# Airwire or Crest



## ewaldbee (Jan 5, 2009)

Just starting a conversion from track power to battery. Any suggestions as to which controller I should look at? Airwire 5000 or the Crest Train Engineer are two options. Perhaps there are others. I will be installing in a LGB F7 My LGB F7 has sound in the B unit so I don't think I'll need to get an additional sound system at this time. 


Thanks, Ewald


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Loaded question. You will find that most everyone has their favorite and corresponding opinions which can get a little heated at times. If you can somehow arrange a visit or two with people who operate with different systems then you can form your own opinion as to what is best for you.


----------



## Treeman (Jan 6, 2008)

What do you want for sound, if any. The Crest comes with a generic sound file. The AW is often hooked to Phoenix, this will give you better sound files and many options, it will be at a higher cost. You can use Phoenix with the Crest, but you will loose the cost advantage.


----------



## Doug C (Jan 14, 2008)

Ewald; 

Regards Crest offering, some of the webpages I referenced before purchase and during install of my recent acquisition.

David Bodnar's review;
http://www.trainelectronics.com/ART5700TrainEngineerRevolution/RevoWithSound/index.htm

Paul Norton's real world install descriptions (and tips); 
ex.  http://ovgrs.org/the-trains/radio-control-train-engineer-systems/
found under; 
http://ovgrs.org/the-trains/


Although I personally don't recall seeing any mention of install into LGB locos ...in my surfing the 'net, maybe Paul has done something for a member of their club. As I did notice on a recent (ovgrs member) blog, pics of a ICE (?) consist that may have had Crest/Revo installed. 


Good luck.


doug c

p.s. my application, still (only) track powered as of today.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

I mostly run track power, but I have, converted 7 engines to battery and RC. The first one converted was a K28. At the time I was asked if I would ever want a unit that could support more engines. I said no and I now have an air wire unit that controls a single engine. Later I decided to convert some other engines to battery and RC. Largely so I could run as a guest on layouts without track power. Over the years, Stan Cedarleaf helped me install Aristo's revolution in 6 additional engines.

Actually, the remote and battery were installed in box cars. Three standard gauge (1:29) streamers (USAT Hudson, accucraft mallet and mogul) are run from a single box car containing the battery and receiver/control card. I also have a Bachmann K-27 that is controlled from a trailing box car. All of these engines already had sound. None are using an aristo sound card. A modelT sound card was added to the geese. 

The remaining two are geese. One is an Accucraft #2 and the other is a modified Delton Doozie. Both of these have the battery, receiver and sound in the engine. 

It is easy to toggle through the units to get the correct unit on the REVO.

I like having six engines on one controller, actually, two box cars and two geese.

I'm happy with the Revolution and the Airwire, they both work as intended. 

Find some locals and try both, get some hands on experience. It may come down to which one feels better in your hand.

Chuck


----------



## ewaldbee (Jan 5, 2009)

Doug C said:


> Ewald;
> 
> Regards Crest offering, some of the webpages I referenced before purchase and during install of my recent acquisition.
> 
> ...


Thanks Doug
Lots of information on those reviews. I will reference them often. Taking my time on this decision as I watch the snow fall here in Minnesota.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Unless you want all the functions of DCC, I think you can boil this down to cost/budget and if you are happy with the Crest sound.

The Crest system has a lot of capability (I know I helped beta test and helped define the functions).... but is limited, and the sound is not outstanding. Adding extra sound decoders seems the wrong thing to do with the crest system, I'd go Airwire which frees you to choose more options, but it costs more.

Like Chuck said, you need to hear these in person and operate them.

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I use both, and would heartily recommend either. Actually, I'd recommend both, since many folks like to have multiple transmitters for multiple operators, and that way you maximize your options for operation (and hedge your bets against supply issues). Anyway, since I use both, here are my thoughts on the two systems:

The Crest system is going to be suitable for probably 90% of all garden railroaders. It gives you smooth motor control, control over 6 functions (sounds, lights, smoke, etc), and you can do basic consisting of up to 6 locomotives. You can also buy accessory/switch receivers for the transmitter if you were to want to control them remotely. The menu is in plain English, and programming the locomotives is pretty simple. The receiver interfaces well with 3rd-party sound systems from Phoenix, Dallee, and MyLocoSound. The decoders come with sound as well, but compared to these other systems, it's pretty marginal. The range on the transmitters is fantastic (100+' outdoors easily) and you've got an on-screen display telling you whether or not the transmitter and receiver are in communication with each other. The decoders are fairly small, and can easily fit in most locomotives.

