control with a physical remote. But it's quite easy to come up with a solution to the lever vs knob debate. You could have a vertically mounted rotary knob that you can thumb up/down but with an axle hole to accept a lever, and pushing the axle in further allows it to engage with a return to center spring. Or you could have a lever with removable axle used as the lever, and the base of the lever has molded into it a bevel gear onto which you can put another bevel gear and attach a rotary knob. There's probably 100's of different things you could do, I'm trying to think of ways things can be done, not excuses why it can't.

6 hours ago, Lok24 said:

n my eyes, a remote control should be as modular as LEGO itself.
Assume:

- a block with batteries and electronics, on-off-connect,
- various input modules like proportional levers, knobs, buttons.
- Up to four, configurable, suitable for all hubs.

I was thinking of something similar. In fact, when you look at some of the example programmable remotes used in industry it does look like the controls can be removed and swapped out with other controls. They are screwed in in the example below (and CC+ wouldn't look quite like this) but I can imagine the controls being held in with Technic pins, but I am aware of the potentially high price so it might be even more expensive with swappable controls, as well as make the firmware and configuration more complex if the controls aren't able to be predefined. It would be very cool though.

6 hours ago, Lok24 said:

Overall, I think the idea with the Control Center + is difficult because configuration on a small display is hardly possible, programming in my opinion not at all. That was it with the EV3. That cost around €200 ….

The display screen on the unit above is probably about the size of a phones screen so it should be just as possible even with an LCD display. But some thought should be put into making things easier, like you can only ever configure one code block at a time, so is there really any need to display more than one code block at a time in full detail? I posted a quick and dirty example image earlier in this topic showing what a dirt cheap monochrome low res LCD display can do, though a higher res colour screen would look nicer, and if we combine that with preprogrammed advanced code blocks then it should be even easier than it is now, not harder. You could have an advanced code block for multiple steering axles for example, where you just have to set the number of axles, which of the pre programmed steering modes you want to be able to select from, choose the button used to select between steering modes, select which is to be the main steering control (by default it's set to the right joystick X axis but can be changed), the number of steered axles and which servo controls which axle. Just make those selections and it's all done for you. Or you can of course program it yourself using the more generic code blocks, or you can still connect to a smart device and create a profile on the app, or because it's open source do what ever else you like, all options are available. Everything you want as well and all functions open to those that don't want to use a smart device for whatever reason. 

The EV3 didn't cost anywhere near 200 euro to produce. I'm all for Lego making a profit, but charging 600+ Euro for a set then hijacking the use of your smart device, then requiring you to download an app so you can control it from your smart phone with no tactile feedback simply takes the piss. For a 600+ euro plastic Lego toy with weak megablocks motors and no bearings I want a fully Lego like physical remote (being Lego like it should be fully compatible with MOC making, meaning it is easily reprogrammable), not a requirement to download an app and have no tactile feedback because they are too stingy to include a remote!

6 hours ago, Lok24 said:

I think we agree, there are deficits in the remote controls.

But whoever owns any Powered Up parts, no matter what kind of sets, should also be able to combine them into new MOCs, and also be able to program them. Especially if you establish a connection between sensor events and engines.

Fully agree, that's why I want CC+ to have a screen and be fully programmable like I keep saying. It's not very compatible with MOCs if there's no documentation, or no worked examples to allow you to program the sets from scratch yourself (like you could with previous control center sets and the code pilot), or if you don't want to have the use of your smart device hijacked by your Lego toy, or if you upgrade your smart device at a time when Lego no longer supports PU, or if Lego upgrade PU to a newer version at a time when you don't want to upgrade your smart device, or.......

6 hours ago, Lok24 said:

And the cheapest and easiest way to do this is with a smart device, which is why this option should be available.

 Yes, I have said maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany times that the option to use a smart device should remain available. But it shouldn't be the only option to access all features, including creating custom programs/profiles/configurations or whatever you want to call it. When I'm being asked to pay 600 euro for a Lego, plastic toy crane with no bearings, plastic counterweights and weak megablocks motors I am certainly not looking for Lego to offer me the cheap and easy option, or excuses like their mahoosive profits aren't even more mahoosiver, I want the expensive reprogrammable remote option! If all they are offering is the cheap and easy option then their prices should reflect that, cheap and easy.

7 hours ago, Lok24 said:

The decisive factor: this can be used to operate the Moc, but it shouldn't be a must.
Or get by with the properties of the "small" remote.

With CC+ you don't have to only get by with the properties of the small remote.

[Mikdun]

22 hours ago, Lok24 said:

Yes sorry, that was wrong. it should be:

Many sets with these hubs can be used without a smart device, or additionally with

Thanks. There are some limits, but it works.

This confirms my proposal: improved remote with 4 analogue and 2-4 digital axes (or possibility to use default BT gamepad), updated firmware and we are going in the right direction. Smartdphone will be required only to configure hub for particular model.

16 hours ago, allanp said:

It would be very cool though.

It would :) But I'm afraid of the price and reliability of it.

