DCC and innovation stagnation

[peteski]

Interesting .. but the majority of Nscalers probably don't have those things hooked up .. even the DCC types .. I'm with Max for the 90% solution ..

Sound is getting more and more popular in N scale (even in factory-installed decoders).  That includes all the usual bell/horn/whistle (plus several other sound effects) and some factory models even have lighting effects (like he separately illuminated number boards in the BLI Centipedes).  All of those are controlled by DCC functions.

[John]

Sound is getting more and more popular in N scale (even in factory-installed decoders).  That includes all the usual bell/horn/whistle (plus several other sound effects) and some factory models even have lighting effects (like he separately illuminated number boards in the BLI Centipedes).  All of those are controlled by DCC functions.

Thats true .. but I still think the majority of DCC users don't .. I personally don't have any sound locos, nor to I have any special lighting beyond whats installed .. I am probably typical user .. you are more likely on the edge ... just empirical observation ..

[peteski]

Thats true .. but I still think the majority of DCC users don't .. I personally don't have any sound locos, nor to I have any special lighting beyond whats installed .. I am probably typical user .. you are more likely on the edge ... just empirical observation ..

That is true, but time marches on. Eventually the old stalwarts will die off and the new generation of model railroaders will fully embrace DCC/sound with all tis functionality.    By that time large majority of N scale locs will be factory equipped with sound decoders. 

[John]

That is true, but time marches on. Eventually the old stalwarts will die off and the new generation of model railroaders will fully embrace DCC/sound with all tis functionality.   :

The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. Mark Twain

[Philip H]

Thats true .. but I still think the majority of DCC users don't .. I personally don't have any sound locos, nor to I have any special lighting beyond whats installed .. I am probably typical user .. you are more likely on the edge ... just empirical observation ..

I actually think, collectively, that TRW is farther out on the tech edge, in part due to our heavy n scale membership crossed with our heavy tech career numbers. So for many of us, head seemingly esoteric questions are way out in front of the rest of the hobby.

[Cajonpassfan]

Well, no downvotes Chris, whatdaya know
But, at the risk of incurring some, let me suggest another perspective:

We all drive cars, and when we take our foot off the pedal, the car doesn't stop. We have to hit the brakes. Hello?
Well, trains behave in a similar fashion, but the momentum is a thousand times more pronounced. Turning off the knob on a throttle is like taking the foot of the pedal, but our trains stop... WTH?

It took a bit of learning to drive a car, and I don't know why it's such a radical idea for us to learn how  to "drive" a train. It's our hobby, our passion, right?  Our readymade DCC cabs have the built-in technology to emulate train handling, but the cab controls are of another era, frozen in a rheostat mindset mentality.

I understand some of us want the simplicity of a knob and a direction switch, and that's fine and legitimate; our lives are complicated enough as is. But if we do choose to bother with DCC and all its potential, why can't we get a cab that emulates actual locomotive controls, steam and diesel? I don't need 48 buttons like my (useless) TV remote, just primary functions like throttle, direction, and brake; and secondary controls for sound and lighting.

I'm lucky enough to run on a friend's large (HO) NCE DCC radio-controlled layout, and the road engines are programmed to limit their top speed, and to respond in acceleration and braking like the real thing would, and it's a joy to operate. You want to stop a train, you need to watch your speed and use the brakes...what a concept 
Yes, it does take a bit of getting used to, but it's takes running a train to a whole another level. (The fact the locos are sound equipped, but turned down, also adds another dimension to my enjoyment). The only thing missing is an appropriate throttle....
Well, that's my two cents...
Otto K.

[peteski]

I'm lucky enough to run on a friend's large (HO) NCE DCC radio-controlled layout, and the road engines are programmed to limit their top speed, and to respond in acceleration and braking like the real thing would, and it's a joy to operate. You want to stop a train, you need to watch your speed and use the brakes...what a concept 
Yes, it does take a bit of getting used to, but it's takes running a train to a whole another level. (The fact the locos are sound equipped, but turned down, also adds another dimension to my enjoyment). The only thing missing is an appropriate throttle....
Well, that's my two cents...
Otto K.

No down-votes for you either.    The nice thing about DCC is that you can easily enable or disable all those various features.
Is this mostly for mainline running, or do you also do a lot of local industry switching or yard switching with that type of a setup?

[Steve S]

For that, there are now knobs that you can afix to your touchscreen.   

You're referring to Tuna knobs.  You would someone to modify the throttle app to read the rotary input of the knob.


