TexasEngineer454 Posted August 25, 2023 Posted August 25, 2023 I've been re-reading through this thread as I've been doing some testing with my hubs and motors recently. Does anyone have, or know where I could find a comprehensive list of the Powered Up pre-set controls for the various sets? What I mean by this is, I know for the 42124 set that the A port is the drive control and the B port is the steering control. I have been using this as a test base for some of my MOC variations and using the BrickController2 and a BT remote for more controlled drive testing. If we had a list of the various sets and the correct ports for each that maybe immensely helpful to those who just want to use the app "as is" for a testing base. Quote
Johnny1360 Posted August 27, 2023 Posted August 27, 2023 I would very much be interested in such a list, as I could then use an existing profile more easily. Quote
gyenesvi Posted August 29, 2023 Posted August 29, 2023 On 8/25/2023 at 3:47 PM, TexasEngineer454 said: I've been re-reading through this thread as I've been doing some testing with my hubs and motors recently. Does anyone have, or know where I could find a comprehensive list of the Powered Up pre-set controls for the various sets? The instructions of the sets themselves at lego.com? I know that's not a simple to review explicit list, but the info you need is there. If there'd be a place where we could gather this info I could add my knowledge of the sets that I own. Not sure what's a good place for this kind of info. Maybe @kbalage could help with allocating a page for this info on his Powered Up page? Quote
dr_spock Posted September 1, 2023 Posted September 1, 2023 I think somebody would have to go through the sets instructions and compile each user interface and devices required into a document. Quote
Lok24 Posted September 1, 2023 Posted September 1, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, dr_spock said: somebody or all together ;-) Perhaps @TexasEngineer454 should open a new thread and ask for others to add lists like that: 42099 4x4 X-treme Off-Roader Port A XL front drive white Port B XL rear drive red Port C L steering blue Edited September 1, 2023 by Lok24 Quote
allanp Posted September 1, 2023 Author Posted September 1, 2023 If anyone does compile a list I could update the first post on the powered up hints tips and requests threat if we want. Quote
Lok24 Posted September 2, 2023 Posted September 2, 2023 11 hours ago, allanp said: If anyone does compile a list I started this list already ;-) And hope that others follow.There should be nine of them ..... Quote
BrickTronic Posted September 2, 2023 Posted September 2, 2023 21 hours ago, Lok24 said: or all together ;-) Perhaps @TexasEngineer454 should open a new thread and ask for others to add lists like that: 42099 4x4 X-treme Off-Roader Port A XL front drive white Port B XL rear drive red Port C L steering blue Hub System ID Set Port Ids ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Control+ Control+ 0x80 42099 4x4 Offroader A 0x2F XL-Motor (white) “Drive Front“ B 0x2F XL-Motor (red) “Drive Rear“ C 0x2E L-Motor (blue) “Stearing“ D - 42100 Liebherr A Top : 0x2F XL-Motor (red) “Arm“ Bot : 0x2F XL-Motor (red) “Chain Left“ B Top : 0x2E L-Motor (yellow) “Stem“ Bot : 0x2F XL-Motor (yellow) “Chain Right“ C Top : 0x2E L-Motor (blue) “Bocket Tilt“ Bot : - D Top : 0x2E L-Motor (green) “Bucket Open“ Bot : 0x2E L-Motor (green) “Rotate“ 42109 Top Gear Car A - B 0x2E L-Motor (red) “Steering“ C - D 0x2F XL-Motor (yellow) “Drive“ 42114 6x6 Volvo Hauler A 0x2F XL-Motor (blue) “Drive / Tilt“ B 0x2E L-Motor (green) “Gear-Box“ C - D 0x4B L-Angular (orange) “Steering“ 42124 Offroad Buggy A - B 0x2E L-Motor (-) “Steering“ C 0x2E L-Motor (-) “Dive“ D - 42129 Zetros A 0x2E L-Motor (blue) “Drive 1“ B 0x2E L-Motor (red) “Drive 2“ C 0x01 M-Motor (green) “Differentisl Lock“ D 0x2E L-Motor (white) “Steering“ 42131 Cat D11 Bulldozer A 0x4B L-Angular (red) “Chain Left“ B 0x4B L-Angular (yellow) “Chain Right“ C 0x2E L-Motor (green) “Blade- Lift/Tilt / Gripper-Lift / Stair“ D 0x2E L-Motor (blue) “Gear-Box“ 42140 Transformation Vehicle A 0x2E L-Motor (violet) “Chain B“ B 0x2E L-Motor (teal) “Chain A“ C - D - Quote
Lok24 Posted September 2, 2023 Posted September 2, 2023 Thanks a lot @BrickTronic I'm still wondering why this is used instead of using a "general purpose" program in the powered up app. Wouldn't that simplify the control of MOCs? Quote
