 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / August 2009The old chestnut -- DCC
Well being in mid scrap of my DC system and having sold off most of the locos it occurs to me that I can still have a smaller outfit and try this DCC lark. Question! Which is the state of the art and recommended kit? regards > Well being in mid scrap of my DC system and having sold off most of > the locos it occurs to me that I can still have a smaller outfit and > try this DCC lark. Question! Which is the state of the art and > recommended kit? > > regards State of the art is sound, wireless connection between handheld controller and base station, with a couple of wireless-direct-to-the-loco systems on the horizon. Recommended: any system that won't damage your wallet beyond repair, and that conforms to NMRA standards and recommended practices. The latter allows you to mix and match decoders (chips) etc as you wish. Eg: Lenz, Digitraxx, MRC, NCE, Bachmann Dynamis, Hornby. FWIW, I'm going with MRC on my small shelf layout. Just have to tune a couple of turnouts so passing wheels won't short from running rail to open point. May have to rebuild them. HTH > Well being in mid scrap of my DC system and having sold off most of > the locos it occurs to me that I can still have a smaller outfit and > try this DCC lark. Question! Which is the state of the art and > recommended kit? The first question shouldn't be which system - it should be why do I want to switch to DCC? I'm not saying don't switch, just be sure WHY you want to go along that route. DCC is now 25 year old technology (albeit somewhat refined), and I'm not totally convinced that it represents anything other that a relatively short-term future for model train control. We can't be far away from the time when small, quickly rechargeable batteries & some form of remote control might offer a better option. Such a system would eliminate both current pick-up issues and the need for track wiring. John. >> Well being in mid scrap of my DC system and having sold off most of >> the locos it occurs to me that I can still have a smaller outfit and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > system would eliminate both current pick-up issues and the need for track > wiring. There aren't any batteries available at the moment or in the near future that could fit in an OO loco and give a decent running time. It's the same with electric cars where it's the battery technology that is holding back the development. Fred X >>> Well being in mid scrap of my DC system and having sold off most of >>> the locos it occurs to me that I can still have a smaller outfit and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Fred X May be a power to weight ratio thing for cars But Model locos don't have to be 12v and there are some small rechargeable Batteries in cameras and such. Although a 10 hour exhibition layout would need team off Volunteer recharges >>>> Well being in mid scrap of my DC system and having sold off most of >>>> the locos it occurs to me that I can still have a smaller outfit and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > May be a power to weight ratio thing for cars But Model locos don't have to be 12v and there are some small rechargeable Batteries in cameras and such. Although a 10 hour exhibition layout would need team off Volunteer recharges I agree with John, present day DCC is a a phase. We'll see direct to loco wireless control (digital, so the DCC standards won't disappear entirely), battery powered, but with power on the rails just to (re)charge the batteries. That's an advantage MRR would over RC vehicles and planes. ;-) The batteries are available now, I think. Eg, an ad offers the RC people batteries from 7.4V to 11.1V, 3300mAh to 8000mAh capacities. The pictures aren't scaled, but I'd guess they would fit nicely into an HO/OO diesel or a medium sized tender. Might have to MU diesels, considering the amount of space a motor takes, not a problem for US/Can prototype, a little harder to justify fo UK outline. Now I bet someone will "patent" this obvious development of a the technologies we already have. You saw it here first, folks! I claim ownership of the concept. Har har. cheers, wolf k. > >>> "Sailor" wrote > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > - Afficher le texte des messages précédents - On my fag packet the space required for 10 size AA 2600mAh cells is 30 x 50 x 75 (mm) . Allowing for 60 efficiency a 300 mA load would run for 5 hrs. In terms of a PWR reactor an EFPH of 5 hrs ain't long for a load of 240 gms. I have yet to find a cell that actually produces the stated capacity at anything other than a very small current. One of my digi cameras can flatten such a cell in 3 flash applications but lasts for about 10/12 when using a standard disposable alkaline cell. Battery driven models have been around since about 1914! > > >>>> Well being in mid scrap of my DC system and having sold off most of > > >>>> the locos it occurs to me that I can still have a smaller outfit and [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Battery driven models have been around since about 1914! My mobile phone battery is a Lithium type, 3.7V 1100mAh. I reckon you could fit 3 of those in series in a normal size matchbox with room to spare; giving you roughly 10V 1Ah capacity. Most OO locos these days seem to be around 500mA under load, so that's 2 hours fast running without any trickle charge. I reckon that's enough for many people, Ok you'll definitely need to charge on the move for exhibition use. Very tricky in N gauge I'll grant you. > On 19 août, 19:24, Wolf K <weki...