Over at the Trainboard forum, Dave Bodnar came up with this Wifi throttle for the DCC++ system that combines a Nextion touchscreen with a knob for controlling speed. 
http://www.trainelectronics.com/DCC_Arduino/Nextion_LCD/images/TopPic.jpg

A couple of companies make handheld enclosures that should be large enough to accept this throttle.  Hammond Mfg makes the following enclosure for $7.27...
http://www.hammondmfg.com/1553.htm
I did a 3D mockup of what it might look like with a 3.5" screen.  There's room near the knob for a few small pushbuttons for horn and bell, etc.
http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i347/Steven_A_S/throttlerender_zpsm01weoij.png

Takachi makes enclosures, but theirs are more expensive ($25.)  On the plus side, Takachi will do custom CNC cutting for you.0
http://www.takachi-enclosure.com/data/c15/c15_18102.pdf


Steve S

[jagged ben]

I also don't think notches are the answer either, although I dig the immersive aspect of it, because of one thing: physics. In the real world, the inertia of big, heavy stuff equalizes things out. There's built in "momentum".  It means that when going from notch 1 to notch 8, there's a smooth increase in speed (hopefully). In N scale, however, a move like that would be like lighting a rocket.

So, a delay to simulate momentum can be built into software.  It's already a feature on decoders, actually.   But notwithstanding, I was going to say something similar about a notch based throttle and physics.   Because it's a much deeper problem than even momentum, really, especially if you're not on a completely flat layout.   There's the weight of the train, the current speed and inertia of the train, and most importantly the grade, if there is one.  A real train does not need to be in the highest notch to maintain a high speed on flat ground, once it gets going that fast.  Conversely, a heavy train on a steep grade may need to stay in notch 8 just to maintain a relatively slow uphill speed.   And that is to say nothing about dynamic breaking and the fact that a model locomotive behaves completely differently from a real one in that respect.   

What it all means is that no notch based DCC throttle can give realistic feedback to an operator (except maybe somewhat on a flat layout) unless it is linked to software that tracks a train's location on a layout, and the software knows all kinds of other data about both the train and the layout, such as how many cars in the train and/or a putative prototypical train weight, and the grade and direction of grade of any given section of track.   In other words, it would have to run through something like JMRI that is also a comprehensive layout controller.   All your locomotives would need to be speed matched for it to make sense, too.  It's a huge chore to set up, requiring detection and all that, about as much work as automatic train running.    Something like Bluerail might have better potential, since with two-way communication there might be the possibility of sharing knowledge about the loco speed and BEMF with the software, and then perhaps such software could decently determine the grade and drawbar pull and simulate the right speed change responses to notch-based input.    Probably it's something that wouldn't be available in N scale until it's well established in other scales.

Just sayin'. 

[Cajonpassfan]

No down-votes for you either.    The nice thing about DCC is that you can easily enable or disable all those various features.
Is this mostly for mainline running, or do you also do a lot of local industry switching or yard switching with that type of a setup?

Pete, the switchers in the yard don't have the brake function, just little a bit of momentum. We're still playing with the locals' power. Actually, there's no reason why a local engine should behave any differently, except for a lesser load. It's just that some guys freak out when they shut down the throttle and the engine keeps moving omg, we're all gonna die . it's all in your head...
Otto

[sirenwerks]

Have you looked at Bluerail? It's been on Model Rail Radio repeatedly.

This.  BlueRail doesn't have a N scale-sized chip yet, but word is it will soon.  The advantages in cost and ease of use presented, especially for doing sound on a layout through the throttle (cell) versus the conventional DCC manner ($ decoder and speaker with compromised sound quality), is considerable and I am hoping BR will hit N scale soon.  I imagine that, once BR catches on, a dedicated throttle with actual knobs and levers as an add-on won't be too far behind.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Bluerail looks promising, but I wonder what the radio load looks like during a heavy ops session. I will have light engine moves with 15 units.

Some of you brought up a few points that I would like to address.

1. Phones suck for controllers.
this is because they are doing it wrong. The UI of current apps is abysmal because they are all side projects and not a professional application from a company with resources to develop it properly.

2. Feedback sucks for phones.
Yep, I agree. There is a very simple solution though. Gamers also had a problem with feedback with touch screens and have created suction-cup buttons with tactile feedback that "touch" areas of the screen. There is no reason something like this couldn't work for us. An audible beep or haptic feedback would verify the phone understood the input. A company could produce an IPhone or Galaxy case with a thumb wheel for control and still have it cost hundreds less than a dedicated controller.

3. ESU. Ugh these guys. So much potential and ... squandered. First the base station. Its nice, but does not run android like their throttles. I know this is coming and have been waiting patiently for years. Their Android software actually does work on phones and the US distributers have been experimenting with it for over two years, but they will not release it to the public. ESU seems to be light on accessories like power distribution, radios, connectors and other items that NCE and Digitrax produce. And the cost is really up there. If they were more aggressive, they could walk away from the rest of the pack.

4. Tinkering. Some of you are really gifted with electronics and I applaud you for that. Many of us are not. The idea for smartphone control is to take a rather complex hobby like DCC and computer control of trains and make it familiar to newcomers. Most are used to the smartphone UI. They are not used to programing a hobby board. That is a major hurtle to overcome.

[jdcolombo]

Some of you brought up a few points that I would like to address.

1. Phones suck for controllers.
this is because they are doing it wrong. The UI of current apps is abysmal because they are all side projects and not a professional application from a company with resources to develop it properly.

