# WiFi for RC



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

I've been interested in the feasibility of using WiFi for RC train operations. So far there is no official system for trains to remote control trains via WiFi. 

Controlling trains and devices via WiFi has huge advantages. Some of them being: 
- no sound cards needed. Sounds can be streamed from the controller to the locomotive.
- Live video can be shown from devices on trains or around the layout.
- Trains can send and receive data like speed, battery voltage and whatever you may need.
- A wide range of devices can be used to control the trains, from computers inside the house to iPods, to smart phones, to video game controllers.
- Custom interfaces can be built tailored to the style of each driver. For smart phones this is just HTML, so interfaces can be easily created.
- There are many other benefits to using a widely available and widely accepted method for wireless communication. 

However after some searching I have found hardware that can be used to control trains very easily using WiFi.

The first RC/WiFi system that I found is: WiRC by Dension ( http://wirc.dension.com/)
This system is made for RC cars and some sort of WiFi enabled device. It can support camera feeds, and has audio in/out. I contacted the company and the one major drawback is that they can only control one device at a time. From the demo videos it looks like switching to control a different device would take too long for multiple train operation. This limitation is in the way the device is connected to, people did not think that someone may want to control more than device at once.

The second option isn't WiFi but is still has the same benefits. The second option uses robotics 2.4 GHZ controllers to allow computers to control hardware. The hardware to do this is less expensive than anything available for trains. The benefit of this method would be that using a central controlling computer WiFi devices could be used to control anything on the layout. Take a look at Pololu ( http://www.pololu.com/catalog/category/91 ). Note - Controlling robotics is very similar to Trains with one exception... Robotics often give the user detailed feedback and may require much more fine tuned control than a train.

I also found the WiFi RC helicopter. The WiFi interface could be used for trains. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjLeGSTDDbc ) 

In conclusion. WiFi is starting to become available for trains at reasonable costs. The current systems are not made for controlling trains so they are designed for a single device in mind not hundreds. However, thousands are possible just not realistic with the current implementations. More complicated solutions are available but are far from plug and play. They would most likely require some major research and programming. However the price for these fully programmable modules are very low! WiFi is here for trains, sort of... It will be interesting to see how RC for trains with WiFi progresses...












http://wirc.dension.com/ 



http://wirc.dension.com/


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

One downside of your plan is that you don't have any modification to the sounds in the loco based on the actual load on the loco, or the actual speed. One of the recently popular developments is reading the back emf of the motor which directly translates to load and making the sounds louder/different under load... my DCC stuff labors under load, and drifts when coasting. 

Also, you do not have the ability to synchronize the chuffing of the loco sound, nor the puffing of the smoke. 

Just a few tips on what you cannot do. 

Have fun experimenting! 

Greg


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

WiFi has the capability to send data both directions. I know I have not and will not think of everything everyone needs. When done properly the wireless communication platform should be flexible enough to accommodate any need that arises. Solving issues could then be done in software rather then hardware. At least that is the desired goal. Will it ever get to that point I don't know... 

If the wireless setup allows for two way communication the sounds can be adjusted for load and motor speed. Depending on the hardware this could also be done on board with cached sounds. 

Everything is also easier on paper than in real life...


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

I've been interested in the feasibility of using WiFi for RC train operations 
I have a strong suspicion that the advent of 2.4Ghz r/c tx/rx combos for aircraft and live steam engines (and now for electric ones too) has a lot to do with cheap integrated WiFi chips that include the radio on the silicon. 

Anyone know what a WiFi chip looks like?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I think to start, you could build a WiFi interface that works similar to how JMRI (Java Model Railroad Interface) on a computer works with DCC. You'd just need a small microprocessor with the WiFi receiver onboard the loco that can take the signals coming from the controller (iPhone, Droid, what-have-you) and translate them into a regular DCC signal that can drive any of the DCC decoders on the market. You could then program them via an easy-to-understand GUI on the controller, and the "DCC" aspect of the thing becomes completely transparent. They've already got a JMRI app for the iPhone. Combine that with a WiFi interface to an on-board receiver, and you're well on your way. 

I like the idea of feeding sounds via WiFi, but if you're running more than one loco, you'd need the ability to stream multiple channels--one for each locomotive being controlled. I have no idea if that's doable or not. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Nutz-n-Bolts (Aug 12, 2010)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 23 Nov 2011 09:29 AM 
I've been interested in the feasibility of using WiFi for RC train operations 
I have a strong suspicion that the advent of 2.4Ghz r/c tx/rx combos for aircraft and live steam engines (and now for electric ones too) has a lot to do with cheap integrated WiFi chips that include the radio on the silicon. 

Anyone know what a WiFi chip looks like? 

Please don't think I'm an electrical genius. I just ask google image and it answers!


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

Here's an article showing a WiFi chipset.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/5763/picture/24271/

There's many chipsets available for WiFi. I've seen some that are WiFi, BlueTooth, and antenna integrated into a single chip. That particular chipset was $3 each.

The more I look into it the more i see the difficulty for Trains and WiFi is making it simple enough and still flexible enough for everyone's needs. The advantage that system like AirWire provide are built in compatibility for train type functions like consists, controlling hundreds of devices from one controller. Allowing multiple controllers on a single layout. What Train enthusiasts want is a complex network of wireless communication, functions at blazing speeds, has all the bells and whistles, and is easy to use. Just because something is WiFi doesn't mean it will have all these features. It just means that the WiFi protocol is used for communicating 2 ways between devices. The prices for wireless hardware may be coming down but pricing for custom programming may be going up.

Here's a short list of features that train enthusiasts want for a wireless controller to be successful.

- Power options (battery or track power)
- Custom addressable locomotives, cars, and track side accessories
- Broad compatibility
- Do It Yourself capabilities?
- Custom programmability
- Control of auxiliary add on's for each device (lights, sound, smoke)
- Layout control (signals, buildings, turnouts)
- Consists
- Variable changing sounds based on locomotive load and speed
- All Stop controls
- Prototypical Momentum 
- All controlled from a single controller 

Here's a short list of what people may want in "Next-Generation" of controllers and train controls.
- Access to train speed data
- Access to locomotive load data
- Access to grade data
- Access to video feeds across the layout and on trains 
- Access to train schedules, time tables, priorities
- Auto consists (Locomotives know their exact speed, and know when they are coupled to cars and other locomotives, consists are automatically created)
- Coupler controls for every car (couple, uncouple)
- control items on each car individually (sounds, smoke, lights, couplers, brakes?, loading / unloading freight)
- Specify weight for cars loaded and unloaded to be used for prototypical acceleration and momentum (auto consisting would add momentum to train based on the cars when coupled) 
- Control all devices from multiple controllers
- Auto run mode that runs a programmed routes on the layout
- Auto blocking for signals and prototypical operation.
- Have Dispatcher controls that can setup and control timetables, train priorities, orders and so on.

The "Next-Gen" list is much more than just WiFi... But it is re-thinking of what can be done with model trains entirely. The role that WiFi plays is a low cost, low power, and highly customizable control interface than can be used in everything on the layout. Much more hardware would be needed for this than just the wireless communication devices.




I'm trying to think out of the box for this as the possible applications people may want for their trains. Some will want this level of control others are fine with the way things are now.

For the time being lowering the cost of wireless control with the same functionality would be a good goal to achieve. If WiFi actually does lower costs. 
@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css);


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

I've thought about this. The robotics stores seem to be a good resource for learning about how to do this kind of thing. The idea I had was that WiFi would be used for the controllers to connect to a server on the network. The server would interface with all the devices on the layout and act as the middle man for the commands given by the controllers. The server is simply a program that would be running on a desktop computer that is on the network. This is actually what JMRI does only they require hardware to connect from the computer to DCC. One Idea I have is to use a 2.4 ghz wireless interface to communicate with each device.

Again is this possible? It seems so as the Aristocraft Revolution uses this concept. I'd need addressable receivers or decoders on each device. This may be the difficult part... 
@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css);


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

The theory is all well and good. 
However, unless the hand piece controller has a tactile "feel" to the functions it will not not be accepted. 
Whilst an I Phone, or similar touch screen device, can do the job of passing on commands you would have to take your eyes off running the trains to address the touchscreen. Have you ever tried sending a text message on an I Phone? Great to have a QWERTY keyboard, but it simply has no "feel". 
Especially the actual speed control, which should ideally be Digital Proportional (DP) in action, or at least a simulated DP control via a knob or thumb wheel. 

I too looked into the possibility of utilising an I Phone as a data transmission device. On WiFi the battery life is greatly reduced. In daylight the screen would have to be on all the time, also greatly reducing battery life. 
A suitable hand piece housing will likely be the single most expensive component in a system. 
I cannot see using WiFi to directly control trains happening any time soon.


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

@Tony 

WiFi is just the communication protocol. Wifi is not the User interface. The appeal to using it is a wide range of compatible devices and the 2-way data transfer. The downside is that things are more complicated and to use it properly may require a microprocessor programmed onto each device. 

I agree that iPhone's have their positives and negatives. There are many ways to make controlling something via a smartphone intuitive with the screen off. Don't forget phones have 3D acceleromoters and 3D magnometers as well. We may as well see color e-ink on phones soon as well which looks like paper in the sun. 

Once again the appeal of WiFi is two fold. 

1) Controllable by a variety of devices over a standardized format 
2) Data can be sent both ways 

There's a long ways to make WiFi really "usable" for train enthusiasts, but for $60 basic WiFi control could be setup today for a single locomotive motor control. This would allow control a train from my PC or any WiFi device. 

My work teaches me that anything is possible...


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

You miss my pont. 
The RF communication is the easy part. The biggest stumbling block will be the hand piece. 
Any hand piece has to be user friendly. By that I mean the hand piece HAS to have have a tactile "feel" or it will simply not sell. 
The only way any manufacturer will spend the big money needed to develop the hardware is if they are likely to have a big market. I cannot see the market expanding to the size needed any time soon.


