# Aristo-Craft’s New 2.4 GHz Revolution Train Engineer



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

A new article on the installation of Aristo-Craft’s new 2.4 GHz Revolution Train Engineer has been added to the Battery Power Section of the Ottawa Valley GRS web site.

 

To view the article, click on the link.
2.4 GHz Revolution Train Engineer


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Showoff


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Gotta have Stanley spinning. 
"beyond anything conceived in DCC..." 

Readouts...........but who is going to teach the average consumer to read?


----------



## Dave F (Jan 2, 2008)

> Drumming fingers together.. raising one eyebrow


----------



## nkelsey (Jan 4, 2008)

Paul, did you buy that from AC or a dealer, it's not showing on any websites that I can find yet.


----------



## Stan Cedarleaf (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Torby on 12/24/2008 4:34 PM
Showoff









Yeah, Paul.... Show off.... But, it's sure nice to see that they are real and in someone's hands that can make it work.... Methinks it'sa gonna be interesting..


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Paul, when you get it running, would you please try consisting. How many consists is a question that has not been answered. 

Thanks, Greg


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Nick, three of us were given them to beta test. I was very surprised when UPS showed up at my door with it. Although they are not available yet to the general public, I would expect to see them at the East Coast Large Scale Train Show.

The transmitter is about 6 1/2 (including the antenna) x 2 1/2 x 1 inches. It has a removable belt clip, will fit in a shirt pocket, or stand on its own so it can be found by absent-minded people like me. It fits nicely in my hand and is easy to program and use. The faster, slower, stop, direction change, locomotive selection, menu and on/off keys are all easily activated with one hand. The keypad is a little awkward for me with one hand, but no problem with two as the keys are a decent size and nicely spaced. The information on the screen is easy to read even with my failing eyesight. The stubby antenna which is less than an inch long should please my fellow club members who walk in fear when the see me coming with my current fencing foil antenna. It’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

The receiver is easy to install. Like the transmitter, the antenna on the receiver is very short. No more messing around trying to wrap a metre of wire in the roof of a locomotive. In my GP-40 the receiver is mounted in top of the hood which is good for range. Like everyone in the north I am surrounded with snow, so outdoor testing will have to wait, however the radio response from my basement to the second story of my home was immediate. Perhaps if we get a mild spell I will try it outdoors.

The basic programming is very easy as everything is menu driven. A number of the functions are optional and have factory defaults so you can skip them, get linked and running quickly. Once linked, you can change most of the functions with the transmitter menus on the fly. That allows you to try different momentum settings, reverse direction delays, etc, and see compare the results right away. I look forward to using the reverse delay feature when switching.

The headlights on my GP-40 were not in synch with the locomotive direction. No problem! Scroll down to HD LIGHT on the set up menu and change it with the push of a button. That’s sure a lot easier than changing the motor wires over. On my GP-40 the headlights go out when at a full stop, but the cab, number board and porch lights remain on which is nice. I don’t know if this is a feature of the locomotive or the receiver. Obviously I still have a lot to learn about all it features.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Paul, do you mean that you controlled the headlight separately, or you reconfigured the system so the headlight operated properly? 

Thanks, Greg


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Hi Greg!

The locomotives in a consist are all given the same binding (linking) number. This is similar to the channel number used with the 75 MHz receiver. The documentation indicates more than two locomotives can be used in a consist and they will all act as one.

I see no reason that a number of consists could not be assembled and run, unless JJ has the transmitter. Each consist would have its own consist/binding/linking number. There are 50 of them to choose from.

It will be a while before I can actually test this in the real world as it would require at least four locomotives equipped with the new receiver.


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

The headlights for each locomotive can be independently switched from normal to reverse using the set up menu should they not be in sync with the motor direction.

I would assume to control the headlights (or any other lights) separately would require wiring them to the auxiliary wiring harness. The set up menu would then be used to choose between a momentary or latching option. The harness with plug in connector allows 6 separate functions such as: horn, bell, lights, etc. to be activated and controlled by keys on the transmitter.


----------



## Stan Cedarleaf (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Paul Norton on 12/24/2008 11:16 PM
Hi Greg!

I see no reason that a number of consists could not be assembled and run, unless JJ has the transmitter[/b]. (my bold) Stan


Very, very well stated, Paul.... You can never predict what might happen if that's the case......


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Paul get your butt out there and clear the rails... 
How many amps can it handle? 
can I use it with 4 locos? or should I keep all the 5470s??


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I see Paul. In DCC terms, consisting means taking several locos, all with independent "id's" and making a single address to control them by. When breaking up the consist, or adding a loco or deleting a loco, the members of the consist revert to their original "id's". (In reality they never "lost" their individual id's, they just gained an additional id for membership in the consist.) 

In the Aristo system, it seems you must RENUMBER a loco to give it the same id as the other locos in the "consist". This is done by "rebinding", i.e. reprogramming the loco with the program button. 

Is there any other way to group locos without touching/reprogramming them? 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Marty, Lewis says 5 amps. It does have a feature to MU locos, each with its own receiver.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think we could be (meaning a suggestion) more careful about certain terms. 

"MU" in prototype means common control, not common power. 
On the Aristo forum, the battery connectors are often called "MU cables", but how the locos are wired can make things different. 
In this case, Tom has use "MU" differently. 

On the new TE, there does not seem to be any DCC-style "consisting" or "MU" capability. 

It seems all you can do is make all the locos the same "address" by re-programming (binding). 

This is a "feature" in EVERY R/C system that lets you set an address for a loco, like the old TE. 

I think you MIGHT be able to use one receiver for 2 locos, but you need to rewire the locos, and the wiring would also depend on battery or track power. 

Finally, with 2 locos, I'm sure in warmer ambient, you will need a cooling fan. The heat sink looks very nice, but you need airflow to get the heat off the heatsink! 

Not picking on Aristo, but there seems to be a lot of confusion, and the word "consisting" comes up, when comparing to DCC, which it seems that this is not "more than DCC" on the new TE. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

OH, Greg
everyone over on AC board knows you like to pick on Aristo.
If there is an issue , you'll find it....
We trust you.
heheheheheheh
Not picking on Aristo, but there seems to be a lot of confusion, and the word "consisting" comes up, when comparing to DCC, which it seems that this is not "more than DCC" on the new TE. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yeah Marty you found me out! Every post over there was my attempt to "control the forum" and "push the envelope", not to help others or find out how to make my locos and cars better, or how to fix them. (according to the "king") 

I'm just a nasty old guy ha ha ha. 

I do take extreme exception to some of the statements made about the new TE on the Aristo site, and I think that making the statement "does more than DCC" and refusing to back up such a ridiculous statement is misleading. I know it's not true, but there's a lot of kool aide going around and people WANT to believe. 

It's important, in my opinion, that people have a good understanding of what a system does BEFORE investing in it. I know that you have experimented with other systems, and lucky for you Marty, you are high enough profile that people will loan you the equipment to try out. 

But the average joe, who is spending his hard earned cash on a system he has never seen, or is able to try out first, that person really needs the benefit of honest, objective, forthright information. 

That's what can really irk me sometimes. 

I think the new system will be a good follow on to the old TE system, more complicated, more features, but not a giant leap in functionality nor complexity. That's Aristo's "niche" in my opinion. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg 
If you would keep away from that JR or RJ fellower, you'd do just fine. 
I wish I could try out some things. But Paul Norton does a great job of writing things up. 
I think I have saved almost all of his diagrams.


----------



## Trains West (Oct 4, 2008)

Paul 
thank you for the write up and link ..... it is always nice to see a little info on a new product 



I would guess that unlike DCC if you have two engines that have the same number but need different power requirements to run the same speed you have no way to program the receiver with a different power curve for the percentage of throttle you have dialed up........



also does the receiver have anyway to program in either a mars light or beacon light or firebox flicker like Digitrax DCC ?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yep that's the problem, when you just "clone" the address of a loco, then speed matching goes out the window. Locos have to retain "independent identities" to consist like DCC does, with a custom speed curve for any loco if needed to match them. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Trains West (Oct 4, 2008)

with the new TE are you able to get a train going on a loop then move on to the next train and loop with the same controler ? Ie run two trains at the same time with the same controler ?


also how many outputs to run sound and lights does the reciver have ? and how easy are they to trigger ?



is there going to be switch machine recivers ? I never could get these to work well on the old system


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

I would like to see a copy of the instruction manual before I make any comments,especially on the "muing" and/or "consists".


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Posted By NTCGRR on 12/25/2008 10:40 AM
Paul get your butt out there and clear the rails... 
How many amps can it handle? 
can I use it with 4 locos? or should I keep all the 5470s?? 



Hi Marty! My butt would be flat and sore from driving by the time I got to your place. Besides between shoveling snow and painting the basement my back is already stiff. Just wait for the January thaw and the higher spots on the railway should clear by themselves.

The documentation indicates the 2.4 GHz receiver can handle 5 amps continuously and 8 amps peak. It will shut down if overloaded or it overheats. The screen on the transmitter will then indicate “No Link”.

The “No Link” message will also appear if you outrun the radio range, the transmitter’s batteries are exhausted, there is no track/battery power, if the locomotive derails (track power only I would assume), or there is a short in the track power.

As this receiver was intended for use in an individual locomotive, I would hang on to my power cars for multiple lash-ups until you read the information on consists. There is another question on consists that I will answer soon. 

I intend to keep two of my power cars with the 27 MHz trackside receivers. The Evans power boxcar has two lithium-ion battery packs in parallel for running my Dash 9 and SD-70 MAC. It gives me a chance to run them, or any other large diesel I may buy, until I get around to converting them to on-board radio control and battery power, which can take years sometimes. My covered gondola power car will be used to run my two GP-9s, S-4 switcher and any other non-Plug and Play, 4-axle diesels I may buy until they are converted to on-board radio control and battery power.

I will remove the receiver from my 40 foot power boxcar as it does not have good radio range. This is odd because except for the one battery pack, it is identical to my Evans power boxcar which gets great range. The black art of radio control!

 
I will use this as a battery only car for Plug and Play locomotives with on-board receivers, like my GP-40, until I convert them to on-board battery power.

Too many projects, never enough time!


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Paul 
I think your butt looks just fine. 
I to wonder why some cars get good range and others don't I have set them side by side tring to see why. I think its the TE. 
You know i'm just so stuck in my ways and running habits. I have two self contained units for switching and traveling. Of which I never swtich. 
Next year I plan to do more running and much less changes.


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 12/25/2008 11:14 AM
I see Paul. In DCC terms, consisting means taking several locos, all with independent "id's" and making a single address to control them by. When breaking up the consist, or adding a loco or deleting a loco, the members of the consist revert to their original "id's". (In reality they never "lost" their individual id's, they just gained an additional id for membership in the consist.) 

In the Aristo system, it seems you must RENUMBER a loco to give it the same id as the other locos in the "consist". This is done by "rebinding", i.e. reprogramming the loco with the program button. 

Is there any other way to group locos without touching/reprogramming them? 

Regards, Greg
Hi Greg!

Just to make sure I have the DCC concept correct. Locomotives with individual decoders on board have their own DCC address, identity (name and road number) and running characteristics (start speed, throttle steps, momentum, reverse delay, top speed, etc). By programming the locomotives can be added to or deleted from a consist, although maintaining their individual characteristics. As a consist, they are operated as one using one separate consist address.

The 2.4 GHz system is similar, but not the same. By using the transmitter menus the name, road number and binding/linking address of each locomotive are changed to be the same as the lead locomotive. Yes you do have to press the button to change each locomotive’s binding/linking address. The running characteristics (start speed, throttle steps, momentum, reverse delay, top speed, etc.) for each locomotive are maintained, just like in DCC. As a consist, they are operated as one using the binding/linking number, road name and road number of the lead locomotive.

When you want to delete a locomotive from a consist, the transmitter menus and binding button would be used to replace the name, road number and binding address of the individual unit.

For comparison, can you can explain the programming steps to add a locomotive to a consist in DCC, and how the consist is recognized on the throttle.