I agree.  But here's the problem.  DCC companies are SMALL.  Digitrax, NCE, ESU, Zimo; all these operations have at most a couple-dozen employees.   I'm sure Apple or Microsoft could build a killer DCC app; my son works as a software engineer for Microsoft, and I'm positive that the Windows development group could do it.  But that group is a hundred of the most talented software engineers in the world.  Digitrax doesn't have them, never could afford them, and won't ever be able to do it (at least, not at a low price point - see my response to item 3 below).  And the software companies that COULD do it simply aren't going to for a few thousand model railroaders who might be willing to pay $10 for the privilege.  So the observation is correct and the solution is . . . not promising.

2. Feedback sucks for phones.
Yep, I agree. There is a very simple solution though. Gamers also had a problem with feedback with touch screens and have created suction-cup buttons with tactile feedback that "touch" areas of the screen. There is no reason something like this couldn't work for us. An audible beep or haptic feedback would verify the phone understood the input. A company could produce an IPhone or Galaxy case with a thumb wheel for control and still have it cost hundreds less than a dedicated controller.

See above.  Gamers number in the tens of millions; that's why a successful game can make someone (or a small company) a billionaire overnight.  It's why Sony and Microsoft duke it out over high-end game equipment that actually LOSES money on the hardware side - big money, as in tens of millions.   Now maybe it is possible to adapt the stuff built for gamers to our needs cheaply.  But the problem is getting someone interested in doing that for the same low return.  It's why Knowles never built speakers for the model railroad market; it was nice that we bought a few of their speakers, but as a MARKET we didn't exist.  So when they decided to exit the market, no one in their corporate headquarters said "yeah, but what about all those poor model railroaders that need our speakers!"

3. ESU. Ugh these guys. So much potential and ... squandered. First the base station. Its nice, but does not run android like their throttles. I know this is coming and have been waiting patiently for years. Their Android software actually does work on phones and the US distributers have been experimenting with it for over two years, but they will not release it to the public. ESU seems to be light on accessories like power distribution, radios, connectors and other items that NCE and Digitrax produce. And the cost is really up there. If they were more aggressive, they could walk away from the rest of the pack.

The limited market for model railroading means, in turn, that if we REALLY want something of very high quality, and/or cutting edge technology, we're going to have to pay a significant premium for it.  It's like Whole Foods - if you really demand their quality level and attention to sustainability and organics . . . well, there's a reason their nickname is "Whole Paycheck."  Don't care or don't want to pay the premium?  Shop at Kroger. 

4. Tinkering. Some of you are really gifted with electronics and I applaud you for that. Many of us are not. The idea for smartphone control is to take a rather complex hobby like DCC and computer control of trains and make it familiar to newcomers. Most are used to the smartphone UI. They are not used to programing a hobby board. That is a major hurtle to overcome.

Agree 100%.  I'm not an electrical engineer and I don't play one on television.  Give me a turnkey solution.  I'll pay for it.  Honest.

John C.

[sirenwerks]

There are two things I like about the BlueRail concept's basis on an existing communication/media platform - as I mentioned before, affordably addressing the sound issue, and the possibility of adding communications. 


The latter is an issue for me.  I have a significant hearing loss in one ear and, while I enjoy hanging out with fellow asshatters and shooting the breeze, the buzz of a train room often makes it hard to hear the actual ops; and ops sessions can turn into bar scenarios where everyone is vying to be the loudest.  If BlueRail could co-opt the communication features of smart phones (and their headsets) and mimic an ops-dedicated radio system between operators, dispatchers, yard masters, that would a boon, IMO.


And then there's the loco sound issue.  The quality of DCC loco sound is sad and the price of outfitting a fleet with poor sound is outrageous. If BlueRail can flesh out the sound issue through software it would solve both problems.  Sound presented through mobile audio tech is richer than loco speakers, especially if experienced through earbuds/headphones or a jacked external speaker.  As for cost, I'm sorry to the manufacturers, but I think DCC sound card prices are robbery.

[peteski]

It's why Knowles never built speakers for the model railroad market; it was nice that we bought a few of their speakers, but as a MARKET we didn't exist.  So when they decided to exit the market, no one in their corporate headquarters said "yeah, but what about all those poor model railroaders that need our speakers!"

I don't think that Knowles even ever considered model RR application for their speakers.  While I don't have any inside info, I really think that those speakers were designed for smart phones and computer tablets/laptops. That's all.  The telltale sign is that they all have gold plated contacts, not solder tabs for for hookup.  Which  means they are meant to be installed in some device without being soldered. That is how many components are installed inside the computing devices. But either  some model railroaders themselves, or model RR companies figured out that those speakers were perfect for model RR application and started buying relatively small quantities from electronic parts distributors.  I have a feeling that Knowles has no idea that their speakers were used in model RR application by soldering wires to their solderless terminals.

But for whatever reason the need for those small speakers (by the big manufacturers of computing devices who bought them by millions) dried up, so Knowles simply phased them out.  Maybe those speakers were used in iPhone 2 or some other obsolete device.  The fact thst this affected the model RR market (of probably few thousand sales) is irrelevant to Knowles.