Why LEGO Will Never Make a Controller for Powered Up

The biggest complaint about the new powered up lego technic sets is the lack of a physical controller. However, a controller would actually bring tons of problems, such as set incompatibility. For variety of different reasons, including incompatibility, LEGO will never make a control+ remote.
📸 Instagram: @unbrickme
email: [e-mail]
#LEGOTechnic #LEGOtechnic2022 #LEGOapp

[@emanuelstone2131]

Finally someone that thinks it through from a technical perspectiv, instead of just hating around without thinking it through. The more complex the models, the more complex must the controller be.

[@retrotasticular1642]

Pardon my arrogance, but I don't really think he knows what he's talking about. The issue of controlling complex movements could be solved by executing the program on a micro-controller in the build instead of on a "smart"-phone. A physical remote control doesn't need to actually control specific motors, only send "messages" to a micro-controller and then a program can decide how to respond to those messages. Return-to-center steering is solved by building a rubber-banded mechanism around the remote control. Sorry if I explained things poorly.

[@kyx5631]

We could also control "complex" models in the past with old power functions. It's a matter of building it adequately so that it's compatible with the technology. And if we talk about the Liebherr excavator and you tell me that you need to also move the shovel alongside the arm because otherwise it will spill... Yes, thank you. I will activate my 2 brain cells and operate 2 levers on my remote at the same time. Would be SIGNIFICATNLY more engaging than having pre-programmed states that access with one button press.

[@d4r1us18]

look man... when i play with lego technic i dont want to play with the phone in the same time. my eyes hurt from the tiny screen.

[@d4r1us18]

the hub should have a rechargeable battery.

[@swanny6627]

Pybricks with an xbox remote is your solution

[@d4r1us18]

@@swanny6627 I WILL CHECK IT OUT. THANKS

[@BrickRidesUK]

It’s a real shame Power functions were retired, I find powered up just isn’t upto the job when using with my MOCs. I really hope a physical remote is released, particularly return to centre and continuous rotation operations. Smartphones are a nightmare to use too!

[@d4r1us18]

adding a physical controller may be far more expensive to produce and sell rather than downloading a free app.

[@Unbrickme]

I disagree. In the long run LEGO will most likely end up saving money, since they can produce the controller once, and never worry about it again. They have to spend time developing the app with every new release, which is 2-3 times per year

[@d4r1us18]

@@Unbrickme i thought an app is the most reliable way to make economy giving the fact that is just coding.

[@Sharky_0456]

i agree

[@Sharky_0456]

@@Unbrickme they will have to make a new controller every time they make a new system if they make physical controllers but with the mobile app they can just make a new app or update the app so the title and ui works and with the app backwards compatibility could always be a possibility

[@kyx5631]

Until you realize that the app needs constant updates to run on multiple operating systems and keep it up to date with the Android and ios updates.

[@suspense_comix3237]

I wish that LEGO Technic would add a mechanism as shown in the 8043’s gearbox mechanism. This way, you wouldn’t need a BILLION sliders and make custom controllers for every LEGO Technic sets.

[@nkende]

Great concept for a controller! This may sound weird, but I have had an idea for a "modular" technic controller, one where you can easily replace small 3x3 modules, so you could have maybe a normal joystick on the right and a speed dial on the other side. This would solve the issue of the 90 degree and servo motors too, as they could also have a module. The sets could also only include the needed parts, like for the D11 it would be a joystick for movement, a 90 degree for the gearbox and a slider for the function.

[@Unbrickme]

Your modular idea for a remote is wonderful! It would solve pretty much every issue I addressed with physical controllers. LEGO should definitely make modular controllers for their new technic sets

[@wintersfreund]

Better send this idea to another firm, lego loves Smartphones and weird apps.

[@nkende]

@@wintersfreund The only like them, cus it makes producing the sets cheaper, no need for a remote :(

[@wintersfreund]

@@nkende yeah

[@xubor007]

Wow, that is truly a great idea, the functions on the remote would be even more intuitive (steering or shifting gears for example). I bet if you send this idea to CADA, Mould King or BlueBrixx they would adapt that idea in no time, finally forcing the monopoly that is LEGO to innovate their 80s style IR Remotes.

[@miamc4602]

While my preference would be for totally computer free sets, I think the next best thing would be a controller that was programmable with settings to load from an app for different sets, alongside allowing you to program it yourself. That way the computer is only needed temporarily, and it could be a desktop application instead of a phone app, which would make it much more appealing to me as someone who only uses a smartphone for calling/texting/web browsing/youtube and nothing else.

[@Diam0nder]

Agreed tons of kids don’t have phones too

[@RalseiGaming]

what about a controller that basically has the mind storms ev3 system in it so you can reprogram it it work with different sets and be able to stack joysticks on to the side of it

[@cassandrasibley228]

I think there is an easy solution: bring back Power Functions and make it compatible in some way with powered up. Like you said, powered up is a robotics system and not just a motor system for technic. I don't see why we can't have powered up for advanced stuff and power functions for simpler, cheaper sets

[@andrewfielden284]

Yes! PF is what's needed here. It's like Lego haven't thought the PU system through properly at all. People want direct simple control over their models, without having the need to write a program for it.

