| Joe Fugate's Siskiyou Line :: Forums :: DCC and electrical | << Previous thread | Next thread >> | |
| DCC University (was: MRC DCC) | ||
| 1 2 [3] 4 ... 52 53 54 | |
|
Moderators: admin, joef, bear creek
|
| Author | Post | ||
| NYNH&H |
| ||
 Registered Member #552 Joined: Mon Nov 13 2006, 02:17PM: posts: 349 | I was referring to the cordless phone option, which is the main radio option. Of course, as I mentioned, CVP is looking to get a part of the Lenz throttle market with their Lenz receiver. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| bear creek |
| ||
   Registered Member #305 Joined: Wed Feb 01 2006, 01:57PM: posts: 342 | I gotta disagree that the DT400 is awesome. I feel its closer to awful. I detest sea-of-buttons throttles and wouldn't dare to hand one of the "full" lazy D throttles to someone not fully trained in D-land lest they get into moose-mode by accidentally hitting the wrong button and start changing command station configuration. When playing with sound (especially the horn/;whistle) throttle response is very important. On a layout with 10 locos advanced consisting won't make any difference. But when there are 40 locos around and especially if there are MUs with three or more locos in a lash-up then advanced consisting can make a difference in how long it takes for a loco to get issued a horn off/on command. Even an extra 10th second delay is noticible. And that gets added onto what ever throttle bus delays are present. I'm somewhat concerned about large digitrax layouts that have full signalling, block detection, and transponding. All over the same bus as the throttles. With the loconet's transmit whenever you want to, listen for a collision, and retransmit later protocol, there will come a time when too many collisions creates too many retries creating yet more collisions and the bus dies under the load of infinite command retries. I don't know how much stuff it would take to cause this to happen. This is not an issue with a polled network. A polled network will get slower as more things are added but it doesn't come to a halt. Someone made the comment that certain clubs had spent tens of thousands of dollars on digitrax stuff as an argument in favor the the D brand. Frankly that kind of expenditure freaks me out. Where do those clubs get this kind of bucks? How does all this stuff compare with Chubb's CMRI devices (which have been around for decades but don't have a deep pockets marketing department behind them). I resented the heck out of D. spending all their time on stuff like block detection and transponding that I don't have a use for instead of getting a decent single knob throttle out with a usable number of function buttons on it (finally the UT4 throttles arrived - not perfect but much better than the UT1s). Headlights don't matter? Well, I'm glad you can live with headlight direction issues. I guess before DCC we were lucky just to have constant intensity headlights. Unforetunately having the wrong head light lit up drives me nuts. And even more so since NCE has demonstrated relatively simple user interface solutions to the problem. As far as really advanced throttles costing $500 I don't believe it. The electronics for the wirelss part could use the standard wireless parts used in cordless phones. If off-the-shelf radio stuff is used they shouldn't cost more than the current crop of throttles. But I still think the ultimate control system will be more like Rail Lynx (a direct throttle to loco IR connection - there is no command station). I'm not proposing to use IR. And much as I like Rail Lynx the highly proprietary design and the need to use expensive decoders without sound options makes it a non-usable solution for me. But putting blue-tooth transceivers in each loco would enable direct throttle to loco(s) radio communications. Not command station. And with full-duplex communications between loco and throttle feed back of loco performance characteristics (actual speed, actual power used, fuel/water consumption, mabybe even the curvature of the track the loco is on (for flange squealing) becomes trivial. Bluetooth transceivers are a commodity part. Oh well, there ain't not perfect DCC system out there. C. Bigwig Bear Creek & South Jackson Railway Co. http://www.bcsjrr.com | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| GM |
| ||
 Registered Member #393 Joined: Mon Jun 19 2006, 04:39PM: posts: 40 | You guys certainly give a person a lot to think about. My layout will be double decker (N scale) in a 20 X 40 space. You think reception is effected on the lower level for wireless? Also I am finishing it a few module sections at a time so I can start operating sessions soon, so I will add to the DCC system as I go along. I guess one thing to look at with Easy DCC is more individuals may have this system and therefore could bring their throttles to operating sessions which would save me some costs of having enough throttles in inventory to accomodate everyone. I am guessing that you can't have a person bring their Easy DCC throttle and have it work on your NCE or MRC system? Hope the thread keeps going it gives me a better idea of everyone's actual opinions and experiences. Thanks again. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| JeffShultz |