On the down side, the "plug-and-play" receiver isn't always truly "plug-and-play" with all locomotives. For instance, when you plug the receiver into a Bachmann locomotive, the receiver does not send the power from the batteries forward to the locomotive for things like lights and smoke, so you've got to solder jumper wires on the socket in the tender of the loco to get those things to power up. Lighting functions are on/off. There is no capacity for hooking up flashing ditch lights, etc directly from the receiver without a separate lighting control board (which you _could _turn on and off). If you're running two locomotives, speed matching not as precise as with DCC. The function trigger pulses are "long," so getting a short "toot" from the whistle of the sound system may not be possible on many systems. There's only one size of receiver, so whether you're installing it in a cavernous modern diesel or a tiny Porter 0-4-0, the space it takes up will be the same.

The Airwire system in terms of battery R/C is the most full-featured system. Airwire's motor control is excellent, and it has a "cruise control" feature which will hold the speed of your locomotive steady regardless of the grade or drag on the train. Their receivers have the capacity to handle pretty much any locomotive on the market. Their current production boards offer light and smoke control in addition to motor control, and also have a 2.5-amp capacity DCC booster output to interface with a DCC sound system (Phoenix) and/or additional lighting function decoders. Airwire makes "drop-in" boards for many popular locomotives, or you can use their generic G3 motor/sound receiver.

Airwire also makes the "Convertr" receiver, which is just a receiver which then outputs a standard DCC signal that is compatible with any DCC motor/sound decoder. The "Convertr" by itself is capable of handling 2.5 amps, which is adequate for many small to medium locomotives, and can be paired with a Tam Valley Depot booster to give you 3 amps continuous (5 amps peak) capacity for the larger ones. This allows you to use your Airwire transmitter to control a wide array of motor/sound decoders from any of the DCC decoder manufacturers. The transmitter is also compatible with Tam Valley Depot's receiver, which has the same 3 amp/5 amp capacity as their booster. If you're into (literally) bells and whistles, and other high-end control aspects, then you'd be well served to go with the Airwire system. With these combinations, you can tailor your specific choice of receiver and decoder to fit the locomotive you're working on. If it's a small locomotive, you can use smaller decoders designed for HO and O scales, which take up very little space. 

On the downside with Airwire, it uses the DCC protocol, so you've got to understand DCC programming to fine-tune the performance of your decoder. This isn't quite a "black art," but it definitely takes some getting used to, and you'll want to keep the manuals handy. Their T-5000 transmitter makes programming the easiest it has been, but it's still driven by a need to know which CVs (Control Variables) control which aspects. The range with the Airwire throttles is a little more spotty as well. I can usually get around 50' with most installations, but the reception patterns are seldom circular, and there may be "deaf spots" where your range is very short. Also, there is no "emergency stop" button on the Airwire transmitters. When you hit the "stop" button or turn the knob to zero, the locomotive will slow down to a stop in accordance with how much momentum you have programmed into the decoder. If you don't use momentum, your trains will stop pretty quickly. If you do, then expect your train to decelerate based on the value you have programmed, and not a moment sooner. While prototypical to see your train heading off the end of a siding because you threw the switch the wrong way, it's not always the most desirable. 

As I wrote above, I'm not a big fan of putting all of my eggs in one basket, and I like having flexibility with regard to cost and components when looking at installations in my locomotives. For me, I will usually choose the sound system for a locomotive first, then determine which control system I'll need to control it. 

Later,

K


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

The original post was for the LGB F7AB unit and the B unit has great sound and has reed switches for bell and whistle control from track magnets plus the speed sensor is on the axle in the B unit. When converting the A unit to Battery, all you lose in the B unit is the startup direction toots.
You can activate the bell and whistle sounds with a relay from a function key and here the airwire has more power for relays as the crest is limited to 10ma on the outputs.


----------



## ewaldbee (Jan 5, 2009)

East Broad Top said:


> I use both, and would heartily recommend either. Actually, I'd recommend both, since many folks like to have multiple transmitters for multiple operators, and that way you maximize your options for operation (and hedge your bets against supply issues). Anyway, since I use both, here are my thoughts on the two systems:
> 
> The Crest system is going to be suitable for probably 90% of all garden railroaders. It gives you smooth motor control, control over 6 functions (sounds, lights, smoke, etc), and you can do basic consisting of up to 6 locomotives. You can also buy accessory/switch receivers for the transmitter if you were to want to control them remotely. The menu is in plain English, and programming the locomotives is pretty simple. The receiver interfaces well with 3rd-party sound systems from Phoenix, Dallee, and MyLocoSound. The decoders come with sound as well, but compared to these other systems, it's pretty marginal. The range on the transmitters is fantastic (100+' outdoors easily) and you've got an on-screen display telling you whether or not the transmitter and receiver are in communication with each other. The decoders are fairly small, and can easily fit in most locomotives.
> 
> ...