[@msclrhd]

I'd be happy with PC (Windows, Mac, Linux) support for the Control+ applications. Or having a generic application that has profiles for the different technic sets that you could load, and make use of from the computer. -- You could then make it work with a joystick, steering wheel and peddle (like you can get to control cars in racing games), or even a custom program.

[@technicmaster0tutorials]

The control+ app might work with windows 11 since that has or will get android app support

[@ezekielbrockmann114]

This is a symptom of Lego's bigger problem: Lego doesn't care about children anymore. Now they're just marketing massive sets to man-babies. It's really pathetic.

[@MattRoszak]

Love your videos - they're very useful when deciding which sets I should buy! Needing an app has put me off buying some of these sets, but at least this video helps me understand why things are the way that they are. I originally just assumed Lego was being cheap with the manufacturing.

[@Beregorn88]

I think that the main issue is that the system is not self-contained and rely on an app that must run on a precise version of Android or Os. This means that years from now you will not be able to control the set anymore

[@monnke]

no

[@PlasticToa]

I think a good option would be to make the powered up app compatible with bluetooth game controllers for mobile devices. It would still require the mobile device as a sortof middleman, but it would satisfy those who prefer the tactile feedback of physical controls.

[@Unbrickme]

It's already possible. The main problem with control+ is that it depends o s smart device and cannot function independently.

[@aaronbrandenburg2441]

Actually with third-party Hardware this can be done also to all those who are not in the know supposedly all the Lego Hardware will be eventually open source a lot of the older stuff already is or is getting to that point. Also there is compatibility between power functions and powered up. And the other systems through one of the sensors the color sensor is able to Output infrared commands. So there is that sort of compatibility as well. Which means one sensor channel can control 8 power function outputs which is quite a few unfortunately that means both IR receivers and battery box to do it but it could open up some possibilities which could replace up to two hubs and be controlled from One powered up connection to boot

[@maoravni4203]

I could not watch the excavator playing in the dirt...

[@legotroid]

Personally, I much prefer physical control. A reprogrammable controller would be great, it would need both rotational and switched controls though. Return to zero is a great idea. Thanks for this awesome video!

[@Brickorsomethin]

I wish they would find a way to make a new controller like you showed may be they could find a way to make it mindstorms/spikeprime compatible. Love the video and your content. Also may the fourth be with you!!!

[@kyx5631]

8:20 "Physical controllers must be programmable to support the complex movements of modern technic sets" Shows picture of the Mercedes truck which literally only goes back and forth and left and right I will give it to you, though. The point that PU is more a successor to Mindstorms than PF might be valid. However, it was never really marketed as such, is not programmable by the average user and also pushed regular PF out of the market. So... yes, it does what Mindstorms could, but also replaced everything else we loved.

[@Mani-io5re]

The thing is: The functions, that are in Technic sets could also be done without C+ or preciser: That functions, that need C+ aren‘t the interesting or needed ones. For example the Volvo Dumper: It would be way cooler to shift the transmission by pressing a button on a controller. I understand your input, but the downsides of C+ are way bigger than the benefits. Lego could still sell C+ and app stuff to people that wanna programm robots and stuff- maybe in adifferent series. But Technic always was (and still should be, as many people loved that about technic) about easy and understandable, playable, functional (w/o a device) technic. And most technic sets are vehicles anyway. It also is paradox: The Lego sets that contain C+ are often labeled 18+ ; and exactly the „older“ people hate C+ and using a device. So: It‘s a dumb strategy that makes no sense. (Which is proven by the many people that complain about it and the huge loss of good reputation that Lego is facing recently). All that we technic lovers (and therefore buyers!) wanted, was a controller with a more sensible stick, a li-po-box (instead if the damn batteries) and bluetooth. THAT would‘ve been clever. But here we are.

[@vladlupascu5514]

Yeah, also Lego is moving away from creativity as it requiers an app that annoys older builders and makes kids that want to make mocs have to program them so they can do simple stuff. I like programming and I think it's the future in everything, but for a kid (and lego should be primarily for kids and secondly for adults that are really into it) it just makes sense to press a button and the motor starts, and the rest of the clever stuff can be done using mechanical solutions, intricate gearing and clever mechanisms, which in my opinion push creativity way more. Also when will a kid that doesn't know if he's into technic yet will get his parents to buy him a 450$ set? I remember when I got the technic plane, about 6 years ago, for only 100$ , it only had 1 motor and 1 bb but it was a dream come true, and I did everything I wanted with it for a long time until I got other bigger sets. It just seems like this isn't what Lego is promoting anymore and that's just sad.

[@Ima_Tron]

This solution would have it's own problems like still needing something to load software, but I would propose the idea of a controller that could have templates loaded onto it for use without the phone, and maybe a speaker to audibly designate what template it was on or what parts you were controlling depending on the number of motors/functions at work. At a minimum, two up/down sticks and four buttons, but one of the buttons would page through functions on larger multi motor vehicles. This may even be possible for a third party to make since the hub is using fairly open software.