Lok24 Posted September 2, 2023 Posted September 2, 2023 Ok, back to the new ideas. What I understood : Possible with PU the architecture extension cable extended remote (4 channels, levers, configurable) small(er) motors connect remote to technic hub stronger motors no smart device needed while operating partially possible easy as pf motors without gear/decoder sustainable Different/mixed architecture stackable battery box stackable motors simple receivers CC+ Quote
PG52 Posted September 9, 2023 Posted September 9, 2023 Hello everyone, just a sidenote. What I personnally am looking for is a system that works in a "plug and play" fashion. Which is why I really liked PF. It only lacked a "few" things imho : - Separate motors and wires, 9V-style, with several wire lengths available ; - 2.4 GHz instead of IR for better outside transmission, better range and a way to have compatibility with standard RC remotes ; - An option to use mains power, which the old 9V train controller is still the only one to provide today almost 20 years after its replacement : useful for GBC-like applications, testing, and events when you need power for an extended period of time. - A GOOD and LEGO-made remote that allows proportionnal control. It doesn't need to be perfect or even have joysticks, just be usable (which the rotary train remote wasn't) and "lego-compatible". Maybe it could be modular ? Imagine a remote with "in-system" geometry (with technic holes) that would allow free placing of the control levers or buttons... For example, up to 8 levers connected via wires to a single "central unit" which would contain the transmitter and 3x 1.5V batteries (or a replaceable standard power bank). One could make his own controller adapted to his needs, while still keeping the "plug and play" thing. - And, why not, an option to use 3rd party batteries with standard wiring, without having to dismount things, drill, weld or whatever. Could be just a small plastic cover to remove off the battery pack, or why not a separate product that could then be a lot smaller, keeping only the control electronics and the current limiter inside...? I can't stand powered-up. Having to use a 3rd-party device to use it sucks ; not being able to connect a motor to a battery box and run it immediately sucks ; not being able to use mains power sucks ; needing to program things even for a 30-minute basic MOC sucks ; the huge size of the control hub sucks ; the lack of extension wires sucks ; the lack of a small motor sucks... I mean, imho PU is more of a Mindstorms replacement, and it may well be good at it. But it is in no way a valid replacement for what many of us - and the vast majority of children - want with lego : build, modify, create, test ideas, play... without having to go through time-consuming processes with 3-rd party elements. Quote
Lok24 Posted September 9, 2023 Posted September 9, 2023 (edited) 56 minutes ago, PG52 said: Having to use a 3rd-party device to use it sucks You dont't have to use a 3rd-party device 56 minutes ago, PG52 said: not being able to connect a motor to a battery box and run it immediately sucks Just buy a battery box, and it works. 56 minutes ago, PG52 said: not being able to use mains power sucks Very many MOCs are mobile.... 56 minutes ago, PG52 said: needing to program things even for a 30-minute basic MOC sucks You dont' have to do that, just use city hubs and a remote 56 minutes ago, PG52 said: the lack of a small motor sucks... There is a "small" motor 56 minutes ago, PG52 said: the huge size of the control hub sucks The city hub is smaller, the technic hub is nearly same size (they do include the with PF needed 2x2x3 receivers and cables) What you don't mention is primary property of the Powered up concept: You can use just use any motor, without any external gear, cause all the rest is done via configuration. Driving, servo, switch, all purposes. Concerning GBC: you can tell a motor to keep its speed at a dedicated rotation in °/sec. Always. 56 minutes ago, PG52 said: and the vast majority of children - want with lego : build, modify, create, test ideas, play... without having to go through time-consuming processes with 3-rd party elements. Really?and instead of creating and testing complex mechanical gear-boxes just need a smart device and say "Motor A speed 37" ? Had two kids here last weekend, 3 and 5 years old, they didn't complain using a smart device (cause it belongs to the world they live in), and they had no problems with "programming". Edited September 9, 2023 by Lok24 Quote
