Which DCC command station do you use?

[rrinker]

 There are some that see LCC as the solution to all, but I don;t care what sort of hand control you have, or how facny the UI is, switching back and forth between sending commands to the train you are running and operating accessories like turnouts is going to be a pain. ANd on complex layouts - you'll need some sort of labeling to tell you what turnout it it. Maybe a fancier UI can use a location name, like a prototype, which is good for the seasoned modeler. Labels on the layout are certainly prototypical, by for scale reasons the lettering has to be fairly small. Something other than just numbers, corresponding to the stationary decoder address, make it easier to figure out WHAT to operate, but still doesn't remove the cumbersome change from one mode to another. This is why I still prefer the fascia controls with a track schematic. And individual buttons over toggles. Press the button on the track you want the train to go on. If the light comes on, you're lined up. Doesn't get much easier for a UI than that. If behind the scenes this is all hooked up to some sort of control bus, to allow centralized control or whatever - that's fine. It doesn't have to intereact with the DCC system at all, really. Or it can - one of the reasons I went with Digitrax is that the Loconet control bus, unlike many, is quite capable of handling the traffic from detectors, stationary decoders, and signal controllers right along with the DCC train control traffic. That's probably why I am not as excited about LCC as others. And why I am not just using Loconet comes down to a complexity issue. If I was using commercial interface devices - I'd just use Loconet to interconnect it all. But for DIY - first I'd have to make sure I am using correct Loconet packet types to communicate with my devices. Then I'd still need to build a protocol into that to send the actual data back and forth. And make sure that each of my devices properly behaves to share the Loconet bus correctly per the specifications. Same with other protocols like Ethernet. I briefly toyed with the idea of using Ethernet for the command and control bus. The physical protocol is handled by the interface chips, but then I am effectively connecting a more powerful micro to the 8 bit Atmel one just to get a physical interface that runs far faster than I'd ever need, and faster than the small micro can even keep up with. And I'd still need to take a protocol on top of the physical layer (like TCP or ICMP).

                                       --Randy

 

[gregc]

khier

but certainly an interface where I can read clearly "ADDRESS" not "Adr."   or "Add" on a monochrome LCD screen.

it depends on what you are trying to do (e.g. program decoder, control a train) and how experienced you are which determines how "user friendly" you need the interface to be.

assuming you mean address of loco on a throttle, an LCD screen seems like unnecessary hardware.  I'm comfortable with a smaller throttle without a display when setting the loco address i want to control.   I'm also less willing to spend $$ on one that does have a display nor do i want a larger throttle where "address" can be spelled out.

khier

Where I can read clearly speed information not a dual seven-segment display.

assuming you speed step and not scale speed in MPH, again, is it worth the extra $$ for a throttle that displays this.   The NCE PowerCab and ProCab do, but the less expensive cabs do not.

khier

Where I can see acknowledge of  my commands not a LED flashing twice.

assuming commands to set speed, direction and lights, the acknowledgement is the action of the loco,  during regular use.  Again, NCE has more expensive throttles that do indicate speed, direction and lights on the display and less expensive ones that don't.

it's good to use a throttle with a display when programming and testing a locomotive, but during regular operation, something small and lightweight is more comfortable.  I've become comforatble with a cab without a knob, just using buttons to set the speed step.

human factors is more than just displays.  It seems comfort is also a consideration

BMMECNYC

At the risk of sounding like an infomercial for TCS ... Im buying this when its released to replace all of the above ...

Because that throttle was the most comfortable model train throttle I have ever held.  Also because of Layout Command Control.

[DigitalGriffin]

In some ways I'm going to agree and disagree.

 

For the most basic of functions, standard hand throttles are superior to touch screens.

 

HOWEVER,

 

Standard hand throttles are often a confusing mess when it comes to setting up and breaking down consist.  They cannot be updated to handle differences between different decoders.   They cannot have buttons with dedicated names like "dynamic brake", "brake", "coupler", "ditch lights", "dim", "mute" because these all shift between decoder brands.

 

Now manufacturers have ZERO excuse for not setting up better interfaces these days.  Devices like arduino and raspberry pi make development a breeze and the cost low.  A LCD 2x40 display is $5.00  An arduino is $10.00.  A 16 button keypad is $3.00 (4 arrow keys, an enter/Yes, a back/cancel/No + 10 digits)

 

If they won't do it, they will find a bigger and bigger percentage of cottage industries doing customized ones.  That means lost handheld sales.