 Why cant things just be simple. I didn't think my garden railroad would be more complicated than my day job. When your just getting into this hobby it's hard to know what your future needs will be.What fits my needs now will surely change down the road. Your response was very helpful and gives me additional information that I need to process. 
At this point my idea is to build something my grand kids can enjoy and hopefully help with. They wouldn't be too concerned with the correct diesel sound or the lighting options. If I went with Crest I could always add a Phoenix system later.
If I go with Crest would their sound system interfere with the sound card built into my LGB F7 B unit? 
Thanks again, Ewald


----------



## rntfrmme (May 23, 2013)

As a relative newbie (less than 2 years experience) I did a lot of research on various systems. I knew nothing about programing and all the pitfalls that went with it. My first locomotive had an airwire drop in board with batteries that was discovered inside when it wouldn't run on track power. Having already decided airwire might be a good way to go I bought the controller. After much trial and error (mostly the operators learning curve) I figured it out and now like it very much. My suggestion is to read the instructions thoroughly and then start the programming and setup which is actually pretty straight forward if you go with the airwire system. I would recommend it and this is from a beginners point of view.

Bill


----------



## Doug C (Jan 14, 2008)

"...If I go with Crest would their sound system interfere with the sound card built into my LGB F7 B unit? Thanks again, Ewald..."


Hmmm not sure if receiver overrides the LGB board sound functions. But i do know, if you don't plug in the supplied spkr wire to the receiver and correspondingly into the spkr plug on the loco's pcb board --- no sound (that is within the Aristo' p n'p SD-45) 

The 'fix' I acquired reading thru Paul N's gp-40 real world install write-up  

doug c


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

I think that the revolution sound is a separate unit that unplugs and does not interfere. I'm using the REVO controller with a separate sound card in both of my RGS geese. I'm using a Model T sound card, without any problems "ooga-ooga ding ding".

I think that if you like the LGB, I'd recommend putting the REVO in A unit and powering the sound in the B from the power going to the motor. You want the motor sound to ratchet up and down with changes in voltage.

Chuck


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The Revolution sound is built into the decoder itself, but if you don't want to hear it, you simply don't wire the speaker to the decoder. 

If you wanted the LGB sound, you'd just connect the motor output of the Revolution to the track power inputs that would otherwise have come from the rails in the F7. The only caveat is that some LGB sound systems don't like pulse-width-modulation voltage, so you may need a PWM-Linear converter. Crest has these listed on their web site for less than $20 if I recall.

Later,

K


----------



## ewaldbee (Jan 5, 2009)

*Rail Boss*

I came across a forum tonight that included the G Scale Graphics Rail Boss as an option for train control. It does't appear to be as sophisticated as Airwire or Crest however it might be adequate for my first conversion. I would appreciate any comments on the Rail Boss products.

Ewald


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

I use the Rail Boss 4 in several engines and battery cars. Simple to use and you can add sound systems. I like the basic system he now sells also, MyLocoSound. It has been improved also from the older versions I have. Just basic sound, nothing fancy. You can only run one engine at a time with a control, it can be slaved to run all your engines that have the Rail Boss Rx in them, but if you want to run two, you'd have to have two controllers, unless he plans some upgrade. For a simple/reliable/low cost system it is hard to beat.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Now other brands have been mentioned perhaps you might like to consider my RCS equipment.
Good, reliable and value for money.


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

Again I will mention that the LGB F7B unit only needs battery input power to operate as the speed sensor is electronic sensor on the axle in the F7B unit.
There is a bell and whistle reed sensor that can be activated by track magnets or have them wired to the receiver of choice and control them by a function key. Center wire is common/ground and outer wires just need the common connection to operate the sound and this can be done by a relay.


----------



## Bruce Chandler (Jan 2, 2008)

Although I have converted everything of mine to the Crest Revolution system, I would have a very hard time recommending them today. When it appeared that I had lost a transmitter, I did a search and nobody had them in stock - unless I bought them with a bunch of receivers. They've been promising downloadable sounds (any day now) for years.
I can't predict the future, but it just doesn't seem very rosy for the Revolution.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The danger with a proprietary system is that it is single source. If Crest goes out of business you are in deep kimchee.

I agree with Bruce, in that where are the downloadable sounds? The sound systems are not that sophisticated, and neither are their sound files. With also making an HO system, you would think that Crest has had the resources over the years to make this happen.

The fact that it has not, and there is no news from the owner of Crest on the future is troubling. 

If it met my needs, and I could buy every decoder and transmitter I would need into the future now and with a few spares, that might make sense.

If I was buying some now and then intended to buy a lot more in the future, I would worry.

Greg

p.s. realize this is a system with the capability of a "junior DCC" system... For people who always have a matched transmitter to a single receiver, then you don't have a system. Look at the people who just have direction, speed, bell, whistle... even if the dedicated throttles are a little different, it does not matter much, they are not part of a system.


----------



## Homo Habilis (Jul 29, 2011)

*Satisfied RailBoss 4 User*

I use the RailBoss 4 exclusively and am quite satisfied. My railroad is indoors and I do not have sound. Before choosing which system to standardize on I made a list of requirements. This helped me determine which of the available manufactures and systems that would meet my needs.