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > Battery driven models have been around since about 1914! My mobile phone battery is a Lithium type, 3.7V 1100mAh. I reckon you could fit 3 of those in series in a normal size matchbox with room to spare; giving you roughly 10V 1Ah capacity. Most OO locos these days seem to be around 500mA under load, so that's 2 hours fast running without any trickle charge. I reckon that's enough for many people, Ok you'll definitely need to charge on the move for exhibition use. Very tricky in N gauge I'll grant you. How about just having 12v AC supply to the track, all points/switches isolated at all ends, small battery inside loco, bridge rectifier so polarity not an issue, controller chip combined with receiver. Batteries just 'buffer' the power and constantly re-charge from the track, dirty track would be much less of an issue, return loops could be arranged with a dead section to avoid shorting. Doable in OO, not at all sure about N though. Regards Mike > "airsmoothed" <airsmoot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yes thats' the kind of thing. Trying to find the infrared system I was on about called 'Red Arrow' I came across this DIY approach along the lines we're thinking:- http://www.newrailwaymodellers.co.uk/electronics-infra-red-control.htm Red Arrow system here:- http://www.a1micromotive.co.uk/technical.html > Yes thats' the kind of thing. > > Trying to find the infrared system I was on about called 'Red Arrow' I > came across this DIY approach along the lines we're thinking:- > > http://www.newrailwaymodellers.co.uk/electronics-infra-red-control.htm There is European chap (German I think) with battery operated DCC for controlling the Faller HO cars; these take small onboard batteries to power the chip and the motor of the car, the car receives instructions from IR transmitters for speed and lights, the cars even have distance sensing (avoids rear-ending the next vehicle along the queue !). So, battery is possible, the question is whether its worth someone doing the quite large investment to tool up and make a system which actually works. Then they need to get the system adopted as a standard, otherwise we'll have a dozen incompatible battery radio/IR systems. I remain unsure whether battery systems will really work in N, but don't see why they cannot be done in the majority of OO models if enough investment were made to develop the components; there isn't a massive loss of loco weight, one just substitutes batteries for the lead/mazak ballast weights. - Nigel  SignatureNigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/ > There is European chap (German I think) with battery operated DCC for > controlling the Faller HO cars; these take small onboard batteries to power > the chip and the motor of the car, the car receives instructions from IR > transmitters for speed and lights, the cars even have distance sensing > (avoids rear-ending the next vehicle along the queue !). That sounds like it'd be Paul from my local club. He's Dutch. He's an electronics bloke and adapts the models himself. Saves a fortune compared to the Faller models. -- Rod >>>>> Well being in mid scrap of my DC system and having sold off most of >>>>> the locos it occurs to me that I can still have a smaller outfit and [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > cheers, > wolf k. Wireless control? That sounds complicated - it would have to be digital, and at a high-ish frequency for exhibitions where there could be hundreds of locos in range. Would it cost a lot more than track-based DCC, at least for smaller gauges? [...] >> I agree with John, present day DCC is a a phase. We'll see direct to >> loco wireless control (digital, so the DCC standards won't disappear [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > of locos in range. Would it cost a lot more than track-based DCC, at > least for smaller gauges? Please reread my post, specially: "We'll see direct to loco wireless control (digital,...)