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

I understand your point and the reality is that BIG money has already been spent on developing hardware that is universal in nature and has "tactile feel". However some people would rather have a wheel... If someone wants a big wheel on the end of a pot then that's the easy part. No, smart phones don't have wheels, but one could also offer custom solutions to control is someone wants a wheel... 

There's people out there that place a lot of value in throwing away proprietary hardware and replacing it with generic hardware that can do everything. There's huge reasons why smart phones have been so successful. Shrugging that away is not a good idea in my opinion.


----------



## VictorSpear (Oct 19, 2011)

Tony,

Why do you feel the stumbling block is the hand piece ? A user today can have any form factor in any shape or size. My son prefers the Wii and my daughter the android. Both control the layouts happily. I use the browser and run from thousands of miles away.. Most of the manufacturers you refer to probably recognize that they cannot get hung up on hand pieces. Many must innovate or perish. If tactile feedback is important, fine ...plug in the jack. If not, use the touch screen. Either way, robotics has moved way beyond this layer. Model train manufacturers - at least the ones that survived receivership or bankruptcy - will soon adapt.

Before the zipper was invented, we used buttons. Some still prefer buttons for their trousers. Others have moved on.

Cheers,
Victor


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Part of the appeal (and cost savings in terms of devloping the technology) comes from using devices people already have in their pockets. Simply developing software is a lot cheaper than designing/producing hardware. There's no need to develop a physical transmitter if your customers are using it to place their orders. Heck, let 'em download the app for free; make your money on the receiver needed to actually do anything with it. (That's what QSI does with their programming software.) That way they can play with the interface to decide if it's right for them. Why not use it, if it's already available? I think specifically _not_ needing to buy a transmitter is a decent selling point. Going by today's prices of other transmitters, that's $150 - $200 you don't have to spend, or can spend on more receivers. 

As for needing to physically look at the transmitter, it depends on the complexity of the transmitter. With the old RCS handheld remote, I didn't need to look at it because there were only 4 buttons. With the Airwire, NCE, and Revolution stuff I'm using now, I do look at the transmitter much more often; perhaps not to increase/decrease the throttle, but to change direction, blow the whistle, ring the bell, etc. The more complicated the transmitter, the more need there is to look down and make sure your fingers are actually hitting the right buttons. 

Of course, if we want to talk theory, what about a voice recognition interface? No buttons, just verbal commands. Maybe not "stop at station," if there's no reference as to where the station is, but certainly "faster" and "slower," or "hold speed" to kick in some form of cruise control. Could get noisey at meets, and your neighbors would wonder why you're talking to yourself, but they're already wondering about you because you're playing with model trains...  

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

If you interview people using remote control, the "look and feel" and the tactile feedback of buttons and knobs is very important to the vast majority of users. 

I have JMRI and a number of cell phones and tablets running WiiThrottle and EngineDriver.... cute but not something I can run without looking at the screen all the time, not designed for bright sunlight, etc. 

Voice recognition? HAH...we have enough trouble with runaways... yelling "stop dammit" would be a common occurance.... voice recognition outdoors and in noisy environments needs a lot more computing power that we could afford for a throttle. (and I have direct engineering experience in this, we made one that would work but it took about a cubic foot of computer). 

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...the tactile feedback of buttons and knobs is very important to the vast majority of users. 
Agreed, but what you will not find is any agreement on what that tactile feedback should be. That's a very subjective thing, and goes to explain why there is such a wide variety of controls on the market today. Who's to say a well-designed tablet interface wouldn't be as accepted as any other kind of interface? It has yet to be introduced to the market, so no hard conclusions can be drawn. 

cute but not something I can run without looking at the screen all the time, not designed for bright sunlight, etc. 
So, you design an interface that addresses those demonstrated weaknesses. On a tablet, you could design the interface such that it works like the text entry on a PDA, where it senses how you're moving your finger over the screen. Round and round increases/decreases the throttle. Up sets the direction forward/down sets it backwards. Draw a "W" and it becomes goes into "whistle" mode where you can blow the whistle by touching the screen the desired time. There's no need to look at the screen to interact with the tablet in that fashion. It's all based solely on touch. When you need to program things, then you switch to GUI mode. None of this is "new" technology, it just hasn't been applied in this fashion as yet. 

we have enough trouble with runaways... yelling "stop dammit" would be a common occurance.... 
Well, perhaps that's how you set the rate of slowing. "Stop" brings it gently to a stop. "Stop, dammit" a bit faster, and "I said (explative) *STOP* already!" brings it to a gear-shattering halt.  

Seriously, though, so long as we're playing "what if," let's presume that technology to make it work well is part and partial of the deal. That something was impractical a few years ago means nothing today. And it's through playing "what if" games today that we develop tomorrow's technology. What took a cubic foot of computer 10 years ago now fits into our pockets. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Instead of arguing, go ask 20 people if they want tactile feedback or not (my point, not your response)... come back and tell the answers honestly. The answer will be the majority wants some form of tactile feedback. 

You constantly miss the point.. you cannot see a color lcd screen clearly in the bright sunlight, what I said... not how to play coloring book with your finger... 

I know about this and you obviously don't.... talking about today, not 40 years in the future... voice technology is not there yet, especially outdoors. 

Why you just want to go contrary I don't know, but why not stick to some factual evidence.... and not twist what I say 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

There have been some huge advances in technology since I first started making R/C controllers 25 years ago. 
I have taken advantage of some of these over the years but the fact remains that what Large Scalers want is the ability to operate their trains with as much "feel " as possible. 
The basic philosophy of my original RCS equipment was that it had to be simple to operate. I had to use only buttons as the type of R/C I used did not permit anything else. 

There is one very good reason why AirWire has been so successful since it became available. They use a knob for controlling speed. Which is what most all model train operators have demanded since the year dot. 
Now, whilst I don't like never ending analog to digital converters and instead favour a slide control, it is a good compromise. 
One other thing I would deem desirable is a big red button for emergency stops. 

I well understand the possibilities WiFi could offer from an RF point of view, but, from a commercial selling aspect, the lack of feel of touch screens means they simply would not sell. Sure a few users could handle them and be very active promoting them, but, the majority of us older modelers have big fingers and find knobs, sliders and sticks much easier to handle. The word would soon get around as to how impractical touch screens would actually be. 
The hand piece could have super clever electronics but they would have to be made simple to use. They must be capable of one handed operation. 
As few controls as possible is the way to go. A knob, slider or stick for speed control. A direction switch. An emergency STOP button and a number of function buttons. 
All the extras some want could be accessible via another uncluttered way.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Instead of arguing, go ask 20 people if they want tactile feedback or not (my point, not your response)... come back and tell the answers honestly. 
What good would that do? Because what I'm proposing hasn't been done yet, they'd have no frame of reference for comparison. It'd be like asking someone if they like chocolate ice cream or this new flavor that they've not yet tasted. Instead, how about we develop an app that does what I'm suggesting, test market it, and see what the response truly is? That's the _only_ way to get an accurate reflection of what the market prefers. I can say for certain that if my dad were as "up" on touch-screen technology as he was designing supercomputers for NASA, he'd have a prototype built in very short order. That's what he and I did with model train technology when I was growing up. We'd sit around and play "what if," and he'd design the technology to make it happen. Sometimes it didn't work as well as we had hoped, and it was back to the drawing board. 

you cannot see a color lcd screen clearly in the bright sunlight, what I said... not how to play coloring book with your finger... 
I know you can't. I have a spreadsheet on my iPhone for when I do prototype operations on my railroad that keeps track of my car movements, and I have to shade it to be able to read it well. That's why I suggested trying an interface that's _purely_ motion driven. You don't _need_ to see it; it can be completely blank and still work. 

Sure a few users could handle them and be very active promoting them, but, the majority of us older modelers have big fingers and find knobs, sliders and sticks much easier to handle. The word would soon get around as to how impractical touch screens would actually be. 
Tony, that's the thing, though. This product wouldn't be aimed at the older generation with big fingers. Of course they want knobs and buttons; that's the interface they grew up with from the early days of Lionel. This would be aimed at the younger set (including children) who are far more used to touch-screen technology. My 5-year-old took to my iPhone like a fish to water. I guarantee you if someone were to design a control interface that uses touch technology, she'd find it every bit as intuitive others find knobs and buttons. It's very much a "generational" thing. 

Besides, there's nothing to say that as a manufacturer I cannot _also_ make a more "tactile" throttle for those who prefer that kind of interface. But that's a "later" thing. To get going with the on-board receiver technology (which is really at the core of what we're trying to do), build it so it works with transmitter technology your customer base already has. That way, their only "risky" money is the cost of the WiFi receiver/microprocessor that connects to whatever DCC decoder they so choose. Not having to spend money on a transmitter to try a new technology is a pretty good incentive. Look at what QSI did with the G-wire receiver. They didn't have a transmitter to start; they made it compatible with Airwire's throttles. Because people already had the throttles, they were willing to spend the money on the G-wire receiver and try the QSI decoder instead of using Airwire's board and a 3rd-party sound system. And it worked. Once QSI had the customers' attention (money), then they brought out a throttle that was a bit more in line with the "traditional" needs of their regular customer base. 

I respect both of your insights into what you personally believe the average model railroad might want. I prefer to keep dreaming and inspiring others who are perhaps a bit more visionary to experiment and develop the technology so that it_ is_ possible. None of us can sit here and predict how people will respond to technology that hasn't been introduced yet. Our everyday lives are full of examples of technology of which was said "it'll never catch on."


Later, 

K


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

@Greg & Tony 

Thanks for derailing this topic. I began this thread because I was very surprised to see some WiFi control options that are already available. This topic is really about using mass produced hardware for wireless communication. This topic is NOT about what kind of controllers people want. Controller types are related to R/C but this is not what this thread is about. 

