LIONEL TO SEEK COOPERATION ON TMCC 2 STANDARD

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bucksco

I don't know, It seems like the OGR forum is open to discussions of all manufacturer's products-not just MTH.

Rod M. replied
"Yes, that is the way I see it as well. Most folks that do not use the OGR forum any more do not see it this way though."

My opinion
I have NO USE for OGR but there is no hostility toward Lionel or any other manufacturer in their forum.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nblum

My guess is that people inside Lionel and the TMCC developer community are also still talking about it. There are obviously a variety of opinions about how to proceed with further development of TMCC.

Those of us who care about the future of our hobby definetly are interested in what happens regarding TMCC. Model railroading is all about combining available products, raw materials and one's own creativity to produce a unique and enjoyable re-creation of a plausible railroad operation in miniature. While DCS is a fine control system, TMCC allows those who are able, to adapt it to computer operation thereby gaining flexibility. Those who make TMCC compatible products for sale, however should work with Lionel to insure that their products have a long compatible life vis-a-vis TMCC. Meanwhile, public software codes will allow the "Techies" to customize their systems to their heart's content.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by johnblair

QUOTE: Originally posted by nblum

My guess is that people inside Lionel and the TMCC developer community are also still talking about it. There are obviously a variety of opinions about how to proceed with further development of TMCC.

Those of us who care about the future of our hobby definetly are interested in what happens regarding TMCC. Model railroading is all about combining available products, raw materials and one's own creativity to produce a unique and enjoyable re-creation of a plausible railroad operation in miniature. While DCS is a fine control system, TMCC allows those who are able, to adapt it to computer operation thereby gaining flexibility. Those who make TMCC compatible products for sale, however should work with Lionel to insure that their products have a long compatible life vis-a-vis TMCC. Meanwhile, public software codes will allow the "Techies" to customize their systems to their heart's content.

Thanks John, "techie" sounds nicer than weirdo. [swg]

[Anonymous]

Big Boy, Anyone who thinks that a Techie is a wierdo is nothing but a jerk loser. I brush better off my feet on the doormat. I respect guys like you who dream up the things which improve this hobby.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by johnblair

Big Boy, Anyone who thinks that a Techie is a wierdo is nothing but a jerk loser. I brush better off my feet on the doormat. I respect guys like you who dream up the things which improve this hobby.

No John, you missed the joke, I had called myself a weirdo earlier in this conversation.[:0] You are right, "techie" is more fitting.[^][;)]

[Anonymous]

It is OK for a techie to joke about himself, that is a sign of maturity. However those who make fun of others who happen to possess certain God given talents are the most immature people of all.

[Anonymous]

Big_Boy_4005 - How do you get your train dection into the computer when TMCC ignores track ocupancy and signals?

I just got my KAM engin commander. It is build 26. TMCC slipped to build 27 next year. They yse Lenz hardware, which turns up there nose at 3 rail ac trains. They wanted me to convert all my engins to DC. They use goofy DC Voltage drop for DCC detection, never herd of Insolated track sections.

I guess its good old fashioned ZW throrels this Christmas, while all my new hardware and software lies dorment.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Wow Joe, I haven't gotten that far yet. Is that the new TMCC version of the KAM software? I haven't seen the software yet, so I'm not familiar with the details.

I have CMRI leftover from my mall layout, and was hoping that that would work directly. I plan to have hundreds of occupancy detectors on my layout. CMRI will be how I gather my input information, and also how I send output to signals and switches.

I think there are 2 issues when it comes to getting this information into the computer. First there is the electrical issue, that is fairly easy. Keep in mind that you are detecting a ground signal as it jumps from one rail to the other. You can use that ground to trigger a relay, and run the appropriate voltage through the contacts to mimic Lenz. Their suggestion that you convert to DC is stupidity on their part.

The second issue is the one that really needs to be addressed. How many detectors do you plan to have, and what system will you be using to get that information into the computer? That is where I will be using CMRI. There has to be a way of feeding all of those bits into the computer. Is that where Lenz comes in?

My plan is to have information on 2 serial ports. One port is for TMCC, and only deals with train control, the other port is for CMRI which will deal with detection, signaling, and turnouts. My question is can the KAM software handle having the data segmented this way? Does it allow you to set up seperate sources like that?

I'm not sure if I answered your question, but let's keep talking. This is very cool stuff, and I am excited to see it work.

Elliot