..." A network is a network is a network. Wireless just means that the members of the network don't use wires for sending messages to each other. No problems with many laptops or iPhones, etc, in the same room, so why should there be problems with wireless-capable decoders in li'l locomotives? Cost is relative to need or desire. Technically, wireless direct-to-locomotive is feasible now. Cellphones (mobiles) etc have very small transceivers in them - most of the device's bulk consists of keyboard and/or display. The main engineering problem is to arrange the transceiver and decoder circuitry so that it will fit the usual decoder form-factor. That will be the main source of cost. OTOH, G gauge locos are large enough that a small cellphone would fit inside one. IOW it's possible to hack a cellphone to control a locomotive. If model railways had greater appeal for the under-30s, the hack would have already been done. May it _has_ already been done... ;-) It's mostly a programming job, you'd have to write an application that translates incoming data into signals for a standard decoder. One advantage: such a setup would make it simpler to address a locomotive, since it would be the cellphone's number. Keep in mind two things: a) a DCC decoder is actually a small computer, designed to do a few jobs without further programming, but otherwise behaving like any computer connected to a network: it responds only to input signals intended for it, and ignores all other network traffic. Present-day DCC uses the rails as the network wires, which is not an ideal solution, to put it gently. Wireless would provide cleaner signals much less prone to degradation and corruption. b) "Smart phones" (iPhone, Blackberry, and their competitors) are actually handheld computers of really quite amazing power - more than a typical desktop of a few years ago! A decoder is much simpler than a cellphone, so it should be much cheaper to build a wireless version, even in the (relatively) small quantities desired by the model railway market. That's enough speculation for this evening. Yawn... Good night all. wolf k. > There aren't any batteries available at the moment or in the near > future that could fit in an OO loco and give a decent running time. I didn't say there was, I just suggested that we might not be far from the time when such technology becomes available. If a loco need recharging after running for 10-15 minutes, then I don't see that as an issue providing it was possible to charge the batteries in-situ - possibly on a recharging track or through a simple plug-in charger arrangement. I don't see this as being any more of a handicap than the real railway having to re-coal or water steam loco's, or add fuel to a diesel. It's not as if most enthusiasts have just one loco available. John. > "Fred X" wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > John. That might be acceptable for a through station with fiddle yards at each end, or perhaps fiddle-yard to terminus (although 15 real minutes isn't a long time to shunt and reverse a train). On my walkaround layout (fiddle yard, two through stations and a terminus) locos spend much more than 15 minutes out on the road. I agree that technology is moving so quickly that this approach, batteries, trickle fed from rails, with direct radio comms to the decoder in the loco, is likely to become common. It's just not there yet... JohnD >> There aren't any batteries available at the moment or in the near >> future that could fit in an OO loco and give a decent running time. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > John. Yeah, they'll no doubt sell it with a realism angle just like with Hornby's Live Steam system. "Watch your train run out fuel/steam inbetween stations, just like the real thing!" :) Fred X Whatever happened the Hornby Live Steam range? Died the not unexpected death? SignatureCheers. Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ > Whatever happened the Hornby Live Steam range? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Roger T. > See the GER at: -http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ I think they announce a new loco about once every two years; but it does seem to me that it is the technological dead end / executive toy several of us predicted, by and large. An impressive achievement that they ( OK their Chinese subcontractor) could actually turn a hand crafted prototype into a manufacturable CE approved product though, IMHO. > I think they announce a new loco about once every two years; but it > does seem to me that it is the technological dead end / executive toy > several of us predicted, by and large. As I've said before, I'm of the opinion that it was used to open new markets. I live in NL and I know that there was absolutely no Hornby presence in the shops before the advent of this system. Now there is. I'm pretty convinced that the novelty aspect forced people to want one and so the shops had to take up the rest of the range. The Hornby stuff arrived before the Bachman stuff and there's still note Hornby stuff than Bachman stuff in the big towns. -- Rod > > I think they announce a new loco about once every two years; but it > > does seem to me that it is the technological dead end / executive toy [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Rod Yes, I imagine that the Live Steam range has probably been cost effective in terms of publicity generated for Hornby, there were features here on the TV news, BBC website etc. >> > I think they announce a new loco about once every two years; but it >> > does seem to me that it is the technological dead end / executive toy [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > effective in terms of publicity generated for Hornby, there were > features here on the TV news, BBC website etc. I thought live steam was a great product but