16 hours ago, allanp said:

It's not very compatible with MOCs if there's no documentation, or no worked examples to allow you to program the sets from scratch yourself

This can and should be improved immediately, even without new remote. Do you hear me Lego?

 

On 8/18/2023 at 11:53 AM, allanp said:

I wonder though, if having you physically add or remove the spring might me a cheaper option and also feel more "Lego like" as it requires you to add or remove a piece.

Why spring? Just place to add lego shock absorber (which isn't really shock absorber  ).

[Lok24]

1 hour ago, Mikdun said:

This confirms my proposal: improved remote with 4 analogue and 2-4 digital axes (or possibility to use default BT gamepad), updated firmware and we are going in the right direction. Smartdphone will be required only to configure hub for particular model.

I think you should configure the remote and their control elements.

- Switch for "Port" it refers to
- mode (on/off, prop, calibration)
- reverse

And this could be done via switches, as with PF.
So: easy to use, no programming at all.

Have a look at a simple ugly remote, two elements can be added on the sides.

This would cover simple MOCs and sets, I think.

1 hour ago, Mikdun said:

This can and should be improved immediately, even without new remote. Do you hear me Lego?

Well, the question if it important that LEGO does.

Documentation about coding blocks is available, but not specific for sets. And, as described before, there is not much "programming" needed, most of it is configuration.
And there are really many tutorials available how to do this.
But it wold not work without smart device, cause remote and technic hub don't connect.

So it would not help.

17 hours ago, allanp said:

The EV3 didn't cost anywhere near 200 euro to produce.

Of course not, it was the retail price.

17 hours ago, allanp said:

Sets that do require more channels would use battery boxes and receivers.

I would prefer a "booster", that means: one hub, and a second small box, the booster,  connected to the hub, with two more lead-outs, C + D
 

17 hours ago, allanp said:

though a higher res colour screen would look nicer,

Did you  try to do programming on a 6" smart phone?  Here it is, with a 1x1 round to compare

I would recommend 10" as a minimum for programming, which is much easier on a touch panel.

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Lok24

[vascolp]

4 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

Did you  try to do programming on a 6" smart phone?  Here it is, with a 1x1 round to compare

I can never see your pictures... what's wrong with them, I can see all other people pictures... I tried with different browsers, anonymous navigation... don't understand.

[Lok24]

Strange, i tried it on another PC, without login ...

here is the link:

Quote

http://www.werner-falkenbach.de/bricks/PUremote/smart.jpg

 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Lok24

[vascolp]

20 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

Strange, i tried it on another PC, without login ...

here is the link:

 

Strange indeed... That I can see...

[Mikdun]

30 minutes ago, vascolp said:

I can never see your pictures... what's wrong with them, I can see all other people pictures... I tried with different browsers, anonymous navigation... don't understand.

Me neither. Only when opening the in new window.

I'm sure it has to do with forum being on HTTPS and picture sever on HTTP.

40 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

And this could be done via switches, as with PF.
 So: easy to use, no programming at all.

I agree, but then you will miss all the benefits of Control+. I don't mind using computer/tablet/phone once, I hate using them all the time.

42 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

Well, the question if it important that LEGO does.

Documentation about coding blocks is available, but not specific for sets. And, as described before, there is not much "programming" needed, most of it is configuration.
And there are really many tutorials available how to do this.
But it wold not work without smart device, cause remote and technic hub don't connect.

This not fully related to the discussion about "smart remote". Lego is lacking in the documentation foe Control+. Why do you think Balzs created his pages for Control+ when he details what every block is for?

[Lok24]

22 minutes ago, Mikdun said:

This not fully related to the discussion about "smart remote". Lego is lacking in the documentation foe Control+. Why do you think Balzs created his pages for Control+ when he details what every block is for?

;-) Control+ is only the app for the technic sets, you mean the coding blocks in the power Up app (which is the central app for all) and here it is:

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

22 minutes ago, Mikdun said:

I agree, but then you will miss all the benefits of Control+. I don't mind using computer/tablet/phone once, I hate using them all the time.

This what I wrote, you should operate your MOC without if you like, and this possible today. And many people do so.
Here's a the picture, a simple example for the CAT
http://www.werner-falkenbach.de/bricks/PUremote/CAT1.jpg

(by the way, its is nearly the same like my barrier...spooky)
and her the complete(!) program for a car using the tablet as a controller, just to show how simple that can be (I know, not what you want...)

http://www.werner-falkenbach.de/bricks/PUremote/13.jpg

Edited August 22, 2023 by Lok24

[vascolp]

14 minutes ago, Lok24 said:

This what I wrote, you should operate your MOC without if you like, and this possible today. And many people do so.
Here's a the picture, a simple example for the CAT
http://www.werner-falkenbach.de/bricks/PUremote/CAT1.jpg

In my opinion that is coding.

I mean, if I want to connect a PU motor to a motorless set just to see the fake engine spinning, I need to program? That is what make people complain so much and wanting to go back to PF.