LIONEL TO SEEK COOPERATION ON TMCC 2 STANDARD

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

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]

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.

[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 Bucksco

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

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.

[garyseven]

Neil greets me with:
"Welcome back to civilization"

Oops! [:I]
Nothing like a good vacation away from cell phones, palm pilots, voice mail e-mail and the web, full of big trees, big ocean waves, fresh seafood, hot marionberry and pumpkin pie, mounds of turkey, ham, prime rib and mashed potatoes all while breathing clean fresh air straight off the Pacific Ocean.

Ahhhhh... I missed you guys.

[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.

[Big_Boy_4005]

The funny thing is we're still talking abot it.[swg]

[nblum]

It disappeared the same day it was originally posted. Welcome back to civilization [:D]

[garyseven]

Sorry if someone has already reported this, but as of this morning,the "List of Myths" is gone, gone, gone...
Was it just a myth?!?[;)]

[Bucksco]

I understand.[:)]

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bucksco

I guess I just "play" with my toy trains. I've never had the time to get quite that involved. More power to you. I'm happy playing within the limitations. Maybe someday I'll have the time to try to run a prototypical railroad (but I doubt I'll ever have the space!).

I think you are right, I'm the weirdo here, which explains my heavy duty requirements. I have the space for such a layout, and want to take things to the limit. I have the computer, and all of the detection equipment, because that stuff is left over from my last layout. If I didn't have all of that stuff already, I probably wouldn't be doing this, at least not this way.

After I posted that, I saw a topic over on Garden Railways about computer control. My reply was much less technical, but captured more of the flavor of the computer concept. Reilleyem, kind of nails it in his first line, which is why I quoted him, the key word being "support".

Here is the quote and my response:

---

QUOTE: Originally posted by reilleyem

DCC supports total computer control. It's complicated...but that's half the fun. To learn about this you need to buy a book on DCC...but not from a manufacturer of DCC...you'll need to understand the concept behind DCC and the manufactures only provide "their" concept. DCC Made Easy is a good book...about $10...but there is a more complete book that really has the details for about $30...just can't remember it's title.

Bingo!!! I am still in the planning stages of a computer controlled railroad (indoor not garden, sorry). While running the trains is half the fun, teaching a computer to do it correctly may be the other half. I don't want my computer to take over all of the train running. I want the computer to function as if it was one or a group of other people, based on what I tell it to do. It should blend in, not stick out.

There are 2 parts to doing this kind of thing. First you have to have trains that the computer can control. DCC works just fine for that. Second you have to be able to describe your track plan to the computer, in terms that it can understand, then have a detection system tied to the computer, so it knows where the trains are.

In theory, very simple. In practice, a very good challenge.[:)]

---

It just seems like I need a real challenge when it comes to my trains, especially considering where I have already been. (See my profile) Perhaps I get a little over zealous when discussing control systems, and for that I apologize. In the end, DCS is just fine for normal people, but for a weirdo like me, only TMCC will do. [swg]

[Bucksco]

I guess I just "play" with my toy trains. I've never had the time to get quite that involved. More power to you. I'm happy playing within the limitations. Maybe someday I'll have the time to try to run a prototypical railroad (but I doubt I'll ever have the space!).

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bucksco

"DCS is a TOY train control system. Writing software for it has little meaning because of it's technical limitations."

I'm curious-what are DCS's limitations? I've run TMCC,DCC,MTS(LGB) and they all seem to pretty much do the same thing. Please enlighten me.

The differencre is, without the command codes, a computer cannot directly control the trains in a real time setting. It might be possible to try to decipher them by punching actions into the computer, and figuring out what the digital commands represent, but that is difficult and time consuming. All of the DCC manufacturers and Lionel publi***heir codes, MTH doesn't.

My understanding is that, the serial port on the TIU can be used to download information. It can use the computer to record and play back a sequence of actions. It can be connected to TMCC, and control that, but once you tie the the TIU to the command base using the serial cable, there is no connection left for the computer.

I have thought of the idea of using seperate serial ports on the computer, one for TMCC, and one for DCS, but the complications that would cause are mind boggeling. The systems don't necessarily speak the same language. It would be like trying to have a conversation with two people, one speaking Greek, and the other Chineese. It could be done if we knew MTH's language.

For the type of operation most people seek, what DCS offers is sufficient. However the features are not what I seek in my trains. I don't need a lot of fancy stuff with sound and smoke. Yeah, it's cool, but put too much of it in the same room at one time, and it can become annoying.