[@jimlewis1]

A physical controller can be created from Lego, but you'd have to have it send it's input to the software. IE use an additional technic hub reading motor positions for each control axis and possibly the internal tilt sensors. It would require quite a lot of coding for each model

[@karremania]

Some way it doesnt make sense though, the original 'handcrank' sets or even the 'plotter' (dont remember the number), you just had to control every single motor and function individualy. Just like RC excavators work in the exact same way, there is no need to combine a single input to multi-motor-control, just because they chose the design to act like this. To be honest, you step away from 'raw mechanic' to 'smart assisted stuff that just works by some software'. Maybe im old and feel more connected to the old 'raw' technics lego, but those were exactly what they were, not 'mostly assisted by software' else it just wont run.

[@kyx5631]

Yep. Thank you for this comment. I already replied to a different comment here a similar thing: I can just operate 2 levers on my remote at the same time to e. g. move the excavator arm and move the shovel so that it doesn't spill. I don't need one-button controls or access everything with a single touch. I want to operate everything on my own accord and see what works. Feels "closer" to the actual engineering if that makes sense. edit: And yes, the design is another thing. They could have designed the excavator to work with classic power functions if they wanted to... Adjust to the technology instead of making it needlessly complicated and THEN justifying a new control system.

[@Ak_1213]

I mean there is lego controller that can be connected to powered up hub but it requires a program uploaded to hub so each motor works as intended (for example - that motor works as servo and not just normal motor and doesn't destroy whole steering system)

[@sabrepulse6114]

I would like a physical controller, or at least a basic customisable interface for custom builds, unlike the current ones. So then I could build a tracked vehicle without any issues.

[@Void_s]

To assume, the physical controller able to handle all main features of PU motors should be so smart inside and so customizeable (with a thousand buttons, switches, reversers etc), so it will be cheaper and easier to use some smart electronic inside and easy-adatable touch screen. Then, it will be your mobile phone. Like it exists now.

[@leander9263]

Hm but you have the interface on your phone right? To control the 42100 for instance. And on the phone there is a slider for "lift arm". Just integrate a function in the app that says "translate sliders on screen to controller XYZ. Where I say "joystick left = controller 1, joystick right = controller 2..." It doesn't matter that the complex stuff is going on in background. Can happen with physical switch too as it would send the same signal to the hub. So the set of physical controllers is programmable by just loading the 42100 or what have you in the phone while connecting the controller via Bluetooth as well. No need for any switches. Controller buttons and sticks can be proportional too if need be.

[@wolkaiserdrake9946]

why not make it a 2 stage thing, a controller with omni directional sticks that can even rotate like the old speed controller, but give it an SD card slot so you can make the control scheme on a computer and then just transferee it over, and in case of multiple mocs it could just have a pair of buttons to just cycle though the schemes

[@d4r1us18]

i wish the new lego motors would have fully detachable USB cables and to be connected so they cannot rust and even sit on top of eachother like PF.

[@CatOnTheCouch]

If is going to work is gonna need a NFC chip for each set, the controller will 'download' the control profile from the NFC key(kind like Nintendo's Amiibo), this way the controller can be used for any set with different levels of complexity.

[@DrNA142]

most of powered up systems use smart hubs, and the complex functionalities that are needed can be customized on the hub side instead of on the controller side. all they need to do is make a physical controller with nubered buttons that the hub can recognize and we can program the hub to do anything, just like the virtual remote on the midstorms app except the physical controller would rid us of the latency of using an in-between smart device.... tbh, i wish i could use my xbox conrller with my 51515 hub, without an in-between smart device. it would be perfect!!!!

[@Wertyhappy27]

already possible to upload custom code to the hub, so i mean, it cant be that hard

[@DrNA142]

@@Wertyhappy27 a lot is possible through custom code, which is a testament to the greatness of the platform. And now that it's discontinued, we'll never see a physical official controller....it's sad, but i still insist that it would've been a worthwhile and contributive add-on....

[@AlienPrague]

I would be happy to get Dualshock support for official apps (Powered Up at least) like BrickController and be able to map at least some functions.

[@Unbrickme]

same!

[@andresmauriciogonzalezcaba9176]

MAKE A VIDEO OF THE TECHNIC SETS WITH MOST MOTORS ,PNEUMATICS AND MECHANICS

[@avic6069]

Video idea: top 7 licensed sets. Why seven? Because it’s prime and it’s new

[@Unbrickme]

Epic idea! I think I'll do that soon!

[@DBZLEGENDS]

Its sad that someone had to hack the module with some code to make the train remote work. I wish they would give us the option to use the train remote by default. I understand they don't want us to damage the model but they already give us the option to code the controls anyway so why would it matter in the 1st place if we use it or not? And yes the code allows the unit and remote to operate without the phone.