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Posted By Trains West on 12/25/2008 9:35 PM
Paul 
thank you for the write up and link ..... it is always nice to see a little info on a new product 

I would guess that unlike DCC if you have two engines that have the same number but need different power requirements to run the same speed you have no way to program the receiver with a different power curve for the percentage of throttle you have dialed up........

also does the receiver have anyway to program in either a mars light or beacon light or firebox flicker like Digitrax DCC ?


Hi Scott!

Thanks, I am glad you liked what I have tested and written so far. I am not quite sure whether you are referring to same road number or binding/linking number, so I will cover both.

If you had two identical locomotives with the same road number, you could enter the same road number for each. In order you could identify which one was which, you could enter two different names. As an example: Name: Pacific A, Road Number: 5000; Name: Pacific B, Road Number: 5000. As each locomotive would have its own receiver, each would have to be assigned a different binding/linking number. This would be similar to assigning each a different channel number in the old system. On the new receiver the T keys are used to scroll through the list of your programmed locomotives, by name and number, so you can select it.

Let me say at this time that the article on our club web site is a work in progress. There are many more functions I have yet to investigate, test and describe. As an example I mentioned in the article that I skipped steps 1.e to 1.l in the set up procedure and just used the factory defaults. It’s the kid in me. I just wanted to get the system up and running as quickly as possible so I could play with it. So I have listed them after this explanation.

If you have two or more locomotives in a consist each would have the same binding/linking number; but each could have its own power characteristics (start speed, momentum, speed steps, top speed, reverse delay, etc.). That way they would all act the same with each press of the transmitter key.

Here are the functions I skipped.

1.e – Momentum: The rate at which the locomotive will accelerate or decelerate. Adjustable from 1 to 100% in 1% steps, factory default 5%.

1.f – Reverse Delay: The number of seconds a locomotive will pause while changing directions. Adjustable from 0 to 5 seconds in 1/10 second steps, factory default 1 second. A personal favorite function that allows me to uncouple cars in a spur or siding while switching before the locomotive backs out.

1.g – Motor: The direction the motors will normally turn. The factory default is “normal”, the option “reverse”. This accomplishes the same thing as the NMRA/Large Scale switch in a Bachmann Annie, but with the push of a button. The transmitter screen has a graphic display showing the direction of travel. When I see a right pointing arrow, I expect to locomotive to move forward.

1.h – Headlight: Synchronizes the direction of the headlights with the direction of travel. The factory default is “normal”, the option “reverse”. On my GP-40 I had to select reverse to have the lights function properly.

I asked this question on the A-C Forum but do not get an answer yet. At a full stop, the headlights on my GP-40 will extinguish but the cab, number board and porch lights remain on. Is this a feature of the GP-40 or the new receiver? Can someone try a GP-40 on track power to see if these remain on?

1.i – Back to Back: Determines the direction consisted locomotives will travel. The factory default is “normal”, the option “reverse”. A locomotive that usually travels in its “normal” direction, may travel in reverse if it is not the lead locomotive.

I don’t know if this required with track power, as most locomotives would run in the same direction no matter which direction they were placed on the track. But perhaps with on-board battery power, the direction would have to be selected if placed backwards in a consist.

1.j – Top Speed: Sets the top speed as a percentage of its possible top speed. Adjustable from 1 to 100% in 1% steps, factory default 100%. This could limit the top speed of the locomotive in case you were handing the throttle to an unsupervised kid holding a cappuccino and a puppy. But more likely was designed to adjust the top speed of dissimilar locomotives in a consist.

1.k – Start Speed: Adjusts the speed at which acceleration of a locomotive will begin. Adjustable from 1 to 25% in 1% steps, factory default 0%. Used to adjust the start of dissimilar locomotives that are run in a consist.

1.l – Auxiliary Function Setup: Used to set function controls for bell, whistle/horn, sound, lights etc. between momentary and latching. Latching leaves the accessory on until the button is pushed a second time for things like bells, sound, lights, etc. Momentary would sound a whistle or horn only as log as the button held down. The system includes a plug in cable for 6 functions, but there will be an option for 16 functions.

Under the Quick Menu there is also an item to adjust the Step Speed - The speed at which the locomotive will accelerate or decelerate when the appropriate keys are pushed. Adjustable from 1 to 5 in steps of 1, factory default 2%.
Speed Setting 1 – 0.1% increments in speed.
Speed Setting 2 – 0.5% increments in speed
Speed Setting 3 – 1.0% increments in speed
Speed Setting 4 – 2.5% increments in speed
Speed Setting 5 – 5% increases in speed

That’s a lot to wade through, but would only be necessary if you were running locomotives together. Even when preparing locomotives for consists, it may not be necessary to use all of the functions. People have been dissimilar locomotives together for years. But it does give you the power to set up your locomotives so they will run flawlessly together.

To make things easier, the set-ups for the same type of locomotives can be “cloned”. If I had two GP-40s with receivers in them, I could program one and bind/link it. Then I could copy its information, change the name, road number, binding/linking number, and push the button in the second locomotive to bind/link it. Now I have two independent locomotives programmed. This should also work for similar locomotives such as FA-1s, RS-3s and U25Bs as they all have the same motor blocks.

I hope I have answered your questions. If not, give me another try. If nothing else we have provided a lot more information about the system to other forum members that may be interested.


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Posted By Trains West on 12/26/2008 8:00 AM
with the new TE are you able to get a train going on a loop then move on to the next train and loop with the same controler ? Ie run two trains at the same time with the same controler ?

also how many outputs to run sound and lights does the reciver have ? and how easy are they to trigger ?

is there going to be switch machine recivers ? I never could get these to work well on the old system 



Yes you can control a number of different locomotives on the same track or different tracks/loops with one transmitter as long as each locomotive has its own on-board receiver. On the top of the transmitter are two “T” keys that let you scroll through the names and road numbers of locomotives that you have programmed so you can select the one of several you may have running to control. This is very similar to having 75 MHz receivers in your locomotives and selecting the channel number on the transmitter of the one that you want to control.

 
The system comes with a plug in cable that allows you to control six accessory functions such as: bell, whistle/horn, lights, ect. There will be an add-on later that will allow that to expand to 16 functions. The functions are all controlled by numbers on the keypad.

I am not familiar with switch machine receivers, as our club railway uses sturdy manual switch throws. However the transmitter has a function under the TRACK LOCO ASSIGN menu to choose between on-board locomotive receivers and base receivers. I would assume that these base receivers would control switches. This could be a new product designed to operate the new slow motion switch machines that are being developed. You might want to check out the Aristo-Craft Forum for more information.


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2008)

Consisting in DCC involves selecting a "top" address to control the consist. This address may or may not be that of a physical loco. Then locos are individually added to the consist, as many as needed. All operational characteristics of each loco are retained. When a command for speed or direction is issued to the "top" loco, the command station sends that speed or direction command to each individual loco in the consist via it's real address. A throttle cannot directly change the speed or direction of a loco in the consist, this is locked out as long as a loco is part of the consist. However, function commands, for lights or sound and such, CAN be individually sent to each loco in the consist if desired. 

This is how a sound decoder is often added to a motor controller. Each has it's own address and a consist is defined, usually with the sound system as the "top" address. That way, when the loco is selected via it's "top" address, the function buttons will directly control any sound functions.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Paul: you said:


Hi Greg!

Just to make sure I have the DCC concept correct. Locomotives with individual decoders on board have their own DCC address, identity (name and road number) and running characteristics (start speed, throttle steps, momentum, reverse delay, top speed, etc). By programming the locomotives can be added to or deleted from a consist, although maintaining their individual characteristics. As a consist, they are operated as one using one separate consist address.

he 2.4 GHz system is similar, but not the same. By using the transmitter menus the name, road number and binding/linking address of each locomotive are changed to be the same as the lead locomotive. Yes you do have to press the button to change each locomotive’s binding/linking address. The running characteristics (start speed, throttle steps, momentum, reverse delay, top speed, etc.) for each locomotive are maintained, just like in DCC. As a consist, they are operated as one using the binding/linking number, road name and road number of the lead locomotive.

When you want to delete a locomotive from a consist, the transmitter menus and binding button would be used to replace the name, road number and binding address of the individual unit.

For comparison, can you can explain the programming steps to add a locomotive to a consist in DCC, and how the consist is recognized on the throttle.


Paul: I'll answer your questions:

Your first paragraph is basically correct. There are some fine points of difference. In consisting you can also set if commands apply to the loco in the "front" or all locos. For example, you might only want the "Front" loco to ring the bell, not all in the consist. There are defaults for these, but there is a lot more that can be done to customize consisting. Also, there are 2 kinds of consisting, which gives some other flexibilities and capabilities. So you have the basic understanding.



Your second paragraph interests me. You seem to state you can set the start speed, for each receiver individually, and this is maintained even if TWO different locos are now "bound" to the same address in the 0-50 space.
I wonder how this works. I know the throttle is supposed to feed back the speed of the loco. How does this work when there are 2 locos with the same linking address? Since the throttle is only sending commands to one address, how can any of this stuff work for 2 or more locos? I would be interested in the results.


If I understand what you wrote correctly, each Aristo loco would maintain it's individual characteristics. So what happens if you have 2 locos with different momentum settings and you bind them to the same linking address for a "consist"? 


More clearly, set 2 locos to wildly different start speeds, then "consist" them by setting their addresses to the same. What happens? Do they start at different times?

Consisting is something that takes a lot of thought and design. The NMRA took a while to figure this out with a lot of experts.


One thing I would say is that the Aristo system would be a real pain if you wanted to run helpers. It would be painful enough to have to reprogram locos (you have to physically go to the loco, press the button you drilled a hole for, and re-bind with the handheld)... that's painful, but you might make up a consist and run it for a while, and break it apart in a switchyard.

But, helper service would be silly... you are running a train, you come to the bottom of the grade. stop the train, bring up your helper, REPROGRAM your helper, then start up the train, and then at the top of the grade, go back out to the loco and reprogram it again to be able to independently control it.


Just a lot more inconvenient than DCC.

Now your last sentence appears to be kind of a challenge, like trying to show that DCC is more complex, and by showing some throttles, it convinces me more.


Be very careful here! If you really think that this system is "more than DCC" you will get a friendly, but sound trouncing. It's just not there, and it should not be.

To answer your last question: my throttle has ONE pushbutton to assign/create a new consist.


To add a loco to a consist, I press:
add loco (one button)
enter the loco number directly (no scrolling through 50 locos, or some search function)

specify if the loco is forwards or backwards
hit enter (one button)


Every throttle can do this from anywhere without touching the loco. When the loco is removed from a consist, it IMMEDIATELY and with NO FURTHER work assumes it's previous address. In the Aristo system, you have to remove it by reprogramming it.


It's just WAY easier, faster, and more flexible in DCC. By the way, you show the "beginner" type of Digitrax throttle, that would be used in a switchyard, or beginners or guests. The more sophisticated throttles have a much better UI.


Don't drink the kool-aide, present this system for what it's good at, increased functionality over the existing TE, more functions, low cost, and some more complexity.


Regards, Greg


----------



## Truthman (Dec 13, 2008)

Amen.


----------



## Truthman (Dec 13, 2008)

I agree Greg, it sounds like a decent improvement of their TE line of RC. Which is perfectly ok, but DCC it's not. I don't really know if it's even "thinking forward" from DCC "the dinosaur" as I think I heard someone say over at the A forum. But it probably will be a dependable fun alternative to it at a lower startup cost, but I wish they would just bill it that way.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

A long time ago, I worked for a small company called Hewlett Packard. I began as an engineer, but also got involved in reviewing manuals on new products, and even some of the advertising. I was told something early on when I was tempted to "put down" the technology from a competitor to put our product in a better light: (Like Aristo people calling DCC a dinosaur): 

"We do not disparage the competition, we sell our products based on their own strengths, not by putting others down to make ourselves look better" 

I always have thought that a good product stands on it's own merits, if you need to call the competition names, or make up stuff ("miles of wire in a DCC layout"), then it makes me think that there is something wrong with the new product; i.e. that it cannot stand on it's own merits. 