 

I will grant a concession that Lenz and Digitrax have finally (somewhat) updated their interface.  Digitrax has the LNWI which works with JMRI or Engine Driver which works on android.

[Stevert]

DigitalGriffin

Digitrax has the LNWI which works with JMRI or Engine Driver which works on android.

 

 

That's not correct. 

 

The LNWI works with WiThrottle for IOS, Engine Driver for Android, and other throttle apps that use the same communication protocol.

 

It does NOT require JMRI or the computer/WiFi router JMRI needs to communicate with those apps. 

 

Instead, the LNWI takes the place of JMRI and that computer/WiFi router.

[rrinker]

DigitalGriffin

In some ways I'm going to agree and disagree.

 

For the most basic of functions, standard hand throttles are superior to touch screens.

 

HOWEVER,

 

Standard hand throttles are often a confusing mess when it comes to setting up and breaking down consist.  They cannot be updated to handle differences between different decoders.   They cannot have buttons with dedicated names like "dynamic brake", "brake", "coupler", "ditch lights", "dim", "mute" because these all shift between decoder brands.

 

Now manufacturers have ZERO excuse for not setting up better interfaces these days.  Devices like arduino and raspberry pi make development a breeze and the cost low.  A LCD 2x40 display is $5.00  An arduino is $10.00.  A 16 button keypad is $3.00 (4 arrow keys, an enter/Yes, a back/cancel/No + 10 digits)

 

If they won't do it, they will find a bigger and bigger percentage of cottage industries doing customized ones.  That means lost handheld sales.

 

I will grant a concession that Lenz and Digitrax have finally (somewhat) updated their interface.  Digitrax has the LNWI which works with JMRI or Engine Driver which works on android.

 

 This is also touching on the OP's assertion that these things ought to be cheap because the components are cheap. Yes, for about $10 in components I can have a 4x20 LCD (still not completely sufficient to avoid some abbreviation of the mode words), a plenty powerful microcontroller, and a cheap keypad to drive it all. But I will not that the Serpac case Digitrax uses sells for $15 on DigiKey, and it is not big enoug for a 4x20 LCD and the full keypad (note the NCE Hammerhead is MUCH larger, at least at the top where the display is). I think they use a Serpac case as well, but I didn;t see that one - I know I've seen it available on DigiKey. Then you have the cable and all the miscellaneous parts. Not to mention board layout and design and coding. Oh and since it uses a cable, or an RF module, it needs to be FCC certified to be legal to sell - that testing alone is in the 10's of thousand of dollars - if you can actually sell several thousand of these units (not likely), that's 10's of dollars per unit just for certification costs. So no, it is NOT realistic to think we can have a fancy throttle with many character displays that can display every nuance of DCC operation and it should only cost $100. The R&D costs alone PER UNIT are probably that high. Add BOM cost and assembly costs, even automated assembly as much as possible, and it goes up from there. Dave Jones of EEVBlog fame has a good video on his YouTube channel about the true costs to design and manufactuer a product for sale. It's NOT as cheap as you think, despite you personally being able to buy the LCD from some Chinese supplier on eBay for $1, and the microcontroller likewise for $1, and buttons in packs of 100 for $5. You can build one for your own person use for cheap, sure.

 One thing I'm not getting either - how many digits do you need for a speed display? The throttle goes fom 0 to 100% (Digitrax way) so there is no concern about speed steps. If you display actual speed steps, that makes it MORE complicated, because then it might go 0-14, 0-29, or 0-126 (yes, 128 speed steps reserves a few, it's not a full 128 unique steps). I'll take 0 to 100^, thank you very much, which is how most systems display it. That's a mere 2 1/2 digit display. Until every loco has an encoder wheel to measure actual speed (and unless that is some mechanically calibrated device rubbing on the track, it will need to be calibrated in the decoder to convert RPM of the shaft to actual speed based on gear ratio and wheel diameter - you can;t shortcut this) and direct feedback (both the Lenz Railcom and Digitrax's Transponding have shortcomings, and even the direct radio systems that have nice 2 way communication with the loco receiver still need some mechanism to calibrate any sort of scale speed readout), the only way you have to make the throttle read scale speec is to calibrate each loco so the speed percentage of throttle shows the scale speed the loco is configured to run at.