with limited market - to me it required a long layout (eg in garden) and wouldnt be of so much interest to collectors. Had an LMS Pacific been developed then may well have bought one and built a basic garden layout just for the fun of it. Cheers, Simon > "airsmoothed" <airsmoothed@hotmail.com> wrote... >>> > I think they announce a new loco about once every two years; but [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Had an LMS Pacific been developed then may well have bought one and > built a basic garden layout just for the fun of it. The valve gear was too complicated to replicate in 1:76 live steam. SignatureMartin S. >> I thought live steam was a great product but with limited market - to >> me it required a long layout (eg in garden) and wouldnt be of so much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The valve gear was too complicated to replicate in 1:76 live steam. Thanks, I had been wondering why it wasnt done. Cheers, Simon > The valve gear was too complicated to replicate in 1:76 live steam. In what way was the LMS Pacific's valve gear more complicated than that on the A4? > "MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote... >> >> The valve gear was too complicated to replicate in 1:76 live steam. > > In what way was the LMS Pacific's valve gear more complicated than that > on the A4? Four external inclined cylinders rather than two horizontal, for one thing. Maybe I should have said "running gear". With the original Live Steam A4, the cylinders and some of the running gear were hidden under the skirts and didn't need to be replicated accurately. The running gear on the Live Steam A3 was simplified. Hornby electric: LMS: http://static.hornby.com/images/originals/r2856-6169.jpg A3: http://static.hornby.com/images/originals/r2265-2907.jpg A4: http://static.hornby.com/images/originals/r2805xs-6111.jpg Live Steam A3 and A4: http://static.hornby.com/images/width700/flying-scotsman-cutaway-4876.jpg http://static.hornby.com/images/originals/r1041-2514.jpg SignatureMartin S. > The valve gear was too complicated to replicate in 1:76 live steam. Why would LMS valve gear be any more complicated to replicate than the LNER pattern of the A4 & A3??? John. >> The valve gear was too complicated to replicate in 1:76 live steam. > >Why would LMS valve gear be any more complicated to replicate than the LNER >pattern of the A4 & A3??? He was talking about 1:76 scale, but Hornby didn't do it the prototype way anyway. >John. > As I've said before, I'm of the opinion that it was used to open new > markets. I live in NL and I know that there was absolutely no Hornby > presence in the shops before the advent of this system. Now there is. I'm sure that Hornby presence is only there as a result of their purchase of Rivarossi, Lima etc.. John. Dunno if this was possible but a big mistake was not making them DCC compatable. SignatureCheers. Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ > I think they announce a new loco about once every two years; but it > does seem to me that it is the technological dead end / executive toy > several of us predicted, by and large. So far they've only produced A4 & A3 models, and nothing new in the pipeline. I think that technological dead-end isn't that far away. John. > "Sailor" wrote > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > John. Yes, I appreciate the length of teeth involved but it just seemed something to poke about with once I actually finish building the room which may provide a site. My old room is now destined to become a bedroom (as originally intended). The holy grail of batteries is still being sought (I was in my 20's almost 50 years ago when our navy scientists were starting the search), I can't see any signs of progress yet! The question "why change" is simply that I have exhausted the techniques required for complex single handed operation with DC (single handed because no one I know this side of the channel is remotely interested in BR modelling). I reached the point where 6 trains running and one shunting became too much of a handful. The ramp up & down worked, the ToTs worked , all the points and interlocks worked and now ------ I have my very own Beeching period. Is it then reasonable that Hornby have now made a working DCC system? Or, is it just a tad simplistic? Regards On 19 août, 16:36, "John Turner" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > "Sailor" wrote > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > John. Yes, I appreciate the length of teeth involved but it just seemed something to poke about with once I actually finish building the room which may provide a site. My old room is now destined to become a bedroom (as originally intended). The holy grail of batteries is still being sought (I was in my 20's almost 50 years ago when our navy scientists were starting the search), I can't see any signs of progress yet! The question "why change" is simply that I have exhausted the techniques required for complex single handed operation with DC (single handed because no one I know this side of the channel is remotely interested in BR modelling). I reached the point where 6 trains running