[@DamienTheDemonGaming]

A remote idea for the lieabherr. Make it like an actual rc front facing shovel excavator

[@joevanooijen5055]

If this was availabale i wish you lots of fun with spending over 100 dollars for a controller, this controller you designed would be enormous like the train remote or even bigger for batteries and al the program board

[@Unbrickme]

it's just a little longer than the basic power functions remote, I don't think it's really massive. Given the current pricing of powered up, I can definitely see your point. When I designed it though, I imagined the price to be around $10-$15

[@d4r1us18]

even 20 euros on a controller is a lot. a controller should be free no matter how complex it is. but it shouldnt lAck any functions at all and still be able to be linked up with more.

[@zdrapki8015]

Actually, the controler shouldnt be problem of customer. Why do LEGO assumes that we gonna have compatible device to control their anyway overpriced sets? I my case when my phone was not compatible with the hubs I had to spend extra 100 bucks for cheapest phone with bluetooth 4 just to be able to start the set.

[@d4r1us18]

@@zdrapki8015 how come a bluetooth smartphone cant be compatible? why is that possible...

[@d4r1us18]

@@zdrapki8015 anyway i want to play with lego. not with lego and my phone. if u buy a powered up set to a 4 or 5 year old the kid doesnt know how to use a smartphone. or how to read.

[@system11yt]

Using phone apps and software is guaranteed obsolesence, I actually skipped on buying a set this weekend after learning about the phone app requirement. As an absolute minimum they should release a cheap 'walled garden' android device with the app preinstalled. No requirement for downloads, no phone functions, just a stripped down touchscreen interface and enough to run the app. Give it the ability only to download profiles for different models, via SD card.

[@HNIC_Neochilds]

The meer fact that they have things like pybricks and brick controller are reasons why they don't need to make physical controllers, if you want to explore further you will use your mind and take the dive into programming and syncing a bluetooth ps or xbox controller even a wii mote could work.

[@AKSELtheImproover]

Yes i agree to both, I think LEGO chood continue to make facial controls because they last forever, (if you not are taking them apart...). But if you have an advanst LEGO sett it will be best if you have a programmable fysical controller, so it's possible to switch between your advanst sets, with only one controller. Like you can do with your LEGO phone app, everything has it's pros and cons.

[@sviatoslavyakobchuk2702]

I'd love to have physical controller for C+ sets. The only solution I can imagine is to be able to connect an existing PU controller directly to PU hub or C+ hub without a smart device. In this mode it could be able to simply control back and forth rotation at max speed without access to additional possibilities of C+ motors such as rotation angle or cooperation between motors/sensors. Also it should be possible to release C+ controller with 4 adjustable speed analog sticks (like analog sticks on DualShock or PSP) to control 4 ports of C+ hub, or at least connect 2 PU controllers, but that wouldn't be as comfy as it is with 2 PF due to the size and form of controller. But since none of the existing sets have such primitive controls, it wouldn't be able to control them, because it may even damage them. Only some custom builds at your own responsibility. And still it would be great to have it.

[@bami2]

How about build your own controller with lego, program one hub with something like pybricks to use the inputs to control another hub?

[@NLGeebee]

Yes, but you can use the PU controller itself.

[@Unbrickme]

good idea!

[@andrewfielden284]

I feel like I missed the boat now that PF is gone. Lego don't even sell the parts any more and there are a ton of Chinese knock-off motor kits. However I notice that kit 42095 (stunt racer) is still available, which includes PF motors and controller. All I want is a physical controller to move vehicles that I create, and include PU motors. I don't want to have to program it, I want direct control over it, like all other RC cars. It's extremely disappointing that PU doesn't give me a controller to do that.

[@richardjulien1329]

By the way, if I remember well, some guys développés some years ago a physical "joystick" that was to be on the screen of a smartphone to move the "joystick" on the screen... Might be a good idea to simply look for a way to put some removable levers on your phone to turn it into a more physical contrôler...

[@Unbrickme]

It’s definitely a great idea

[@aaronbrandenburg2441]

You know how a stylus works on a phone. In those Lego sets that were designed to interact with a tablet or phone screen whichever it was this is not the Hidden Side so it's either just came before that. I can't remember can't remember the name of the sets. It had a brick that had a conductive rubber-like material attached to one side of a 1 by 1 brick I don't remember if there was studs on the opposite side or not. But if you build something that could use the power functions remote and receiver and basically I'll break the virtual buttons on screen using this that might be a possibility as well if it would work for your application that is.

[@richardjulien1329]

@@aaronbrandenburg2441 yup I remember that brick... Never got one though, and Lego catalogs never explained correctly what it was doing...

[@Bricks.Master.Builders]

Very valuable information. Thank you ❤️

[@Unbrickme]

Glad it was helpful!

[@DChungking]

If the Lego powered up app would be open and configurable / programmable, there wouldn’t be any issues with lack of physical controllers. Currently there is a gap between not having a means to control own creations and set-specific app controls that Lego enables

[@McKrushi]

The Lego Powered Up App is configurable / programmable.

[@Unbrickme]

the powered up app is completely customizable.

[@DChungking]

Well, yes, you can do the visual coding, but it’s not open source and some features are „hidden“ (for Lego only) as far I understand, no?