Del Tapparo, the owner of G Scale Graphics, has been exemplary to deal with. I have 7 receivers with 3 transmitters and have had one failure. It was apparently caused by the Shay that it was installed in and a loss of contact through the motor to wheel contact method that I used for connection. He not only helped diagnose the problem but replaced the apparently compromised receiver at no cost. I have since converted all of my engines to direct wiring instead of using the rather unreliable Bachmann method between the trucks and the motor.

I will agree with others that a downside to this system is that it is proprietary. However, they have proven to be extremely reliable and have more capability than I actually need or expect to ever use. Reading this and other forums about the myriad of DCC issues I felt that that was not where I wanted to focus my leisure time and money. So far I have not regretted my decision one bit.

As they say, your mileage may vary!


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

As I stated in my ps, if you want an expandable SYSTEM where all the components interoperate, then you probably should stay away from a proprietary system.

But I have observed in the R/C community that many people do not mind having a permanent pairing of the transmitter to a locomotive.

The fact that Del's products can interoperate is a bonus, but I suspect that this is not a primary feature you bought the system for.

So if you can have a very inexpensive system, and interoperation between different transmitters and locos is not a requirement, then it's not a big deal.

I visited TOC a while back, he says: here's a loco and here's the remote for it. Works.

Greg


----------



## Homo Habilis (Jul 29, 2011)

For what it's worth, the RailBoss 4 transmitter/receiver pairing is not "a permanent pairing" and you can very quickly pair a receiver with a transmitter by pressing a button on each. Obviously it's not how one would normally wish to operate, but I did not want the impression to be left that it was permanent.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think Del has made that clear, but I guess it's worth repeating.

Remember this thread was about AirWire vs. Crest.

The level of capability pretty much does not include the Railboss stuff.

Greg


----------



## ewaldbee (Jan 5, 2009)

When I started this thread I did title it Airewire or Crest. Those were the only two that I was familiar with at the time. But I wanted to leave it open to any others that were viable. I have learned that there are many levels of sophistication in these systems and deciding which avenue to follow is a personal choice based on their wants and needs. I really appreciate all the comments and have learned much just reading and rereading them.
Ewald


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yeah, you might want to take a step back and determine what features you want. The hardest thing is making the right decision for the future.

Have you been able to join a local club yet?

Greg


----------



## Homo Habilis (Jul 29, 2011)

Greg:

I was responding directly to Ewald's Rail Boss query as he has later pointed out.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Sorry after 27 posts, most people assume you are referencing the latest posts... especially if the post right before yours applies to your response...

Greg


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

Not to derail this thread but I went to DCC and selected a system that could use a 4 digit engine selection number. SO Christmas engine is the date 1225, other engines are the last 4 digits on the side. Now there is no special 'cheat' list needed for the engiine number and I have over 20 with decoders.
This would make me pick airwire over the crest and the airwire can drive real lamps without current limiting resistors plus no added smoke control board needed either.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I do the same thing as Dan, and if there is a 3 digit loco, just add a zero to the end.

Works 99% of the time, and also helps with my Santa Fe F unit consists, since they were numberer 200L, 200A, 200B, 200C for example... so I use 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003...

I have about 40 DCC locos or so... and I can give a controller to a 5 year old, show him how to enter a loco number (digits and enter), and he can go find a loco, look at it, and run it...

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

One thing to consider with the Airwire system; there are two components. There's the loco address (most commonly the road number), but also there are also 17 frequencies that the transmitter can broadcast on. If you're typically a lone operator, you're likely to pick one of the 17 channels and just use that for everything. If you often operate with multiple operators, then you'll want each of the transmitters to be operating on a separate frequency to avoid interference. In that situation, you'll need some identifier or system for remembering which loco is on which frequency. With the latest receivers, you can change that via a CV setting, but you've got to remember which frequency the receiver is programmed for in the first place. 

With regard to the Revolution and how it addresses locos, for all intents and purposes, you also do it by road number. Each locomotive has a unique 2-digit loco ID, called a "Link Address." This may or may not have any relationship to the loco itself. That number is largely transparent. When you program that link address, you give it a road name and road number to go along with it. When you go to assign a cab to a given link address, you see the road name. When you're done programming the transmitter and go to scroll through the locos you have programmed, you see the road name and the road number at the top of the screen. Selecting the locomotive is simply a matter of scrolling through the locos until you get to the one you wish to control.

In practice, when you've got 30+ locos on your roster, simply entering the road number is quicker than scrolling back and forth until you find the proper one. However, if you've only got 10 or so locos, it's very quick to find the loco you need to control. Using both systems, that's not really an aspect I would give any preference one way or the other to. 