| ||
  Registered Member #6 Joined: Wed Dec 08 2004, 09:30PM: posts: 582 | Bluetooth DCC... now there is an interesting idea.... Jeff Shultz Willamette & Pacific - Oregon Electric Branch W&P RR Photo Gallery | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Denny |
| ||
 Registered Member #21 Joined: Thu Dec 09 2004, 07:20AM: posts: 404 | I can drive trains with my bluetooth earphone, just by talking to the train... cool!  hey, just kidding! the bluetooth idea is brilliant, I think some big manufacturer should think about it. bluetooth now is a very cheap technology. Denny Saronno, VA - Italy http://www.sp-coastline.com | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| NYNH&H |
| ||
| Registered Member #552 Joined: Mon Nov 13 2006, 02:17PM: posts: 349 | Bear Creek: The DT400 is great, because it doesn't have the arcane sequences of button presses that you have to learn in order to to anything. It is not a bad "sea of buttons", the NCE Pro Cab is worse if you hate that sort of look. The Pro Cab is larger and has a sea and a half of buttons. Overall, the more buttons, the easier to use. Good point about the response for sound. In this case, you would want ALL advanced consists, which Digitrax can do. You also would want Loconet, with wired throttles. Any other system (wireless or an RS-485 based system), is going to make the response of those sound equipped units much slower. As for the collision detection, people used to put 50 computers on a hubbed network, before swtiches were cheap and popular. Those networks were send megabytes of data, loconet is only sending bits and bytes at a time. No matter how many devices are attached to the network, Loconet will always be faster than an RS-485 system. Also, with an RS-485 system, the polling makes the actual amount of data that is able to be transmitted much smaller than on a peer to peer system like Loconet. No one has been able to use more than 30% of Loconet's data capacity. No one probably ever will, and thats a good thing to ensure that the largest setups still work fine. Also, if it was an issue, you could have two parallel Loconets, one for throttles, boosters, and the command station, and another for track detectors and signal decoders and such. These two would be separate, but their data could be bridged by the controlling computer, by having a pair of Locobuffer-USB interfaces. Right now, there is no Digitrax controlled layout big or complex enough to get anywhere close to needing this type of an implementation. Some clubs have been doing DCC for the last 13 years or so, and if they have 50+ members, and value realistic signalled operation with DCC, they have accumulated a lot of Digitrax gear. Their layouts, sometimes made over a half-century, probably have hundreds of times more into them than their Loconet control systems. Chubb C/MRI is a very different system. Before Loconet and many of the detection and signalling stuff that Digitrax has done, they were the only game on the market. Chubb C/MRI is also not Dr. Chubb's main career, so it may or may not have been profitable. Dr. Chubb made this system for his own use, and to benefit other model railroaders, not particularly for profit, although he probably makes some money on it, to make it worth his while. It is an older system, with a polled serial bus, and less advanced hardware and software than Digitrax. It is much more complex to install on a layout, as it needs a new bus, and a power bus and a bunch of other stuff. It is a good system, but just doesn't have the ease-of-use (relatively speaking here, the Digitrax stuff is still very advanced) or the new advanced technology (like transponding), that Digitrax's system has. Chubb doesn't have a marketing department, but he also doesn't have to run a company or make a living off of C/MRI. That being said, what Chubb did was amazing, and he created a really cool system, that was the first of its kind for having detection and signalling, which is really good for a DCC controlled layout. He paved the way for what Digitrax is doing now with the much newer Loconet. I didn't say the headlights were perfect, for yard switching, it is downright dumb (I use a pair of GE 70 tonners back to back), but it is still a lot better than having the headlights of all of the units on when in a large consist (I will be running a 6-unit consist this weekend at a