It's just the same in working environments, how often have you seen someone try to "get ahead" by putting down his coworkers for him to "look better"? 

I just don't like the technique, it makes me suspicious, and often, there is reason for suspicion. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Hi George! It’s nice to see you back on line. I have been a fan of your tech tips for years and have often directed people to you web site.

Thank you for the explanation of a DCC consist and sound decoder. I have often used consists while operating on friends HO layouts, but never had to set one up or break one down.


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Hi Greg!

Thank you also for your explanation of a DCC consist. I also visit your web site and appreciate all the information you have posted there, as I know how much time it takes to research, photograph, write, edit and update a web site of that size. 

Here is the process for setting up dissimilar locomotives for a consist as I understand it. The lead locomotive maintains it settings for momentum, start speed, top speed, etc. A second locomotive is placed on the track a few feet behind the lead and if need be is programmed until it has the same running characteristics as the lead. As an example if the trailing locomotive had a different start speed (voltage), it would be programmed to start at the same time as the lead.

Having run a number of dissimilar locomotives together (Dash 9 and SD70 MAC) with a trailing power car, I don’t think there will always be a need for a lot of programming. But it is nice to have if two locomotives couldn’t get along.

I have a question to ask, but I guess I better explain first that my previous question about programming a DCC consist was not intended to be a challenge. I have an AirWire transmitter and QSI receiver and decoder/sound board waiting for me to install it, and will probably have some questions to ask. Knowing of your expertise in DCC, it would be foolish of me to antagonize you as you would probably be the person to provide the answers.

Furthermore, I have no desire to get into a DCC/track power vs RC/battery power debate. That has been vehemently argued enough times on every large scale forum on the Internet. I don’t enjoy reading them, and I am sure it is stressful on the people engaged in the arguments. In the end everyone loses. Having run both, I know that each has its place and its followers. My intentions are to provide as much factual information about the new radio control system as I can, and how it compares to other systems as the questions arise.

So here is my question. Is the DCC set up procedure for dissimilar locomotives similar? A yes or no would suffice, but if you want to provide a fuller explanation please do so.

Although I have never run a helper in any of my HO, On30 or large scale operating sessions; it is my intention to run a couple of locomotives back-to-back during our large scale club operations. That will allow me to run my locomotives around my train on a siding for the return haul, instead of having to use the wye or turntable. 

As I would probably use two similar locomotives, such as two GP-9s or two GP-40s, the speed set-up would not be required. But if I did want to run then separately; changing the name, road number and binding number on one of them with a menu driven transmitter and pushing a button under the switch cover would not take that long. Perhaps replacing the binding switch with a reed switch and using a telescoping magnet would save touching the locomotive.

 
I guess I should have shown my Digitrax programming throttle, but I used the little one to run trains. It was more comfortable to hold and the big dial made it easier to control the locomotive with one hand. That left a hand free to throw switches and uncouple cars. I found I needed one hand to hold the big throttle and another to turn one of the little throttle knobs on top.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I'll try not to be too verbose! (but it's a strain ha ha).

"Here is the process for setting up dissimilar locomotives for a consist as I understand it. The lead locomotive maintains it settings for momentum, start speed, top speed, etc. A second locomotive is placed on the track a few feet behind the lead and if need be is programmed until it has the same running characteristics as the lead. As an example if the trailing locomotive had a different start speed (voltage), it would be programmed to start at the same time as the lead."

From what I know of the system (I have several earlier manuals from Lewis on this system), that makes sense, basically you are running all the locomotives in the "consist" under the same number, so they need to be programmed to the same number. One question I have when you get to it, is can you re-bind a loco to a different number without upsetting/changing the existing start speed and momentum settings?


Furthermore, I have no desire to get into a DCC/track power vs RC/battery power debate. That has been vehemently argued enough times on every large scale forum on the Internet. I don’t enjoy reading them, and I am sure it is stressful on the people engaged in the arguments. In the end everyone loses. Having run both, I know that each has its place and its followers. My intentions are to provide as much factual information about the new radio control system as I can, and how it compares to other systems as the questions arise.

And that is great Paul, and my questions to you about how the system operates are likewise because I want to understand how the new system works. I actually have a trackside TE here at home and am making some custom interfaces to ring the bell and blow the horn on a QSI running under a TE. For me, I am good with DCC for my situation. I think there are many applications where battery is superior, and also that DCC is not the right choice for everyone.


So here is my question. Is the DCC set up procedure for dissimilar locomotives similar? A yes or no would suffice, but if you want to provide a fuller explanation please do so.

No. There are 2 kinds of consisting in DCC, the "old style" and "advanced". Advanced consisting became standard on virtually all decoders about 2002, and is even in the $13 MRC decoders I am using on some locos (sound and motor). I believe George's description is really of the old style consisting.


In advanced consisting, you do not change anything on a loco, except to tell it that it is part of a consist. It really is as simple as the steps I already outlined earlier:


add loco (one button)
enter the loco number directly (no scrolling through 50 locos, or some search function)
specify if the loco is forwards or backwards
hit enter (one button) 
 Normally, you set the start speed of a loco once in it's lifetime, if ever. You would do this at the time of the decoder install. Start speed, midrange speed and top speed is the elementary way to do speed matching. (there is a more sophisticated way.) Thus my "NO" answer.


The main concept is that a decoder in a loco can actually have 2 addresses at the same time, it's "normal" individual address, and an extra address, it's consist address. In DCC you can normally have 127 distinct consists (i.e. all at the same time), and you can have up to 10,000 locos. 


The differences I see here are:


DCC does everything from a throttle, the new TE system requires you to physically approach the locomotive and press a programming button and go through the binding procedure.
The new TE system takes longer because of the re-linking (But I heard this is pretty quick)
DCC does not "erase" the locomotive "ID", it has a second "ID" for consisting, with the TE you change the loco ID
It appears (but needs confirmation) that if you are to run a locomotive in a TE consist backwards, when released, you must reprogram it's "direction", in DCC there is an additional direction setting that is only used for consisting.
 
I use NCE throttles, and ther are 4 dedicated consisting buttons, that match my 4 steps in consisting shown above. 


I'm not trying to put down the TE system, but it does not "surpass" DCC in this area. Again, I have not gone into further details of consisting, like the ability to specify/customize lighting functions of locos in the consist, and sound functions. Check CV's 21 and 22 if you have a DCC book.

Of course, consisting is just one small part of model railroading, and of course not as important as good motor control, reliability, etc.

I do have some more questions on how stuff acts under the new TE when consisted, but perhaps I should email you privately, rather than bore the heck out of the rest of the people reading this thread.


Regards, Greg


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Paul,
Thanks for all the info on the new system. I also got a couple e-mails from Lewis inquiring if I wanted to test the new system but I declined because I really have no intention of ever using it. Besides,the quality of information in your posts far exceed anything I could have done. I just wish that this topic hadn't been diverted into a DCC versus the new Aristo system contest. Reminds me of the USA verus Aristo posts that crop up now and then.


----------



## Trains West (Oct 4, 2008)

you are not boring me ........ I will at some point have to make the new TE work for someone and you two are giving me a lot of info .......


also not that it matters for this thread but when you consist with dcc the decoder does not get a new number or ever run two numbers ..... the comand station just mimics the comands given for the lead loco for all those tied into the consist ...... the only time you change the info on the decoder is when you first program it ........all of the consisting is done in the comand station from the comands of the throttle



with the new TE from what you have showen us here I would guess that all of the programing such as start voltage and such is held in the throttle not the receiver ..... the only problem with this is that if you want to use the loco with a differt throttle you would have to clone the info to the new throttle somehow or start over on programing .......


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Scott, there are 3 kinds of DCC consisting, address, universal, and advanced. 

You have described universal consisting. As I have mentioned most people use Advanced consisting when they want more control, and it's faster. I have stated I am talking about advanced consisting. 

The consisting information is stored in the decoder. 

By the way, the new TE uses a method very similar to DCC "address consisting" although it's really not a DCC function, it's just a way some people have done it. 

I have asked about where start voltage and momentum are "Stored" in the TE system. You bring up a good point, if they are stored in the throttle, then a different throttle would require more programming. 

I believe these attributes are stored in the receiver. 

This would be a simple test for Paul to do, but we have not found out how this is done. 

Paul, if you have 2 throttles, I'm guessing that you have to like a locomotive to each one independently. Sorry for all the questions, but I do want to update my site and knowledge with the real information. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 12/27/2008 10:37 PM

One question I have when you get to it, is can you re-bind a loco to a different number without upsetting/changing the existing start speed and momentum settings?

And that is great Paul, and my questions to you about how the system operates are likewise because I want to understand how the new system works. I actually have a trackside TE here at home and am making some custom interfaces to ring the bell and blow the horn on a QSI running under a TE. For me, I am good with DCC for my situation. I think there are many applications where battery is superior, and also that DCC is not the right choice for everyone.


I do have some more questions on how stuff acts under the new TE when consisted, but perhaps I should email you privately, rather than bore the heck out of the rest of the people reading this thread.


Regards, Greg 


Hi Greg!

According to the documentation the locomotive will maintain its operating characteristics even when its binding number has been changed, and changed back. Like a kid at Christmas I was so excited to see how the locomotive would run, so I did not mount the binding switch during the installation so I could later test this. 

Although Christmas is over, the boss is still home and I have to finish painting the basement walls and floors before “playing with my trains” and “spending all my time on the computer”. The International Junior Hockey Tournament is also being played here in Ottawa, so a little more time is taken up watching hockey. SHMBO has also volunteered my time to help a cousin install engineered hardwood flooring in her aunt’s basement this week. She keeps hoping that I will install it in our basement, but I know that is the thin edge of the wedge. My workshop any train space would quickly be converted to another furniture museum.

When I do re-open the locomotive, I am going to try a reed switch under the switch cover instead of the momentary switch provided. That way I should be able to just touch the top of the locomotive with my dollar store telescoping magnet to activate the binding/linking process. 
http://ovgrs.editme.com/files/Tools/Magnet2.jpg 












I am glad to hear you are working on an interface for the 27 MHz trackside Train Engineer. That should make it a little easier to control the whistle/horn and bell for those that run basic track power with the TE. I just hope this isn’t taking way from your time to develop the enhanced QSI Quantum Magnum for USA Trains locomotives. I have no problems building Super Sockets for mine, but most people are going to require a pop-in solution. I wouldn’t mine buying a pair in my GP-9s that have been waiting for a power conversion for some time now.

I can only answer questions on consisting based on the current copy of the manual. The actual testing will have to wait until I buy a second receiver and install it. I assume they will be available at the ECLSTS in a couple of months, if not before.


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Posted By Paul Burch on 12/28/2008 8:33 AM
Paul,
Thanks for all the info on the new system. I also got a couple e-mails from Lewis inquiring if I wanted to test the new system but I declined because I really have no intention of ever using it. Besides,the quality of information in your posts far exceed anything I could have done. I just wish that this topic hadn't been diverted into a DCC versus the new Aristo system contest. Reminds me of the USA verus Aristo posts that crop up now and then.



Hello Paul Burch!

As our club runs nothing but radio control and battery power, I was quite excited when that unexpected Christmas present arrived. Unlike you I did not receive an e-mail before, so it was a total surprise. It was not until the next day that I received the manual by e-mail. Knowing that a lot of people would be looking for information on the new system, I have tried to present as much as I can, as quickly as I can, on our club web site, the Aristo-Craft Forum and here on MLS.

Having seen track power vs battery power and DCC vs Radio Control arguments on MLS previously, I was aware that if I posted the information here there would be controversy. But that’s one of the strong features of this forum. It lets everyone post their opinion, and then lets the individual decide which system might best meet their needs. Having played competitive sports, I have taken a few good knocks. But that didn’t stop me from having a beer and a friendly conversation with my opponents/friends later.

Some of the information on DCC comparisons was also prompted by me, as I have a new AirWire transmitter, QSI receiver and decoder/sound board. Lewis was aware of this and although he felt that I preferred another brand, he still thought I would make an impartial review of the new 2.4 GHz system. That is what I am trying to accomplish, and to that end have updated the information on our club web site.