Later,

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Let me reformat that a bit more succinctly:

1. You control the loco by cab number. You assign a loco to the cab.

2. You cannot select a loco and run it, it must be assigned to a cab first.

So, it's actually a bit of a pain in the butt if you have more locos than cabs available, and also the cab numbers cannot be 4 digits, i.e. easily map to the actual loco number.

It's a mess. It exists because of, believe it or not, a response to my beta testing and others... consisting required the addition of the cab feature, to be able to group locos together. It's not implemented the way I suggested, which paralleled the already successful DCC.

(The original consisting required you to push a button connected to the receiver to change the addresses to consist multiple locos.)


Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The cab number on the Revolution represents a place in line, nothing more. It makes no difference that the cab number doesn't have 4 digits. It's the description assigned to each specific receiver that's important, and you can make that whatever you want it to be--including a 4-digit road number. There are up to 50 slots available for control on the Revolution. The cab number merely tells you which of those slots you're looking at. 

Here's an analogy of how addressing works with the Revolution.

You've got a stack of 50 blank index cards. These are akin to the "Link Address" the Revolution uses to identify each specific receiver. Now, take a card from the stack. It doesn't really matter which one; you can just start at the top and work your way down. Next, take the first locomotive off of your shelf. On the index card, write the road name, type of locomotive, and road number. Set the index card aside. Now, grab another index card, and the 2nd locomotive off of the shelf. Write its road name, type of locomotive, and road number on that card. Do this for each subsequent locomotive on your shelf. When you're done, you've got a stack of index cards that describe each locomotive on your roster by its road name, number, and type of locomotive. From this point on, that's how you identify and sort the cards--by the information you wrote on them. It doesn't matter which order they came off the stack. The critical information is that which you wrote on the card. 

Now, imagine you've got a board with 50 clips on it. These are the "cabs" on the Revolution. The only way to control a locomotive is to put its card on one of these clips. You must start at the first clip and fill sequentially. You don't need to fill all 50; you can use only as many as you have cards to fill them. 

Take your index cards, and determine how you want to order them. You can arrange them any way you please; numerically by road number, alphabetically by road name, it makes no difference. Once sorted as you want them, take the first card on the stack and clip it to the first clip. Take the 2nd card and put it on the 2nd clip, and so on down the line. When you look at the clips, all you see are cards with the information you wrote down, in the order you wish them to be sorted. 

So, on the Revolution, the cab number itself is irrelevant. Cab 0 (it starts at 0, not 1) is simply the loco at the top of your sorting list. Cab 1 is the next, and so on down the line. When you scroll through the list of available locomotives, you see them displayed on the screen by the road name, number, and type that you entered into the system when you programmed each specific decoder. 

If you want to run Pennsy FA-1 #1234, then you just scroll through until you see "PRR FA-1 1234" on the display screen. If you want to switch to B&O 0-4-0 #4321, you just scroll through until you get to "B&O 0-4-0 4321" on the display. If you have your locos sorted by road number, then you know 4321 is greater than 1234, so you scroll to the right. If you have your locos sorted by road name, B comes before P, so you scroll to the left. The amount of scrolling you have to do is dependent on the number of cabs you have turned on, which is likely equal to the number of receivers you actually have programmed, or maybe a few more if you have some MU cabs thrown into the mix for consisting multiple locos together (up to 6 in one consist). 

All of this is done only once, at the very beginning when you first program a receiver. Once the receiver is linked to the transmitter and assigned a position on the queue (cab number), you never have to revisit it again. It's programmed and in the system ready to be used. You just turn on the transmitter, turn on the loco, and scroll until you get to that specific loco. The screen will show "Link OK" if it's communicating with the receiver, and you're ready to go. 

(Obviously, as you add locos to your roster, you have the option of re-ordering them to accommodate the new loco, or just put the new addition at the rear of the queue until such time that you've expanded so much that your list is complete chaos and needs to be re-ordered.) 

No doubt it can be a bit confusing at first glance, but once you see how things relate to one another, it's a very simple way to do business. The Revolution does not allow you to simply punch in the address of a specific decoder you want to control the way DCC does. Some view that as a limitation, but there's nothing illogical about simply scrolling through a list to find the loco you want to control instead. 

It bears mentioning that modern DCC systems store the most recent locomotives used in a "recall" memory that can be accessed via scrolling through them in similar fashion to hitting the left or right keys on the Revolution controller. This eliminates the need to enter the specific address of a locomotive; instead you just scroll to it. You can build lists in that memory by selecting specific locomotives in a specific order--very similar to assigning Link Addresses to Cab Numbers in a specific order on the Revolution. The number of locos in this "recall" memory and their permanence vary by system. 

Bottom line, there's more similar than not between the Airwire and Revolution systems when it comes to addressing and selecting the locomotives. I've been using both protocols for the past 5 years, and there's no clear advantage one way or the other. I like them both. Selecting a loco by hitting "Loco>1>2>3>4>Enter" is no more or less intuitive than scrolling through a list of available locos to find the screen that displays "1234" as the road number of the locomotive. They're merely different paths to the same destination. The scenery may be slightly different, but the paths themselves are no more or less difficult than the other. 