PG52 Posted September 9, 2023 Posted September 9, 2023 24 minutes ago, Lok24 said: You dont't have to use a 3rd-party device Is there a proper remote control, with levers, which I don't know about ? If there is, I apologize. 26 minutes ago, Lok24 said: Just buy a battery box, and it works. I bought the 8275 back in 2007. Although it was a remote controlled set, I was able to get a motor running instantly by simply plugging it on the battery box and sliding a switch. I bought the 42100 a few years ago. If there is a way to get a motor running instantly, well, I'm dumb, I didn't find it. It was said to be a replacement for the PF system, well, if it can't do the most basic thing the PF system could always do... 31 minutes ago, Lok24 said: Very many MOCs are mobile.... Most of mine aren't : I'm mostly known for ropeways and GBC modules... Also, mains current is great for testing purposes as well as being vastly better for the environment than batteries. Also, at events we tend to use mains current anyways even for mobile devices, as it's so much more practical and stable... 33 minutes ago, Lok24 said: You dont' have to do that, just use city hubs and a remote As I said, I have a 42100, there's no city hub in there, nor is there a remote. It's the first system in LEGO history, outside the Mindstorms series which was specifically branded as "advanced computer and programming stuff", that doesn't allow this basic task. 41 minutes ago, Lok24 said: There is a "small" motor Is there ? I didn't find anything smaller than a M-motor, which is still quite big imho. What I call "small" is something like 3x3x3 studs. 42 minutes ago, Lok24 said: they do include the with PF needed 2x2x3 receivers and cables Indeed, which means you can't put them wherever you want in a MOC. It's a huge block that you can't hide in small-sized or complex builds... City hub has only two ports, that's ridiculous for advanced MOCs. Think about it : you could get 8 motors on a single 8x4 lithium battery using 4 small-sized receivers that you could fit anywhere you wanted and provided you with added wire length. Now you're stuck with two huge boxes or four 8x4 ones for the same thing, not even talking about the weight of the batteries, which you have to fit close to the position of the motors because there's no extension cable... 51 minutes ago, Lok24 said: Concerning GBC: you can tell a motor to keep its speed at a dedicated rotation in °/sec. Always. I know. Yet it's a completely different story than just plugging in the motor on the train controller and voilà. Wanna change speed or direction on the go, which is something we ALWAYS do in GBC for testing, debugging, adjusting ? PU doesn't come close to the convenience of the rotary controller. It's true that my perception is not the same as today's children's who always lived with smartphones and such. Well, good for them ; I hate relying on those kind of devices for simple things. Will PU still work 20 or even 10 years from now ? I own a few motors from the 1980s which I still can run, remote control, use for GBCs... With no more hassle than plugging them in. And - old silly boy quote here - I learnt a lot about mechanics by having to use it. If saying "motor A speed 37" is enough, we loose a big part of what Lego Technic is... Finding mechanical solutions, adapting, learning. Quote
Lok24 Posted September 9, 2023 Posted September 9, 2023 21 minutes ago, PG52 said: If there is a way to get a motor running instantly, well, I'm dumb, There is 88015 Battery Box available, connect up to two motors and turn on and off. There is 45607 TECHNIC Small Angular Motor There is a remote 88010 available, so no need to use a 3rtd party device 18 minutes ago, PG52 said: As I said, I have a 42100, there's no city hub in there, nor is there a remote. If you buy a set that is explicitly designed for control with a smart device? What did you expect? 23 minutes ago, PG52 said: It's the first system in LEGO history, outside the Mindstorms series No, by far not, look at WeDo (2016) and Boost (2017) 27 minutes ago, PG52 said: Wanna change speed or direction on the go, which is something we ALWAYS do in GBC for testing, debugging, adjusting ? Yes, with the remote. 27 minutes ago, PG52 said: Will PU still work 20 or even 10 years from now ? yes, if batteries are still available and BLE is still available. 29 minutes ago, PG52 said: we loose a big part of what Lego Technic is. LEGO is more than LEGO technic , and enables users like , who don't like technic, to control their MOCs easily. BTW: the huge technic sets are not very helpful to "learn" gears and technic, much too complex. Quote