train show). As for the cost, there is a big cost in getting the stuff appproved by the government, and the research and development for a radio throttle would not have very many customers to spread the cost over, as UP5s and RJ12 wire works better, so they would be $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Do you want to pay $100 per loco, and have a receiver that is so big, it doesn't fit in many smaller locos? And forget about N scale, or anything less than a full-sized road diesel in HO. DCC, on the other hand, has tiny little N and Z scale decoders that work well in HO, can handle 1 amp of current, and are $16. Bluetooth? How about the $300 decoder? I wouldn't do it. Wifi or other 2.4ghz to a base station like today's DCC radio systems might work at a high cost, as I said above. There ain't a perfect system out there, but Digitrax is pretty close, and NCE is not too far away, although they can't get much closer, as the RS-485 architecture was a very poor choice for this application. And they really can't change to a network-based system now. GM: The lower level vs. upper level shouldn't matter, as it all has to do with the position of the throttle in the user's hand, and the receiver. You can use one receiver (non-NCE) for your layout. As I said above, radio is not very practical, and a good wired throttle bus will serve you better. The older EasyDCC throttles have a base station for NCE, as well as one for Lenz, in addition to EasyDCC. The newer generation of throttles, however, don't support NCE, only Lenz and EasyDCC. I have a feeling NCE's full-function two-way radio essentially killed CVP's support for NCE. MRC and Digitrax are not supported by CVP, Digitrax because CVP uses RS-485, MRC because they have a small, inexpensive system. You should always use your own throttles for everyone. This will ensure they have all of the same settings, the right addresses (on a non-Digitrax system), etc. EDIT: Wrote in Parts. I did not get to respond to all of the posts that I wanted to, so my next post will cover some that come before this post. Sorry if I confused anybody.  [ Edited Wed Jan 10 2007, 03:19PM ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| bear creek |
| ||
| Registered Member #305 Joined: Wed Feb 01 2006, 01:57PM: posts: 342 | GM One of the biggest things effecting radio communication is the number of bodies in the train room. A room crammed full of bodies will likely have more radio throttle problems than one with few bodies. The use of sheet aluminum for backdrops can also be a problem Both of these can be overcome by either 1) putting the radio receiver/transceiver up high 2) adding extra transceivers. So far I've gotten by with one digitrax receiver in my basement layout room. And it worked well (at least I didn't hear complaints about it) this laster Saturday with 13 bodies in the train room with it. And its mounted hanging under the layout instead of hanging from the ceiling. You shouldn't need to worry too much about it. C. Bigwig Bear Creek & South Jackson Railway Co. http://www.bcsjrr.com | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| bear creek |
| ||
| Registered Member #305 Joined: Wed Feb 01 2006, 01:57PM: posts: 342 | NYNH&H My apologies to those for whom to following discussion may get a bit techincal... I'll agree that the DT400 is an order of magnitude (or more) better than the DT100/200/300 throttles. But when I look at it I see a sea of buttons. But then the NCE procab appears to be a sea of buttons also. Not being an NCE user I don't know whether one can put a PowerHouse whatever into moose-mode through uneducated and inadvertant button presses. Luckily for me, Digitrax finally released the UT4 and UT4R throttles which are a lot close to what I want in an engineer's throttle. Enough buttons to run (most of) the sound fx but a simpler (at least in appearance) operation. And a UT4R is substantially less expensive than a DT400. I may actually break down and buy a DT400 one of these days. But it will be to replace the aging DT100 that came with my chief, won't be radio, and will only be used to "operate" the command station. As far as computer networks transferring megabytes and megabytes of information - this is true. It's still in use in computer networks today (where giga-bytes are transferred). But with networks being an imperfect means of conveying data the TCP/IP protocol was devised which layers significant amounts of flow control, error detecting, and automatic retries of faulty communications on top of the hardware. Modern ethernet hardware is running at 100 megabits or even giga-bits per second of data. In the old days megabit per second connections are considered hot stuff. Unless I'm remembering wrong LocoNet is running at 16.7 thousand bits per second. Making it far easier to saturate. But