Later,

K


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

I agree with others in that both the Crest and Airwire systems have a lot to offer. The main problem I personally had with Airwire was the range. I could not control my engines at the other end of my layout. The Crest Revolution has a much longer distance where it still controls all functions. For me, that was a deal breaker for the Airwire system.

Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, a pretty long winded answer but the fact still remains:
*
You cannot easily enter the loco number to run a locomotive. 

You must enter a cab number, unrelated to the loco number, or scroll through the list of cabs.

You cannot have 4 digit cab numbers, and you cannot have as many cabs as locos.
* 
Not as user friendly as just using the 4 digit loco number on the cab to pull up the loco.

DCC wins here by far.

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, "user friendly" is obviously a matter of personal preference. It's clear from your earlier post where you lamented Aristo not listening to your suggestions on how to structure things that you feel it inferior. 

As for me, I came into using both protocols at the same time, coming from a "one transmitter - one receiver" world. As such, I simply adapted to both ways of doing business, finding neither any more advantageous than the other. Different strokes for different folks.

In terms of the capacity of the system, it can handle 50 individual receivers. You said earlier you've got 40 locomotives, so you'd still be within the capacity of the transmitter. I've been in the hobby nearly 40 years, I've got nowhere near 40 locos. Suffice to say it'd likely suit my needs for quite some time to come. (Again, different strokes...) 

Later,

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

No, it's clearly more difficult to use when you have to deal both with loco ID's and Cab Id's.

Yes I know you come from the 1:1 r/c world, but the Crest system has advantages mostly when you have multiple locos, or use one transmitter on several locos.

It's just a poor compromise where it could have been done so much better... simply using 4 digit cab numbers and allowing 4 digit loco numbers would have been a huge improvement, and since it is a recently designed system, there is no reasonable rationale why this could not have been done... the microprocessor could have easily handled it, and it's no big deal in terms of system memory.

So for one or for 40 locos, it could have been done in a more straightforward fashion and been a much better system. Aristo not listening to not only my but other's suggestions is indicative of being driven by the wrong voices.

So, inferior is not the word, underdeveloped, poorly designed, not easy to understand, not as user friendly as it could be.

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, "user friendliness" is in the eye of the beholder. What you term "clearly more difficult" is to me very simple and straightforward. There is no right or wrong there. People's brains work differently, and our perspectives differ greatly.

You wanted the Revolution to be very DCC-esque, because you are very familiar with DCC. When the Revolution wasn't, you wrote it off. 

Like you, I was also a beta tester of the Revolution system. The difference between yours and my experiences was that I was coming to this system being unfamiliar with DCC, but seeing this system as being a quantum leap over the older R/C systems I had been using. Because I was learning the Revolution _and _DCC at the same time, I had a very different view on what constituted "user-friendliness" and which protocol had advantages. 

So, given two different people with two different perspectives, it should shock absolutely no one that we come to hold two different opinions on how the systems compare.

Later,

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

No, user friendliness can be quantified... how do you think software developers evaluate their work.

(By the way I did not write off the Revolution, STOP putting words in my mouth, I have recommended it numerous times, this comes before the time you became an "expert" in DCC or user interfaces... remember what I have done in my career and the formal training I have vs. what you do in your career and your formal training)

One measure is the "depth of menus" that need to be traversed.

Another is the number of levels of indirection when identifying something to work with (the cab and loco id problem)

Another is the number of choices presented to the user at any one time.

Another is consistency of the "commands", for example whether a command needs to be terminated, or activates immediately.

So, designing user interfaces is a science, well understood, and not just something that is not quantifiable.

I know you won't like this post, but there is a science to this, and your constant "contrarian" posts need to be backed with facts.

The fact that you can adapt to the Revolution user interface and you are fine with it is great for you. It's an inconsistent interface that could have been much simpler with the same end user cost.

Greg

p.s. STOP trying to brush off facts with personal innuendo or assumptions. I did not want the Revo to be DCC like, they were trying to solve a problem and did it poorly and DCC was an example of where it is easy. They could not come up with a good solution on their own.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Finis.

K


----------



## k225 (Aug 20, 2014)

Interesting discussion, I have used the Crest Revolution from the start so have no experience with any other system. I only have nine engines set up but understand how Greg's suggestion of being able to access by cab number would be useful. Having to scroll through to find an engine gets tricky when operating two or more locomotives at the same time. For me the Crest unit works fine for my purposes and I would not hesitate to recommend it for someone starting out. Its benefit is in the price particularly when considering that you get sound included. Again it may not be the quality of sound for everyone but for me it works just fine. Another benefit for me is that it seems the unit of choice for our club members so there is always someone around to offer support and advice.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)




----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg,

That video was beautiful! You could really sense the frustration of the user, in his voice.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I did read the manual first, I participated in many revisions of the specifications and the manuals before I ever had one. So if anything, I was an advanced user, and was looking to succeed. 