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Paul, I have found your write-up and comments most helpful in helping me understand the pros and cons of the new Revolution system. You have mentioned that ultimately you hope to move your battery into your engine. I originally started out with my battery in the engines, with the 75 MHz system. Two things have driven me to putting the battery into a battery car, however. The first was I liked the performance of the Trackside receiver better than the 75 MHz receiver. This could easily be rectified with the Revolution TE. The second reason, though, and equally important, was that I wanted to swap out batteries rather than take an engine off line for the time it takes to charge up an onboard battery. Have you figured out anyway to mount your batteries inside your engines and still be able to easily swap them out when they need recharging????

Thanks,
Ed


----------



## Trains West (Oct 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 12/28/2008 9:00 PM
Scott, there are 3 kinds of DCC consisting, address, universal, and advanced. 

You have described universal consisting. As I have mentioned most people use Advanced consisting when they want more control, and it's faster. I have stated I am talking about advanced consisting. 

The consisting information is stored in the decoder. 

By the way, the new TE uses a method very similar to DCC "address consisting" although it's really not a DCC function, it's just a way some people have done it. 

I have asked about where start voltage and momentum are "Stored" in the TE system. You bring up a good point, if they are stored in the throttle, then a different throttle would require more programming. 

I believe these attributes are stored in the receiver. 

This would be a simple test for Paul to do, but we have not found out how this is done. 

Paul, if you have 2 throttles, I'm guessing that you have to like a locomotive to each one independently. Sorry for all the questions, but I do want to update my site and knowledge with the real information. 

Regards, Greg


digitrax does not recomend the use of "advanced" consists becouse it uses ops mode programing to CV 19 20 21 ....... and you do not always talk to just the loco you want ........ 

most of the time if I want the locos to go to another layout I use basic consist and give them all the same number on the program track ......this only takes a moment 

if I want to add more motive power while running on the layout I use universal consisting ...... 

all of the clubs here use universal consisting and digitrax systems .......... 

in looking at the instructions for both Digitrax and NCE I would say that advanced is only easy on NCE becouse they they made it that way and that universal works just as easy for Digitrax........... 

Also from what I have seen here at least .....most people will go the easyest way that makes it work to the point that a lot of the extras that are built into decoders are never used like cv20 and 21.......and sometimes I think the only button people care about is the one that blows the whistle or horn ......... 


as for the New TE I would still bet that the Throttle holds the info for the loco which would make it more like universal ....... why do think that ?? becouse it is the easyer way to go if you are just running trains and not operating them


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Trains West on 12/30/2008 1:01 AM

.......and sometimes I think the only button people care about is the one that blows the whistle or horn ......... 




My thinking entirely. Makes it much easier to set up and learn a system.

Edit: I give up. How do you get the answer to be separate from the quote?


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 12/30/2008 2:06 AM
Posted By Trains West on 12/30/2008 1:01 AM

.......and sometimes I think the only button people care about is the one that blows the whistle or horn ......... 




My thinking entirely. Makes it much easier to set up and learn a system.

Edit: I give up. How do you get the answer to be separate from the quote?




Any of the following will do:

Click in the Edit box WELL BELOW the quoted text.

Click anywhere in the edit box and use the "DOWN ARROW" key to move the cursor to the bottom of the edit box.

Click anywhere in the edit box and then hold down the "Ctrl" key and type the "End" key.

These methods do not move the "end of quote" code in the edit box and put the insertion cursor outside of the quoted text.


DO NOT use the "Enter" key to move the cursor down as it will just insert LineFeeds within the quoted text and leave your typing above the "end of quote' code in the edit box. Once you are at the very bottom of the text in edit box, then you can use the "Enter" key for your own paragraph separations.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 12/30/2008 2:38 AM
Posted By TonyWalsham on 12/30/2008 2:06 AM
Posted By Trains West on 12/30/2008 1:01 AM

.......and sometimes I think the only button people care about is the one that blows the whistle or horn ......... 




My thinking entirely. Makes it much easier to set up and learn a system.

Edit: I give up. How do you get the answer to be separate from the quote?




Any of the following will do:

Click in the Edit box WELL BELOW the quoted text.

Click anywhere in the edit box and use the "DOWN ARROW" key to move the cursor to the bottom of the edit box.

Click anywhere in the edit box and then hold down the "Ctrl" key and type the "End" key.

These methods do not move the "end of quote" code in the edit box and put the insertion cursor outside of the quoted text.


DO NOT use the "Enter" key to move the cursor down as it will just insert LineFeeds within the quoted text and leave your typing above the "end of quote' code in the edit box. Once you are at the very bottom of the text in edit box, then you can use the "Enter" key for your own paragraph separations.





Lets see if that worked. 

Voila!!! It worked. Computer instructions even I managed to understand.

Thank you.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Interesting Scott, on the Digitrax recommendation. (It's one reason I use NCE!). There are many things that are difficult on the Digitrax and easy on other systems. It's kind of silly after all these years to have to "low level" program CV's that are used often. I understand the recommendation from Digitrax based on this complexity for users. 

But this discussion is on consisting, and the bottom line is you do not have to go to a programming track to create or break up a consist, whereas the new TE requires you to stop your train, go to the locomotives to be changes, and "re-bind" them with new addresses / ID's. Lewis just posted the REVERSE of this on his site, implying that you do NOT have to re-program/re-bind locos when consisting on the TE. 

By the way, Paul Burch, it is indeed unfortunate that there needs to be this controversy about DCC vs. the TE, but not only did Paul Norton bring it up (as he should) but this all started with Lewis Polk. 

Go to the Aristo site, and read the claims for the new TE system, it is full of comparisons to DCC, slams to DCC capability, and he has stated it "does more than DCC". 

So the comparison is because the TE system is claimed to not only compare to DCC, but to EXCEED DCC capability. 

I am trying to get a handle on what this system really does, and also to state the TRUTH about certain claims, like "miles of wire in a DCC layout". 

The latest comparison is where it is stated the new TE does not have BEMF, then they say it's not the best solution, then their engineers are working on it, then that it won't be in the first release, and then an inference that DCC does not do BEMF well. 

Do not take my word for it, read the forum and draw your own conclusion. 

http://www.aristocraft.com/vbulletinforums/showthread.php?t=13456 


Regards, Greg


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Posted By eheading on 12/29/2008 7:29 PM
Paul, I have found your write-up and comments most helpful in helping me understand the pros and cons of the new Revolution system. You have mentioned that ultimately you hope to move your battery into your engine. I originally started out with my battery in the engines, with the 75 MHz system. Two things have driven me to putting the battery into a battery car, however. The first was I liked the performance of the Trackside receiver better than the 75 MHz receiver. This could easily be rectified with the Revolution TE. The second reason, though, and equally important, was that I wanted to swap out batteries rather than take an engine off line for the time it takes to charge up an onboard battery. Have you figured out anyway to mount your batteries inside your engines and still be able to easily swap them out when they need recharging????

Thanks,
Ed


Thanks Ed!

Like you I had problems with RFI using the 75 MHz receiver, but the new 2.4 GHz system appears to have overcome this problem. Although winter has kept me inside, the radio response from the basement to the second storey of our home was immediate. I also like all the additional features that come with the new system, and will use some of them when I install a Phoenix sound board that has been gathering dust in my basement for years.

Finding a place for on-board battery pack can be a challenge, but the small size of the lithium-ion battery pack has made it easier. Here is one mounted in the fuel tank of my FA-1.

 

As this pack has a 2-pin connector, a mating connector (shown below) can be bought inexpensively from All Electronics. The battery could be un-plugged and replaced with a fresh pack, but that would require turning the FA-1 over and removing the screws from the tank.

The large fuel tank on the GP-40 will also hold a battery pack, if you willing to remove one of the weights. There are two large tabs holding the tank to the frame

 

Again you would have to turn the locomotive over to remove the pack, and I don’t know how long the tabs on the tank would last with constant use.

As my battery packs last as long as our club’s railway operations; I have no problems using them. If extended running time were required, I would add a switch and leave the rear MU plug in place. That would allow the on-board pack to be turned off and a trailing battery car to be plugged in.

With more and more manufacturers switching to Plug and Play locomotives, adding a receiver and a battery car is a quick and easy way of enjoying battery power and radio control.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Mr Polk has also said today and in the past few weeks:

"The new TE Revolution is not just an upgrade of our 20 year old system."

Not true.

The TE was first released in 1995 which makes it just 13 years old. Not 20 years old.


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Picky Picky Picky! 










If Clarion can round 5/3 to 2, Lewis can round 13 up to 20


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Or we can round 13 to 10? There's more to the story Tom, but I'm not going to air it here. 

On a positive note, it's very nice to hear that Aristo has decided to change the programming/firmware to allow consisting without using the programming button on each loco. 

I may drive Lewis crazy, but even though he did not listen to me before, better late than never I guess, the consumer will benefit, and that's the bottom line. 

Now, if I could just get all the puffery to stay on real features and not be a crusade against other technologies it would be great. 

What problem should we attack next? I'm especially curious how using a second transmitter works, if you have to go and re-load all locos, or there is some "transmitter cloning" method. With bi-directional communication, this should be possible. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Thanks Paul for the ideas on mounting batteries inside the engine. I like the idea of bringing the connector out the rear of the engine, and then if need be just using a trailing car if the battery goes dead while I'm running the engine. I might try that when I install my first Revolution in the next few weeks. Years ago when the li-ion batteries first came out I did that, but then with the problems with the batteries I finally got the batteries out of the locomotive. Now with the batteries much more reliable, perhaps it is time to put them back in the engine!!

Ed


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Tom. 
It goes to credibility. 
I get very annoyed with those sorts of bogus claims. From anyone. 

If you are going to tell porkies about your business history, why should anyone believe anything else you say?


----------



## Trains West (Oct 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 12/30/2008 10:11 AM
Interesting Scott, on the Digitrax recommendation. (It's one reason I use NCE!). There are many things that are difficult on the Digitrax and easy on other systems. It's kind of silly after all these years to have to "low level" program CV's that are used often. I understand the recommendation from Digitrax based on this complexity for users. 





I Take offence to this coment .......... I did not say that the digitrax system could not do this .. it can be turned on at any time ..... nor did I say it was hard .... I would say it is just as easy as NCE and just becouse the term used is "advanced " does not mean it is advanced ...... after reading about it I agree with digitrax in what is the point of useing it .... I do not like how you keep slaming digitrax both systems are high end systems ...... I find nothing difficult with digitrax the throttle is so stright forward that you know right away what to do so there is almost no learning curve


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Scott, I'm not sure why you take offense to this, you did not design Digitrax, so why are you taking offense? All that I could make of the statement was that the ops mode was too complex of an operation to be safe. I re-read your post and I still come to this conclusion. Anyone else?

I don't mean to slam Digitrax, nor was I aware that I did. When recommending high end systems, I recommend either NCE or Digitrax, unless you want transponding, then I only recommend Digitrax. Consisting on NCE IS easier, so what? That is the reality, and that feature and a few others is why I prefer NCE for myself.

Here is your comment: "digitrax does not recomend the use of "advanced" consists becouse it uses ops mode programing to CV 19 20 21 ....... and you do not always talk to just the loco you want ........ 
most of the time if I want the locos to go to another layout I use basic consist and give them all the same number on the program track ......this only takes a moment " 

1. I cannot understand why you would avoid using ops mode programming. It's used all the time in DCC. 

2. "and you do not always talk to just the loco you want" --- please explain why this happens, it does not happen to me. I have no malfunction of my DCC system. Is this to prevent operator error?


3."most of the time if I want the locos to go to another layout I use basic consist and give them all the same number on the program track" 
So you have to take the loco to the programming track to change it's address? OK, that is very safe, a pain, but safe. I change the addresses of locos on the main all the time. I have no problems. If I screw up, I can always set up a programming track. I have never used mine except on LGB locos, and one locked up MRC decoder.