[@caskraker]

@@DChungkingand these hidden functions are available on power functions? 😂😂😂😂

[@carsontheinventor457]

Every time you say no pressure I feel pressure

[@LegoFan9]

I think LEGO should make a new system that is more like power functions in the way that it isn’t programmable. But first I want I want powered up controller support for 51515

[@Unbrickme]

I agree!

[@janist78]

You do understand that LEGO now have power to control when and how you play with your sets

[@McKrushi]

You do not need to make the controller programmable, since the hubs already can be programed. The only problem, that cannot be solved with technic- or city-hubs, is saving the current state of the motors, since the hubs do not have a file system. Therefore the movement of the 42100 can't be replicated. But currently this method works for every other model and already exceeds the possibilities of PF. And the only thing needed is a remote with analog sticks/buttons or an interface for BTLE gamepads.

[@Unbrickme]

But a reprogrammable controller would allow the controller to have a proper file system

[@McKrushi]

​@@Unbrickme I would exclude this special usecase. If you save the current state of the model in the remote, you cannot use a different controller. :)

[@wobdoc]

For a simple car a physical controller would be great. For anything else you can use control+.

[@donnachaslegocreations]

A programable controller would probbably cost as much as a hub 😭

[@d4r1us18]

that is so much money...

[@d4r1us18]

not much but u can buy almost 100 aditional smaller parts instead

[@Unbrickme]

I haven’t really thought about that. I think you’re right, as it will probably be very expensive

[@donnachaslegocreations]

@@Unbrickme Ya if they charge $90 for a hub it would probbaly be at least $50 for a reprogramable remote

[@donnachaslegocreations]

@@Unbrickme A remote with difgerent modes like proportional, servo and 90degrees would be much cheaper and better than nothing. Very good for MOCs

[@miketechnic5.0]

Excellent explanation on controls Good videos

[@Unbrickme]

Glad you liked it!

[@kosnk]

I think, they made a mistake by uniting a power source and a bluetooth microcontroller. Currently, medium linear controller costs 17$. A power source with a button, cable ports and **without** a microcontroller would cost under 5$. So it's around 20$ for a physically controlled motor, that can be easily added to a set! Imagine that instead of a solid block ▓░ motor, we could have ▓ + ░ motor: a power source and a microcontroller separated. Now imagine that the second block ░ (microcontroller) can be substituted with something other, like an IR controlled block. Or a set of logical gates. Or a sensor. This would allow both: Liebherr/CAT like builds with expensive microcontrollers and cheaper ones with manually controlled motors. And a huge variety of possible mixes with different "second blocks".

[@Mocsfromscratch]

This Lego remote control is looking much better than the old Lego power functions remote control. I really wish that this lego remote control would actually release. 3:38

[@Unbrickme]

That you so much!

[@thorbjrnhellehaven5766]

I would love a physical pro-controller: 2× analog joyst, 1× d-pad, 4-8 buttons. I think the 88010 remote is nice through the PoweredUp app, and kind of OK in direct connction mode. I find it annoying that the remote is digital only, but it is nice compared to the app, where you have to watch the screen, you can just feel it. I find it annoying, I cant use the remote with my Robot Inventor projects.

[@Alexander-Reitz]

it´s possible to connect C+ vehicles & builds with the powered up remote. You don’t need any other device & it works with all of the powered up devices including C+. It’s possible to upload small Python programs to the hubs. You can run them locally without any other device after you uploaded them once

[@Alexander-Reitz]

Tutorials: Pybricks and other KZbin Channels

[@Unbrickme]

That’s true, but the remote is really unintuitive, not proportional, uncomfortable to use, etc

[@Alexander-Reitz]

@@Unbrickme the Xbox Controller use Bluetooth Low Energy, I hope Pybricks support it in the future

[@masheen_]

physical controller buttons bound to software functions. It's highly possible with a bit of diy

[@osmanpasha_diy]

Hm, didn't they add support for train controller in the Powered Up app? Also, there is a project, don't remember the name, that uploads your application into the hub, removing the need for the smartphone.

[@Unbrickme]

I think you're referring to pybricks. Yes, it is possible to use the powered up remote without being connected to a smartphone. But, the controller itself wasn't designed to be used for technic creations; it was made for trains. There's no proportional sliders and the buttons can't be connected to the technic axles

[@osmanpasha_diy]

@@Unbrickme yes, you are right in that.

[@DouglasLippi]

They're Lego. They should devise a controller system that has pieces or blocks that can be built to suit.

[@Steven-kz7ec]

I will say The only way to achieve this is lego somehow release a controller attached to your phone specifically made for the CONTROL+ app, kind of like those mobile gaming controller, but that’s impossible.