I've never published this video, but Kevin has a way of bringing out the best in me ha ha! Crest can thank Kevin for me making this video public, and I think I'll add a section on user interfaces to my site. 

Anyway, you can see right off the inconsistency of the user interface right away, on some screens enter does an "enter", other screens use different sequences to accept a setting.

You also see that the exit key does not always work. I have another video that was even more frustrating, where I throw the transmitter (gently).

Greg


----------



## k225 (Aug 20, 2014)

Certainly wasn't my experience with the Crest unit I found it very easy to setup right from the start, perhaps because I did have a background in RC boats etc.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Okay, I know I said I was done, but after watching your video, I may be able to shed some light on your frustrations, and hopefully help you out.

The "Assign Functions" menu you go to first in the video is where you describe the attributes of each receiver and link it to the hardware. You had obviously already done this with the transmitter and receiver since when you powered up the transmitter, it showed "SWITCHER" in the road name header, and "Link OK" in the status header on the bottom of the screen. The transmitter was communicating with the receiver. Unless this was someone else's system, I can only presume you were the one who set that up. That's pretty much the heart of the system, so if you were able to do that, there's not much more that's all that mysterious.

What it appears to me that you were doing was assigning a new link address to this particular receiver for the purposes of illustration. You set link address 01, and successfully paired the transmitter with the receiver on this new link address, using the name that had been programmed in, "FINETOP."

If, at that point, you were to back out of the menu to go to the main screen, you would still see "SWITCHER" in the road name header, but you would see "No Link" in the status header. Cab 0 (the cab you are on) is still looking to control the receiver called "SWITCHER." The receiver that was previously called "SWITCHER" has now been re-assigned to the address called "FINETOP." To control this receiver now, you've got to add a cab, which you begin to do at around the 2-minute mark in the video.

Here's where I think you derailed. When you enter the "Add MU/SU Cab" menu, it defaults to the cab you currently have selected. In the case of your example, it's cab 0, which is controlling "SWITCHER." When you scrolled to Cab 1 in the video (2:12 in), the name on the bottom of the screen changed to "FINETOP." _Stop right there!_ You were good to go! All you would have needed to do to control that receiver you just linked to would have been to back out to the main screen, then scrolled one step to the right to cab 1. You'd see "FINETOP" in the road name header, and "Link OK" in the status header, and could head on down the line. 

If you wanted to _change _cab 0 to control "FINETOP" instead of "SWITCHER," then you'd simply scroll down to where it says "SU" (single unit) and enter "01" or scroll until "FINETOP" appeared. Hit the "Menu" key to back out, and you'd be all set.

With respect to navigating the menus, the up and down arrow keys move you from line to line. The left and right arrow keys adjust the parameters of that line. That's consistent throughout the menu. The "Enter" key takes you from menu to sub-menu. You do not need to hit the enter key to save your parameter changes. The "Menu" key backs you out one level. 


Do with my advice what you will. I just saw in your video where I think you were over-thinking things, and thought I'd help out.

Later,

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

All your post has done for me is to reinforce that the artificial "middle step" causes confusion, and that being allowed to control locos by their ID makes a lot more sense.

I did not add the finetop name, but again underscores the extra confusion having the extra layer of addressing.

Too bad, it's just software, and could be improved, although the limitation of 50 and later 100 loco numbers is probably somewhere fixed in the hardware. 

The stop command having to try all available ID's is also a mess, but that goes further, the Revo cannot do this well ever, since there is no central controller that knows ALL locos in the "database".

It's not likely to be improved, since they have never done anything with the downloadable sounds. As was a fundamental problem in the original design, the amount of planning, design and work was underestimated, and the "fixes" have been more like bandaids than improvements.


Greg


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg,

When I went directly from track power to battery/Rc in 2007, I went to Airwire for both decoders and throttles and Phoenix for sound. This on the recommendation of Paul Burch (I've known for over 55 years) and trusted his judgement. I've never looked back! I had some troubles getting used to the menus because I had never been involved with DCC and some of the terminology. But with the guidance of Paul and Jonathan Bliese at EMW, I finally felt comfortable using the throttles. It was very easy to switch-over from my T9000 throttles to the T 5000's. My problem early on was addressing the decoder, setting the frequency and setting the cab number. What I find appealing on the Airwire throttles is having all the cab numbers in the throttle and changing them quickly during operations!