If all your actions are because of Digitrax recommendations, I may stop recommending Digitrax, based on your comments. Really.


Regards, Greg


----------



## Steeeeve (Sep 10, 2008)

I thought Digitrax didn't want you to use advanced Consisting because "this has been known to cause problems when locos consisted using advanced consisting are moved and not put back in the EXACT arrangement in which they were originally mu'ed together." 

Well that is what their website says


----------



## Doug C (Jan 14, 2008)

Even though I have stayed far far awaaay from beta-testing anything ! I was seriously considering using some Christmas money to purchase this unit with the special offer add-ons 

BUT ( ------->CORRECTION !! )


Chking this a.m. my basic math but not including shpg. the diff. btwn retail (estd in Cdn. funds) and stated msrp (in Cdn funds) of the package ---- seems to ba a savings of $160 cdn !! 

STILL have to subtract Shpg up from NewJersey (courier based is waaaay more than regular postal due to their brokerage fees after package crosses over) + customs $5 processing fee will have to be subtracted. 





BUT (again) being a self-stated amoeba (see the OVGRS webpage) when it comes to electronics I'll wait till at least next yr when most of the bugs are out of it to reconsider this new R/C offering. 




It sure it is great though to have Paul N. taking the time to post applicable Revo' tech info and tips as he 'learns' this new product ! 




Quite similiar to what Greg, George have done for us online thru their own websites !!




THANKS GUYS !! 



doug c 


p.s. gee i hope i got the basic math right this time !!! I had neglected to 'translate' retail $ into Cdn !


----------



## GG (Jan 1, 2009)

why not keep life simple... DCS by MTH. 

This comment will indeed stoke fires. Steamy situation. 

gg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

GG. 

DCS by MTH is not that simple if you want battery R/C *inside* most locos.


----------



## Rayman4449 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Paul Norton on 12/26/2008 4:54 PM
Posted By Trains West on 12/26/2008 8:00 AM
with the new TE are you able to get a train going on a loop then move on to the next train and loop with the same controler ? Ie run two trains at the same time with the same controler ?

also how many outputs to run sound and lights does the reciver have ? and how easy are they to trigger ?

is there going to be switch machine recivers ? I never could get these to work well on the old system 



Yes you can control a number of different locomotives on the same track or different tracks/loops with one transmitter as long as each locomotive has its own on-board receiver. On the top of the transmitter are two “T” keys that let you scroll through the names and road numbers of locomotives that you have programmed so you can select the one of several you may have running to control. This is very similar to having 75 MHz receivers in your locomotives and selecting the channel number on the transmitter of the one that you want to control.

 
The system comes with a plug in cable that allows you to control six accessory functions such as: bell, whistle/horn, lights, ect. There will be an add-on later that will allow that to expand to 16 functions. The functions are all controlled by numbers on the keypad.

I am not familiar with switch machine receivers, as our club railway uses sturdy manual switch throws. However the transmitter has a function under the TRACK LOCO ASSIGN menu to choose between on-board locomotive receivers and base receivers. I would assume that these base receivers would control switches. This could be a new product designed to operate the new slow motion switch machines that are being developed. You might want to check out the Aristo-Craft Forum for more information.




WOW! Very nice! I assume this can be used for either track or battery power operation. Thanks for posting Paul.


Raymond


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Hi Raymond!

Yes it can be used for either track or battery power. Aristo-Craft, Plug and Play locomotives have a power switch to select either.


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm sort of new to RC forum, so I may be missing something. 

Will the Revolution fit in my Aristo RS-3 The run with the Pennsylvania road name produced three years ago. Will I still need to cut pin 6 or 7? 

Will the Revolution fit in my Bachmann K27. It has the Aristo plug. How long will the battery last with just the lights on, motor not running?. Will it control the smoke and lights? 

Will the Revolution fit in the new Bachmann Mallet, I don't have one, but someone here wants me to see if I can put a TE or the Revolution in one for him. 

Will the Revolution fit in my Egg-Liner? 

Will the Revolution fit in the my old Aristo C16, or will I need to buy the new belt drive one? 

Will the Revolution control the smoke, marker lights, firebox flicker, porch lights, ditch lights or cab lights on any plug and play locos without hand wiring. (Either Aristo or Bachmann) 

Does the smoke still work on the Aristo GP-40 after the Revolution install? Can the smoke be turned on and off via the remote? I'm considering the GP40 or similar loco for the ALLY. 

Will the Revolution fit in the LGB 2073D or Stainz or Johny Field loco?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I might try to help on one question, I'll leave Paul to answer the other ones since he has the unit. 

The new Bachmann Mallet is SUPPOSED to have an identical socket to the K, but the sense of the chuff trigger is reversed. That means that the pins used by the new TE receiver should be the same and it should work. The smoke will need to be controlled by the promised Aristo accessory board. That will have to be hardwired I believe. The lights should function, i.e. the headlight and the backup light. Not clear on the rest of the lights. 

Oh, let me answer this one: 
"Will the Revolution control the smoke, marker lights, firebox flicker, porch lights, ditch lights or cab lights on any plug and play locos without hand wiring. (Either Aristo or Bachmann) " 

NO. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Posted By bobgrosh on 01/13/2009 1:31 PM
I'm sort of new to RC forum, so I may be missing something. 

I'm sort of new to RC forum, so I may be missing something.

Hi Bob! The 2.4 GHz TE is new to everyone, so we are learning as we go.

Will the Revolution fit in my Aristo-Craft RS-3, the run with the Pennsylvania road name produced three years ago. Will I still need to cut pin 6 or 7? 

Yes, if the RS-3 is a Plug and Play model. I know the boards in the older RS-3s had to be turned around to keep the 75 MHz receiver from hitting the speaker magnet. I do not know if this will be true of the new 2.4 GHz receiver as I no longer own an RS-3.

No you do not need to cut any pins on either the 75 MHz or 2.4 GHz receivers. I believe that was a mod required for a particular DCC decoder.

Will the Revolution fit in my Bachmann K27? It has the Aristo-Craft plug. How long will the battery last with just the lights on, motor not running? Will it control the smoke and lights? 

I do not own a K27, so I can not say certain. If Bachmann has designed the socket to have the same fit and function as Aristo-Craft Plug and Play socket, then it the new TE should fit and perform properly. If you know anyone that has used the 75 MHz receiver in the K27, perhaps they can comment of fit and function. If the 75 MHz receiver works, the 2.4 GHz receiver should work also.

The size and type of the battery used would determine the length of time lights would remain lit.

There is a separate board for smoke units that can be turned on or off using one of the six function keys on the transmitter. The lights function the same as they do with track power. If you want to individually control a cab light or ditch lights, you would have to isolate them and hook them up to the supplied plug-in wiring for the six accessory functions.

Will the Revolution fit in the new Bachmann Mallet, I don't have one, but someone here wants me to see if I can put a TE or the Revolution in one for him.

The answer would be the same as the first paragraph about the K-27. 

Will the Revolution fit in my Egg-Liner?

It would fit, but as there is no Plug and Play socket in the Eggliners, you would have to use the supplied adapter board for custom installations. This is similar to the adapter board used with the 75 MHz receiver. 

Will the Revolution fit in my old Aristo-Craft C16, or will I need to buy the new belt drive one? 

The old C-16 would be similar to the Eggliner or any other non-Plug and play locomotive. The adapter board would have to be used. Aristo-Craft are developing a new adapter board with screw terminals to make the wiring easier.

Will the Revolution control the smoke, marker lights, firebox flicker, porch lights, ditch lights or cab lights on any plug and play locos without hand wiring? (Either Aristo-Craft or Bachmann) 
There is a separate board for smoke units that can be turned on or off using one of the six function keys on the transmitter. The lights function the same as they do with track power. If you want to individually control a cab light or ditch lights, you would have to isolate them and hook the up to the supplied plug-in wiring for the six accessory functions. There will be an option later to have sixteen function controls.

Does the smoke still work on the Aristo-Craft GP-40 after the Revolution install? Can the smoke be turned on and off via the remote? I'm considering the GP40 or similar loco for the ALLY. 
There is a separate board for smoke units that can be turned on or off using one of the six function keys on the transmitter. Good choice! The GP-40 is a great locomotive. I was lucky enough to buy a second CN unit today.

Will the Revolution fit in the LGB 2073D or Stainz or Johny Field loco?

I can not say with any certainty, as I not familiar with these three locomotives. The receiver is about the same size as the 75 MHz receiver so it should fit. Again the adapter would have to be used for custom installations.


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Paul Norton on 01/13/2009 11:15 PM
The lights function the same as they do with track power. If you want to individually control a cab light or ditch lights, you would have to isolate them and hook them up to the supplied plug-in wiring for the six accessory functions.
Again the adapter would have to be used for custom installations.




Thanks for all the answers,

I'm still a little fuzzy on the lights...
When you say the headlights function the same as on track power, Does that mean one is always on, the other always off and they swap depending on the direction you set the loco for? 

Is there some configuration setting you can do with the remote so that instrad of going off, one light dims and the other brightens? 
Does one of the function keys let you turn on or off the headlight function? Can I run with the headlights off in the daytime and then turn them on when I enter a tunnel with a function key?

One thing I forgot to ask earlier.

There is a momentum adjustment. That is fine for most running. It lets you simulate a heavy load. But during switching operations, it is real hard to accurately position the cars. Most people find it so hard to position cars accurately that the turn the feature off unless the receiver has provisions for a switching mode.

Is there a DCC like provision to use one of the function keys to change to a second set of settings for momentum and top speed? On my trains I usually reduce the speed range by 1/2 to give me finer control, and acceleration and deceleration to 1/4 to give me less momentum and quicker stops. I use the same function to select switching mode and the bell.

I see that the Revolution will work on battery or track power. But I may have missed the details. Does it run in track power mode on DCC and DCS. By Run, I mean, doest it run and function propery. IE, do the lights work correcty for stoped, forward and reverse? 
*More importantly, does it not interfere with the operation of other trains running on those digital forms of track power.* I have gone to great effort to accomidate all forms of power for visitors who want to run on my railroad. I want to make sure that any visitor running the Revolution in track power mode will not have any problems. I assume Aristo would have made compatibility a high priority, and would have tested this, but I haven't see any specific test results.

Thanks for some great info. I look forward to seeing one in the near future.


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Thanks for all the answers,

I'm still a little fuzzy on the lights... When you say the headlights function the same as on track power, Does that mean one is always on, the other always off and they swap depending on the direction you set the loco for? 

When the locomotive is moving, one is always on in the direction of the locomotive and the other is off.

I noticed while testing my GP-40 that the headlights would go out while stopped, but the cab, porch and number board lights would remain on. This does not happen without the new TE installed, so I have to assume it is a function of the new receiver. I like this feature for station stops or waiting in the hole (on a siding), but long waits may reduce my battery run time.

Is there some configuration setting you can do with the remote so that instead of going off, one light dims and the other brightens?

If you want to individually control headlights, you would have to hook up their wiring to the supplied plug-in wiring for the six accessory functions. There will be an option later to have sixteen function controls should you want control of all the lights individually.

To be honest I did not mess with the optional wiring harness yet, as I did not want to make magic smoke with my only receiver. I do intend to install a Phoenix sound board however, and I have pre-ordered the beta testing package that Aristo-Craft is offering (the TE set with two extra receivers). When I receive them I will not only test the new consisting feature, but try wiring the long hood lights on my two GP-40s so I can shut them off when operating them back-to-back.

Does one of the function keys let you turn on or off the headlight function? Can I run with the headlights off in the daytime and then turn them on when I enter a tunnel with a function key?

I did not see anything in the documentation about turning off the headlights using a function key like you could with the 75 MHz receiver, but I will ask. Perhaps it is because most Aristo-Craft and USA Trains locomotives have switches to turn off the lights for daytime running.

One thing I forgot to ask earlier.

There is a momentum adjustment. That is fine for most running. It lets you simulate a heavy load. But during switching operations, it is real hard to accurately position the cars. Most people find it so hard to position cars accurately that the turn the feature off unless the receiver has provisions for a switching mode.