PG52 Posted September 9, 2023 Posted September 9, 2023 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Lok24 said: There is 88015 Battery Box available, connect up to two motors and turn on and off. There is 45607 TECHNIC Small Angular Motor There is a remote 88010 available, so no need to use a 3rtd party device So you need a specific battery box to do something that all PF battery boxes did. Nice improvement I guess ? Also, 35€ for a battery box, what the hell ? 5x4x3 is not something I call "small", it has the same volume as the PF-M ("medium") motor and, sir, 50€ for ONE motor, again, what the hell ? I know 88010, but it's not a remote with levers : I had one in hand, to control a vehicle it's really worse than the PF remote. Also, you can't change channels... That's a downgrade compared to the standard PF one imho. Being able to rotate the controls is a nice improvement though ! 29 minutes ago, Lok24 said: If you buy a set that is explicitly designed for control with a smart device? What did you expect? Initially I bought a LEGO Technic set. And although I knew it COULD be controlled via smartphone, I didn't imagine it would REQUIRE it... I was wrong. I guess I wasn't ready for that... I built it, tried the playability, as I expected it was absolutely awful with the tactile screen. Well, it went for parts immediately. 29 minutes ago, Lok24 said: No, by far not, look at WeDo (2016) and Boost (2017) Oh you're right, I forgot about those. Not the Technic series though. I was in my studies at the time and didn't really follow what was happening. 29 minutes ago, Lok24 said: Yes, with the remote. Slow, impractical, requires using batteries... Can't compare that to simply turning the controller wheel... 29 minutes ago, Lok24 said: yes, if batteries are still available and BLE is still available. What is BLE ? Sorry I don't know this abreviation. I guess it's "Bluetooth" ? 29 minutes ago, Lok24 said: LEGO is more than LEGO technic , and enables users like , who don't like technic, to control their MOCs easily. That's right, fair point. 29 minutes ago, Lok24 said: BTW: the huge technic sets are not very helpful to "learn" gears and technic, much too complex. I learnt gears and technic with 8275, 8421 and 8285 back in the days... They were the flagships, but by today's standards they would be considered medium sets I guess. Well, my point is not to say that you can't do things with PU. I know you can do much more than with standard PF. But from a UX perspective, simplicity of use, requiring specific LEGO or 3-party devices, it's not nearly as good as PF was, nor is it physically compatible with older but great devices : train controller, Li-Po battery, 9V motors such as the RC one... It is great for specific complex applications but fails at doing basic tasks well imho. Edited September 9, 2023 by PG52 Quote
Lok24 Posted September 9, 2023 Posted September 9, 2023 6 minutes ago, PG52 said: Also, you can't change channels... of course you can, you can connect it simultaneously with up to five hubs to one remote, makes in summary up to 10 up to 20 motors With PF you had 8 channels, which always interfered with your neighbour.... With other external programs you should be able to control up to 40(!) motors. Depends on your HW. 13 minutes ago, PG52 said: So you need a specific battery box to do something that all PF battery boxes did. Nice improvement I guess No, you can use a remote instead ...... You don't like that, but it is possible 17 minutes ago, PG52 said: I didn't imagine it would REQUIRE it... I was wrong. It's written on the front side of the box: "Smart Device" required, but not included", directly under the "No. of Pieces". And it doesn't require a Smart device really, you can control it with whatever you want to. There are lots of ideas and tutorials in the web. 27 minutes ago, PG52 said: What is BLE ? Sorry I don't know this abreviation. I guess it's "Bluetooth" ? BLE is the Bluetooth Low Energy Protocol, all them use 2,4 GHz, as long this is reserved it will work. Quote