I never had any involvement with Crest.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg brought up the stop command on the Revolution. (Specifically, the "all stop" button which stops all locos being controlled by the controller.) Since we're comparing the Revolution to Airwire (as opposed to "traditional" track-powered DCC), it bears mentioning that while the Revolution's "all stop" button may take 40 seconds or so to send the stop command to all 50 cabs, it at least has the capability to do that. The Airwire system does not. If you're running Airwire where you're controlling multiple trains from one transmitter, there is no way to stop all the trains in the event of an emergency with the press of one button. (Airwire says they do not include an emergency stop feature for fear of damaging gears.) 

Even if you're running just one locomotive, the Airwire system will not allow you to do an emergency stop. The best you can do if you need to stop your loco quickly is hit the "stop" button which sends a "set speed = 0" command to the decoder. This does not immediately stop the motor. This tells the decoder that the throttle is now set to speed step 0, and to slow down subject to the deceleration setting (CV4, aka "momentum"). If you don't have much or any momentum dialed into the decoder, the loco comes to a quick halt. If you have a lot of momentum dialed in, you get to watch as your loco keeps rolling on its way to almost certain disaster as the motor slowly winds down in speed. While prototypical, this is the kind of thing we're trying to avoid when needing to hit the "stop NOW!!!" button. This is probably my biggest gripe with the Airwire system. 

Note also, that on the Revolution, the "all stop" feature is separate from the "stop" button. The "all stop" button (press and hold the "0" key) stops each receiver sequentially from cab 0 to the highest cab you have opened up. If you're running a locomotive set to cab 20, it's going to take about 15 seconds for your loco to get the stop command from the transmitter. The "stop" button sets the speed of the loco you're running to 0. Unlike the Airwire system, however, the decoder will stop almost immediately, ignoring the momentum settings. It's not instant (to help prevent gear damage) but pretty quick. 

Later,

K


----------



## ewaldbee (Jan 5, 2009)

*Rail Boss*



**** Habilis said:


> I use the RailBoss 4 exclusively and am quite satisfied. My railroad is indoors and I do not have sound. Before choosing which system to standardize on I made a list of requirements. This helped me determine which of the available manufactures and systems that would meet my needs.
> 
> Del Tapparo, the owner of G Scale Graphics, has been exemplary to deal with. I have 7 receivers with 3 transmitters and have had one failure. It was apparently caused by the Shay that it was installed in and a loss of contact through the motor to wheel contact method that I used for connection. He not only helped diagnose the problem but replaced the apparently compromised receiver at no cost. I have since converted all of my engines to direct wiring instead of using the rather unreliable Bachmann method between the trucks and the motor.
> 
> ...


I am glad to hear about your success and satisfaction with the Rail Boss unit. Initially I have only two locos to convert to battery power. For now I'll keep things simple and give the RailBoss a try. Down the road, if I want to upgrade, I always have that option.
Ewald


----------



## Homo Habilis (Jul 29, 2011)

Ewald:

Thanks for taking the time to follow up with your decision. There are others on this site that also use the RailBoss and they appear to be as equally satisfied as I am. I hope your experiences are similar.

Mark


----------



## TallyJulious (Apr 12, 2016)

In my case actually, the remote and battery were installed in box cars. Three standard gauge (1:29) streamers (USAT Hudson, accucraft mallet and mogul) are run from a single box car containing the battery and receiver/control card. I also have a Bachmann K-27 that is controlled from a trailing box car. All of these engines already had sound. None are using an aristo sound card. A modelT sound card was added to the geese.

bittele electronics


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Obviously Greg has as good point in his video and his comments that perhaps the logic in operating the Revolution could be improved. The only two systems I have used are the Revolution and the Airwire.

I can only say that when I received my first Revolution transmitter and receiver, with the help of the excellent manual, I had no trouble programming the transmitter to operate several locomotives including muing two together. On the other hand I had significant difficulty in starting up with the Airwire system. In addition to the fact that the Airwire would not control my locomotives on the opposite end of my railroad, I just had a hard time figuring out how to program the various functions. I suspect that if one is very familiar with DCC, the Airwire would be easier to set up than it was for me.

I just base my preference for the Revolution on the ease with which I (and I emphasize the I) set up the system. This has continued over the years that I have used the Revolution, in that it continues to feel logical and easy for me to use.

Ed Headington


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The 900MHz band used by the early remote systems typically had some range difficulties in certain cases.

The 2.4GHz Zigbee like the Revolution and my new Zimo are designed to work in higher interference cases and the FCC has looked more favorably on the power that can be used.

Greg


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

I program DCC engines and switches all the time and when installing the airwire the first time I found it easy to do.
Biggest issue with programing is not being able to read out previous values, hence I call it blind programming.


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

I agree, Greg. That is what I reasoned the cause of my poor distance control in my AIrwire was due to. I believe all of the AIrwire models use 900 Khz, don't they??

Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes, they are at 900MHz, but it's not the frequency, but the transmission protocol, modulation technique and power levels involved.

Most of the 2.4 GHz systems are just more modern.

Greg


----------