@Tony - You mentioned that the communication side of things for WiFi is very easy. Since RCS is devoted to developing simple products, I'd be interested in seeing some sort of prototype come from you guys. And if you believe so strongly in the controller arena as well develop (or find) a WiFi controller as well with knobs and buttons. 

@Tactile feedback - There's many different ways of doing tactile feedback. Personally, I'd prefer a slider over a knob any day. Is this different electronically? No it's just a linear pot. In fact any company would be better off building a modular controller system where users can select the type of controller module they would prefer. There's some tactile feedback that smartphones provide that is much better than a knob. Things like vibration, sound playback. Keep in mind that PS2 controllers are considered WiFi as well. 

@Phone screens - Yes some can be hard to see in the sun. Notice I said some... Others are not hard to see. Personally I agree with East Broad Top. Turn the screen off and use gestures to give commands. LCD screens will soon be a thing of the past... http://www.eink.com/display_products_triton.html Color E-ink will replace the LCD screens eventually. These screens literally look like printed paper. Because it's literally small dots of ink that get moved around in the screen. These also only use power when something on the screen is updated. So no battery use unless the screen changes. With the BIG money being spent on phones. E-ink will be in them as soon as e-ink has a fast enough refresh rate. 

@Voice commands - iPhone voice commands suck. Android on the other hand is awesome at voice commands. I've used voice commands many times in a car on the freeway to search for location on a map when it's a full car with kids with no problems. I personally would not use voice command for trains, but could be useful if someone liked that kind of thing. But that is my preference. 

*Why WiFi?* As an establish industry protocol and 2-way communication method WiFi provides a standards compliant way to interface with all devices wirelessly. It's small enough to fit in a single chipset and widely used enough that it's not going away anytime soon. WiFi is appealing because it provides unlimited connectivity while working on a broad range of devices. Being that products are mass produced prices will also be low for the components and hardware. 

The reality is WiFi will eventually come to Model Railroads as a full featured product. We are starting to see the technology become available in various forms in a way that model railroaders can begin to use now. 

The two options we have right now is to balk at the idea if using WiFi or develop a wish list of capabilities we'd dream to have in controlling trains. If we build one module that can handle all this and leave room for expansion then there is the opportunity to have one standard hardware component for everything for many years to come.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

So then I guess that according to Greg, these types of things are all destined to fail.

R/C Apps

It seems to me that if tactile sensation is a necessity for someone, it would be a simple matter to have a supplimentary "box" with a knob/switches that could either plug directly into the USB port, or blue-tooth to the pad/pod


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think for controlling your planes trains and automobiles, you will find that people prefer tactile feedback.. 

Why not ask 20 or 100 people (like I did) and see what answers you get. 

Using them for calibration and more sophisticated tasks, then it's more sit down and run a computer program, and your example is *NOT what we are talking about, the actual control of a train while it is running. *

Just for the people who won't read the link from Todd: 

With the release of the newest version of Maplegate Media Group’s RC Hobby Stream app for iPhone and Android, radio control car, airplane, helicopter and robotics enthusiasts can enjoy convenient access to hobby news, information and tools[/b] on-the-go. Featuring *customizable news feeds *that let users determine whether to receive all current RC hobby news or just the latest headlines from the RC car, RC model aircraft, RC helicopter or robotics hobby segment, the app also includes directories to RC car racing tracks and radio control airplane flying fields. In addition, tools within the app help users check and set tire camber, control surface deflection angles and helicopter blade pitch with their smart phones. 


*NOTHING *about actually running a train (or plane or car)

Todd: if you want to just attack my opinion and statements, then do a better job. 


If you want to know what people's preferences are, ask them. 


I did... 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

With respect Mogeley, 
I don't think the subject has been derailed at all. 

When contemplating advances in technology you have to take into account all aspects of a system, the most important of which for the user, is how that user actually controls the hardware in their hand. 
I agree with Greg that touch screens are not user friendly.


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); Posted By TonyWalsham on 24 Nov 2011 05:52 PM 
With respect Mogeley, 
I don't think the subject has been derailed at all. 

When contemplating advances in technology you have to take into account all aspects of a system, the most important of which for the user, is how that user actually controls the hardware in their hand. 
I agree with Greg that touch screens are not user friendly. 
Yes, the subject has been derailed. I was talking about WiFi, an industry standard for *Wireless Communication*, and you insist Wireless communication needs knobs and buttons? Do you see where the topics are skewed yet? It's the same as talking about how a server works and someone is stuck on the fact that the background on the screen is green and not blue.

In the computing world the User Interface is separate from the computing hardware. With WiFi the same separation can and should take place. The User Interface can be whatever the user wants or needs (Yes, even knobs and buttons). However, the core hardware remains the same. This modular approach to things allows for a huge amount of flexibility for the user and the manufacturer.


It's expected that there will be 100,000,000 smart phone users by 2013. That means that every 2 years 100,000,000 user worldwide will cycle through a new phone. If I can control my entire layout with a device I already own, that is a huge selling point. The smart phone is one type of "client" or user interface. One so versatile that making a phone app only requires knowing some HTML and Javascript. So what happens is the user interface becomes 100% independent of the hardware controlling the train and the user can have whatever they like.

Tony, do you own a touchscreen device or smartphone?


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Yes I do own a smart phone. 
I have had my I Phone for over two years and like it a lot. I don't mind using a touch screen for dialing calls and SMS. Plus I have Internet tethering and a VOIP app on it. I don't use The I Phone for anything else. No E mails, no Internet. The screen is too small to read clearly without expanding the size and then you have to scroll sideways to read it. A real pain. 

I fully understand that you are discussing the possibility of using WiFi as the RF medium. However, from a commercial point of view the RF interface on any R/C system for our use MUST take into account what the customer wants to use as the controlling hardware. Not what some far sighted entrepreneur wants them to have. 
Therefore, whatever is envisaged for the future must take into account what the consumer actually wants. 
So, in my humble opinion I have not derailed the thread. 

I too have done surveys of the attitude of consumers as to whether or not they would accept having a touch screen as the interface. The survey was not as comprehensive as that conducted by Greg, but, the answer was still the same. Especially from a couple of very savvy marketing experts. The average Large Scaler working outdoors will not take to them. Even if they were cheap. 
To a man they want tactile feel and not be groping around looking at a screen when trying to control a train at the same time. 

Might I suggest you contact any of the existing R/C manufacturers to get their opinion. 
There are very good reasons why none of them actually make systems that can use touch screens (except some DCC) mainly because they are basically unreadable outdoors in sunlight and have a much shorter battery life because the screen needs to be on all the time.

Good luck in your quest.


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

As I've repeated over and over again... The user interface can be done to the users preferences. It's not the problem. 

The one thing that is a problem is products that are limited in their scope and design. Most R/C companies have never considered controlling more than one device from a single remote much less hundreds to thousands depending on the layout. Most train controllers that do give this capability are DCC. DCC is a problem in areas like mine where track power is a nightmare. Other companies provide over simplified solutions or ones that are too proprietary. The problem with both of these is that after a while the hardware needs to be replaced or cant be expanded, they are not extensible. This is where using a non proprietary communication interface would help. 

Unfortunately, right now the simple WiFi solutions that can be found are too expensive to be competitive at the moment, but at least they are flexible. With some know how and some bulk chips one may build a low cost solution that enhances what can be done with large scale trains. 

I currently have not purchased a wireless control scheme because each one seems to be lacking in one area or another. AirWire looks nice but I can't afford to replace ANY electronics systems I put into my trains. This is where using standards compliant hardware would be better for large scale trains as a whole, and you may have more people getting into the hobby if it was more standardized. Currently it's such a hodge podge of mixed up stuff that when something new comes out one doesn't know what to think of it.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Might I suggest you contact any of the existing R/C manufacturers to get their opinion. 
There are very good reasons why none of them actually make systems that can use touch screens (except some DCC) mainly because they are basically unreadable outdoors in sunlight and have a much shorter battery life because the screen needs to be on all the time. 
Both of those concerns--as stated numerous times above--are addressed using an interface that does not require visual interaction. All you're doing is using the touch screen to, oh, you know, _touch_. So with those concerns addressed, what's next on the list of reasons not to use touch technology? 

from a commercial point of view the RF interface on any R/C system for our use MUST take into account what the customer wants to use as the controlling hardware. Not what some far sighted entrepreneur wants them to have. 
Sorry, but I gotta disagree. The customer will adapt to the user interface if the advantages of the system are sufficient. I'll use your own products as an example. When dad and I abandoned our own 2-stick R/C systems, we did so in favor of your Elite product line (which you've since sold off). We _lost_ a great deal of functionality in that changeover. We lost the proportional control over speed. We lost the ability to "qulll" the whistles of our analog sound systems, and the ability to adjust the cut-off of the chuff based on the proportional position of the Johnson bar control. Those were two aspects of the control that dad and I worked hard to perfect, so it was something of a sacrifice to give it up for a new system. We also sacrificed a great deal of range. What we gained, however, far outweighed that sacrifice. We got a small handheld controller, a smaller on-board circuit board, and better performance/less glitching. (To say nothing of no longer having to physically build the control boards.) The pushbuttons weren't ideal (and still aren't) but we quickly got used to it, and were quite happy with its performance until the next generation of controls (Airwire, Revolution) came out. 

What are the advantages of a system such as we're discussing? (a) It's universal. Any WiFi device that can run the software can run your train, be it a phone, laptop, tablet, what-have-you. (b) The receiver can control any DCC decoder on the market. You're not locked into any one or two brand combinations. This opens up an entire world of sound/control possibilities for the modeler. (c) If the software is written correctly, you can easily program every aspect of any decoder using an intuitive GUI, instead of having to rely on remembering obtuse codes and button pushes, or having to interface your decoder directly with a computer. Right now, I have the "cheat sheets" for my Airwire throttles downloaded to my iPhone so I can easily reference how to program the decoders. How much cooler would it be to just hit the "settings" button and do it directly and transparently? 