allanp Posted September 9, 2023 Author Posted September 9, 2023 (edited) @PG52 I agree with you. But now that people have tasted the fruit from the tree of PU it's not easy to come up with something that pleases everyone, but still that's what I hope to do with this thread. We need an upgraded remote which has levers and separate stackable Bluetooth receiver's to make PU as simple, plug and play and easy as PF, while the CC+ I'm proposing enables most of PU advanced features while never needed a smart device, though it would remain compatible with one where desired, it's not needed. Edited September 9, 2023 by allanp Quote
Lok24 Posted September 11, 2023 Posted September 11, 2023 On 9/9/2023 at 6:49 PM, allanp said: and separate stackable Bluetooth receiver's The consequence would be two concurrent system, which are not compatible. And difficult to handle, cause you have to pair each receiver separately with the controlling device, this had to be solved. On 9/9/2023 at 6:49 PM, allanp said: PU as simple, plug and play and easy as PF, It is ;-) In fact it is much more simple if you take the MOCs in account, too. This is my experience. On 9/9/2023 at 6:49 PM, allanp said: while the CC+ I'm proposing enables most of PU advanced features Perhaps someone will develop and sell such a CC+, who knows? All others like SBrick, BUWIZZ, BrickController 2 use smart devices. On 9/9/2023 at 6:49 PM, allanp said: while never needed a smart device, I think this is not an argument for the majority. Quote
allanp Posted September 11, 2023 Author Posted September 11, 2023 3 hours ago, Lok24 said: The consequence would be two concurrent system, which are not compatible. And difficult to handle, cause you have to pair each receiver separately with the controlling device, this had to be solved. It is ;-) In fact it is much more simple if you take the MOCs in account, too. This is my experience. Perhaps someone will develop and sell such a CC+, who knows? All others like SBrick, BUWIZZ, BrickController 2 use smart devices. I think this is not an argument for the majority. You also have to pair each hub which you previously made out to be simple. I might end up making a prototype if I can get my embedded systems expert friend on board, I'm pretty sure he could do it if anyone can, but we're not being paid to make prototypes for Lego and we have other non Lego projects on our plate at the moment. Regards the need to use a smart device, I think this is something that people tend to "put up with" rather than saying "oh goodie, it doesn't come with a proper remote, my phone is already full with other apps and crap and might not be compatible and the use of my phone will be a no go while I'm playing with my Lego, how wonderful!" Quote
Lok24 Posted September 12, 2023 Posted September 12, 2023 (edited) 14 hours ago, allanp said: You also have to pair each hub which you previously made out to be simple. Sure, that's why I proposed port extentions/boosters 14 hours ago, allanp said: the use of my phone will be a no go while I'm playing There's a difference between configuration and control.... 14 hours ago, allanp said: I'm pretty sure he could do it if anyone can, Its pretty simple, you need something like a RaspberryPi or ESP, and some potentiometers, that's all For my applications, I did that all with a M5Stack ATOM, configuration via web interface (just connect to WLAN,that's all), or the Pi, with graphic user interface on the raspberry. This is nearly what you mean with CC+, but in a very simple form, just as a proof of concept. "Profile" may be stored in the hub or in the device, as you like. There are many users who just use something like that as "hardware", removed all electronics, and inserted to a micro-controller to send the PU protocol https://www.modellbau-metz.com/img_big/1d07460a054a7dc315a0552c176cb9e9.jpg Edited September 12, 2023 by Lok24 Quote