All I need is simple control, and codes that I can have the computer generate. In a way, I'm looking to create an artificial intelligence using the computer. I have a seperate computer based system to detect where the trains are on the layout. In the end the computer should be able to take on the role of as many human operators as I want, all the while obeying the signals and other rules of the railroad.

When you get into advanced situations, DCS falls short. One thing is noteworthy in all of this, only MTH can design software for DCS, whether they do it themselves or have someone else do it for them. There are already at least two companies working on layout control systems for TMCC, TA Studios, and KAM Industries.

KAM has been selling their software for over a decade, and is preparing to release a version for TMCC very soon. Their website says fourth quarter this year, so I am expecting it any day now. I was planning to write my own software, but for $250 I may save myself the trouble.

I have no idea what Neil Young is about to get into. Lionel said that they would be developing software for TMCC since day one, and nothing. If that is what is about to happen, he may be too late. As for DCS, I'm not sure what software could even do for that system.

What can the TIU do with software beside play more sounds, or record and repeat commands? Does the serial port on the TIU behave the same way as the serial port on the TMCC command base? Does it echo every command?

[Bucksco]

"DCS is a TOY train control system. Writing software for it has little meaning because of it's technical limitations."

I'm curious-what are DCS's limitations? I've run TMCC,DCC,MTS(LGB) and they all seem to pretty much do the same thing. Please enlighten me.

[Anonymous]

Thank you, Ben.

[ben10ben]

John,
If you are interested in what's going on, I'd be glad to send you the exact details through e-mail. E-mail me if interested. The offer stands for anyone else, as well.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Actually guys there is a company that has had software on the market for years, KAM Industries. They are even working to included the codes for TMCC. This product will only work with TMCC. DCS cannot be operated in this way.

I met these guys back in 1999 at the NMRA convention, when I attended a clinic they were giving. At that time they were unaware of Lionel's command system. When I showed them the TMCC instruction book and the codes, the response was, "we could do that easily".

Their website shows that they will support TMCC, but I suspect that because of low demand, they have taken no action. TA Studios is years behind.

http://www.trainpriority.com/kamind/Default.aspx

DCS is a TOY train control system. Writing software for it has little meaning because of it's technical limitations. TMCC is the system that has the power to control trains just like the 2 rail guys do. The 2 rail guys understand this, where MTH does not. MTH just thinks they can bring their DCS system to HO and people will buy it. We will soon see how wrong they are.

I hate to say it guys, but without paying attention to the bigger picture and the larger world of 2 rail, we can miss out on some good stuff. We get our noses so deeply into the 3 rail trough, our eyes don't see anything else.

I'm not trying to start a fight here, just telling it how I see it.

[Anonymous]

Since I do not buy OGR and do not believe in reading unpurchased magazines at bookstores, I'll just have to follow this on the forums. However, if Neil Young has truly gone off on his own, the future is indeed bleak for Lionel. I think that the only one who can clarify this is Mr. Young himself. Moreover, If Neil Young wanted to instill confidence in the company he owns 25% of, the wisest thing he could do is
QUICKLY AND PUBLICLY DROP THIS IDEA LIKE A ROCK or explain how it is intended to strengthen and work with Lionel/TMCC specifically as opposed to DCS. I haven't bought too many new trains lately and this is just the kind of thing that would turn me off of the hobby all together, Don't throw Lionel to the Wolf. Having one major supplier of trains will kill the hobby for a lot of people. Mr. Young's new company may have the most innovative products out there but they will be an electronics supplier, NOT a factor in the market for trains. The only thing Mr. Young could do is somehow acquire a famous brand name for trains from the past, MAKE THEM HERE IN AMERICA and basically start from scratch with a new line of trains. NOT EASY TO DO.

[Bucksco]

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

[Anonymous]

Since the general consensus is that the OGR forum is nothing but MTH biased, this should create quite a buzz http://ogaugerr.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=63160042&f=57660482&m=6831041771

[Anonymous]

Bucksco wrote:
"Wouldn't it be cool if LGB made O scale trains?"
That's for you to know and us to find out.
And LGB to announce[8D][8D]][8D]

[Bucksco]

Wouldn't it be cool if LGB made O scale trains?

[Buckeye Riveter]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nblum

I would say that LGB are the highest quality trains I've ever owned, including Märklin, Kato, Atlas, Lionel, MTH, etc.

Since my LGB Trains can plow snow and run in the rain or the hot sun, never break and if they do are easy to repair and the cost is not that much than O-Scale, I would concur to their high quality. [^][^][^][^]

[Bucksco]

It's the only direction to go in if you want to incorporate the ability to expand the system at a later point in time.
I would say that a menu driven system has a definite advantage.