And what sort of feedback is needed? You press the headlight button, the lights come on or off. Press the horn button and the horn sounds. What more do you need? Most systems also show the function status on the display. All was good originally with 4 functions, and then 8, and even 12 - most systems can directly display the status of F0-F12 on their displays. Then they had to go ahead and make it 29 functions. No one wants an additional 10-15 buttons so that F0-F28 each get their own button on the throttle, so they ALL have some sort of shift to access functions past F10 or F12. You can't get around that, without making the controller even bigger. Well, you can - most every sound decoder, for operating in a realistic manner, needs more than 12 functions. Many times the extra functions include station calls, cattle noises, wayside sounds, non-prototypical radio chatter (even on locos from before the common use of radio), even train wreck noises. Unnecessary. And then the 'lay' buttons - there's already a momentary horn/whistle, but then they add a dedicated button to blow a grade crossing. Not needed, just use the horn. So, do we really need 29 functions, with distinct indicators for each? No. Leaving that out already makes the throttle much simpler in terms of UI. Having it optionally selectable means there's some understanding needed to access that stuff, but if you don't need or use it, it also doesn't get in the way of basic operation and you can forget it's even there.

 Everyone is different. My ex father in law is anything but a computer genius, yet he had no difficulties figuring out how to run his trains using my Digitrax Zephyr. That has about as small a display as you can get - 4 LED digits. It only displays the selected address - no speed. Speed is controlled by a knob exactly like found on DC power packs for decades - the more you turn the pointer towards FULL, the faster you go. A simple but very effective user interface. One that doesn't take a computer expert or an engineer to figure out. Or even a college degree. Conversely, the old Digitrax DT100 throttle, discontinued at least 20 years ago, is an example of how NOT to do it - but iot comes from the early days of DCC when short addresses ONLY were the norm. Even selecting a long address with the DT100 is not as simple as newer devices. The ultimate in difficulty though is trying to program CVs with one. You have an 8 character LCD, plus a few extra segments to indicate modes. There are only 8 buttons. Simple? Hardly. I can figure it out, if I read the manual. I've memorized how to select a loco with it, but forget programming, without the manual handy. It can't even program many of the CVs in modern decoders anyway. In the balance between compact and easy to use, this one went all the way to compact - it is nice and small, and even that small it can actually run 2 locos at once. But the sacrifice for that was any sort of usability whatsoever. ANd it was discontinued in favor of newer products with far better interfaces a long time ago.

                                           --Randy

[DigitalGriffin]

Stevert

 

 

DigitalGriffin

Digitrax has the LNWI which works with JMRI or Engine Driver which works on android.

 

 

 

 

That's not correct. 

 

The LNWI works with WiThrottle for IOS, Engine Driver for Android, and other throttle apps that use the same communication protocol.

 

It does NOT require JMRI or the computer/WiFi router JMRI needs to communicate with those apps. 

 

Instead, the LNWI takes the place of JMRI and that computer/WiFi router.

 

Not to argue the point, but I never claimed otherwise.  :)

[DigitalGriffin]

Well I would consider the following nice to have dedicated buttons for

Light (F0)

Bell (F1)

Horn/Whistle (F2)  

Coupler Clank (F3)

Brakes (that work)

Dynamic Brakes (that work)/ Cylinder blowdown

Throttle/Effort Up

Throttle/Effort Down

Ditch lights

These are ALL common operations by REAL engineers.  Yet NMRA never desginated common function buttons which are mapped all over the place between the big 4  (TCS/Loksound/Soundtraxx/QSI)  It makes their operation cumbersome.  And setting up consist is still a pain.  Specifying which is lead, which is middle, which is rear, which is facing forward, or reverse.

[Stevert]

DigitalGriffin

 Stevert

 

 

DigitalGriffin

Digitrax has the LNWI which works with JMRI or Engine Driver which works on android.

 

 

 

 

That's not correct. 

 

The LNWI works with WiThrottle for IOS, Engine Driver for Android, and other throttle apps that use the same communication protocol.

 

It does NOT require JMRI or the computer/WiFi router JMRI needs to communicate with those apps. 

 

Instead, the LNWI takes the place of JMRI and that computer/WiFi router.

 

 

 

 

Not to argue the point, but I never claimed otherwise.  :)

 

 

 

That was you I quoted, wasn't it?

 

Here, I'll narrow it down a little more.  You said:

 

DigitalGriffin

the LNWI which works with JMRI

 

Again, no, the LNWI doesn't work with JMRI. 