[@nfsrival1499]

Hey man, is 220 shipped a good price for a CIB set of the 8043? Sticker sheet is new and unused :)

[@d4r1us18]

anyway thAnks for the update

[@uigrad]

It seems like this is an opportunity for third party controllers. Any controller would have to be programmable (as you said), and the programming would basically mimc what the apps currently do. Lego probably has no interest in making this. Their stuff has to be perfect in function and looks, and there's just not enough of a market for them to do it to these standards. The controllers would be too pricey for most people and would sell poorly. The resources would be better spent on making more new Lego sets. But third parties could do it. I can imagine a small team making a controller with an Arduino (or similar), and sell it in the $40-$60 range, complete with software for programming it and a few built in programs. The controller would not be sleek, but it could be powerful, doing just about anything the current apps do. They wouldn't sell the quantity that Lego does, but it could still be a successful endeavor for them.

[@kaleyfantastic]

Am I wrong in thinking 28739c01 is a powered up remote control?

[@zagato6976]

I control the Bulldozer direct with the 88010 remote

[@SaperPl1]

I think Lego should make a controller that supports generic use of motors and servos like you explained in the beginning of the video, but I don't think reprogrammable controller is a good idea. I'd prefer direction and mode switches and basic functions because for most people making custom MOCs is about building experience and not necessarily about coding complex behaviours, and using the APPs has downsides - touch screen handling is always poor because it lacks tactile feedback and it disconnects with sweaty finger after device heats your hands, the controller over the BT has connection issues because you connect two devices at the same time.

[@Unbrickme]

Good points. Many modern lego technic sets require more sophisticated movement. Perhaps LEGO could split it's control+ line. Maybe the big $450 sets are required to be controlled via a smartphone, but all the other control+ sets include a physical controller. The zetros, 42124, and the top gear rally car all have the most basic movement. Just driving and steering. So those sets could easily include a physical controller without any problems.

[@SaperPl1]

@@Unbrickme I feel like the optimal way to handle making a controller would be to make in gamepad form (RC plane controllers need to control a lot of functions and are similar, don't they?) And like I said before - most people will be happy with some generic functionality for each motor: direction, servo steering, toggle servo steering (on-off/open/close button for servo controlling some doors/hatches) etc. The core issue here is that Lego made the base Technic Hub that has only 4 ports, so if you have drive and steering (or left and right track for dozer/tank), you're left with two motors to implement additional functionality, and rather than making a 6 port base Hub, they started playing with gearbox switching of functions in the CAT dozer. With 6 motors in total, 4 motors for functionality, you could easily have something like tow truck, mobile crane or wheeled/tracked excavator fully motorised without going into the gearbox switching issues requiring more control. Liebherr excavator seems to be an edge case that still would need special treatment. Btw #1: There was a project in our local LUG that was supposed to create a dedicated controller for all types of lego RC: www.lugpol.pl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32796 - the bad part IMO was the fact that it focused on "gun" type racing controller which isn't something ergonomic for more complex models (with twin stick gamepad controls you can jump between sticks and buttons/triggers/bumper easily) Btw #2 Shameless plug: I released another model with free instructions this week: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYHdiZ6VjN2Bh9k :)

[@d4r1us18]

lego could make a new remote for the powered up and whoever has an older pf remote to be allowed to exchange it with the new pu one.

[@donnachaslegocreations]

Is it posdible to make a Segway with powered up instead of mindstorms

[@Unbrickme]

yes, with pybricks

[@donnachaslegocreations]

@@Unbrickme You should make a video on how to code pybricks if you know how. I don't know python.

[@andrewkuebler4335]

See, I wouldn't mind the higher price and more complex functions of the Powered-Up, were it not for the fact that they are replacing Power-Functions. I think they should keep the simpler and cheaper Power-Function lineup for simpler sets and for those people wanting to use them in their own builds, and have the OPTION to use the more advanced Powered-Up system for more complex sets. I DO NOT like the price of sets being increased across the board, with the removal of a physical controller, AND needing a smartphone to use the set. That's too many cons for me to be on board with their current implementation. I guess Lego is saying screw anyone who can't afford a smartphone, or just doesn't have one. I also think that the SLIGHTLY more complex movements capable with Powered-Up is not worth the massive price increase and other mentioned cons. Simply put, these are still Lego sets. I think this is another instance of Lego not wanting to become outdated, and so they are experimenting with new technologies. I just hope they end up returning to form.

[@cosmnc3790]

We need a physical controller, but as you've said, reprogrammable.

[@brickleyyard4966]

So what happens if the app stops working I cannot ues any of the 1000s of pounds worth of lego I buy?

[@Unbrickme]

Not sure, hopefully it will still be supported

[@svenmewes3308]

There are other Apps, because it's open source.

[@Ninja-Alinja]

As long as I can use a PS4 controller with all the subtle analog control and full configuration through brickcontroller2, why would I care?

[@80selection]

The author of the video forgets about the basic function of Lego. Possibilities of designing and building any thing. It is simple to design buttons, sliders, joysticks, etc. as modules - building blocks for the remote control. As for the program with control+ or poweredUp, there are no major obstacles to creating a device on which you can upload a "system of blocks" that the device will interpret itself. This way we have the heart of the controller, we build our system around it, connect it and it's ready. A big design mistake in Lego is the single cable length for the motors. There should be a socket on the motor, the same as on the hub, the cables should be replaceable and available in different lengths. In addition, it is structural nonsense to use several hubs to support, for example, 8 engines. There should be one device with a batterypack, and the engines should be able to be connected in series, one behind the other (in such a solution, there should be two ports on the engine). I design electronics professionally.