Mikdun Posted September 14, 2023 Posted September 14, 2023 On 9/9/2023 at 12:35 PM, Lok24 said: With PF you had 8 channels, which always interfered with your neighbour.... You have 4, each controlling 1 or 2 independent devices, to be precise. And with very limited range. On 9/9/2023 at 12:35 PM, Lok24 said: It's written on the front side of the box: "Smart Device" required, but not included", directly under the "No. of Pieces". It also reads: "Batteries not included" but doesn't tell you that they are required. Weird, eh? On 9/9/2023 at 12:35 PM, Lok24 said: No, you can use a remote instead ...... You don't like that, but it is possible You keep repeating this, but let's face it: it's either you buy extra stuff or you cannot do it. It's totally different with PF, where you can simply rearrange items and they works without the remote. PU is doing a lot of thing great, but lack of proper remote is a big downside. On 9/12/2023 at 9:27 AM, Lok24 said: There's a difference between configuration and control.... I think you are missing the point. I have "Remote control" app for my TV. It works. It works even from another end of my home (it's connecting over wi-fi). But I cannot use it without looking on the screen. On the contrary, the physical remote can be used without looking on it, and the shape and size of buttons makes it possible do a lot of different thinks still without looking at it. Now which type of handling is better for playing with moving object? Quote
Toastie Posted September 14, 2023 Posted September 14, 2023 20 minutes ago, Mikdun said: Now which type of handling is better for playing with moving object? Mind control (https://hackaday.com/2021/05/24/self-driving-or-mind-control-which-do-you-prefer/) Quote
Lok24 Posted September 14, 2023 Posted September 14, 2023 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Mikdun said: You keep repeating this, but let's face it: it's either you buy extra stuff or you cannot do it. With PF I buy a simple battery box and a motor. With PU I buy a simple battery box and a motor. With two motors they do different things, but PU is better, you can control the motors separately. Where is the "extra stuff"? 37 minutes ago, Mikdun said: but lack of proper remote is a big downside. Yes, no doubt, that's what I say. But with PF there wasn't either. 37 minutes ago, Mikdun said: Now which type of handling is better for playing with moving object? That depends on you. But that wasn't the point. I agree that it should be possible to control a MOC with a remote without anything else. (= just simple playing) But: if you want to configure the behaviour of remote and hub (that means: which button has which function for which port , e.g step up 10,20, 30 or run with 100 or accelerate while pressing) the smart device would be the simplest and cheapest way. Edited September 14, 2023 by Lok24 Quote
Mikdun Posted September 15, 2023 Posted September 15, 2023 18 hours ago, Lok24 said: Where is the "extra stuff"? Please read back what @PG52 wrote. When you have 42100 you have to buy stuff to make simple motor running without remote. Compare it to any PF set with remote, like 42065. 18 hours ago, Lok24 said: That depends on you. Really? You are the first person I've heard that prefers looking at the screen over tactile feedback. 18 hours ago, Lok24 said: But: if you want to configure the behaviour of remote and hub (that means: which button has which function for which port , e.g step up 10,20, 30 or run with 100 or accelerate while pressing) the smart device would be the simplest and cheapest way. Yes, but that's not the point here. Quote
Lok24 Posted September 15, 2023 Posted September 15, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mikdun said: Really? You are the first person I've heard that prefers looking at the screen over tactile feedback. I meet many people on exhibitions who use SBrick or Buwizz and a smart device. Since many years, even at times with PF only. A great advantage is that you have more options and a display for feedback. And there are many MOCs that don't drive around. And very many that don't need a tactile feedback. Trains, for example. And I agree that there is missing a extended proportional remote (which never had been there with PF) And extension cables. I wrote that many times. 1 hour ago, Mikdun said: Yes, but that's not the point here. Sure, it is the point "is a CC+ with complex software needed" Edited September 15, 2023 by Lok24 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.