 

As I mentioned before, it works with Android or iOS devices running a compatible app.  It does NOT work with JMRI.  To quote Digitrax:

 

<quote>

 I.e. the LnWi is not a WAP or Router/Switch to; Internet or other non-LocoNet connections, and so does not require any other devices, PC’s or connections to allow compatible Wifi throttle APPS to be used.

</quote>

 

Source:  http://www.digitrax.com/tsd/KB1055/faq-what-lnwi/ 

[OldEngineman]

After a four-decade hiatus from model trains (much of it consumed running the big trains) I decided to begin spending a little time with them again.

Of course, the entire paradigm of "control" had changed during my absence, so I began investigating the dcc systems available. To me, it was like I had come from outer space -- I had no prior experience or even exposure to the various systems out there. They were all new to me.

I ended up choosing the Roco z21 (small "z", ordered for a good price from Germany).

To steal a quote from Mr. Spock in the old Star Trek episode "The City on the Edge of Forever", compared to the wifi, graphical touchscreen interface of the z21 the others seemed like "stone knives and bearskins". As great a jump forward as was the Mac OS in 1984 when compared to MS-DOS.

That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it!

[Graffen]

DigitalGriffin

Well I would consider the following nice to have dedicated buttons for

Light (F0)

Bell (F1)

Horn/Whistle (F2)  

Coupler Clank (F3)

Brakes (that work)

Dynamic Brakes (that work)/ Cylinder blowdown

Throttle/Effort Up

Throttle/Effort Down

Ditch lights

These are ALL common operations by REAL engineers.  Yet NMRA never desginated common function buttons which are mapped all over the place between the big 4  (TCS/Loksound/Soundtraxx/QSI)  It makes their operation cumbersome.  And setting up consist is still a pain.  Specifying which is lead, which is middle, which is rear, which is facing forward, or reverse.

 

And that's why I prefer a touch screen throttle.

Where you can map all functions to be where YOU want them to be!

The best hand control so far is the ESU Android throttle with physical throttle wheel and programmable physical buttons as well as the color display.

I hope that more manufacturers will follow suit.

[Graffen]

gregc

DCC is not well suited for accessory (e.g. turnout) control.   See LCC, the modern technology for non-locomotive control.   

I beg to differ...

It all comes down to user interface.

On my Z21 (especially when using a tablet), I can have several pages of track schematics with turnouts, routes, occupancy and signals.

And, the turnouts can be switched with regular buttons as well, as the switch decoders I use has connections for them.

 

[khier]

DigitalGriffin

Now manufacturers have ZERO excuse for not setting up better interfaces these days.  Devices like arduino and raspberry pi make development a breeze and the cost low.  A LCD 2x40 display is $5.00  An arduino is $10.00.  A 16 button keypad is $3.00 (4 arrow keys, an enter/Yes, a back/cancel/No + 10 digits)

Exactly, and if you order these components from aliExpress they will cost you a quarter of what you quoted.

For those who philosophize the cost issue and argue with development cost (of a 30 years-old system),..etc...etc... Continue searching for execuses and convincing yourselves of the feasiblity to pay 250$ and more until a Chinese manufacturer flood the market with 30$ DCC devices that will work like LENZ, Digitraxx, ESU and even better. Only then you will get the point.

Regards

The blasphemous OP  

[gregc]

khier

Continue searching for execuses and convincing yourselves of the feasiblity to pay 250$ and more until a Chinese manufacturer flood the market with 30$ DCC devices that will work like LENZ, Digitraxx, ESU and even better. Only then you will get the point.

in the 20+ years of DCC has a manufacturer taken advantage of these marketing blunders and come out with an inexpensive unit that provides better capability?    Are there that many unsatisfied modelers?

what do you think of the TCS system mentioned above?

[khier]

gregc

in the 20+ years of DCC has a manufacturer taken advantage of these marketing blunders and come out with an inexpensive unit that provides better capability?    Are there that many unsatisfied modelers?

what do you think of the TCS system mentioned above?

When the Chinese discovered the RC world. Now you can get a 20 A brushed ESC for 5$, Brushless motor for 15$ and 2.4 GHz Tx/Rx unit for 35$. Just look how much they cost before the Chinese entered the game. Nowadays, manfuacturers are dowing nothing but re-labling Chinese components and selling them under their name.