Individually, any one of those advantages would be sufficient for me to set down my Airwire and NCE controllers. I can sacrifice the knobs and buttons for that, as I sacrificed the levers and switches for 4 pushbuttons 15+ years ago. All of those advantages in aggregate? An absolute no brainer. Bring it on!!! 

If you want to talk about what customers want from their R/C systems, both (b) and (c) above are high on their lists. (Yes, this comes from talking to many individuals over the years about R/C systems, and listening to what they're looking for.) Most haven't given a moment's thought to (a), because they're simply resigned to using whatever controller happens to work with what system they ultimately go with (because they're all largely proprietary). They want to be able to choose from the broadest selection of sound/motor control options they can, and they want in intuitive, simple way to program them. We are a _long_ ways away from being there, and if it takes some "far-sighted entrepreneur" to get us there, he'll have my support no matter what the interface looks/feels like. That can always be revised. Form follows function. Build the technology, then worry about making it neat and pretty. 

Later, 

K


----------



## steam5 (Jun 22, 2008)

The use of WIFI is an interesting thought, and it has crossed my mind a few times. The use of a touch screen in the sun is difficult, but as is was mentioned you can by WiFi game controllers, one could design something for trains. 

If one was to tackle such a project get the locomotive hardware working and control direct from a smart phone, tablet, computer... Next work on making a more traditional hand control. 

I would be interested in such a project. 

Alan


----------



## VictorSpear (Oct 19, 2011)

It is noticeable that the mention of wifi or related wireless technologies in any forum opening post evokes healthy responses but the line of
Scrimmage immediately moves to the iPhone 'zone ' and it's touch capabilities countered with the tactile sensory requirements. Wifi is much more prevalent today in our daily chores than just last year itself and moving tangentially with user needs. 

So if we stay where the ball is you will see a lot of players taking up positions there. 
For example Savant and others have been offering controllers that encompass touch plus buttons for at least a year to replace the 200 button remote controllers that sit on the coffee table today. http://www.savantav.com/savant_select.aspx
.....and you can still have your buttons, don't worry. 

The real use cases of wifi offer far more train control capabilities and if we scale beyond touch control we could be discussing some real advances happening too. Like dimming the lights in the first class car or turning off lights in the empty fourth car while switching the rest to evening mode with one click in the gardens layout. Or turning the Passenger shutters down when it rains.

Cheers,
Victor


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 24 Nov 2011 05:19 PM 
I *NOTHING *about actually running a train (or plane or car)

Todd: if you want to just attack my opinion and statements, then do a better job. 


If you want to know what people's preferences are, ask them. 


I did... 

Greg 









Did you follow all of the embedded links?

There are plenty of these things that are now controlled by pad/pods/phones. I was in Big 5 sporting goods and even saw one there.

Pad/pod/phone Controlled helicopter


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 23 Nov 2011 08:25 PM 
....Voice recognition? HAH...we have enough trouble with runaways... yelling "stop dammit" would be a common occurance.... voice recognition outdoors and in noisy environments needs a lot more computing power that we could afford for a throttle. (and I have direct engineering experience in this, we made one that would work but it took about a cubic foot of computer). 

Greg 
I think that Apple just made a HUGE breakthru on voice control with SIRI...then again, it's cloud based, so I don't see much applicability to our hobby. But, the folks I know with the new 4S phone are RAVING about how good SIRI works.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

You need to try SIRI Mike... not everyone is raving.... yes, the remote computing power is what makes it work, just like the Google navigation app that comes with all Android phones, you use nice big mainframes to do the voice recognition ... you could apply this to your trains, but then they won't run without an internet connection or a local server ... still does not handle problem with ambient noise, or you standing in your backyard yelling at your trains while your neighbor calls the mental hospital ha ha! 

Todd, I read and QUOTED from the article you referenced... now you slip slide by telling me I did not go down enough links? BZZZZT... thanks for playing, try again later... 

Greg


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 25 Nov 2011 03:40 PM 
I did not go down enough links? BZZZZT... thanks for playing, try again later... 

Greg 




These things are like fleas on a dog. Just pair ipod with helicopter and get 140 hits on the bay. You didn't have to look far.


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); Posted By Greg Elmassian on 25 Nov 2011 03:40 PM 
You need to try SIRI Mike... not everyone is raving.... yes, the remote computing power is what makes it work, just like the Google navigation app that comes with all Android phones, you use nice big mainframes to do the voice recognition ... you could apply this to your trains, but then they won't run without an internet connection or a local server ... still does not handle problem with ambient noise, or you standing in your backyard yelling at your trains while your neighbor calls the mental hospital ha ha! 

Todd, I read and QUOTED from the article you referenced... now you slip slide by telling me I did not go down enough links? BZZZZT... thanks for playing, try again later... 

Greg 
The Android voice recognition is on the phone. It does not need an internet connection to work and it works for ANY text entry. I've used it many times in the car with kids and 90% of the time it's perfect. Google's Navigation app is also on the phone. The only thing on the servers is the map data. This saves each user from downloading Gigs of unused data to their phone. I'll let you in on a little tip. While the iPhone is nice it's seriously lacking compared to the competition, SIRI is a joke and was available for free for over a year. Apple controls thing too tightly, so much that they are making Microsoft look good now. Microsoft's new phone platform is lightyears ahead of the iPhone it's amazing, but adoption of it will be slow.Apple's "new phone" was nothing new but simply a ploy that brought them up to par with the competition. While the competition stays ahead of them.

P.S. "mainframes" only exist in museums. Modern server farms use racks of clustered servers. Even "super computers" are becoming obsolete as the average desktop is more powerful than some $20 million dollar computers. Distributed computing is the most powerful of them all, which is why trojan viruses are so prevalent (there's a lot of power to be had in hijacking millions of computers for your own purpose)

P.P.S. You may see that I'm not a fan of Apple, the main reason is that they purposefully limit their mobile devices in ways that hurt the WEB as a whole. Apple claims to be open but is closed. The biggest example is no file system access on an iPhone without an app. You cannot upload a file on a website without an APP. While this seems like no big deal. It in fact is a huge deal because it is NOT HTML 1.0 compliant


----------



## Stan Cedarleaf (Jan 2, 2008)

I just recevied an interesting email fro All-Battery promoting R/C Helicopters controlled with a smart phone. 

Controlled with a smart phone


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

So Stan, do you want to trade your systems for controls by a smart phone? I have a pile of old iPhone 3's 

I've seen this, but I thought the subject was trains. The "tilt" method of flying sure would work with trains, right? Switching? 

by the way my reference to mainframes is the server farms, not really to a single computer. 

But mainframes do still exist, where some applications need a single large computer... Look at what IBM makes. 

Not all programming tasks can be broken down into multiple small parallel tasks. 

Greg 

p.s. I like the idea of wifi for R/C, our application is plenty slow enough to be able to roam with multiple access points.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 26 Nov 2011 08:14 AM 
So Stan, do you want to trade your systems for controls by a smart phone? I have a pile of old iPhone 3's 

I've seen this, but I thought the subject was trains. The "tilt" method of flying sure would work with trains, right? Switching? 




And you can't see the similarities between R/C trains and helicopters or how the interface could be modified to work? That's pretty close minded.


----------



## Stan Cedarleaf (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 26 Nov 2011 08:14 AM 
So Stan, do you want to trade your systems for controls by a smart phone? I have a pile of old iPhone 3's 

I've seen this, but I thought the subject was trains. The "tilt" method of flying sure would work with trains, right? Switching? 

{snip} Not at all, Greg... Not gonna to switch at this time.... 

Just following the thread that the WiFi system is out there for the rapidly advancing "communications" technology.

Who knows what's coming in the next months and years for contorl of planes, trains and automobiles.....???? 

My old high school science teacher had a great saying posted at the front of his classroom... 

"Where would the turtle be if he didn't stick his neck out."


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Was not trying to just put you on the spot, but by posting a link thought you might be espousing a touch screen control system was in your future. 

This thread is derailed enough already, but maybe we could start a thread about what people want/need when running their trains. 

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

So Stan, do you want to trade your systems for controls by a smart phone? I have a pile of old iPhone 3's 
I don't think anyone is suggesting any of the existing interfaces we have (JMRI, helicopter, etc.) are remotely suitable for running large scale trains outdoors. But that's not a limitation of the technology, just the specific software that's running on it. That no one so far has written suitable software doesn't mean the technology cannot support it. I dunno about you, but I'd be tempted to hang onto those old iPhones. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but when someone with the ideas partners with someone with the know-how, I think you'll find they come in handy. 

Later, 

K


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Actually, maybe a whole new interface is just the shot in the arm this hobby needs.

What if we thow out the old knob/switches on the old remote, and change to tablet format. The "tablet" asks, "What engine are you running?" then displays the cab interior for that specific engine. The controls are where they should be (but graphically) and you physically have to "drive the train" by releasing the brakes, bringing up the prime mover, engaging the electic motors..., whatever, just as you would on the proto-type. With a camera in the nose, the display could even be projected to the insides of the cab windows. Is this really so different from how the proto-types now operate?

Further down the line there could be electronic decoupling. The engine sends a radio signal with simultaneous audible (or other) signal to the couplers. The time it takes for the sound to get there determines where the coupler falls in the consist and the interface displays the info. Even the cheap home receivers now have distance calibration to within 1 inch based on the audible signal they put out when doing self calibration. This is plenty of resolution to determine coupler's placement in the consist.

Maybe this new generation would treat this as a combination hobby/video game and that may find favor.


----------



## JPCaputo (Jul 26, 2009)

Check out mouser and digikey. Also ardunio micro controllers. 