Is there a DCC like provision to use one of the function keys to change to a second set of settings for momentum and top speed? On my trains I usually reduce the speed range by 1/2 to give me finer control, and acceleration and deceleration to 1/4 to give me less momentum and quicker stops. I use the same function to select switching mode and the bell.


Under the Quick Menu, accessed by the # key, there is an item to adjust the STEP SPEED - The speed at which the locomotive will accelerate or decelerate when the appropriate keys are pushed. It is adjustable from 1 to 5, in steps of 1.
Speed Setting 1 – 0.1% increments in speed. Speed Setting 2 – 0.5% increments in speed Speed Setting 3 – 1.0% increments in speed Speed Setting 4 – 2.5% increments in speed Speed Setting 5 – 5% increases in speed [/list] http://ovgrs.editme.com/files/Revolution/StepSpeed.JPG









The higher values would provide increasing quicker the starts and stops. The bell would be latched using the function key of your choosing.

All the running characteristics (momentum, reverse delay, top speed, start speed) can be changed at any time using the user friendly menus on the transmitter. You do not have to re-bind (re-link) to do this as the information is stored in the transmitter not the receiver. 








A personal favorite of mine is the reverse delay function that allows me to uncouple cars in a spur or siding while switching before the locomotive changes direction and backs out. The number of seconds a locomotive will pause while changing directions is adjustable from 0 to 5 seconds in 1/10th of a second steps. 

I see that the Revolution will work on battery or track power. But I may have missed the details. Does it run in track power mode on DCC and DCS. By run, I mean, does it run and function properly. IE, do the lights work correctly for stopped, forward and reverse?

*More importantly, does it not interfere with the operation of other trains running on those digital forms of track power.* I have gone to great effort to accommodate all forms of power for visitors who want to run on my railroad. I want to make sure that any visitor running the Revolution in track power mode will not have any problems. I assume Aristo-Craft would have made compatibility a high priority, and would have tested this, but I haven't seen any specific test results.

As the new TE is a radio control system, signals are passed through the air between the transmitter and receiver. It would not interfere with any operating system that passes its signals through the track. Nor will it interfere with any other radio control system, as it is the only one that operates in the 2.4 GHz range that I know of.

If you are running other locomotives with DCC or DCS, I assume you would have the power to the tracks on full. These operating systems would pass signals through the tracks to the decoders in the locomotives that would control the speed and direction of the locomotives. The TE would pass signals through the air to a track powered TE equipped locomotive to accomplish same thing.

The lights and motors of a TE equipped locomotive will operate the same in either track power or battery power mode as they are both DC power. 

Battery powered locomotives however draw their power from trailing cars or on-board battery packs. As their track power pick-ups should been removed, unplugged or turned off; they are totally independent of the track power and any signals that may be running through the rails. They are controlled only by the TE transmitter that is linked to them. If the track power was shut off, the battery powered locomotive would continue to operate until the transmitter was used to stop them.

The only problem I can see you having is a person with a track powered locomotive that does not have a decoder or receiver installed. With the power on full however, that problem would disappear on the first curve.


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Posted By bobgrosh on 01/14/2009 5:14 AM

Does one of the function keys let you turn on or off the headlight function? Can I run with the headlights off in the daytime and then turn them on when I enter a tunnel with a function key?



The software upgrade of new TE has added another feature. Under the functions menu there is now option to turn the headlights on and off. This will allow you turn off the headlights on any of the trailing units in a consist without having to throw the lights switch. The number board lights, porch lights and cab light remain on even at a dead stop.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Paul, if all the units in a consist have the same ID, how can the command only turn off the headlights in the trailing units only? 

If consisting is merely setting all locos to the same id, they all get the same commands... 

Please explain... have you actually tried this? 

Regards, Greg


----------



## dbodnar (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg - the revised software has changed the way that locomotives in a consist are set up. 

Each loco retains its own ID and personality. You first define each loco with a unique ID, name and road name - once you have the locos set up as individual units you then create a consist of up to six of those locomotives. 

The consist is given a track number ID under which it is operated. When you are on the main control screen and operating the track number that refers to the consist you can even access the sound card, smoke units or whatever you have connected to the auxiliary output connections on the receiver. A very nice way to do things.

Once you have a chance to see how it is done or to try it for yourself I think you will agree that it is an elegant solution to setting up multiple locomotives.

dave


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yay! 

I agree it's an elegant solution compared to the previous idea. 

Aristo has now *copied* one of the successful methods that DCC has used for years. 

Much better! We know this works, have been using it for 10 years on my systems. 

(guys, I'm happy, this is not sour grapes. Aristo did not invent anything here, and they will continue to find, in my opinion, that they will have to copy DCC functionality in order to make this system work the way people will expect... that is a good thing, we know the DCC standard and functionality is workable, because it is used on thousands of HO layouts) 



Regards, Greg


----------



## Doug C (Jan 14, 2008)

IMHO Aristo invented (in-house) a way to put a whole lot of great (proven in the past and still evolving) ideas into one package !!! ? Kudos to Lewis and his tech' team for rolling this system out. 


Hopefully within a couple yrs I'll be able to afford and subsequently seriously consider buying a unit (maybe this Revo' tech') and evolve from TRACKpower ! 



doug c 


"proven in the past" = "....to copy DCC functionality in order to make this system work the way people will expect... that is a good thing, we know the DCC standard and functionality is workable ...."


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Don't get me wrong, I was complimenting Aristo on copying a proven method of consisting. And I meant they did not invent consisting nor the method. I knew someone would take exception to this. 

They HAVE though come up with a very inexpensive product with a new quantum level of capability, especially as compared to the old TE system. 

This is about as inexpensive as you can go if you are not running sound and you need a system for just a few locos and few users. 

Once again, Aristo may define a "niche" for themselves like they did with the older TE systems. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

I'm rather late to the party - looked for an Aristo "Revolution" thread under analogue power - but then good old google came to the rescue.

One basic question - is there a 10-amp receiver/controller available for this system - like the one that wires between a 24 VDC supply and the track on the old Aristo TE so one can use regular analogue engines with track power but with R/C control which is really useful in the garden?


knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

No "trackside" unit, and none announced, but in the menus on the handheld, you choose between on-board and trackside, so the "hooks" are in there. 

As was previously stated, the onboard unit is 5 amps, and 8 amps peak, but the connectors that you would have to plug the board into are pretty much rated for 3 amps, 5 max. 

So, if your locos are 5 amps and under, it would seem you could use this as a "trackside" unit. 

Regards, Greg 

(who actually has a train that takes 10 amps? very few I would wager)


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 03/09/2009 2:24 PM

(who actually has a train that takes 10 amps? very few I would wager)



Thanks Greg,

The problem used to be double-headed USA Trains engines with a string of lit passenger cars heading up an incline.
Not that they would require the full 10 amps, but the current draw was definitely more than 5.


However, I think USA Trains has more efficient motors in their engines now.
Any idea what a current draw guideline would be per motor for a newer USA Trains diesel?


All my engines are LGB and I use 1 amp per motor which matches pretty well what I see in practice.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

KRS. 

Regardless of current capabilities, if your LGB locos have a DCC decoder on board, it would probably be a good idea to avoid any trackside controller that had a PWM output. 
PWM is known to cause a DCC decoder to become "confused".


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

As a matter of fact, I run multiple USAT diesels all the time, and with USAT streamliners, and up a 3.4% grade. 

Two F3 units, close to wheel slip on this grade are 3.7 amps on my RMS voltmeter at about 23 volts to the rails DCC. I have measured the streamliners at about .7 amps per car for lighting. 

My PA units have similar power consumption. What will get you is as you have stated, the passenger cars can add up pretty darn quickly. Right now I am waiting delivery on my 6th USAT passenger car, which will be pulled by an ABBA set of PA's or an ABBBA set of F3's or whatever it takes. 

Will post amperage draws on my site. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 03/09/2009 3:26 PM
KRS. 

Regardless of current capabilities, if your LGB locos have a DCC decoder on board, it would probably be a good idea to avoid any trackside controller that had a PWM output. 
PWM is known to cause a DCC decoder to become "confused". 



PWM even causes problems with the plain analogue sound cars from LGB, but switching the trackside TE to linear mode fixes that.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 03/09/2009 3:39 PM
As a matter of fact, I run multiple USAT diesels all the time, and with USAT streamliners, and up a 3.4% grade. 

Two F3 units, close to wheel slip on this grade are 3.7 amps on my RMS voltmeter at about 23 volts to the rails DCC. I have measured the streamliners at about .7 amps per car for lighting. 

My PA units have similar power consumption. What will get you is as you have stated, the passenger cars can add up pretty darn quickly. Right now I am waiting delivery on my 6th USAT passenger car, which will be pulled by an ABBA set of PA's or an ABBBA set of F3's or whatever it takes. 

Will post amperage draws on my site. 

Regards, Greg



Thanks Greg,

That's good to know. So 1 Amp per motor is also a good value to use for the USAT diesels.


I'm a bit surprised the streamliners take that much current. The large LGB passenger cars have four ,lights in them at 50ma max per for a total of 0.2 amps per car and in the new long LGB RhB cars, LGB has just changed to white LEDs on some of their cars cutting the current requirements even further.


Regards, Knut


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 03/09/2009 6:18 PM
Posted By TonyWalsham on 03/09/2009 3:26 PM
KRS. 

Regardless of current capabilities, if your LGB locos have a DCC decoder on board, it would probably be a good idea to avoid any trackside controller that had a PWM output. 
PWM is known to cause a DCC decoder to become "confused". 



PWM even causes problems with the plain analogue sound cars from LGB, but switching the trackside TE to linear mode fixes that.



Yes it surely does.

The new "REVOLUTION" does not have a linear modeavailable.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

With the lack of a trackside unit, and forcing all locos to PWM, does this mean de-evolution instead of revolution? 

OK, I gotta stop taking pot shots, even when they make it too easy, it's just not sporting. 

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 03/09/2009 7:51 PM

The new "REVOLUTION" does not have a linear mode available.



Very good point Tony!

So it's pretty well useless as a track side receiver.

Is there any pricing available on the "Revolution" and the receivers?


----------



## Trains West (Oct 4, 2008)

* CRE57000 Train Engineer Set 2.4 GHz $300
CRE57001 Train Engineer Spare TX $200
CRE57002 Train Engineer Receiver $116
CRE57003 Train Engineer Receiver (6) Pk. $525
CRE57074 Train Engineer Switch Receiver $86
(operates 10 accessory functions)
CRE57075 Train Engineer Switch Receiver $81
(Operates 5 switches)
CRE55653 NIMH 19V 2.8 Amp Battery Pk. $77.50
CRE55651 Charger for above $35
*


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Thanks - are these list prices or typical street prices?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

List, you can go to RLD hobbies for street prices, or St. Aubins...I saw the regular receiver was around 80 I think. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Wow - that's pretty cheap for the set. 
Nice looking transmitter - if the system delivers what it promises so far, this could be a good option for the battery crowd.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!! 

I'm ROTFLMAO !!!! 

Well, speaking of promises: 

1. "beta" program announced... Buy cab and receiver at full list and get 2 more receivers for free. 
2. To be completely clear: ONE cab and THREE receivers. 
3. Delayed because of FCC approval... unexpected delay... (no more comments here, that was already entertaining) 
4. Finally they are coming and are starting delivery. 
5. OOPS!!! People are only getting TWO receivers, not THREE !!!!! 
6. Reason that the "beta testers" did not get their THREE receivers: 

"Dear All, 

We will supply at no charge a 3rd receiver iin a couple of months when the shipment arrives. We have none left now as they were used for the beta shipments delivered. 

All the best, 
Lewis Polk " 

???!!!!! 

The beta testers did not get their units because they were given to the beta testers? 

this is funnier than a soap opera... 

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 03/31/2009 10:12 AM

........this is funnier than a soap opera... 






Aristocraft is always terribly entertaining I find - especially in their emails and ads.