Just wait until they discover the MRR market as they discovered the RC world before. We will see then who will pay 800$ for an ESU Ecos or 700$ for Uhlenbrock Intellibox command stations.

Regards

Walid

[gregc]

i guess we'll have to wait and see. 

in the meantime Walid, what do you think about the new TCS system?   it uses today's technology.

  

[khier]

gregc

in the meantime Walid, what do you think about the new TCS system?   it uses today's technology.

Greg,

Frankly I have not used TCS products. Therefore, I can neither praise not demonize them. I used ROCO Maus and PIKO (Uhlenbrock) digital system. These were the only reasonably priced DCC system available. ROCO reminded me with the early digital watches. It has two digit, seven segment display and  four bottons that had to be combined, which means click click click, then press for seconds, then click click click. The PIKO/Uhlenbrock looked exactly like a TV remote control. It brought back the memory of our first remote control TV set, a SONY from 1981. This one has zero display, only a red LED flashing to let you know zour IR signal was received.

I watched others using the (then) Flagship and mother of all DCC command stations, the horribly priced Uhlenbrock Intellibox. To run a mdium layout you would need a couple of thousands for the command stations, boosters/amplifiers and other gadgets. The interface, well, see for yourself (There seems to be people who are willing to pay $500 for it.):

https://www.ebay.de/itm/Intellibox-65000-Uhlenbrock-/253471076015?clk_rvr_id=1539289963885&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=twenga&utm_campaign=twenga&utm_param=eyJlcyI6MCwicyI6NTMzODY0NywiY2kiOiIwNGI5MWY0ODRjYzdjY2EyYTg0NDdlZWMwMGMzN2FlYyIsImkiOiIyNTM0NzEwNzYwMTUiLCJ0cyI6MTUyNjk5NTE4NSwidiI6Mywic28iOjE1MDAsImMiOjE1ODcwNH0%3D&rmvSB=true

Both, the ROCO maus and Uhlenbrock systems, were sufficient to run a train or two in an oval track ocassionally, but, frankly, I do not know how would any one run a real layout with these things, although they are technically capable of controlling up to 99 trains.

All other systems that may have appealed to me, like the Vismann commander or ESU Ecos were even more expensive than the Intellibox. Therefore, when ROCO came with the z/Z21 with the tablet control I jumped immediately in. Frankly, I prefer a physical throttle knob to a touch screen speed control. But this can be added by connecting the older Maus to the command station.

I still find the Z21 too expensive, but the z21 was (and still) available for $150 or less. Of course, for a real layout additional expensive amplifiers are needed. But if you know how to convert the older ROCO command stations, which are dirt cheap on Ebay, or how to connect an optocoupler to a bridge rectifier IC, you can build your own boosters for pennies. So all in all you can get the complete layout in DCC operation for $250 or maybe $300, that you can only get a  Digitraxx throttle for.


Regards

 

Walid

[DigitalGriffin]

gregc

khier

Continue searching for execuses and convincing yourselves of the feasiblity to pay 250$ and more until a Chinese manufacturer flood the market with 30$ DCC devices that will work like LENZ, Digitraxx, ESU and even better. Only then you will get the point.

 

 

in the 20+ years of DCC has a manufacturer taken advantage of these marketing blunders and come out with an inexpensive unit that provides better capability?    Are there that many unsatisfied modelers?

what do you think of the TCS system mentioned above?

 

 

Have you seen the home brew low cost DCC command stations using pi and arduino?  We're a small market.  It represents a couple thousand unit sales a year I would imagine.  

Given six months fulltime, I'm sure I could create a better throttle that is loconet compatible.  I could even design the case using tinkercad and print it on shapeways.

I've done ground up before.  I've written firmware and debugged satellite hardware.  It's not that hard.

Understand I'm not here to slam digitrax, NCE, or others.  But I would hate to see them lose market share on what could be an easy win.

I'm a principal engineer at a very large company and our main competitor is losing market share because the way they make things has made it too expensive to compete.  They had to move to Mexico.