and one shunting became too much of a handful. The ramp up & down worked, the ToTs worked , all the points and interlocks worked and now ------ I have my very own Beeching period. Is it then reasonable that Hornby have now made a working DCC system? Or, is it just a tad simplistic? Regards I would agrre with John --- > The first question shouldn't be which system - it should be why do I want > to > switch to DCC? I'm not saying don't switch, just be sure WHY you want to > go > along that route. --- but add to work out exactly what you want to do so that you can decide what features you consider to be required, nice to have and not really bothered but maybe one day. Its getting like computing, tv's etc in that not long after youve bought something then its superceded. However if you get the features =you want then that doesnt matter. Cheers, Simon [...] > Is it then reasonable that Hornby have now made a working DCC system? > Or, is it just a tad simplistic? > > Regards Hornby's first attempt at digital control were idiosyncratic. Their current system is NMRA-compliant. I've read mixed reviews of it, but based on those I would say it's a good starter system. HTH wolf k. > Hornby's first attempt at digital control were idiosyncratic. Their > current system is NMRA-compliant. I've read mixed reviews of it, but based > on those I would say it's a good starter system. I'd spend a little bit more and get something more user friendly - maybe an NCE Power Cab or similar. John. >> Hornby's first attempt at digital control were idiosyncratic. Their >> current system is NMRA-compliant. I've read mixed reviews of it, but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > John. That's interesting. I've only really looked at the various adverts and some websites so far but NCE feels "right". I'll be off to see one or two specialists during the autumn but if you want to share your thinking about NCE I for one would be grateful (and yes, I know you said "or similar" but when someone names a product there is often a positive reason). > That's interesting. I've only really looked at the various adverts and > some websites so far but NCE feels "right". I'll be off to see one or > two specialists during the autumn but if you want to share your thinking > about NCE I for one would be grateful (and yes, I know you said "or > similar" but when someone names a product there is often a positive > reason). I bought a Power Cab towards the back end of last year, but it remains in its box unused - mainly because my ancient Lenz system still works very reliably and does all I currently want it to do. I was attracted to the NCE unit because others had said it was a very logical system to use - much more user-friendly than others appear to be. The worst DCC set-up I've tried is the Hornby Select, it's not at all intuitive and many of the features appear to be real hit & miss as to whether they work first time, or whether you've to repeatedly ask the thing to do the required task. Might be a duff one I was playing with, but on the strength of that I'd say avoid. Don't think (from memory) that you can tweak CVs with it - and that's a real essential for all but very basic DCC operation. John. Graham, >That's interesting. I've only really looked at the various adverts and >some websites so far but NCE feels "right". I'll be off to see one or two >specialists during the autumn but if you want to share your thinking about >NCE I for one would be grateful (and yes, I know you said "or similar" but >when someone names a product there is often a positive reason). I started off with a Dynamis but I didn't really take to the speed control - i.e. flicking a small lever up and down to adjust the speed. I also found that it wasn't too easy to work the controller single handed. And it was not easy to program CVs since the basic Dynamis would not read CV values. But otherwise, it did what it said on the tin and I shall keep the unit around as a standby system. I then got the NCE PowerCab after seeing it demonstrated at the model railway dealer I frequent. It allows one handed control and is quite an inexpensive system. It also reads CVs, so CV programming is a bit easier. I also added a slave cab which allows the independent operation of two locos. Funnily enough, I prefer the slave cab for operation since it is smaller than the main PowerCab controller, and very similar to the AGW and Gaugemaster DC handhelds which I've been used to operating over the years. I've since added a USB interface which allows the use of programs like JMRI, which makes CV programming a lot easier. The PowerCab works well and I've had no problems with it. It is quite easy to operate and program and there is good support on the Yahoo NCE-DCC group if you run into any problems. It is fine for small to medium layouts and the 1.8A capacity should handle a reasonable number of locomotives in the smaller scales, although I'm not sure about dozens of diesels with sound chips ticking over in a depot :-) Jim. > The PowerCab works well and I've had no problems with it. It is > quite easy to operate and program and there is good support on the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not sure about dozens of diesels with sound chips ticking over in a > depot :-) I believe it's possible to uprate the 1.8amp capacity. John. > [...] >> Is it then reasonable that Hornby have now made a working DCC system? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > HTH > wolf k. Have got an Elite, works a treat doing everything claimed for it. If it has all the functions you want (inc computer connection) then go for it. Picked up an unused Select for £30 recently, am using it just to control points cos simple for me and tot to use. If you just want a very basic system and prepared to be careful on which decoders you use (ie latest hornby) then its fine. As stated it seems DCC stalled as to where going next and standards to use, so wouldnt buy anything more expensive than Elite without good reason. Bachmann Dynamis is expensive for what it does esp with pro box - bet theres some very disgruntled users about. Cheers, Simon > > [...] > >> Is it then reasonable that Hornby have now made a working DCC system? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Cheers, > Simon I'm pretty ambivalent about DCC, but the Elite looks like the best bet for my purposes, the only significant drawback, for some, I can see is that operation of the functions ( particualrly for sound locos) would be a pain. > "Wolf K" <weki...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Cheers, > Simon I'm pretty ambivalent about DCC, but the Elite looks like the best bet for my purposes, the only significant drawback, for some, I can see is that operation of the functions ( particualrly for sound locos) would be a pain. ================ Have got sound Duchess and when playing just press function, enter number, press button. After few goes with different sounds, done that so now what. Normally just leave base chugging sound on and let run. Cheers, Simon >> [...] >>> Is it then reasonable that Hornby have now made a working DCC [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > it has all the functions you want (inc computer connection) then go > for it. I think the Elite is poor; poor user interface and computer Xpressnet implementation has flaws which makes it chronically slow to program a loco from a computer (I've been helping debug this for JMRI, and though the new code is more than twice as fast, its still "very slow". With the new code, an Elite takes over 20 minutes to perform the test operation of reading a standard decoder's full set of CV's, a Sprog takes under 4 minutes. ). I'd rate several alternatives much more highly. So that's two opinions, one for the Elite, one against. My recommendation is to try out a lot of different systems before making any decisions. SignatureNigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/ >>> [...] >>>> Is it then reasonable that Hornby have now made a working DCC [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > recommendation is to try out a lot of different systems before making any > decisions. Accept that user interface is a subjective topic. I find the main function of controlling locos excellent with the two rotary controls. Suprised at the 20 mins timing, but then am suprised at 4 mins for the sprog as well, however, i only looked at point setting so cannot comment. Cheers, Simon For ease of use we have the Hornby SELECT but it has only a 'small' ( 1 amp ) power output. I have heard very good reports of the latest ELITE. The problem of DCC is how far you want to go. A simple basic set up like the 36-500 EZ Command controller, developed by Bachmann in partnership with Lenz, can be bought for about £60 new. The Hornby Elite for about £160. Once you start adding control units for points etc. then the £'s start to climb onto your basic set up. You also have the cost of decoders ( and fitting ) which range from about £8 upwards. Some older loco's are harder to fit an encoder to than others. Battery power, I agree with John, but again it's going to be costly when it's 'new'. G scale garden railroad layouts are quite common with battery power but OO / HO is another matter. In the water industry we have battery powered meters that run for 10 years on the same battery. The battery technology is almost there but it needs to be developed with motor technology. The problem with fast charging a battery is the life of the battery. You can recharge a standard AA nickel cadmium battery in only one hour but don't expect it to last for the quoted 500 recharges. Chris >> I think the Elite is poor; poor user interface and computer >> Xpressnet implementation has flaws which makes it chronically slow [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the sprog as well, however, i only looked at point setting so cannot > comment. Its down to the way the Elite doesn't signal on Xpressnet that its completed an operation on the programming track (it should signal that it has finished). There is no way any external software (JMRI in this case) can know whether the operation has finished. If another instruction is sent, it might get executed, or it might fail because the Elite is busy, the software doesn't know. So, JMRI has to