Beyond DCC

[jnevis]

I would not be surprised if the "next big thing" didn't have anything to do with DC or DCC.  As I mentioned in the Horizon thread I believe the way the hobby will go is away from physical layouts and go totally virtual. We already have design software that lets you "run" the railroad, its not a large techicological leap to improed scenery. As for control, First Person View has taken hold in the RC world.  Maybe that will bridge the physical and virtual layouts.  With a DCC like controller the "engineer" watches from inside the train with FPV glasses. The glasses display speed and throttle/brake setting and maybe the signal aspects overlaid on the view of the layout going by.  The next step could be VR gloves and eliminate the need for the controller. Then the glasses could show an engine cab and controls withe the layout, physical or virtual, as the outside world. All of that is within the realm of the possible now, or being done, crudely.

[DKS]

Virtual modeling will be something for an entirely different class of modeler to pursue. I could never bring myself to be satisfied working entirely in the digital realm. To be honest, the skillset required for virtual modeling is uninteresting and unimpressive, IMO.

[wcfn100]

To be honest, the skillset required for virtual modeling is uninteresting and unimpressive, IMO.

It's the limitations of the media that make virtual modeling look or seam so lackluster.  There's no way you can judge peoples skillset based on what you see, at least not at the top end.  If frame rendering wasn't an issue, you could have train sims that look like something from Pixar.

Now you can tell me how you're not impressed with Pixar...


Jason


 

[peteski]

I also enjoy the physical aspects of model railroading. Operating (switching, schedules, fast-clock, etc.) - not so much. If I can't take a model apart, or work on scenery, or on bench-work, I'm outta this hobby.

[DKS]

It's the limitations of the media that make virtual modeling look or seam so lackluster.  There's no way you can judge peoples skillset based on what you see, at least not at the top end.  If frame rendering wasn't an issue, you could have train sims that look like something from Pixar.

Now you can tell me how you're not impressed with Pixar...

I suppose you'll next tell me my opinion is wrong.

At any rate, I challenge your parallel between modeling sims and a Pixar production. Where is any average (or even above-average) virtual modeler going to get a team of several hundred digital artists and software specialists, not to mention the massive number-crunching hardware needed to achieve that level of realism? Have you never sat through the credits at the end of a Pixar movie? Frame rendering the only issue? Yeah, right.

[jnevis]

I didn't say it was going to happen overnight ;)but think about it...Today's generation has little interest in things that aren't virtual.  They are also exponentially more tech savvy than we are. They also want it NOW, not in a few years of steady modelling.  Look at the RC world. Used to be a set of plans and a pile of balsa, then laser cut wood.  Now its all pre-assembled or foam.  The companies that sold short kits of laser cut wood have even started to shut down.

 Look at the graphics difference between Pong and an XBox One over the last 40 years, hell the original Nintendo Wii in the last 10, and tell me we couldn't see near realistic virtual reality in the next 50.  The limitation won't be frame rate, but processor speed.  Intel and AMD have both stated recently that they may be hitting the absolute upper edge of current chip manufacturing capability.  As they have tried to put more components on smaller chips, they are finding an increase in bad chips by a factor of 10. If they can overcome those limitations, I think it is possible to deliver to the home consumer a machine that has the horsepower to do Pixar level graphics that is easy to manipulate and render.  You'd still "build" scenery but with a mouse.

[wcfn100]

I suppose you'll next tell me my opinion is wrong.

 It's not the designers fault that the software is so limited.  It's no different than judging someones design ability based on what Shapeways produces.

As for the Pixar reference, yeah there is a parallel.  Look at it from the other way.  If Pixar had to create a movie that rendered at 15 frame a second, it would look like crap too.



Jason

[DKS]

As for the Pixar reference, yeah there is a parallel.  Look at it from the other way.  If Pixar had to create a movie that rendered at 15 frame a second, it would look like crap too.

Seriously? You think frame rate is the only variable affecting realism?

Houston, we have a problem...

(And lest you think I lack an understanding of this subject, I worked for a computer animation studio in Manhattan for a number of years. I do know what's what.)

[C855B]

Now that I think about it more, I remember Duncan McRee talking about this when he was attempting the battery/WiFi no wiring product he had developed and demo'd on Crag Bisgeir's layout on a Model RailCast show. I'd have to go back and find that one to remember exactly what the issues he was finding with mass producing it but part of it was regulations and the exact conditions you were describing,

Phil

Was this the NWSL "S-CAB" system? It's got a proprietary radio layer, not WiFi, so I wonder if the hubbub may have been about integrating off-the-shelf RF control components. The antenna on the hand-held throttle appears to be 900 MHz, which would be consistent with the prototyping system I'm thinking of. The S-CAB control protocol is DCC, and uses off-the-shelf DCC decoders.

There is a moderate selection of RF control integrator's bits for prototyping and low-quantity products like this, and they have the same sort of conditions for license-free operation - building blocks with integrated antenna and so on. I would think that WiFi at the chipset level would be easier in this regard, but, again, I haven't fiddled with board-level integrations in a long while and do not know the fine points of the current rules.