[gregc]

DigitalGriffin

Have you seen the home brew low cost DCC command stations using pi and arduino?  We're a small market.  It represents a couple thousand unit sales a year I would imagine.

they are low-cost if you're a DIYer and can build and debug the system yourself.   A market of a thousand doesn't sound very profitable.

i am a DIYer and i've built an NCE compatible cab.   probably $10 is cost and $1000+ in man-hours. 

mine doesn't have a knob.  I find it more comfortable to use than the powerCab.   I'm beginning to like just using buttons to adjust the speed step.   I'm satisfied with the LED coming on when programming the loco number and it going off when accepted by the command station.

i'm realizing i didn't need a 16 button keypad, 12 would be enough.   Besides select and enter, i need the buttons to be digits when entering a loco number.   those same ten buttons can be something else when operating, i currently use 5: forward, reverse, increase and decrease speed, 0 for headlight.   Also placement of the buttons (human factors)

 

i've looked extensively at the DCC++ code.  Thinking about building my own, but would need it to support a cab over rs-485.   The NCE protocol is probably as good as any.  would learn something about the pro/cons of that.

[DigitalGriffin]

I think I have found my new lunchtime project.

[MisterBeasley]

I do not like touch-screens at all.  I've got a cell phone and a tablet, and neither of them responds the way I would want.  To get enough information on a screen, they keep making the characters/buttons smaller.  For a guy like me, it is hard to reliably hit what I want on the screen.  The latest Android "upgrades" seem to have made my screens more sensitive, so I frequently end up with the wrong button pushed.  That's not so bad if I'm just browsing the web, but my train controls need better accuracy than any of my touch screens provide, and I am NOT going to walk around my layout with a 19-inch monitor.

[khier]

I do not know why the replies come as if I am advocating touch screens.

Gentlemen, advanced user-friendly user interface does not have to be a touch screen. It can be a combination of anything. The point is to be direct, easy and clear input/output, no click forever, no abbreviation, no botton combination, and of course, not for an arm and a leg.

Regards

Walid

[rrinker]

 From your description of the system you are using, the interface is far less friendly than many other existing DCC systems, let alone anything someone can actually imagine there being. 

 As for the TCS - I see a bunch of buttons with icons that I can't just figure out by looking at it. OK, maybe that makes it more "world compatible" vs having the buttons labeled in plain English. Many I can figure out - I've sure the <--> button is direction, and the whistle and so forth look obvious as well. But what is the button to the left of the direction, with the three horizontal lines? And what is the button to the right of the 3, with the array of boxes? Menu maybe?

 The rest of is it very much following what anyone with some knowledge could do - they are usign existing protocols like WiThrottle over WiFi to connect the throttles to the command station. Not inventing something new and proprietary. This is where I think the guys with that nifty prototype control stand went wrong, they use an intermediate protocol and then need a second device to interface with various DCC systems, adding cost and complexity.

 Button pushing for speed is OK, I guess, when you are using NCE and only have 28 steps. But most of the rest of the world seems to have changed to 128 steps as the default, and locos run demononstrably smoother - check the MR reviews where they test both 28 and 128, the same loco, no other change other than sending it 128 steps instead of 28, starts slower and sometimes has a more accurate top speed as well. Maybe this is why I do a whoel lot less fiddling with speed tables than some seem to? Because with a greater change per step, it takes more configuration to make them indentical between locos?

                                    --Randy

 

[SouthPenn]

DigitalGriffin

Well I would consider the following nice to have dedicated buttons for

Light (F0)

Bell (F1)

Horn/Whistle (F2)  

Coupler Clank (F3)

Brakes (that work)

Dynamic Brakes (that work)/ Cylinder blowdown

Throttle/Effort Up

Throttle/Effort Down

Ditch lights

These are ALL common operations by REAL engineers.  Yet NMRA never desginated common function buttons which are mapped all over the place between the big 4  (TCS/Loksound/Soundtraxx/QSI)  It makes their operation cumbersome.  And setting up consist is still a pain.  Specifying which is lead, which is middle, which is rear, which is facing forward, or reverse. 

You might want to check out the RaiPro controller. The latest upgrade ( free download ) has added a lot of new options. You will need RailPro decoders.

Want to do a consist? Press the 'link' button, select the engines you want in the consist ( the first engine you select is the lead engine ), press 'done'. If an engine needs to run in the opposite direction to match the consist, press the button labeled 'MU=' which will show up when you make up your consist ( the = will show how many engines are in the consist. ) on the MU= page select the engine you need change and press the direction arrow. That's it, done. Speed matching is done automatically. I have had nine engines in a consist and they ran fine. Having pushers or helpers that really push or help is great.

Actually, setting up a consist takes 20-30 seconds. Shorter than my write up.

This is what DCC should have evolved to by now.