They have wifi adapters than can interface with a pic or micro controller. They are fairly inexpensive. However custom software and a motor drive board to amp up the output signal to run the trains. 

Another wifi /Bluetooth is the Lego nsx robot stuff. These run off of Bluetooth and have a simple software and motor drive. It can be hacked to get a higher output power either internal or external. 

JP


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); Posted By JPCaputo on 26 Nov 2011 08:34 PM 
Check out mouser and digikey. Also ardunio micro controllers. 

They have wifi adapters than can interface with a pic or micro controller. They are fairly inexpensive. However custom software and a motor drive board to amp up the output signal to run the trains. 

Another wifi /Bluetooth is the Lego nsx robot stuff. These run off of Bluetooth and have a simple software and motor drive. It can be hacked to get a higher output power either internal or external. 

JP 
JP,
I've been looking at the WiFi chips for Ardunio. They are quit expensive though, but they make it easy to interface with them and attach other hardware you may want on to be controller by the micro controller as well. 

I've been looking at the WIXEL boards from Pololu (http://www.pololu.com/catalog/category/110). They are not quite WiFi by spec but they have the "similar" functionality. They have a micro controller built into them that can be programmed using a USB interface. I have confirmed with the manufacturer that they can be setup and used in an addressable network. Where one card talks to all others in the same channel. These use 2.4Ghz frequency and have a decent communication rate. Since they are not WiFi they would not interface with the controller directly, but would require a PC on the network to interface with as a server. These appeal to me for the moment because they are not expensive and can achieve the same goal, at least for testing.

I'd prefer pure WiFi. There's also part of me that having a PC play the role as the master controller / server (similar to JMRI) would allow for much more functionality overall than just some handheld controllers. This can be done with True WiFi as well. The one limitation I am seeing with WiFi is how the software "connects" to devices. Typically this is limited to one at a time as no one has seen a need for muti-connectivity. Either way the general idea would be asyncronous communication between all wireless devices. Essentially all devices on the layout could know what ALL other devices are doing. One "node" or device would contain all the information on the layout (the server). This "server" could: organize all activity on the layout, provide train route information, provide timetables, provide scenarios, provide industry needs, provide the current scale time, perform automatic operations such as tracking trains on blocks, changing signals, changing switches automatically as programmed, and also simulate other scenarios such as engine breakdowns. Much more could be done. The additions would be all changes to the programming rather than the hardware. As someone earlier said it is merging game style mechanics with real life model trains. People could even come up with story driven activities. 

In the Generic WiFi Communications Module I am imagining. I would like to include the following functionality (this is kind of like a wish list that seems doable):


- Motor control - includes all current features, slow speeds 
- enhanced by simulating full train weight and acceleration speeds by adding rolling stock and loads to "consists"
- Simulation of prototypical operation brakes, power, coasting
- Use accelerometers and precise motor speed control to detect grades and set proper acceleration rates on grades based on power, mass, and gravity simulation (simulation is done on the server and returns the adjusted acceleration rate). May need expensive accelerometers to be reliable...
- Safety cut out when the network connectivity dies. There's a number of ways to do this. Probably use a timer. 
- Secondary motor controller for animation purposes or other uses. 
- Sound - move sound to the server and stream it to the device. This may not work well. If it doesn't then a generic sound module with some flash RAM would be needed for playback (what is done now only more generic if possible).
- Smoke controller 
- Lights - normal prototypical options
- enhanced add some extra options for interior lighting modules
- Couplers - reserve functionality for coupler control for each coupler
- Consist Communication Protocol - if someone wants to put a Generic WiFi Communications Module in each piece of rolling stock this would automatically build consists upon coupling. The device could also be used to control smoke, fans, lights, noises per car, un-coupling, per piece of rolling stock. This may be the hardest item to achieve.
- an enhancement to this would communicate with trackside devices and simple say I am here... This could help provide layout location data to the server without complex triangulation.
- this could also work with industry for loading and unloading (real or virtual).
- Wireless network connectivity, trackside wireless nodes can act as repeaters if needed to increase distance and hard to reach areas. Any device could have this function. Ones that are not used much (switches) would be the best for it. 
- Battery power monitoring. provide some warning that the batteries need charging. This could trigger a service request that rolling stock / locomotives need servicing.
- Reserve additional connections for secondary microcontrollers. Some rolling stock may have controllable part like cranes and such for loading/unloading cargo.
- Reserve additional channels for extra uses (switches).
- Track or Battery power. I can't do track power where I live, so battery is the only way to go for me but others may still want track power. 

The idea is that all devices would use the same Generic WiFi Communications Module. So one module for anything you'd like to control, to keep it simple and generic. Many of the functions listed require additional hardware like a coupler that can be decoupled when power is applied. These would be optional but reserved in the system from the beginning as they are part of operating a railroad.

*** Note - this is all in the theory stage. I'm probably in over my head, but this is how I like to learn. Yes, I have hardware picked out that I am looking at but nothing has been purchased or tested yet. The other thing to note is that this may look good on paper but be really slow with many modules, and / or suck up a lot of power. I don't mind heavy trains with lots of batteries, but I do mind the cost of batteries. I am considering getting a few components and doing some testing. If I do that I will let you know how that goes.

@Touch screen interfaces - Mobile interface design has come a looooooong way in the last 6 months see: http://jquerymobile.com/ This is for the web... An APP has much more control and allows users to build full interfaces using simple HTML and Javascript. See Phone Gap (http://phonegap.com/) for an example of a framework that compiles simple html / javascript to the apps native language. Phone Gap is harder to install than it is to develop in. And it's not hard to install. Many things become very easy to program like drag and drop consists, placing rolling stock on a layout map, swiping to switch control to a new train or device. Mobile layout standards will immensely help organize the way someone see's and controls their layout on a touch device. Much of this can work very well because its all context based. For example if you know the current block the train is on the next switch on the route could be changed or you could set all the switches by creating a route to a specific location. Gotta love OOP...
- For the touch screen haters. The same functionality could be available in a box with a knob, but you'd have to punch in the codes (or scroll through all devices with the knob(s)) for everything to do the programming for a few minutes and if you enter it wrong you may not realize it.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Uhh... your statement: 

"The one limitation I am seeing with WiFi is how the software "connects" to devices. Typically this is limited to one at a time as no one has seen a need for muti-connectivity. " 

Huh? WiFi is basically Ethernet over the air... 802.11 vs 802.3 ... it is a networking protocol that allows all kinds of connectivity. Ethernet addressing allows multiple "connections" and many types of protocols to connect over... 

Perhaps you are reading about some proprietary software to run your hardware? 

If WiFi could not multi connect, it would not let you run your email and surf the web at the same time... 

Greg


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); Posted By Greg Elmassian on 27 Nov 2011 01:33 AM 
Uhh... your statement: 

"The one limitation I am seeing with WiFi is how the software "connects" to devices. Typically this is limited to one at a time as no one has seen a need for muti-connectivity. " 

Huh? WiFi is basically Ethernet over the air... 802.11 vs 802.3 ... it is a networking protocol that allows all kinds of connectivity. Ethernet addressing allows multiple "connections" and many types of protocols to connect over... 

Perhaps you are reading about some proprietary software to run your hardware? 

If WiFi could not multi connect, it would not let you run your email and surf the web at the same time... 

Greg 
The limitation presented is a limitation of software that has been currently written, not the communication protocol. I'm not sure at what level the software limitation is presented but it may be at the OS level in some smart phones. If so, then that may not be easy to overcome. Every WiFi control app that I have seen so far is setup to connect to one and only one device at a time. This could also just be how the WiFi R/C apps were designed.

Typically, when you connect to WiFi through a wireless device you connect to a network through a gateway. E-mail and internet are using the existing connection through that one device via TCP/IP or UDP. It's still one connection directed to different IP's through the network Gateway.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yep, just how they were written... easiest method is to have a server, like the JMRI setup.... 

It's the difference between a system / network of devices and a one to one relationship. 

The downside is you add a server somewhere that can coordinate actions, but it makes sense. 

You could do a full peer to peer mesh type of network where everyone cooperates, more software complexity, but no server needed, everyone is "aware" of everyone else... 

All of these "models" have and are being used over wifi and other wireless networks. I'd look at a mesh type of system. Investigate the Z-wave system for home control, not exactly tuned for trains but a true mesh network with node discovery, and bidirectional communication. 

Simple, effective, cheap. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Have you guys seen the Maerklin ipad app for wifi? It seems to be the most sophisticated of any of the DCC wifi systems so far. If you go to itunes and search for Marklin you will see their apps. 
BTW, there is no way I'd ever go to touch screen, but maybe if there was a bluetooth controller that had a speed/direction knob like my Massoth navigator.  

Keith


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Keith, I believe you would be disappointed with both the Bluetooth range and speed. It's really low power and very susceptible to interference.... just try walking up to your microwave when using a BT headset. 

It was designed to be very low power and short range... also, I don't believe there is the concept of roaming like in wifi.... big important item... 

Greg


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

When I mentioned bluetooth, I figured that was just to go between the handheld with knob, and the wireless controller (such as an iphone...), so the distance would be between your hand and your pocket, say. The other reality is that it's nice to be able to take locomotives to other layouts, and it's going to be a long time before everyone has wifi controlled layouts. At the speed our club moves, I'd say about sixty years. 

Keith


----------



## JPCaputo (Jul 26, 2009)

I would suggest using a program called lab view to develop the software. It has many protocolls built in. What I gather from what your talking about, you want a master controlling multi simultaneous slaves. 

With that, wifi will be great. Essentially you will have a router, and each engine will have a unique ip address (set in the router by Mac address) that way you have all engines available at a click of a button. 

Using lab view you can create a program to control multiple ip addresses at the same time. And to boot you can use joysticks or other controllers to change speed and activate and control. 

That software lab view is very powerful and can do lots n lots of stuff. 