I love how the new Train Engineer is positioned....."incremental control beyond anything conceived in DCC" 


Regards, Knut


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

It get better every day. Just like a soap opera. Now we got to preorder if we want the 2-8-0. Looks like no other new products this year as Lewis is afraid of the economy. In this case he may have to apply for a govt loan to bail him out. Later RJD


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Well, I have to say, guys, I got my beta REvolution TE today, and installed two of them. Initially I put them in battery cars to see how reliable they are and whether the perform as advertised or not. So far I am very pleased. Installation is no harder than a 27MHz receiver. I was pleased to see that my Phoenix boards work fine with these receivers so far. Every now and then they misbehaved in PWC mode on the old 27 MHz receivers. It is nice to be able to just run a wire to the sound board and control the horn and bell. I know that I am not hard to please compared to some of you, but for me the system is a winner.

Regarding range, I don't know how far it is. I got as far away from the engine in my yard as I could, which is a little over 100' and communication was just fine.

Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Did Lewis charge you for your third, undelivered receiver? Only mention it because he has a long rant about preorders... then talks about the te, then he says he did not charge anyone's card until they shipped the merchandise. So you should have been charged one receiver less than $300. 

Anyway, let us know how you like it... I think the people who will have difficulty are those consisting or using more than one throttle or both... Did you hook your phoenix up already? I assume bell and whistle only? 

Regards, Greg


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Yeah, I have the Phoenix card all hooked up. Works well. AS I said the whole installation went very easy and smoothly. Putting together consists doesn't look that hard to me, but I don't see me doing much of that anyway. I'll address that when I get there --- if I get there!







We'll see in a couple of weeks when we get another transmitter here, what happens if you link two transmitters to the same receiver.

Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Will be very curious... the manual does not make a lot of sense there... Notice the "binding" procedure for a new loco is now a two step proces? First bind loco to a throttle, then hook that loco to a "cab"... "cabs" must be unique, so I think effectively a loco is never "hooked up" to more than one throttle.... you have to change the "cab number" for a different throttle to control the loco. 

Not trying to give Aristo a hard time, but after all the bluster and how it is "beyond DCC" ... I want to see how it works. 

I think to have a different throttle control a loco, you have to reprogram the "cab number" for that loco... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

We'll find out in a few weeks!

Ed


----------



## dbodnar (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg - I am not sure what you mean when you refer to a "throttle" as that is not a term that is used when setting up the Revolution.

The procedure is rather simple and most folks take to it quite quickly.

Use the menu to set parameters for a new loco - this includes selecting an internal linking number that has to be unique for each locomotive - this is called the link address


Link the locomotive to the transmitter
Associate the new locomotive with a CAB number (ranges from 0-49) - the CAB number is used to select locomotives when you are in the main operation mode - the concept of CAB was used as the engineer in the "cab" of a loco can operate one or more locomotives (if they are MUed)
Define additional locomotives using that procedure - let's say we define 4 locos, each being an E8 and having road numbers 500 (CAB 0), 501 (CAB 1), 502 (CAB 2), and 503 (CAB 3) 
You can now operate all four independently from the main screen and switch locos with the buttons
 To put those 4 into a consist

Go to the main menu and select ADD MU/SU CAB
Select a new CAB number to associate with the MU (let's say CAB 4)
Turn MU mode on
Use the MU menu to select the four locomotives that will run in the MU
 Now when you go to the main menu and select CAB 4 you will be controlling all four E8's
The "*" button on the keypad allows you to switch focus between the four to turn on smoke units and to do sounds. 


If you want to control the individually again just use CABs 0-3 


I find it to be rather easy to do and understand.


dave


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Dave - 

I think you are missing Greg's point. 

Forst of all, let's agree that transmitter = throttle. 

What Greg is saying, to switch control of any loco from throttle (transmitter) A to throttle (transmitter) B, requires two steps - you need to re-link the loco to throttle B and you need to re-select the Cab. 

I actually thing "throttle" is a better term, transmitter is too generic and doesn't really describe the function. 

Regards, Knut


----------



## dbodnar (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 04/03/2009 9:01 AM
Dave - 

I think you are missing Greg's point. 

Forst of all, let's agree that transmitter = throttle. 

What Greg is saying, to switch control of any loco from throttle (transmitter) A to throttle (transmitter) B, requires two steps - you need to re-link the loco to throttle B and you need to re-select the Cab. 

I actually thing "throttle" is a better term, transmitter is too generic and doesn't really describe the function. 

Regards, Knut


Knut - Now I am confused - are you thinking that there are two (or more) separate transmitters that are being used? I am not sure why you would want multiple transmitters unless you had a large number of locomotives as one transmitter can accommodate up to 50 locomotives.

Even if you had two or more transmitters one would not normally link the same locomotive to multiple transmitters. 






dave


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

No Dave - 

I'm thinking of a typical operating session I have with my friends. 

Each one of them has their own transmitter or throttle. 
When the train gets to a station and is ready to drop cars and pick up new ones, we often transfer control of that train to another operator. 
I suppose one could walk over to that other person and exchange transmitters, but if people are on opposite ends of the layout, it's easier to just "release" the engine and let the other person pick it up. 

That's what I thought Greg was talking about - the process of doing that using the Aristo unit. 
In a Garden Railroad environment, even with a relatively small layout, I rather have someone coupling and uncoupling who is close to the action. 

BTW - None of this has to do anything with MU operation. 

Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

When I think about it - the proper way would be to have all locos linked to all transmitters all the time, be able to assign up to 4-digit cab numbers (so they can match the engine running number) and then have each operator select the engines he wants to run. 
All you need then is some protocol to control the transfer of an engine from one operator to another. There are several ways to do that - ideally the system would provide options and the user can select whichever method he prefers. 

Knut 

The ideal thing would be to get a hold of the Aristo Product Spec., but I doubt Aristo publishes that.


----------



## dbodnar (Jan 2, 2008)

Knut - sorry for my ignorance as to what you and Greg are referring to - I don't run my trains that way but I am sure that lots of folks do.

Right now it may not be possible to use more than one transmitter to operate a particular train - I don't know for sure as I have not had two transmitters in my possession - I may have an opportunity to give it a shot tomorrow as a friend is a Beta tester and he is bringing his unit to a meeting. 

If it is currently not something that can be done it is certainly a feature that can be added, especially if the Beta testers and others feel it is a valid modification. The beauty of the system is that most of the intelligence is in the transmitter and rewriting the software for that allows for just about anything that we might need. 

The MU function of the Revolution was completely reworked shortly after the first Alpha test unts were in the country - if you saw the original software and what is installed now you would be impressed in how nicely it has been upgraded. 

There is little doubt in my mind that it will improve again durning the Beta testing.

dave


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Dave - 

If you're doing testing, the one thing I'm always paryicularly interested in is what kind of fail-safe operation and emergency stop capability is built into these systems. 

Some of my engines have cost more than $1000.- and I have been to layouts where they have trestles that you can comfortably walk under - they are 7-8 feet high. 
I wouldn't want one of these engines folling off one of these because I can no longer control the train because of some outside radio interference. And I don't think you can completely eliminate outside radio interference with any of these systems we use. They are all low power so one doesn't require a specific license and a high wattage transmitter can just block communication between transmitter and receiver completely. 

Massoth is bringing out (or has brought out) that little receiver that works directly with their wireless throttle (transmitter). The receiver connects to the DCC decoder of your choice and thus gives the battery folks full wireless true DCC operation without sending the control signals through the rails. Massoth has a number of fail-safe capabilities built into their system - I would like to understand what Aristocraft has done in that respect. 
I have used the old 27 MHz TE with some analog layouts and although it works reasonably well most of the time, I have had occasions where I could no longer control the train. 
Not a big problem if you run track power, you can always shut off the voltage to the track - not so easy with battery power. 

Knut


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By krs on 04/03/2009 11:47 AM

Massoth is bringing out (or has brought out) that little receiver that works directly with their wireless throttle (transmitter). The receiver connects to the DCC decoder of your choice and thus gives the battery folks full wireless true DCC operation without sending the control signals through the rails. 



This is what QSI/Airiwre lets you do as well--you get the full DCC feature set but over the air rather than the rail. I have it and like it but one thing I don't like about the Airwire throttle is there's no easy "emergency stop." I'd kind of like to have a big red panic button that brings everything to a dead stop. With the Airwire you have to do a key combination


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Knut, you understood exactly what I was meaning. 

To make it simple to help Dave's confusion: 

"throttle" = the physical handheld unit. 

You cannot call the "throttle" a cab, since "cab" means a particular configuration of one "throttle", and you can switch "cabs" so you can control more than one loco from the same physical unit in your hand. 

Dave: if you only have one "throttle" things are simple: 
all locos are bound to the same piece of hardware, your ONE "throttle" 
all locos are configured to different cabs to run independently 

Consisting is a little more difficult, since you have to reprogram the locos to a third "cab" (per lewis) 

BUT, the point is that if you have such a capable system, you probably will be running more than one train at a time. 

So, from a practical standpoint, unless they are just going around and around mindlessly, you need TWO handheld "throttles". 

So, now you have to reprogram your locos when you want to run a loco with a "throttle" that it is not currently programmed to... right? 

You CANNOT have two Aristo "throttles" on the SAME frequency and cab number right? Since this is bidirectional, I cannot believe that is going to work. 

Maybe you have tried this? 

Again, not cutting down Aristo, but some of the claims about this system have been "extravagant" to say the least. (and I am being REAL nice). 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

I have just done a quick review of this entire thread and kind of look at it from a different perspective now. 

Given the complexity of these control systems made by different companies - of which the Aristo Revolution TE is one - I wonder if it would be of benefit to have some common industrial standard (maybe via NMRA) that would address the human interfacing aspects & terminology so that someone can go from one system to another without having to relearn (let alone remember) how at least do simple operational controls. 

I still have a comparatively simple Aristo Track side 27MHz receiver system. I had been thinking of getting a back up system in the event the one I have fails. These complex product offerings do not seem to fill such a need for me - as for example, the Aristo Revolution product does not offer a basic 10 amp track side receiver - 15 amp would be preferable.

Looking ahead, for me at least, a system that ultimately sends its control signals via the rails would likely work best as I expand the layout to outdoors from under my house since the house outside walls are made of a stucco / chicken wire that affect RF reception. Of course any held control device would need a receiver, so control signals through the rails is not the total answer. 

Just my observations, 
-Ted


----------



## dbodnar (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 04/03/2009 11:47 AM
Dave - 

If you're doing testing, the one thing I'm always paryicularly interested in is what kind of fail-safe operation and emergency stop capability is built into these systems. 

Some of my engines have cost more than $1000.- and I have been to layouts where they have trestles that you can comfortably walk under - they are 7-8 feet high. 
I wouldn't want one of these engines folling off one of these because I can no longer control the train because of some outside radio interference. And I don't think you can completely eliminate outside radio interference with any of these systems we use. They are all low power so one doesn't require a specific license and a high wattage transmitter can just block communication between transmitter and receiver completely. 

Massoth is bringing out (or has brought out) that little receiver that works directly with their wireless throttle (transmitter). The receiver connects to the DCC decoder of your choice and thus gives the battery folks full wireless true DCC operation without sending the control signals through the rails. Massoth has a number of fail-safe capabilities built into their system - I would like to understand what Aristocraft has done in that respect. 
I have used the old 27 MHz TE with some analog layouts and although it works reasonably well most of the time, I have had occasions where I could no longer control the train. 
Not a big problem if you run track power, you can always shut off the voltage to the track - not so easy with battery power. 

Knut


Knut - I found the Revolution to be very responsive when I had a chance to try it outside two weeks ago when we (finally!) had a break in the weather - my track was in poor condition from the winter and I repeatedly followed a locomotive around 200' of track starting / stopping / reversing and such as I tested the loop. At no time did it not respond to commands - the STOPs were very fast and saved the loco a number of times.