guess how long to wait before assuming the Elite has actually completed a programming step. We tried various wait times, and arrived at one which executed the test in 20 minutes; attempts to go faster just got tangled in a vast number of failures and actually took longer to complete the reading of all the CV's in the loco. The turnout setting aspect isn't affected by this issue, its purely programming track. - Nigel SignatureNigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/ >>> I think the Elite is poor; poor user interface and computer >>> Xpressnet implementation has flaws which makes it chronically slow [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Nigel But if you are reading data then dont you assume command complete when get the response ? Cheers, Simon >>>> I think the Elite is poor; poor user interface and computer >>>> Xpressnet implementation has flaws which makes it chronically slow [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> The turnout setting aspect isn't affected by this issue, its purely >> programming track. > But if you are reading data then dont you assume command complete > when get the response ? If it were that simple ! For any Xpressnet system, JMRI sends the command station a request to read values from the decoder and later JMRI has to ask for the results from that operation. On most XPressNet systems, the time between these two events is controlled by the reply to the request for the operation, which tells JMRI that the command station has acknowledged receipt of the message. Unfortunately, the Elite doesn't send any reply to these messages, so JMRI has a timer in the code to prevent making both the operation request and the result request at the same time. - Nigel SignatureNigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/ >>>>> I think the Elite is poor; poor user interface and computer >>>>> Xpressnet implementation has flaws which makes it chronically slow [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Nigel Have worked in comms for many years on the software side and seen lots of protocols and network architectures but Xpressnet lost me in many places. The manual is probably one of the worst have ever seen. Cannot remember for certain but think there was lttle in the way of error recovery or notification of commands received and any expected responses defined. So although Hornby may not have done a great implementation, they may well have completed it to the defined standards - as opposed to what other systems have implemented. Have you paased the info back to them ? Know that originally they defined the first decoder group as address 1 instead of the defined address 0, but this was changed in a later revision of the software. Cheers, Simon >> If it were that simple ! >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> messages, so JMRI has a timer in the code to prevent making both the >> operation request and the result request at the same time. > Have worked in comms for many years on the software side and seen > lots of protocols and network architectures but Xpressnet lost me in > many places. The manual is probably one of the worst have ever seen. > Cannot remember for certain but think there was lttle in the way of > error recovery or notification of commands received and any expected > responses defined. I think that is accurate. > So although Hornby may not have done a great implementation, they may > well have completed it to the defined standards - as opposed to what > other systems have implemented. > Have you paased the info back to them ? Know that originally they > defined the first decoder group as address 1 instead of the defined > address 0, but this was changed in a later revision of the software. No, I've not contacted Hornby. Its not my code in this bit of JMRI, I was acting as the intermediary between someone I know with an Elite which was hopeless for doing the programming he wanted to do, and the chap who writes the Xpressnet bits of JMRI. - Nigel SignatureNigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/ >>> If it were that simple ! >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Nigel I've lost access to my C++ compiler and havent got round to trying out the opensource ones yet so reluctant to do any programming myself. But if some assistance wanted with testing, including monitoring/analysing the serial port then willing to try and help. Cheers, Simon > We can't be far away from the time when small, quickly rechargeable > batteries & some form of remote control might offer a better option. Such a > system would eliminate both current pick-up issues and the need for track > wiring. > > John. I agree, although that infra-red system from someone along those lines ( boom boom) ( exactoscale?) seems to have gone nowhere. No more track cleaning! In terms of battery life I'd suggest leaving the track energised, in sections at least, so that the batteries could more or less constantly trickle charge. A Bluetooth radio chip costs under a quid in moderate volume, combine that with a current DCC chip and you're most of the way there. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.