What to do when an Era ends?

[legoman666]

3rd? I only know of two - the v1 and v2. What's the third?

The ones that blink on startup are v1.1, they fixed some bug in v1 (which don't blink). V2 are labeled v2.

http://www.philohome.com/pfrec/pfrec.htm

First paragraph.

Edited September 10, 2014 by legoman666

[ritzcrackerman]

This has been an interesting topic to follow.

I agree that - with shared technologies across multiple product lines (Technic, Train, Mindstorms, etc.) that Power Functions is here to stay.

Even with Bluetooth and other short-range wireless technologies - IR is tried and tested (think how long it's been in television remote controls).

I would like to see:

1) Smaller battery boxes

2) Higher performance/higher torque train motors

3) Expansion of PF motors - Small, micro, etc.

For those that complain about the constraints of the PF system - isn't that what LEGO is all about? Creative solutions for the constraints of a system. That's inherent in the actual bricks. Stands to reason it would be extend to the motorization functions as well. LOL.

[fred67]

For those that complain about the constraints of the PF system - isn't that what LEGO is all about? Creative solutions for the constraints of a system. That's inherent in the actual bricks. Stands to reason it would be extend to the motorization functions as well. LOL.

And yet, at the same time, you're asking for smaller battery boxes and smaller motors...

The problem isn't PF, it's going from something that was very easy to work with (9V) to PF - those old trains, especially, were not designed for PF.

That's why I say stocking up on PF is bad, because why stock up on stuff that may have better versions in the future.

[dr_spock]

Do you mean forced creativity? I started my latest MOC with a battery box and IR receiver. Then I built the train body around them.

9V was easier. Replace one of boogies with the 9V motor and you're done. Yup, change can be hard.

[Paperballpark]

Ah but what if the train you were MOCing didn't have boogies? How would you motorise, say, an 0-6-0 Diesel shunter? Or an 0-6-2 Steam engine (or similar)? You couldn't. With PF, you can, because you're not limited to using the train motor. Sure, you have to accommodate two other large bits, but that's not insurmountable.

[cgarison]

Do you mean forced creativity? I started my latest MOC with a battery box and IR receiver. Then I built the train body around them.

9V was easier. Replace one of boogies with the 9V motor and you're done. Yup, change can be hard.

Same here. Once you learn what it takes to conceal all the pieces, it becomes pretty easy to build a locomotive (or a powered car to push a locomotive) to match the needs of the train that you are building. My only issue is that we have effectively lost 6 wide trains from detailed AFOL builders because you have to move out to at least 7 wide and pushing 8 wide to get the detail that you want on the train for it to "pop" on the track.

I will have to say though, I am anxious to try an S-Brick in the future because the IR system used by Lego is simply rubbish when you run a large train layout. But this last sentence is simply my opinion.

[codefox421]

I will have to say though, I am anxious to try an S-Brick in the future because the IR system used by Lego is simply rubbish when you run a large train layout. But this last sentence is simply my opinion.

You could also try my open source Bluetooth solution, BricksTer. The PCB is quite small and can be hidden much more easily than the IR receiver. For example, check out legoman's GE AC4400CW, which uses a BricksTer receiver.

[Rail Co]

Code is there a way to order these chips? If so this will work GREAT if they can clip with PF Clips!

Thanks

-RailCo