[@richardjulien1329]

I think they should release at least a controller for Lego cars with one return to center, and one to three output of the hub controlled by the other slider ...

[@richardjulien1329]

Also, one of the major advantages of smartphones over standard controllers : no need for batteries anymore 😎 when they are sold by 4 and you need 3 of them....

[@andrewkuebler4335]

@@richardjulien1329 Or just get rechargeable batteries for $15 instead of a $750+ smartphone.

[@richardjulien1329]

@@andrewkuebler4335 yeah, well, I tried the AAA rechargeable for the ir controller, and it's not the best... After, I will admit that now it is better as the technology improved and the tool to recharge it too, but the one I got were too old for that

[@andrewkuebler4335]

@@richardjulien1329 You know what, I used to have AAA researchable to, and they weren't great, though that was years ago. Now I have 8 rechargeable AA and they work awesome. Maybe AAA are cursed.

[@richardjulien1329]

@@andrewkuebler4335 maybe XD

[@sophialorraineapuang4092]

Love your vids and i need to watch your channel cuz i love technic

[@Unbrickme]

thanks you very much! Please consider subscribing

[@sophialorraineapuang4092]

Done

[@thierryrobichaud2603]

Long Life to Sbrick and Buwizz

[@janist78]

continue selling old motors for moc

[@Mocsfromscratch]

I have a question. Do you use the compact disc for the Lego mindstorms NXT to download the Lego mindstorms NXT software so you can program the Lego NXT robots? 4:44

[@Unbrickme]

the disc only works on older versions of macOS I think mountain lion and below I'm to sure. The online download of the NXT software can be downloaded on Mac OS El Capitan. For windows, it is still supported for the latest version of windows 10. If windows 11 ended support for 32 bit apps, then it won't work on windows 11

[@nmanbamboo1980]

Not to mention that you would most likely have to keep two battery types at hand AA and AAA.

[@Unbrickme]

LEGO could make a rechargeable controller

[@nmanbamboo1980]

@@Unbrickme That actually a good idea.

[@the_austrian_brick]

Why making IT so difficult? The Controller must me conekted with your phone ( whitch has the controll+ App Installed ) and you Just conect every Controller with a Controller and Then Connect 1 Controller to your phone . Then the controll plus App needs 1 big Update with the Option to geht to a 2 controllscreen to see whats going on in the Screen of your phone . In this way you Just build a frame würde you Put your phone in and you got a Controller with a Screen . Lego must make Something Like that.

[@LarySeeAircraft]

If lego was to make controllers for powers up I would not mind if it did not come in the set and phones were still supported if you wanted a phisicl remote you you would buy it online from lego to keep down the price of the set

[@lharwest1571]

I have a question: Is there a site where you can search all Technic Sets by the parts and their colors? I want to recreate some of my old sets I had as a kid, but the manuals are lost and my memory is not the best at everything. All I have is a box of parts left and I want to remember what all the sets were before they got mixed up into weird things. I have identified 3 sets so far, but some are still a blank..

[@Unbrickme]

try bricklink or brickset.

[@notmuch_23]

I just want The Lego Group, or somebody else, to make a program for the Raspberry Pi Zero W to control Powered Up hubs.

[@McKrushi]

There are python libs for PoweredUp-communication and there is a pi-HAT with PoweredUp connectors.

[@Qui-GonJohn]

Great video. Really hope Lego see this

[@Unbrickme]

thank you very much!

[@horizonplays549]

I’ve always disliked the cheap feeing plastic controllers. But I completely understand why people would rather have it.

[@retrotasticular1642]

I will never buy Powered Up unless they get a physical remote control and an IDE for PC. TL;DR: Remote controls for Powered Up are 100% possible, but not your idea for a controller. I don't think it's impossible at all to make a remote control for Powered Up if they make a hub that can execute code. The old remotes worked by turning motors and lights on and off, but a remote for Powered Up would have to be made like a modern game controller: Only sending inputs for the receiving device to interpret. This negates your whole argument about the diggers complex movements since that would be handled by a programmable hub. Segways would also be possible. You mention return-to-center, but this can be done by building a LEGO Technic(tm) mechanism around the controller with rubber bands to return to center.

[@retrotasticular1642]

If you're wondering about sliders vs. joysticks vs. buttons, the remote control inputs should be entirely potentiometers(knobs or sliders) and to make something a simple switch you just program the micro-controller to interpret >50% to mean ON and

[@pybricks]

What’s wrong with the Powered Up remote? It works great with all hubs. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-XaINsotCmoJY And the community is helping us make example projects for all new sets. That’s a bit like a profile you can use without any coding! Once you install your program / profile on the hub, you don’t need to be connected to any device. Give it a try. We’re happy to help if it doesn’t work :D

[@Unbrickme]

Laurens Valk, is that you? I'm such a big fan! I love your LEGO Mindstorms segways! Your work to make powered up a better system is phenomenal, and I greatly appreciate it! Thanks to your hard efforts, it is now possible to use the technic hubs as mindstorms hubs, by programming them with python. I guess the main issue with the current powered up remote that came in the trains does not have proportional controls, and the buttons cannot be connected to lego axles, which makes it difficult to use with technic sets. It's just not a comfortable design.