Another option is a wireless to serial converter and do serial in to the ardunio. 

The other wireless option a are good as well. 

JP ps, you can even have the control computer wireless as well using the same router as the trains.


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

I'm a programmer by trade. So the programming is not difficult for me. I have friends that do hardware engineering with Intel and general electrical engineering so I can get some help from them for hardware stuff. 

I'll probably start with some hardware to test with... 3 Wixels and at least one motor controller from Pololu. I read something last night about NFS, this is a basically RFID intended to be used in smartphones as proximity readers. This allows devices to link directly to a product using some sort of RFID. This type of thing may be very useful for identifying train position and what cars / loco's are coupled together, as it's intended to be very inexpensive.


----------



## Brandon (Jul 6, 2011)

So to throw some gas on the interface fire, I'll ask why do you need one at all? Do all model railroaders want interfaces they have to keep in their hand when operating a railroad or are we just forced to use them because there aren't other ways to run a railroad without something in your hand? We all like to play yard controller and engineer at times but what about all the other railroading jobs that haven't even started to be put into real world features for model railroaders? How much fun would it be to setup time schedules for passenger trains to stop at a station for 35 seconds every 5 minutes? Or have a coal train that stops for 30 seconds for each coal car and then after each car is 'loaded' the consist goes to another siding elsewhere on the layout to 'unload' and repeats? Of course the tools would also have to be aware of where trains are at, use sidings and figure out how to move trains around without collisions, just like the real world. And whistles, why do we have to push a button every time we are going over a crossing? At first it's fun but where are the tools to set it up once and watch it 'just work' on its own? Sure there are reed switches but wiring becomes a pain if you want 5 different whistle sequences, and why can't our trains make a different ambient sound when going over bridges or other road base under the rails? I think some modelers given the chance would rather spend their time creating a living railroad that they can sit back and watch operate on its own, a kind of 'AI' railroad but also have the ability to operate a consist on their own and have to work around computer computer controlled trains and maybe also computer generated schedules or schedules they configure themselves. Lots of garden railways are loops because people really can't control multiple locos at once easily. 

Who would like to be able to setup 'speed limits' on certain sections of the track, by voice tell engine 812 to reduce speed to 30mph between mile markers 1.4 and 4.5. And while talking about how prototypical railroads work why don't engines communicate the same way? There's a reason real trains don't operate like dcc. Technology small enough and cheap enough to run a model railroad like a real railroad is just now becoming possible for our hobby. So when looking for 'something new' to do in garden railroading for train operating don't let what 'has been' be the guide for what you want next. Start over, start thinking about how real railroads operate and see if you can now do things more realistic, if that's what you're wanting to do anyway.


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); Posted By JPCaputo on 29 Nov 2011 12:35 AM 
I would suggest using a program called lab view to develop the software. ... 

I was a very proficient LabView programmer for about 6 years prior to my retirement (from making real money). Yes, you can do a lot with LabView, but it is in the wrong world for this application, which is embedded microcontrollers.


----------



## Brandon (Jul 6, 2011)

> I've been looking at the WiFi chips for Ardunio. They are quit expensive though, but they make it easy to interface with them and attach other hardware you may want on to be controller by the micro controller as well. 

USB wifi dongles are $9 for some good ranged ones... Not too bad I think. 


> In the Generic WiFi Communications Module I am imagining. I would like to include the following functionality (this is kind of like a wish list that seems doable): 

> - Motor control - includes all current features, slow speeds 
Lots of choices, it will be interesting to see what people will prefer (usb servo controllers and car/boat esc's, arduino's, avr's, etc) 

> - enhanced by simulating full train weight and acceleration speeds by adding rolling stock and loads to "consists"
This comes free depending on what controls the train and/or entire layout 

> - Simulation of prototypical operation brakes, power, coasting
This comes free depending on what controls the train and/or entire layout 

> - Use accelerometers and precise motor speed control to detect grades and set proper acceleration rates on grades based on power, mass, and gravity simulation (simulation is done on the server and returns the adjusted acceleration rate). May need expensive accelerometers to be reliable...
If you know the distance between two points you can create a matrix graph of throttle voltage vs how long it takes a train to go a distance and have a computer store this info for reference later, but some things like operating by battery or dirty rails could throw numbers off. The question is how can you cheaply monitor constantly changing variables? Do prototype trains know their voltage and grade to run? Or do they simply have mile markers and odometers that could revs? Why not use what they use? And they monitor fuel reserve which a fairly inexpensive (less accurate) voltage monitor would be doing if you weren't using track power. 

> - Safety cut out when the network connectivity dies. There's a number of ways to do this. Probably use a timer. 
How do prototype railways work when they have a 'run away' train? Send all consists to sidings nearby until the train is stopped and the line is cleared. Being scale, our deadman break systems should operate at a scale speed, and every 2-3 seconds is more than enough and you could do .1 seconds if you wanted too. Also if a system goes unresponsive to throttle control maybe there's an independent system that still tracks location. Failsafe is a good thing for full scale and could be fun to implement on scale. 

>- Secondary motor controller for animation purposes or other uses. 
So many cheap ways to do this depending on the actual application. 

>- Sound - move sound to the server and stream it to the device. This may not work well. If it doesn't then a generic sound module with some flash RAM would be needed for playback (what is done now only more generic if possible).
Streaming high quality sounds would such a lot of power from your wireless device. 2gb SD cards that could store hours of custom sounds are $4. 

>- Smoke controller 
Ahh, the biggest problem for us still appears to be high amp relays... 

>- Lights - normal prototypical options
- enhanced add some extra options for interior lighting modules
Again amp draw issues is all there is here. 

>- Couplers - reserve functionality for coupler control for each coupler
Everyone likes the idea of automatic couplers, mainly people who can't bend over and have ground layouts. Do we forget prototype cars require someone to operate them? But here's one thought, bluetooth devices are real cheap and last year I did see a bluetooth switch that was small and could be worked onto a body mount coupler to release. No wires, and an unlimited number of them you could use on a train.

>- Consist Communication Protocol - if someone wants to put a Generic WiFi Communications Module in each piece of rolling stock this would automatically build consists upon coupling. The device could also be used to control smoke, fans, lights, noises per car, un-coupling, per piece of rolling stock. This may be the hardest item to achieve.
Not hard, just expensive. But all of those could be done for less than $40 a car with a raspberry-pi, wifi dongle and your choice of extra hardware (fan, speaker, led's, etc). 

> - an enhancement to this would communicate with trackside devices and simple say I am here... This could help provide layout location data to the server without complex triangulation.
There are lot of good BUS systems out there for communication, no need to do wireless if it's in one place or very remote (just like real world railways).

> - this could also work with industry for loading and unloading (real or virtual).
Wired runs less than $10 each for simple bus enabled controllers, wireless are less than $40 each. 

> - Wireless network connectivity, trackside wireless nodes can act as repeaters if needed to increase distance and hard to reach areas. Any device could have this function. Ones that are not used much (switches) would be the best for it. 
Depending on your wireless choice, a $20 router outside gets about 500' of range, if you are bigger than that add a second and disable DHCP on it and use the same ssid and password and range is increased.

>- Battery power monitoring. provide some warning that the batteries need charging. This could trigger a service request that rolling stock / locomotives need servicing.
Just like needing to fuel a loco!  Or track runtime and after 100 hours mark it for needing work. 

>- Reserve additional connections for secondary microcontrollers. Some rolling stock may have controllable part like cranes and such for loading/unloading cargo.
Yup, just comes at a price of hardware. 

> - Reserve additional channels for extra uses (switches).
I'm not going to touch this.  Switches are so personal that I'll just say I'm letting a server track this and control what will likely be air powered switches for my own desires and leave it at that. 

>- Track or Battery power. I can't do track power where I live, so battery is the only way to go for me but others may still want track power. 
For any on board system you need either battery or a large capacitor, dirty track and rebooting controllers do not make for a good railroad. 


As you've mentioned yours is theory, and all of ours was or still is while we all work on solutions since manufacturers are way behind the times. Search around and you'll find some people who have solved some of the things you'd need in test labs (as I for one only have 100' of test-track layed out in the basement and will be doing my outdoor layout next year). Battery cost really is becoming a non issue in my opinion. I fly rc planes and have watch the prices tank, especially on low C (how fast you can discharge the packs) and since we're pulling less than 30amps per pack they're cheap, around $50 for a 4 cell 4000mah pack that would run most trains 2-4 hours. As for interfaces too, I'm turned off by any that don't have a decent api and that aren't open source. I also don't think the software that controls the train(s) should be limited to one input method, interface, voice, phone, tablet, web page, computer, time scheduler, etc. DCC was a good attempt at this but it's old, bloated, and built around hacks (imho) that just don't simulate how railways should function anyway. JMRI has a lot of potential but it was really designed to work primarily with dcc and suffers from that bloatness but it does do what it does very well. I'm just of the mindset that I'd like something that's more realistic and operates like full scale railways with little or no involvement except setting up the consists I want to run, establishing how I want it to behave, and repeat this for a half dozen trains so when I go outside I can hit 'go' on a button and it comes to life and when I'm done I hit the button again and it parks everything on its own. All I have to do is watch and enjoy unless I decide to grab a tablet and take control of a train that's out or pull yet another one from the yard and either select if I want a schedule to follow or if I want the other trains to 'run away' from where I'm going and enjoy my consist while watching the other trains flee from my path.




http://jquerymobile.com/http://phonegap.com/


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

I believe Del is correct on the issue. The job of setting a reactive network comes down to microcontrollers, which are setup to control specific functions in a certain way. The Amperage needed for large scale model trains has been over hyped. I have seen single chips that will handle 30A+ easily, part of this is just getting the right part for the job. Using less power has it's advantages in terms of battery life, charging time, and so on. But it's not a big deal. I would love to see a fusion battery someday! 

