Powered UP AFOL Community Answers

How do you control 2 train motors with one button using 2 hubs, but have one of the train motors installed 180 degrees in line with the other (motor reversing)

How do you use an new style M motor in a (custom built MOC) train if you can only have bang-bang control (will firmware be updated to allow smooth control and other features like allowing the motor to continue running without holding +/-)

Will there be extension cables for larger builds?

Edited August 6, 2018 by Rob Hendrix

Thank you very much for this very detailed interview :)

I can assure LEGO that there will be many who will not agree with the old and new systems not being compatible.  I’m aware that the old PF system needs updating but I feel as though LEGO doesn’t mind  Alienating many of us  Afol . It’s also seems as though they are trying to prevent any third party companies from making devises  that would make the old and new systems compatible. LEGO has already moved on from using more then One PF element in their sets. This confirms their long term plans to do the same . Oh well 

Why would we prevent anyone from making devices which would link the systems? The Power Functions system is quite old by now and when introducing a new system which is meant to last for many years, then you have to make some choices. The choices made meant that backwards compability is not going to be included. But that certainly doesn't mean that the AFOL Community couldn't or shouldn't make their own solutions to that problem.

3 minutes ago, Kim Thomsen said:

The choices made meant that backwards compability is not going to be included.

I really hope the PU Team is still considering at least some compatibility, as the PF extension wires, which double as adapters for 9V, are immensely useful.

You can make anything happen with a little customization I guess, but we're not going to provide actual products which allows compatibility.

1 hour ago, Kim Thomsen said:

You can make anything happen with a little customization I guess, but we're not going to provide actual products which allows compatibility.

I do think it's a little problematic to rely on the community to come up with a solution. I understand that technology progresses and we eventually lose backwards compatibility, but wouldn't it be more sensible from a customer service standpoint to provide some sort of adapter that helps ease the transition, especially as we now have products on the shelves utilizing both technologies (The roller coaster relies on Power Functions but the new passenger train relies on Power Up, for example). I could see how that might be confusing to people less versed in powering LEGO products.

I hope the AFOL community comes up with a solution, but I hope the concerns that this is a daunting transition are relayed to the proper design teams. We'll adapt, but I think it's understandable the community is frustrated when they raise concerns and get a response that comes across as dismissive (not attacking you personally; just the company's response in general).

Amazing!

i was just wondering today about this!  

EPIC!

8 hours ago, Kim Thomsen said:

Why would we prevent anyone from making devices which would link the systems? The Power Functions system is quite old by now and when introducing a new system which is meant to last for many years, then you have to make some choices. The choices made meant that backwards compability is not going to be included. But that certainly doesn't mean that the AFOL Community couldn't or shouldn't make their own solutions to that problem.

The Powered Up plug is under patent, so people could, say, buy a Powered Up motor  and 9v wire and splice/solder/heatshrink the 9v wire to the power wires but manufacturing a solution from scratch (or anything more elaborate, like a hub) would violate patent, right?

So is it time for us older AFOL to run out and buy up lots of PF?

I think it is a bit odd that LEGO with it's effort to be environmentally conscious is expecting all of this system to run on batteries. I understand there are concerns for child safety with anything that plugs into the wall but I don't see this as sustainable. Rechargeable batteries are an environmental issue as much (if not more so) than regular alkaline batteries. And guess what, they have to be plugged in to the wall anyway.

As a heavy user of PF motors (even if I buy a couple of hundred more right now) I am going to go ahead and predict that Great Ball Contraption as a major attraction will die.

The lack of backwards compatibility is truly against TLG's own tried and tested rule that allows everything ever made to work somehow with everything made today.

Kim's point of view that the AFOLs should develop solutions to power and control plus adding compatibility while possible, is not realistic. I think this is especially true with their "designed and patented" connector as it will surely cause legal issues. Will TLG sell us AFOLs the female connectors? Not likely. On top of that us purests wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

I will be whining about this direction for quite some time...

17 hours ago, Kim Thomsen said:

You can make anything happen with a little customization I guess, but we're not going to provide actual products which allows compatibility.