[@d4r1us18]

DOES LEGO SUPPORT RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES? like those which recharge in a device

[@Unbrickme]

yes

[@legorclfactory611]

And what if you'll design and make a controller to be sold? You have a plan, and do not only say it, bit maybe you could do it, people would buy it as beasts😉

[@Unbrickme]

I currently have no plans to sell the controller, but that’s definitely a good idea

[@Xizario2]

We need control app for nintendo switch! It will be way better for remote than a cellphone.

[@godofthewired]

I disagree. Lego had simple remote control functions for years yet they were able to pull off more complex stuff like the Volvo wheel loader. Programmable remote isn't necessary, because you're not working with an app, but people who can learn how to control through a combination of simple movements. You could say that the person is the programmable device. For some sets like the Liebherr they could keep it App-only due to the complexity, but things like the smaller RC sets and even 42099 could be controlled via remote. The only challenge is how to implement the servo function in it, which is their problem to solve, since they created it with the new system. Unfortunately, Powered Up is intended as a replacement for PF, otherwise they wouldn't discontinue the latter. But it is inferior not only due to the significant increase in complexity if you want to build something of your own, on top of requiring an extra device, but the fact that previous functionality is missing. The only improvement, much needed for PF, is the Bluetooth connectivity and higher connection range. At this point Chinese Power Functions knock-offs have become better than both Lego systems, because they have longer range than PF, since they probably use radio control instead of IR.

[@jeremiahbekkigrinnell9928]

I think they should make them compatible with Bluetooth controllers like the Xbox 1 controllers then the wouldn't have to make the controller just the software

[@Daz5Daz]

So many legacy sets will be junk in 20 years when these apps are no longer supported on devices of the day.

[@Unbrickme]

Yeah that’s the main disadvantage of control+

[@juliannamm659]

i dont know why but i hate the chain from the LIEBHERR

[@finntech531]

I don't care for their reasons. I don't buy anything from LEGO® that requires a smartphone. Luckily there is competition now which produces sets with a controller which are also cheaper.

[@nicolassilvagni7909]

You are thinking too hard. They can make a large controller ( similar to let's say a dualshock 4 ) with a mini-sd port and a micro controller like a mini arduino and voilà. Just copy a few profile files on the sd card, have a way to cycle them on the controller, you have infinite possibility. Official sets AND custom profiles.

[@diatonicdelirium1743]

Exactly, those microcontrollers cost next to nothing and you will only need very little memory for the simple stuff that needs to run.

[@diatonicdelirium1743]

Actually, the if the receiver hub is able to store movement profiles, it is fairly easy to map & combine these based on a 'dumb' input device trigger. The complex synchronous movements of (say) four actuators then maps to a single button or slider, allowing the remote to be generic. For general use it would be necessary to program the hub, but for a specific Lego set it could be pre-programmed and have a 'factory reset' to return to this program to allow usage without any computers or smart devices. No need to thank us Lego, took us all of 10 minutes to come up with a solution ;)

[@nicolassilvagni7909]

@@diatonicdelirium1743 look at racing brick controller only with custom firmware, the pup hub are too low in specs for anything fancy, that is where mindstorm hub take over for onboard computation. But yes, a modular BT controller (lego style) with the arduino would be fairly easy and would work long term

[@Unbrickme]

That's actually a great idea!

[@alexpeduri1092]

Can you do too ten boats

[@Unbrickme]

Sure: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mnLPkopma7ugmZI

[@vladthestorm]

I think they should abandoned powered up

[@wardwyseur]

what if they made it possible to use a nintendo switch as a controller? that would solve the problem imo

[@tamaslapsanszki8744]

What we wanted: PF IR receiver but with bluetooth instead of IR, maybe more motors (cheaper servo, stepper motor, S motor, pneumatic pump/switch motor) What LEGO gave us: - cancelled PF thereby creating artificial scarcity and increasing the prices of second hand components to ridiculous levels - introduced a castrated NXT system that is bullshit to use in MOCs (no easy way to use, neither from a visual interface or coding) - significantly more expensive. No, scrap that, immorally more expensive - while the motors are a lot smarter, lack of stackability and "dumb" functioning make motorization of creations extremely cumbersome (you need a phone-remote for GBC, multiple hubs for just a handful of motors etc) - more difficult to use for children and seniors (I cannot teach my father to properly use Whatsapp, there's no chance in hell he'd be able to learn how to connect motors and pair the phone with hubs. And he's a smart fellow, he instantly understands whatever complicated Technic mechanisms I show him) And to correct one of you statements: you have suggested that PU/C+ is not a successor to PF. Well, I'm sure as hell it's not the AFOLs who marketed PU/C+ as the successor to PF...

[@Mani-io5re]

You‘re absolutely correct! Couldn‘t have said it better!