Well, it IS an interesting topic…
OK, lets make the print large enough so even I can read it! I am not surprised to hear it, the people could deliver the goods in a timely manner! I guard my ‘old’ RCS units, they work well with out a lot of BS. I have one of their units, it works OK but is different from the old systems. And Bob, I agree with you, a standard set of controls that work together. Paul
I am surprised to read there are issues with the 900 MHz range. I have an old TE 27 Mhz (I believe) system, and I can control my trains from 2 yards away. I can hardly even see the train, but I can control it. My guess would be it was around 120 to 130 feet. I only did it once, just to see, but it worked.
I am also surprised that Cordless Revolutions is shutting down, but then when I thought about it, I wasn’t quite as surprised. But it does sadden me when we loose another manufacturer or supplier/vendor.
After a bit of consideration, I’m going to leave the thread as-is, and allow the topic to drift. It IS related, in a way.
Greg Elmassian said:
Again, the frequency used is something that can change… just using the radio to transmit DCC protocol is the key…
Also, perhaps you were using a duplex system, which is constrained to much lower power, than a unidirectional system…
My NCE system on 900 MHz would go 50 feet ok… but I’m off on Zigbee on 2.4 GHz so it goes through the house now.
But looking at the entire solution and focusing on the radio frequency is a distraction… the key is that you can use ANY transmitter/receiver pair and the DCC protocol is the common link… AirWire uses 900 MHz… Right now I’d probably use a Bluetooth pair… the high power 4.0 stuff has pretty good range… and is inexpensive…
Greg
While I am aware that there are radio solutions right now, your last paragraph highlights my issue with them exactly:
the key is that you can use ANY transmitter/receiver pair
I dont WANT to have to pair a TX/RX from the same manufacturer. That turns into the same issue I have now with Revo/RCS/etc/etc. In my N scale stuff, my decoders are from a whole raft of manufacturers. We need the same kind of standard with the TX and RX.
If I equip three locomotives, as money permits, from Manufacturer A, and then they go belly up, I now have to find another manufacturer to continue equipping my fleet out, and hope the existing hardware doesnt fail, because then I have to buy a new TX/RX pair for that locomotive. I’d rather be able to just replace single pieces as needed. I understand that the DCC is the standard that is being transmitted, and I really like that, but I wish the manufacturers would say “This is the range we all agree on (2.4 please!)”. Its not a cost matter, either, when I can get a Baofeng UV5R programmable radio for about $20. The technology is out there, its just not all glued together.
Bob McCown said:
We should pull this into its own thread. I have a bunch of questions and comments.
Sweet …discussion ?
The ‘drift’ is fine with me. My intent with the thread was to make folks aware that the business was closing, not to start a flame war. Anyone who has dealt with CR has their opinion and lets leave it at that. As for the drift, I am learning some things, so it isn’t all bad.
And for those running Revolution, it is back and better from what I hear from fellow club members. I am an AirWire guy, along with Boomer.
As a point of conversation, I was at my local HO club last evening and I was amazed at the positive attitude of many of the members toward dead rail in that small a scale.
FWIW
Like Greg’s grandmother, my mother too had many wise sayings.
I was always taught that, if you cannot say something nice about someone, don’t say anything at all.
So I won’t.
Bob McCown said:
Greg Elmassian said:
Again, the frequency used is something that can change… just using the radio to transmit DCC protocol is the key…
Also, perhaps you were using a duplex system, which is constrained to much lower power, than a unidirectional system…
My NCE system on 900 MHz would go 50 feet ok… but I’m off on Zigbee on 2.4 GHz so it goes through the house now.
But looking at the entire solution and focusing on the radio frequency is a distraction… the key is that you can use ANY transmitter/receiver pair and the DCC protocol is the common link… AirWire uses 900 MHz… Right now I’d probably use a Bluetooth pair… the high power 4.0 stuff has pretty good range… and is inexpensive…
Greg
While I am aware that there are radio solutions right now, your last paragraph highlights my issue with them exactly:
the key is that you can use ANY transmitter/receiver pair
I dont WANT to have to pair a TX/RX from the same manufacturer. That turns into the same issue I have now with Revo/RCS/etc/etc. In my N scale stuff, my decoders are from a whole raft of manufacturers. We need the same kind of standard with the TX and RX.
If I equip three locomotives, as money permits, from Manufacturer A, and then they go belly up, I now have to find another manufacturer to continue equipping my fleet out, and hope the existing hardware doesnt fail, because then I have to buy a new TX/RX pair for that locomotive. I’d rather be able to just replace single pieces as needed. I understand that the DCC is the standard that is being transmitted, and I really like that, but I wish the manufacturers would say “This is the range we all agree on (2.4 please!)”. Its not a cost matter, either, when I can get a Baofeng UV5R programmable radio for about $20. The technology is out there, its just not all glued together.