That is incredibly disappointing. Compatibility could be made all the way back to 9v with a single converter cable from PUP>PF. The answer itself says the two wire control signal is the same, so it's trivial to make one and release it.

As you say, the community could step up, but I'm a purist, and this makes me very sad indeed. The Lego "everything works together" mantra gone out of the window. Poor decision making.

So, in over 50 years of developing LEGO motors we have now advanced to the point where it is impossible to just connect a battery to a motor (or a light), switch it on, and let it run? How can you now power something like the fairground rides or roller coaster that only need a PF motor and battery box?

This is a big disappointment that the most basic function of a motor or light has been completely overlooked in chasing the fad of touchscreen tablet control. This system seems to just teach children to be reliant on other consumer services and devices instead of their own resources and ingenuity.

We all know children are your target market and you have to keep adapting to whatever is lately taking their interest, but as a company LEGO has only survived by always keeping its basic roots in mind and providing children with the 'building blocks' to let their imaginations take form. I think the developers of this system have lost sight of the fundamentals of LEGO and so risk losing the interest of children. Adding the ability to use either a remote control or a touchscreen is commendable, but the PF system did so by adding remote control as a module that could be inserted or removed at will. Building the remote control into the battery box is a step forward in technology, but leaving off a simple on/off switch (or the very useful speed dial that was on the PF rechargeable box) is a major omission.

Please involve some more AFOLs in the development of this system, and don't immediately dismiss them as having their own interests at heart - they are far more concerned about inspiring kids and keeping LEGO in business than anyone at LEGO may realise.

My first thought to take this forward is, how-about re-introducing the polarity switch? The battery box could detect it and power it up permanently regardless of any remote connection, then physically operating the polarity switch could turn on a downstream motor, light etc and leave it on. (And an extension lead to go with it, or maybe even just an extension lead that says 'switch me on').

I couldn't agree with @jjrailton more. At some point in the future, our devices will become obsolete, and Lego will move from Powered Up to Powered Up 2 in 10 years. At that point we can no longer operate our models as Lego won't have released new apps for new devices.

I think at minimum, a basic bluetooth-less battery box with a couple of outputs is necessary at some point.

You make some valid points and I will make sure to bring them back to the Powered Up Team. 

Please keep in mind that the system is not "done" we will continue to develop and add on it. As mentioned we do plan to include the AFOL Community in the future development. I do not know the exact products planned for this in the future, but as for Jason's comment on powering up a fairground ride I am certain there is a good solution for that which will be introduced in time.

I understand your frustrations and especially the GBC community has some valid concerns. Though I struggle a bit to see the exact difference between this and the switch from 9V to Power Functions. Can you please explain it for me @Tom Atkinson so I can properly relay your concerns to the PU Team?

7 hours ago, Tom Atkinson said:

Kim's point of view that the AFOLs should develop solutions to power and control plus adding compatibility while possible, is not realistic. I think this is especially true with their "designed and patented" connector as it will surely cause legal issues. Will TLG sell us AFOLs the female connectors? Not likely. On top of that us purests wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

I will be whining about this direction for quite some time...

Why not? Perhaps we could. Let's not rule anything out before investigating it.

27 minutes ago, Kim Thomsen said:

I understand your frustrations and especially the GBC community has some valid concerns. Though I struggle a bit to see the exact difference between this and the switch from 9V to Power Functions. Can you please explain it for me @Tom Atkinson so I can properly relay your concerns to the PU Team?

I can't speak for Tom, but two things were important in the move to Power Functions:

1. Rechargeable PF battery boxes, that could be plugged in, not just while charging, but for continual power.

2. The introduction of the PF extension cable that offered 9v compatibility. This didn't just allow 9v motors to be used with Power Functions, it allowed the reverse - to provide continual power to Power Functions from a 9v train controller. This mechanism is used by GBC contraptions everywhere.

23 hours ago, Kim Thomsen said:

Why would we prevent anyone from making devices which would link the systems? The Power Functions system is quite old by now and when introducing a new system which is meant to last for many years, then you have to make some choices. The choices made meant that backwards compability is not going to be included. But that certainly doesn't mean that the AFOL Community couldn't or shouldn't make their own solutions to that problem.

Old doesnt mean bad.