the low data rate has the advantage of allowing relatively crude wiring. Terminators don't seem to be required, nor is the use of shielded, twisted pair wiring. Being able to use standard 6 conductor modular phone cable is a blessing for the hobbyist looking to string LocoNet around a train room. If the most complex digitrax loconet installations now in place are using 30% of the bandwidth available that would be a good thing as going beyond this number would quickly result in the LocoNet becoming useless. Having a second LocoNet dedicated for signaling while the other LocoNet is used by throttles and/or boosters would be a good solution. But it would require the command station to monitor two LocoNets at once, I'm not aware of any LocoNet products (command stations) that can do this? Using a router to combine the two loconets into one would then be subject to the same kinds of problems having everything on a single LocoNet would have (except that such a router should be able to avoid collisions from the 2 into 1 combination). But a command station with mutiple loconet spigots might be a better solution (and would avoid being an extra box). While I'm not anywhere near the LocoNet/Digitrax fan you seem to be I'll say that my Chief is now working satisfactorily for me in that my trains run and with DecoderPort and the USB/LocoNet interface and my computer control of much of the idiosyncratic behaviour I previously saw is now possible. Yeah, I could wish for better consisting control. And the NCE "consist momentum" feature is waay cool. And funny headlights does drive me nuts (but with modern decoders and consist address specific function enabling it's possible too so I'm choosing to live with it. Digitrax, while functional and having some advantages over the competition seems a lot like Mircrosoft to me. Finally, please, I'm not attacking you. I just don't have as high an opinion of the D brand you have developed. Perhaps if I felt I needed a fully signaled, block detected, and transponded railroad I would feel differently. Regards, Charlie Comstock Bigwig Bear Creek & South Jackson Railway Co. http://www.bcsjrr.com | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| joef |
| ||
   Registered Member #3 Joined: Wed Dec 08 2004, 09:01PM: posts: 2112 | Regarding CMRI and how much support it does or doesn't get, Bruce Chubb is a personal friend, and I'm very aware of his true dedication level to his baby. He uses CMRI on his own layout extensively, and is actively updating his manuals and writing new addendums on how to use it all the time. CMRI is not only used in the model railroading hobby, it is used to control dams, building systems and more than a few other industrial applications. Bruce is commited to supporting and continuing to keep CMRI as up-to-date as humanly possible because its use is so far flung. Bruce also has a small army of others who work with him to fill the orders they get for CMRI boards and built-up products. While CMRI is not his primary source of income, it's not an insignificant source that he has any interest in abandoning, either. I got to know Bruce very well when he decided to rebuild his Sunset Valley along the route of the Siskiyou Line. Bruce and I have spent many hours together face-to-face discussing Siskiyou Line trivia, CMRI, and other model railroading topics. The fact I know Bruce personally has some *small* influence on my preference to use CMRI as my signaling/accessory technology.  [ Edited Wed Jan 10 2007, 03:00PM ] Joe Fugate http://siskiyou-railfan.net - 200,000 hits and counting!  In video ... | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| KnuT |
| ||
| Registered Member #27 Joined: Thu Dec 09 2004, 11:00AM: posts: 208 | There ain't a perfect system out there, but Digitrax is pretty close, and NCE is not too far away, ...... Charlie, I do agree, although all my experience so far is the D as do most of my friends. To illustrate this I found that some people even try to make there "not so perfect" system better, like Marcus Amman does with his NCE-system He has made a Knob on his ProCab and added a direction toggle switch on his CAB04P Your idea of bluetooth DCC - DDC? (Direct Digital Control) - could is interesting. At last Denny could run trains with his bluetooth cellphone  Until the standard is all DDC, we might need new decoders or some "box" which could plug into the NMRA-plug to translate the radiosignals to DCC for the decoder - a box which a "normal DCC" deocoder could be plugged into -or soldered into. But it have to be small. And then sometime the enginees could be powered by battery or straight DC from the tracks like in RailLynx regards KnuT see my blog on The Peavine and Santa Fe: | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| 1 2 [3] 4 ... 52 53 54 | |
Powered by e107 Forum System