Old faithful
I agree with Bob. What I want to be able to do is take my Airwire throttle and walk up to my son’s Revo equipped truck and run it. Without having to add XYZ’s adapter / translator board.
While I think that I understand DCC, I really don’t want to program all that CV stuff. I like to think we should be way beyond that in this day and age. Or maybe it reminds me too much of programming in machine language.(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-embarassed.gif)
You can hide the CV programming behind a nice user interface.
Has anyone had a chance to play with Revolution’s DCC interface yet? I see it’s listed as being available, but they’re not doing squat for advertising that I can see. (A 1/6-page ad in GR mentioning their standard Revolution controller is it.)
I agree with Bruce–as much as I like the Airwire stuff and its ability to interface with the latest DCC decoders, its range is spotty at best. The 2.4 gHz stuff is solid anywhere in my back yard. Now, if I could get a 2.4 gHz handheld controller with a knob or slider, that’d be even better. I’m not a huge fan of the Revolution’s pushbuttons.
Later,
K
Hi Kevin.
2.4 GHz pocket sized handhelds with knobs and having terrific range, are readily available. However they use regular DSM2 or DSMX protocols and as yet are not DCC compatible.
In stick format they overwhelmingly outnumber any other type of R/C on the market. Not very user friendly for train use though.
It’s quite possible to interface R/C to DCC, I’ve done it just for fun:
But, with any normal R/C RX, you have to do a bunch of gyrations to intercept the servo pulses, time the widths and then convert the result to DCC commands. However, and I spoke briefly with Tony about this, the DSM2 rx chips, like this one: http://www.deltang.co.uk/rx31b.htm will output a serial stream at
Bring it on Martin.
" Rooster " said:
Bob McCown said:
Greg Elmassian said:
Again, the frequency used is something that can change… just using the radio to transmit DCC protocol is the key…
Also, perhaps you were using a duplex system, which is constrained to much lower power, than a unidirectional system…
My NCE system on 900 MHz would go 50 feet ok… but I’m off on Zigbee on 2.4 GHz so it goes through the house now.
But looking at the entire solution and focusing on the radio frequency is a distraction… the key is that you can use ANY transmitter/receiver pair and the DCC protocol is the common link… AirWire uses 900 MHz… Right now I’d probably use a Bluetooth pair… the high power 4.0 stuff has pretty good range… and is inexpensive…
Greg
While I am aware that there are radio solutions right now, your last paragraph highlights my issue with them exactly:
the key is that you can use ANY transmitter/receiver pair
I dont WANT to have to pair a TX/RX from the same manufacturer. That turns into the same issue I have now with Revo/RCS/etc/etc. In my N scale stuff, my decoders are from a whole raft of manufacturers. We need the same kind of standard with the TX and RX.
If I equip three locomotives, as money permits, from Manufacturer A, and then they go belly up, I now have to find another manufacturer to continue equipping my fleet out, and hope the existing hardware doesnt fail, because then I have to buy a new TX/RX pair for that locomotive. I’d rather be able to just replace single pieces as needed. I understand that the DCC is the standard that is being transmitted, and I really like that, but I wish the manufacturers would say “This is the range we all agree on (2.4 please!)”. Its not a cost matter, either, when I can get a Baofeng UV5R programmable radio for about $20. The technology is out there, its just not all glued together.
Old faithful
Roos, this is Old Faithful.
Sorry, this has gone nuts…
I was going to answer about radios, and help understanding, but now it’s muddled by goofing off and throwing in servos and other stuff not germane to the discussion.
There’s too many people who want to defend what they have and attack what they don’t have and somehow cannot abide by a discussion of what if.
Bob is really onto something, and there are answers, and enabling a modular system makes terrific sense, and I do know a lot about radio transmission of data, and could help clarify and explain.
But, unfortunately with all the above people who really don’t care but want to disrupt, it’s a waste of my time here.
Greg
Gee, Gregg, sorry you feel this way. Actually, it’s about Cordless Revolutions closing.
No, it’s not, it was about the thread drift allowed by Bob, and I responded to the flurry of “chaff”.
It’s too bad, a very interesting subject, and Bob is indeed on to something in how a modular wireless control system should be working, and taking advantage of the technology already out there.
For anyone who cares to understand what Bob is asking about, and what I believe he is driving towards, I am revising my R/C section of my web site… over the next few days, there will be a lot more information, and I am addressing the very interesting and current issue Bob is asking about.
I can explain it as best as possible, and I won’t have to fight anyone to put the information forwards.
Greg