PFS is still perfectly adapted for common use especialy for non remote controled sets

A system is not better just because you put a tactil/smartphone interface. Its new, but not really better.

Thanks @mrhobbles, I will pass on those points to the Powered Up Team. The rechargeable batteries and the PF extension cable are valid points which I will point out.

I agree that old doesn't mean bad and I will make sure to pass on the point about the tactile/smartphone interface.

Thanks for your feedback

7 minutes ago, Kim Thomsen said:

Thanks @mrhobbles, I will pass on those points to the Powered Up Team. The rechargeable batteries and the PF extension cable are valid points which I will point out.

I agree that old doesn't mean bad and I will make sure to pass on the point about the tactile/smartphone interface.

Thanks for your feedback

I think one product alone would make me very happy!

Take the existing PF extension cable. Chop off the PF only end, and attach a new PUP male connector.

Make the PUP firmware recognise that cable as a "train motor" so that a PUP controller can control it in power increments (Or give it its own unique ID, whatever works) 

With one single cable, we could control PF motors and lights, as well as 9v motors and lights.

Not fully understanding, but I am certain the Powered Up Team will so I will pass that exactly as you wrote it 

4 minutes ago, mrhobbles said:

Make the PUP firmware recognise that cable as a "train motor" so that a PUP controller can control it in power increments (Or give it its own unique ID, whatever works)

That would be in my opinion the most problematic compatibility scenario; while it's desirable that some applications use PF motors in increments (like the PU train motor), for others a "bang-bang" behaviour (like the PU medium and Boost motors) works better.

This configuration could be done in hardware, via a tiny switch on the cable that switched modes (like the polarity reversal in current PF controllers), or via software, by temporarily connect the hub to the phone/tablet and set any options from there.

1 hour ago, Alexandre Campos said:

That would be in my opinion the most problematic compatibility scenario; while it's desirable that some applications use PF motors in increments (like the PU train motor), for others a "bang-bang" behaviour (like the PU medium and Boost motors) works better.

This configuration could be done in hardware, via a tiny switch on the cable that switched modes (like the polarity reversal in current PF controllers), or via software, by temporarily connect the hub to the phone/tablet and set any options from there.

Well, I would agree that a switch on the cable for modes would be nice for those users who want bang-bang, I'd argue that constant power is more useful for most, especially if Lego wants to expend minimal resources creating this plug.

The reason is that that is what powers nearly everything. With constant power you could even power a PF IR receiver, and hang anything you want off that. It essentially would offer a "power supply" plug to all PF and 9v components.

3 hours ago, mrhobbles said:

I can't speak for Tom, but two things were important in the move to Power Functions:

1. Rechargeable PF battery boxes, that could be plugged in, not just while charging, but for continual power.

2. The introduction of the PF extension cable that offered 9v compatibility. This didn't just allow 9v motors to be used with Power Functions, it allowed the reverse - to provide continual power to Power Functions from a 9v train controller. This mechanism is used by GBC contraptions everywhere.

Yes these are the primary reasons 9V to PF worked. Although the PF battery in the middle is not an elegant solution (nor cheap) it does work.

2 hours ago, mrhobbles said:

Take the existing PF extension cable. Chop off the PF only end, and attach a new PUP male connector.

Make the PUP firmware recognise that cable as a "train motor" so that a PUP controller can control it in power increments (Or give it its own unique ID, whatever works) 

With one single cable, we could control PF motors and lights, as well as 9v motors and lights.

True but we would also need the reverse, attaching a new PUP female connector so we can drive PUP motors with 9V train controllers or PF battery boxes (or even IR receivers). I suspect currently these connectors are only manufactured in a PCB mount style.

3 hours ago, Kim Thomsen said:

Why not? Perhaps we could. Let's not rule anything out before investigating it.

If TLG would sell the female connectors to 3rd party developers that would be amazing and open up lots of possibilities (although still not pure...). Is that really a possibility?

I apologize for my gruffness in my prior post, this subject is too near and dear to me.

 

@Tom Atkinson probably not to 3rd party developers, but let's not rule out anything before we've asked and investigated. I believe we might be able to secure the elements for the AFOL community members' own personal use at least.