[conrail98]

Was this the NWSL "S-CAB" system? It's got a proprietary radio layer, not WiFi, so I wonder if the hubbub may have been about integrating off-the-shelf RF control components. The antenna on the hand-held throttle appears to be 900 MHz, which would be consistent with the prototyping system I'm thinking of. The S-CAB control protocol is DCC, and uses off-the-shelf DCC decoders.

I don't think so. This was something from Tam Valley Depot. Here's is a link I found to it:

http://www.tamvalleydepot.com/products/drs1wirelessdcc.html

Notice that FCC approval has not been received and it's all considered "experimental" so I'm guessing it is needed and the process costs too much,

Phil

[C855B]

I don't think so. This was something from Tam Valley Depot. Here's is a link I found to it:

http://www.tamvalleydepot.com/products/drs1wirelessdcc.html

Notice that FCC approval has not been received and it's all considered "experimental" so I'm guessing it is needed and the process costs too much,

Phil

Dr. McRee. Tam Valley. Duh.   (Thanks!  )

Yes, the FCC process is costly. Last time I had to pursue this was, again, a number of years ago, and at that time it was $25-30K to pay one of the approved certifiers to run the gauntlet. However, I am surprised that the rules are such that it requires certification. Looking at the product pix on the Tam Valley page, that these are the exact thing I was talking about, off-the-shelf pre-integrated RF modules, slap 'em on your board, done. That the finished "consumer" product requires re-certification - that's nuts.

Of course there's another out... require a ham license. The test takes a little bit of study on the "rules and regs" section, but the basic electronics parts would be a breeze for many MRRs. Any way, for Dr. McRee's system, the 900 MHz band is an Amateur frequency range. And so is 2.4 GHz, both ranges shared with a lot of other stuff. Like WiFi.

[Scottl]

FCC and similar certifications are yet another barrier to products in small niche markets.   Necessary, perhaps, but a reality.

I don't think a product that requires a ham licence will go anywhere, and I get the sense that electronics/wiring savvy modelers are a minority rather than the norm. 

[C855B]

I suppose that was mostly tongue-in-cheek, Scott, with maybe a twinge of "...if you really wanted to you could."

Yes, the certification requirements are a barrier. The FCC used to better accommodate that, in fact, the process used to be nearly free, just application fees. But like most gov't regulatory bodies these days, at the administrative levels they are dominated by industry insiders with big companies pulling the strings.

[Scottl]

Well, based on my experience, you can make electronics of all types in Asia and sell them on Ebay to avoid any FCC and related certifications.  Not always stuff you want to plug into the wall 

[robert3985]

I've thought about this on and off over the years.  It's pretty plain that DCC is not cutting edge, but it gets the job done pretty well.

There's an alternative (maybe more than one) to DCC which several of my N-scale friends use, which is Rail Lynx.  My train-buddy Gregg Cudworth runs his Rail Lynx equipped engines on our DCC layout at the shows, and they run great, with signals generated by the hand-held throttle in IR and line-of-site control.  Only real problem is hiding the IR receiver in your engine, which Gregg does by putting it inside the cab on his diesels or on his Nn3 engines, under a load of coal in the tender.

A few years back, I was on the operating crew of Lee Nicholas' HO Utah Colorado Western, which is controlled with Rail Lynx.  Everything runs great, with IR repeaters in tunnels and places where the engines have a tendency to get out of line-of-sight.

Last year, Lee brought an AB lashup of F-units in HO to the Hostler's Train Show at the Ogden Union Station which were battery powered and controlled by his Rail Lynx throttle/controller.  Some of the old farts in the club didn't believe that his F's were completely self contained, so Lee took them off the club layout, put them on the floor and ran them.  I was laughing so hard!!

So, I believe the next big step is going to come when battery technology catches up the rest of the electronics world as far as miniaturization is concerned.  I keep hearing this blurb on the radio about a new battery technology (3D-something) that would allow a battery the size of a cell-phone battery to be able to start a car, and charge back up in only a few seconds...without being extremely hot.  When I first heard it, I thought..."Wow!  Something like that would be great for making model trains self contained!"  Upon further thought, it'd also make for the possibility more prototypical operation in several areas that we consider "normal" nowadays.

It'd also satisfy my rivet-counter tendencies and allow a much higher level of detail on track, with trains running on non-conductive, super-detailed track made of plastic.  All the wiring underneath would disappear as far as powering track is concerned or "juicing" frogs since all that unprototypical  stuff like gaps, feeders, worrying about "DCC friendly" or "unfriendly" turnouts would be obsolete.

Control of your train could be accomplished either with a simple hand-held transceiver, or a central transceiver for signaling, train detection, CTC, computer running might be the ticket...I don't know.

The advantages of not having to get power from the rails are many and we're almost there technology-wise.  As soon as the new battery technology becomes more general knowledge, I'm sure it won't take long for enterprising individuals to start running their HO, N and Z scale trains with on-board battery power...and DCC as we know it today, will have to change to something more advanced.