[Anonymous]

rrinker

and the whistle and so forth look obvious as well. But what is the button to the left of the direction, with the three horizontal lines? And what is the button to the right of the 3, with the array of boxes?

Four Months ago was the last time I actually held the thing and used it, but if memory serves, the three lines was menu.  I dont remember what the button with 9 dots on it did.  

The throttle has four soft keys across the top (if memory serves they are user selectable, and operate what is displayed above them on screen).  I only played with it for a few minutes at the Amherst Show, but was sold on user comofort.  My only request was for a small metal pin in a recess or similar capability to allow the throttle to clip to a lanyard.

[khier]

rrinker

  Until every loco has an encoder wheel to measure actual speed (and unless that is some mechanically calibrated device rubbing on the track, it will need to be calibrated in the decoder to convert RPM of the shaft to actual speed based on gear ratio and wheel diameter - you can;t shortcut this) and direct feedback (both the Lenz Railcom and Digitrax's Transponding have shortcomings, and even the direct radio systems that have nice 2 way communication with the loco receiver still need some mechanism to calibrate any sort of scale speed readout), the only way you have to make the throttle read scale speec is to calibrate each loco so the speed percentage of throttle shows the scale speed the loco is configured to run at.

You really know how to play with expressions to bring your point.

First, all it takes is a magnet and a Hall effect sensor to make the encoder. The resulting pulses are fed back to the decoder. Multiply them by a cale factor and you have the speed. If my memory serves me well, some decoders are already prepared for that to sychronize the steam sound with the speed.

Estimating the scaling factor is an easy assignment for a 6th grade pupil. Simply multiply the perimeter of the wheel by a the RPS you get the speed/second. The perimetr is 3.14*the diameter, which can be measured by a caliper. Use 3 if 3.14 is too complicated. Multiply the result by 3600 and devide by 1000000 (if you measure in mm) you get km/h. Scale it up by 87 you have the prototype speed, or leave it as it is to have the actual speed. The RPS is measured by the decoder by simple pin change interrupt, or rising/falling edge interrupts. Neither mechanically calibrated devices rubbing the track, nor rocket science involved.

Another way to encode, make a black spot by CD marker on one of the wheels and fix an Tx/Rx sensor to generate the pulses. A teeth of a gear can be used instead. The gear ratio will have to be included then in the scaling factor. Count the number of teeth to deduce the gear ratio. Again not rocket science.

Lastly, BEMF is already used to adjust the speed. You can run the train for a fixed distane and the decoder measure the time needed to cover the distance to calibrate the scale speed. Also not rocket science.

Want more suggestions??

rrinker

Then they had to go ahead and make it 29 functions. No one wants an additional 10-15 buttons so that F0-F28

Wrong, I do. Secondly, the day-and-night-cursed touch screen tablet control allows these 28 functions optional labeling of all 28 functions. Not enough? The next software update can extend them to 48, 68, or 98 if it is needed.

rrinker

Button pushing for speed is OK,

It might have been OK in the last century (for 28 steps or otherwise), but certainly does not belong to this age where my 7-years old boy is able to download and install games from google play store.

Walid

[khier]

DigitalGriffin

Have you seen the home brew low cost DCC command stations using pi and arduino? 

I have.... and been inspired already to build this one:

http://www.trainelectronics.com/DCC_Arduino/DCC_Booster/index.htm

DigitalGriffin

We're a small market.  It represents a couple thousand unit sales a year I would imagine.  

Although I have no proof,  I strongly doubt this figure. Just look how many hobby shops are there, and imagine if each sells one command station a year. Only one unit a year per shop and zero export and you will end up by a larger figure.

Walid

[Graffen]

And then you can alter a hand control to better suit your hands...

My ROCO Multimaus had a curved casing, but my big hands didn't like it.

I then designed and 3D printed my own.

I decorated it a bit to suit the timeframe I model.

It's all about user interface....

This throttle I use for most road engines.

 

[khier]

SouthPenn

This is what DCC should have evolved to by now.

I couldn't agree more.

I am confused, however, with "You will need RailPro decoders". Is this a DCC controller?

Walid

[Graffen]

Railpro is a proprietary system.

If the manufacturer goes belly up, you have no way to buy parts for it.

A bit like DCS...

If you're going to invent a whole new system, get it NMRA certified, so it might be standardized...

[khier]

Graffen

Railpro is a proprietary system.

Too bad. I started to like the controller already.

 

Walid