@Brandon - I agree with you in general with your ideas at least. However some of the things that you are proposing can be challenging when you know exact positions. Things like automation where trains know where each other are are not easy things to do even for trains which travel on a set path. This is why we have real people still driving trains. I'd love to do some sort of automation in the programming where you are a single driver in a "bigger world" and have some automated trains to interact with. At this point I simply want to be able to drive my trains wirelessly, then I'll add more bells and whistles as those things get working. But I want to start with a good expandable foundation. WiFi usb sticks are designed to interface with a computer and require software on a computer to operate. There are other WiFi TCP/IP packages on a single chip. These typically run about $30 just for the chip. WiFly is a good example of this (http://www.mouser.com/Search/ProductDetail.aspx?qs=Ad2LRJtGXDs1eLIWb4m46Q==). There may be cheaper ways of getting WiFi, there are definitely cheaper RF communication protocols available. But finding one that can be a hobby and not a full time job that in the end works is important.


----------



## Brandon (Jul 6, 2011)

@Mogeley - I didn't want to hijack the thread so rather than reposting what I'm doing I just thought I'd try to get others to think outside the box. I've worked in the embedded linux market for about 15 years so work and hobby sometimes cross over. I've done a fair bit with zigbee devices lately which even aristocraft uses for the revolution but as for general embedded devices which are great for companies who develop a small devices for cost savings when doing millions of units, small and unique devices are not commoditized where parts can easily be swapped or added by others in the hobby. Skills required, development time and costs grow exponentially the smaller you get but as computers themselves get smaller those requirements don't play as big of a role because parts are more commoditized. For my trains I've been awaiting something called raspberry pi that is a full computer the size of a credit card. It has a 700mhz broadcom arm, hdmi video and audio out as well as stereo audio out, a sd card slot for disk and 126/256mb ram. It's fast enough to run a basic linux desktop and dvd playback if you wanted yet runs on 5v and


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

The Raspberry Pi sounds promising. There's plenty of power in that thing to expand upon, that is for sure. Thanks for letting me know about it.


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

My kids have been sick and we have an ultrasonic humidifier. I just realized that the ultrasonic humidifier mixed with a fan would work great for "smoke" generators. It's basically a waterproof ceramic speaker that gets flooded with water. The speaker is fed a high frequency signal (PWM signal?) and some amplification is applied. A small fan is used to blow the water droplets into the air. There's a couple more parts to limit the amount that comes from the tank at once but this can be done without anything fancy. 

http://skyjuiceiswater.blogspot.com/2008/10/repairing-ultrasonic-humidifier.html 

@Brandon - what were you using for the rfid reader? I was thinking about this... why 2 readers? you could use tags in pairs to determine speed. Also what about a way to detect rolling stock on the track nearby? There's different types of range finders (IR, ultrasonic). Also for making consists I wonder if a magnetic wire connectors (like the macbook power supply) could be used to daisy chain rolling stock in a train for communication within the consist. This would be much like the air hoses on real trains, but would be a pair of wire instead. The magnets would auto align and connect the wires together near the couplers. Though in many passenger car types you may want to have it be autonomous. 

It's late for me and I can't sleep for some reason... Just thinking some things through. 

P.S. thanks for the tip on the Raspberry Pi again... (http://www.raspberrypi.org/) They seem to fit exactly what I'm looking for. An expandable platform that can be used to do very simple to very complex tasks that are cheaper than anything else out there.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The ultrasonic generators make a heavy "smoke" that hugs the ground like ground fog, good for halloween, not good for simulating loco smoke. BTDT. 

TDR would still be the best for locating on rails, basically free, no reader other than electronics. 

Greg


----------



## Brandon (Jul 6, 2011)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 30 Nov 2011 08:09 AM 

TDR would still be the best for locating on rails, basically free, no reader other than electronics. 

Greg 
Greg, I did look into TDR but in the research and white papers I found reported to run into problems when you have many different types of shorts (multiple locos) and degrading wire quality (rail connectivity) I also will have several reversing loops that will be dead zones that only battery locos can pass over so tdr in those areas wouldn't work unless I did a lot more wiring. I know dcc does their locating by sending out a command to all blocks and listening for which block response but who'd want to break a layout into hundreds of blocks (wiring mess) for finite locating. I did search around for a tdr solution a while back but there was only one solution I found for model railroading and it appeared old and I couldn't even find a way to buy it (don't recall the name either now). If you have some current info on tdr in model railroading I'll to take a look. rfid was one method I thought might work and so far it's shown good results. I kind of think of it as a engineer reading mile marker signs as it passes an rfid tag.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Brandon

While this is DCC and dated, you still might find it of interest.

Robotics & DCC - Bob Grosh Blog Tuesday, January 6, 2009[/b]


What can train robots do (part 1) - Bob Grosh Blog Thursday, January 15, 2009[/b]

Software History - Bob Grosh Blog Wednesday, January 28, 2009[/b]

Defining Automation Terms - Bob Grosh Blog Tuesday, January 6, 2009[/b]

Animation System - Bob Grosh[/b]


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

Most zone / block methods require wiring the layout with some sort if ID reader that monitors train traffic. One thing that would be nice to do would be to reverse the way this works. This can be done by the train announcing when it passes an ID'd location on the track. RFID's are much easier to install than wiring, readers, bar code scanners, IR system, or anything else someone may come up with. If the train is already using a wireless system then all it needs to know is where the RFID tag relates in terms of the layout (which can be represented as linked lists or use a tree data model). 

If you model the data system properly you only need to know the location of the locomotive and the cars coupled to the locomotive. The train consist can hold information about the length of the train without needing extra hardware and can project those sections of track as occupied in the software. The one thing this does not account for are cars not attached to locomotives. This can be remedied by placing a reader in each piece of rolling stock. While this is more expensive it also offers the most options as each piece of rolling stock can be tracked as well as all it's functions controlled just like a locomotive. 

This is also where a programmable device shows it's strength, as a variety of options become available. Many solutions can be presented in software or data changes rather than hardware and $$$.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree on the rfid... small, passively powered, and you can also store about 256 bits of extra information in each one... good stuff... 

they are cheap enough to put in every car. 

But, your last statement... umm... well all the major DCC decoders are programmable, and you can load different firmware in them, so that manufacturers can change operation and add features without changing hardware too... nothing new here... 

Greg


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); Posted By Greg Elmassian on 30 Nov 2011 12:39 PM 
I agree on the rfid... small, passively powered, and you can also store about 256 bits of extra information in each one... good stuff... 

they are cheap enough to put in every car. 

But, your last statement... umm... well all the major DCC decoders are programmable, and you can load different firmware in them, so that manufacturers can change operation and add features without changing hardware too... nothing new here... 

Greg 

DCC is limited to track power for the most part, track power sucks outside, and has it's own limitations. Yes, I know there are some very limited DCC wireless options, but those are very expensive or not fully DCC compliant. The other thing is that DCC is not "programmable" to the average consumer. I probably also need to define what I mean by "programmable" a little more clearly. By "programmable" I mean programmably extensible. In that the user can easily add more programs to the existing base code. DCC is typically programmed in by the manufacturer and the user simply changes settings. This to me is not programmable, but simply changing variables in the existing memory. You allude to this by saying the manufacturers can change the programming. All the user does is load the latest firmware update. This is very different than allowing the user to build their own list of user created functions that can build upon the base code. To my knowledge of DCC there is not acceleration simulation going on anywhere some motor acceleration / deceleration rate which is industry standard for motor controllers.

To put it briefly. I don't want to be limited to the manufacturers ideas of how I should run trains, nor manufacturers laziness of limiting how I can control my trains. It's time to throw that all out the window and let the hobbyist define this for themselves. Some want simulated/realistic acceleration rates other's just want to watch trains go at 900mph scale speed. While others like to tinker with a specific details and others like to be part of an overall ongoing community activity. DCC was great for the 90's but that was 15 years ago. It's time for a programmably expandable solution to train control that fills a variety of roles besides simple controls.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

It's your opinion that track power sucks outside... there's a ton of us that have no problem with it. I think in general battery power sucks. That's my opinion. 

Was not touting DCC, was saying that firmware upgradeable hardware has been out there forever. 

And as to it being time to throw everything out the window, you give me a better system that meets my needs, and it will indeed all go out the window. But it's not necessarily time to do it because it has worked well for 15 years... get something better out there first... a lot of talking, let's see some progress. Talk is cheap. 

Greg


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

Where I live track power is not even an option. Water hardness ruins track conductivity so bad that 10 minutes of scrubbing per foot can allow the trains to keep moving at least 75-90% power. Then by a couple days later the same needs to be done again for trains to run. 

Come on Greg. Hardware tests come in due time. Understand that doing something properly takes time. In terms of research a lot has been done already. Talk is not cheap. In fact talk often helps people avoid obvious errors and problems. 

So far after researching all available systems over a year (DCC, airwire, etc). I have not been impressed enough to buy a system. I almost bought A revolution but I was reluctant to even do that. I'm glad that I was not able to buy it after reading your review of the product. In the research I have been doing since starting this thread I am more confident in something I can build myself from robotics sources than from any established company out there. Frankly, the products out there for train controllers are way too expensive for what they actually provide. Many times what they actually provide is not entirely clear unless you can get hands on experience with the controller. Pricing is the largest factor working against this hobby, and the reason why I build everything I can from scratch instead of buying.


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); Posted By Mogeley on 30 Nov 2011 12:16 PM 
Most zone / block methods require wiring the layout with some sort if ID reader that monitors train traffic. One thing that would be nice to do would be to reverse the way this works. This can be done by the train announcing when it passes an ID'd location on the track. RFID's are much easier to install than wiring, readers, bar code scanners, IR system, or anything else someone may come up with. If the train is already using a wireless system then all it needs to know is where the RFID tag relates in terms of the layout (which can be represented as linked lists or use a tree data model). ...........
I experimented with RFID readers and tags from Parallax a couple of years ago trying to detect train position. I didn't have much success reading the tags.


----------



## benshell (Oct 1, 2008)

I've been following this thread since it started, but this is my first comment. I agree that's a lot of potential for using WiFi for trains, and I like highly programmable micro-controllers. And I like the idea of using a variety of train controllers, including touch screens. (My only problem with touch screens isn't the interface, but the battery life when the screen is at full brightness!). 

But don't say track power sucks outside! Have you tried stainless steel rail? I've had my first loop of track down since June and I haven't cleaned the track yet. I haven't even cleaned a small section of used track! And so far I only have one power connection to the track. That will change, since I want everything to be as reliable as possible, but even with just one power connection I've had no problems with any of my engines. I've been extremely impressed with stainless steel. 

Also, DCC isn't outdated, and I don't think you should even pretend to try and compete with DCC. But there's plenty of need for non-DCC battery power systems also, so please continue working on your ideas!


----------



## Brandon (Jul 6, 2011)

@del - what problems did you have? Range in general, reliability of a scan at the same distance every time, finding a rfid that withstood the elements, method of processing tag data? In my basement I've been fine so far with everything excelt elemental testing but the rfid fobs I have are 'water resistant' and sealed. I submerged one in water for 2 weeks and it's still working fine, I'm not sure if water is inside it though, I'll crack it open in a few months after more testing and see if water ever made it inside. They also make waterproof rfid tags but those are about $.60 a tag vs the $.29 a tag for the key fob tags. 

@others - If what you have now or what is currently out there for sale is good enough for you then there's no reason to pay much attention to those of us trying to create a new way to run our own railroads. It's like brass vs ss vs aluminum, and track vs battery, just pick what works for you and what you like but realize that it's not the best for everyone or what everyone wants. It's like religion, we all have our own views and all that matters is we have respect for the right for people to chose what works for themselves. We're also not trying to force you to do what we do either... I think my goals are similar but somewhat different than Mogeley's but I mentioned some of my ideas for him to think about as I've spent many hours looking at what hardware is out there and possibly help save him time or get info to him that he'd other wise not know about. We're all kind of pioneering something new for model railroading and since I think all of our time, skills, and budgets are not in great abundance throwing various ideas out there for each other to hear about shouldn't be criticized, whether ideas will or won't work. But if there's a general consensus that certain pieces of hardware have a wide variety of use and we can cross share work on parts that do overlap for our end goal that just helps us all. Also with anything I say I love constructive criticism, after all there are people on here with far better knowledge and experience with some hardware than me. I'm hoping someone comes by the threads and says "hey there's a usb device out there that can handle 0-24+ volts and 15-30+ amps, and also has relays that have 5 voltage regulation of 5v and 12v (or are variable) that we can use for smoke units, lights, and other aux items all in one and they're only $20, and there's a perl api for controlling it! For me, controlling the motors and lights via a usb device is the only part of the puzzle I'm missing (actually, I know how I could do it with a usb servo controller and an RCS esc but that's a $100 solution and I want to find a


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

@Brandon - Then you should be happy to see these... 

Simple Motor Controllers - Programmable and operable via USB: http://www.pololu.com/catalog/category/94 
Controllers with Feedback - http://www.pololu.com/catalog/category/95 

Pololu products seem to like the usb interface for operation and or programming.


----------



## Brandon (Jul 6, 2011)

@Mogeley - Yup, been aware of those, only quirk is they're about $50 for the higher amps (20+ as I want to run long trains with 3-5 SD45's which use almost 15 amps and passenger cars which could add a few more amps as well, and a little breathing room as it's better to have some spare amps on controllers so they run more effeciently/cooler) and don't offer a solution for smoke unit, cab, front, back, ditch, and aux items as a single unit board. I've wondered if the pololu's would be the better choice or going with a more generic usb servo controller and a car or boat esc for the engine motors and relay switches that can hook up to a servo lead for smoke, lighting, and aux functions. 

I wish pololu made a controller with 5 motor controllers on one unit... even if 1 driver was 20amp and the others were 2amp... 


edit: I did see some usb relay controllers a while back, I believe they were 8 channel and handled up to 16a each but they were about $60 so those would work but not at a cost that I like. For me a good "solution" is motor control of 15+amps and 5+ relay ports of 2amps for less than $30, one unit would be ideal but 2 would be fine if the cost is still low. 


edit2: Also it would be best if they already had proven drivers under Linux as it's been years since I've done kernel development (prior to the 2.x kernels) and don't want to have to write drivers for usb devices...


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); @import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); Posted By Brandon on 30 Nov 2011 03:05 PM 
@del - what problems did you have? ................


As I remember, I started out with small "capsule" size tags, similar to a glass reed switch size. My RFID reader was mounted to just clear the top of the rails. These didn't work at all. I then tried round tags, nearly the size of a poker chip (just fit between the rails and would have been ugly as heck). These would only work well at very low speeds. I'm sure there is better hardware out there, but probably not at hobby prices.

It could have easily been my interface and/or software too.


----------



## Brandon (Jul 6, 2011)

Posted By benshell on 30 Nov 2011 02:54 PM 
I've been following this thread since it started, but this is my first comment. I agree that's a lot of potential for using WiFi for trains, and I like highly programmable micro-controllers. And I like the idea of using a variety of train controllers, including touch screens. (My only problem with touch screens isn't the interface, but the battery life when the screen is at full brightness!). 

My original idea started by using android tablets/phones to control the train but after some thinking I came up with a few major pitfalls. 1: hacking each device to load custom software for development wasn't simple. 2: couldn't "duplicate" the image on a device easy to allow to to make additional images to load on other android devices. 3: screen could be an issue but it can be turned off after a few minutes easily enough. 4: changing would take a while, I couldn't easily swap batteries and phone batteries don't last 3+ years very well. From all these I just decided I wanted a real computer onboard that didn't limit or make it more difficult than it could be for development. If you can run a full OS like Linux the number of libraries you can leverage is massive and could cut out 90% of development alone. 5: I've been using linux for 20 years come June and it's 'cool' to me. I looked at uclinux solutions and other embedded and micro options but r-pi for $25 for everything went from a possible choice to the best choice I can find so far for my wants and future expansion. 

With this I decided to make the on board computer headless (no need to connect a monitor to it unless you're debugging it). I'm going to write my software with an api that lets you send xml commands to do all sorts of things as well as you can 'listen' for events and get xml status back of what's going on so people can write phone and tablet apps as well as create web pages for control and monitoring and let people do what they want to see and control things. For me, I don't have a huge desire to do a lot of control past sending text commands or using a web page for controls, but I might as well make an api for those two things that could be used by any device.


----------



## Mogeley (Dec 6, 2010)

Do your motor's pull more than 30 amps? My max is under 3A for just the motor. 

Yeah they offer 6-24 channel servo controllers, usb to serial, some auxiliary switches, and usb interfaces for microcontrollers as well. I'm not sure about the drivers but it looks liek all the software on this site is for win and Linux. 

Looks like the relays can work with a RC interface. Here's one that will handle up to 15 amps. http://www.pololu.com/catalog/product/1211/pictures 

Other places may have more options for motor control.


----------



## Brandon (Jul 6, 2011)

@del - I have yet to test that type of sensor, it's on my list to do as the glass capsules are fully waterproof by design. The key card tags only had about 10% more range on one rfid reader than the key fob ones and on the other reader the cards had about 2%-5% less range. Antenna design has a lot to do with reliability. I can put a tag right against the sensor at a certain angle that it never detects it (dead center of the antenna so it can't ever energize the rfid tag) but that is not how the train passes so I'm not worried about that dead spot. By pushing a car over a sensor as fast as my hand can move (20mpg-30mph guessing the speed of my hand/the car) it very rarely missed at 1/2" above the rails and I lowered the sensor to 1/4" above the rail and never could get it to miss. My guess is at high speed it was possible to get the sensor past fast enough that I was in between sensor detection as an rfid reader doesn't run at full power/detection all the time. 


If it's been a few years cheap sensors probably have improved some and the rfid reader with a square loop seemed to have tighter tolerances and better range than the circle loop antenna in the other rfid reader. The square antenna had close to the same length of wire so I'm guessing (since I'm not an antenna expert) that it may not cancel out an rfid tag as easily as a circle loop if the tag moves straight up the dead center of the loop. My readers were $10 each from ebay and tags were $.26 each I believe. I found a source for waterproof glass for $.60 each but I had to buy in quantity of 100 so I'll hold off a little longer until I check into those as the key fob does work and I'll spend time developing software and swap out rfid later if I decide to do it different when I get ready to lay track.


----------



## Brandon (Jul 6, 2011)

Posted By Mogeley on 30 Nov 2011 04:13 PM 
Do your motor's pull more than 30 amps? My max is under 3A for just the motor. 

Yeah they offer 6-24 channel servo controllers, usb to serial, some auxiliary switches, and usb interfaces for microcontrollers as well. I'm not sure about the drivers but it looks liek all the software on this site is for win and Linux. 

Looks like the relays can work with a RC interface. Here's one that will handle up to 15 amps. http://www.pololu.com/catalog/product/1211/pictures 

Other places may have more options for motor control. 
5 SD45's pull 12-16A depending on what I'm pulling. 30A leaves plenty of headroom. 15A would be my minimum and I'd have to possibly not run 5 SD45's at once with a 15A controller which I'd swallow if needed.

That relay looks good, but too bad it doesn't come with servo leads and they're $9 per relay, for cab, front, rear, ditch, lights that's 5+ that you'd need. Also what would be cool is variable so you could do mars and dimming ditch lights.


I'm keeping my eyes open and googling when I have time throughout the week. I hope to find an ideal solution but knowing there is a solution (maybe not cost or time ideal) is nice though.


----------