If you have multiple locomotives running and want to stop them all it takes a few seconds as you must hold the ALL STOP button for a bit over 1 second to activate it (to keep from accidantally bumping it and sending the all stop) - once activated it sends a STOP packet to each locomotive, one at a time, taking a fraction of a second for each packet to be sent out. If you were running a dozen locomotives it wouldn't stop them all immediately. 


I have seen nothing that indicates that I was in danger of losing control of a locomotive. I think that question will be answered more definitively after the Beta testers give things a good work out.

dave


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 04/03/2009 11:54 AM
Posted By krs on 04/03/2009 11:47 AM

Massoth is bringing out (or has brought out) that little receiver that works directly with their wireless throttle (transmitter). The receiver connects to the DCC decoder of your choice and thus gives the battery folks full wireless true DCC operation without sending the control signals through the rails. 



This is what QSI/Airiwre lets you do as well--you get the full DCC feature set but over the air rather than the rail.





It's not really the same as QSI/Airwire at all unless I have missed something.

With QSI/Airwire, you have to use their receiver/decoder and whatever capabilities that gives you.

The Massoth unit is just a wireless receiver that generates standard DCC to control any DCC decoder of your choosing. So you're limited as far as the 'throttle' is concerned but you can pick any one of the NMRA compatible DCC decoders out there.


Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By dbodnar on 04/03/2009 2:47 PM


I have seen nothing that indicates that I was in danger of losing control of a locomotive. I think that question will be answered more definitively after the Beta testers give things a good work out.

dave


















Dave - 

I'm talking about fail-save operation and emergency stop capability........not normal operation.

For instance - what happens if the


a. Communication link between transmitter and receiver is broken, or
b. The transmitter becomes defective, or

c. The batteries in the transmitter fail, or
d. The batteries no longer make good contact because over time the battery terminals erode.


With a track powered system, you always have the option of cutting power to the track. You don't have that option when you use battery power.


The fail-safe capability needs to be designed into the system - it's not something beta testing would focus on.

When we beta test our products (high-speed data communication, nothing to do with models or trains) the focus is not operation or performance, that all of that is top-notch and works 100% is a given - beta testing focuses on the user interface - ie. is the documentation clear, correct and easy to follow; what about installation, feature activation, readability of displays - these types of things.


Knut


----------



## dbodnar (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 04/03/2009 3:17 PM
Posted By dbodnar on 04/03/2009 2:47 PM


I have seen nothing that indicates that I was in danger of losing control of a locomotive. I think that question will be answered more definitively after the Beta testers give things a good work out.

dave


















Dave - 

I'm talking about fail-save operation and emergency stop capability........not normal operation.

For instance - what happens if the


a. Communication link between transmitter and receiver is broken, or
b. The transmitter becomes defective, or

c. The batteries in the transmitter fail, or
d. The batteries no longer make good contact because over time the battery terminals erode.


With a track powered system, you always have the option of cutting power to the track. You don't have that option when you use battery power.


The fail-safe capability needs to be designed into the system - it's not something beta testing would focus on.

When we beta test our products (high-speed data communication, nothing to do with models or trains) the focus is not operation or performance, that all of that is top-notch and works 100% is a given - beta testing focuses on the user interface - ie. is the documentation clear, correct and easy to follow; what about installation, feature activation, readability of displays - these types of things.




Knut 



The power to the locomotive's motor is not shut down if you turn off the transmitter. It certainly could be reprogrammed to do that if folks want that capability. There would, however, be a conflict with the current configuration of the transmitter that gives the battery saving option of having the unit turn itself off after "n" minutes of non-use. Each time the unit powered down all of the trains would stop. 


Same with "The transmitter becomes defective" - again, you could have it shut of the loco if it does not receive good communication packets for "X" seconds.

dave


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Dave, I know you have your hands full here, but when you are done, please check that my assumptions in my post are right or wrong about how multiple physical "throttles" in a TE system work. 

Thanks, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

The power to the locomotive's motor is not shut down if you turn off the transmitter. It certainly could be reprogrammed to do that if folks want that capability. There would, however, be a conflict with the current configuration of the transmitter that gives the battery saving option of having the unit turn itself off after "n" minutes of non-use. Each time the unit powered down all of the trains would stop. 

Same with "The transmitter becomes defective" - again, you could have it shut of the loco if it does not receive good communication packets for "X" seconds. 

dave


Dave - 

If the Aristo Revolution is in Beta testing, it should be well past the design stage. 
I'm sure all these modifications can be made, but that is not the purpose of beta testing. 

Do you know what the Product and Feature Specs say about "fail-safe' operation? Based on your comments above, it sounds as if the Product Manager who wrote the Product Spec. didn't even consider that. 

Knut


----------



## dbodnar (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg - will let you know what I discover. 

Kunt - I don't have any additional info on "fail-safe" operation - sorry 

dave


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By krs on 04/03/2009 2:55 PM
Posted By lownote on 04/03/2009 11:54 AM
Posted By krs on 04/03/2009 11:47 AM

Massoth is bringing out (or has brought out) that little receiver that works directly with their wireless throttle (transmitter). The receiver connects to the DCC decoder of your choice and thus gives the battery folks full wireless true DCC operation without sending the control signals through the rails. 



This is what QSI/Airiwre lets you do as well--you get the full DCC feature set but over the air rather than the rail.





It's not really the same as QSI/Airwire at all unless I have missed something.

With QSI/Airwire, you have to use their receiver/decoder and whatever capabilities that gives you.

The Massoth unit is just a wireless receiver that generates standard DCC to control any DCC decoder of your choosing. So you're limited as far as the 'throttle' is concerned but you can pick any one of the NMRA compatible DCC decoders out there.


Knut 








The Airwire throttle lets you do anything you can do in DCC. You do have to use their receiver to pick up the wireless signal from the throttle, and send it to the decoder. NCS is going to release a similar throttle that's more user friendly, but works the same way


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

I believe Knut's point was that the Massoth receiver allowed the selection of any decoder to drive the motor ... while Airwire demands the use of a proprietary decoder to drive the motor. The whole point of the NMRA standard for DCC was to eliminate the proprietary nature of the decoders while maintaining a high level of functionality.

Many folks in large scale are very used to the proprietary nature of various products and accept that as the norm. Folks from the smaller scales hate it and fight hard for standards to allow an open world. Airwire may be DCC compatible (for sound and accessories) but it is not DCC compliant. Massoth has gone a step closer but is unclear to me if they are DCC compliant.

Regards ... Doug


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Yes - Doug is exactly right.

I don't really understand why people keep buying these proprietary solutions for Large Scale.

Years ago, it made some sense since DCC was really focussed on the smaller scales, I even remember that George Schreyer made some comments on his website about what Large Scale DCC should really be like.

I don't remember all the points he brought up, but I think today we are past that stage.

To give some examples - 


A friend of mine in Germany is building a rotary snow plow. The motor to drive the rotary blade requires a 10 amp decoder - which QSI decoder can handle that? None as far as I know.

He is getting a 10 amp Heller decoder and can drive either directly using the DCC control through the rails or wirelessly using that new Massoth board. Power for the rotary blade motor would come from batteries anyway because of the high current requirements.

Another example would be additional lighting on US Diesels, like ditch lights. The QSI decoder doesn't have any additional outputs to control those, so one would need a second decoder just for the lights.

Or I can buy any number of existing DCC decoders that have all the US light effects built in.

With standard DCC, I have a wide range of decoders to choose from; with a proprietary solution I'm essentially at the mercy of the manufacturer.


And Massoth btw is 100% NMRA compliant, but also rather expensive IMHO.

Knut


----------



## dbodnar (Jan 2, 2008)

I had a chance to bring two Revolution transmitters together this afternoon and the results were somewhat surprising. They played rather well together. 

I first set the RF-Channels and Group IDs to match and successfully linked the same locomotive, an Eggliner, to each of them being sure to only have one transmitter on at a time while linking.

I named the locomotive EGGLINER on each (it really doesn't matter if the names are the same but it helps me to keep track of things!) I also set each to operate from CAB-0


If I wanted to operate the Eggliner from transmitter (throttle?) #1 I just selected CAB-0 on it (making sure that transmitter #2 was set to SOME OTHER CAB) and it worked just fine

To operate from the 2nd transmitter I just switched #1 to something other than CAB-0 and set #2 to CAB-0 and it took over control.

This was a short test on my workbench but preliminary results show that the Revolution system can do what Knut described in an earlier message. 


dave


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Dave, thanks for the report on your test of the two transmitters. Since I could do this with the 27 MHz system, I was HOPING that you could with the new Revolution too. Looks like that is the case!!

Thanks again,

Ed


----------



## dbodnar (Jan 2, 2008)

Ed - I was pleased that it worked, too! I don't have time right now to do extensive testing but this may give others a start on doing just that.

thanks!

dave


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

OK, so this is the procedure to "take over" control of a loco from one "Throttle" to another:

Prerequisites: 


1. All throttles must be on same RF channel and same group id.. The RF channel and group id can be matched in the system configure... radio confugure screens I see... sub menus a and b respectively. 


2. The loco must be "bound" to all "throttles involved, and must have the same "link address" on all throttles.

3. the loco must have the same "cab number" defined for all throttles (maybe once is enough?)

Once this is set up you can control the loco from all "throttles" by simply selecting the cab number.

Avoid having 2 or more "throttles" on the same cab number.

How was that Dave?

Regards, Greg


----------



## dbodnar (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg - I think you have the concept if not the specifics down now - I don't think you need to match CAB #, I just did it for convenience - same with "link address" - that may not matter either 

Perhaps others will experiment more extensively and work out the other details - for now I have to get back to my alternate reality! 

dave


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Now I am confused... can you link a locomotive to "throttle 1" with a "link address" different from when you link the SAME loco to "throttle 2"? 

I cannot understand how that could be possible unless there is a unique identifier in every "receiver" that is the real unique linking "id". 

I can understand how you could have different cab numbers for the same loco, but there is something not clear here... 

Thanks, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By dbodnar on 04/04/2009 3:19 PM

I had a chance to bring two Revolution transmitters together this afternoon and the results were somewhat surprising. They played rather well together. 

I first set the RF-Channels and Group IDs to match and successfully linked the same locomotive, an Eggliner, to each of them being sure to only have one transmitter on at a time while linking.

I named the locomotive EGGLINER on each (it really doesn't matter if the names are the same but it helps me to keep track of things!) I also set each to operate from CAB-0


If I wanted to operate the Eggliner from transmitter (throttle?) #1 I just selected CAB-0 on it (making sure that transmitter #2 was set to SOME OTHER CAB) and it worked just fine

To operate from the 2nd transmitter I just switched #1 to something other than CAB-0 and set #2 to CAB-0 and it took over control.

This was a short test on my workbench but preliminary results show that the Revolution system can do what Knut described in an earlier message. 


dave





I would have been surprised if this set up *did not work*!

The way I understand it, the two transmitters are set up identically, same link number, same cab number, ie linked the same way - the loco doesn't know the difference as to which transmitter controls it - how can that set up possibly not work?


Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes, I agree Knut... what I want to understand is the programming limitations/rules when you "share" a loco between "throttles"... 

It's clear the RF frequency and the group id must be identical. 

I'd hope Dave would try putting a different cab number on the SAME loco between two different "throttles"... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Is there any technical information available on this new TE?

I'm a bit confused trying to understand the technical aspect and purpose of the link address.


What I found so far was that all systems shipped by Aristocraft are assigned to channel 16 in the 2.4 GHz band, although that channel can be changed if there is interference from other 2.4GHz devices.


The link assignment can be 00 to 49and each engine *should* be assigned to a different link unless they are to be run in a consist - in that case they *must* be assigned to the same link.


So my first question (since I don't know what link assignment means in standard RF terms) - is there a problem assigning all engines, say up to the 50 limit, to the same link?
That would eliminate trying to determine up front which engines I can run in a consist and would also make transferring engines between throttles easier. 

If each engine is assigned to a different link as the instructions stae, one would need to re-assign links when switching the throttle from one engine to another.

Knut


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Knut, if you go onto Aristo's website you can find the complete 40 page manual there that discusses all of this. You don't want all your locomotives to be on the same link as then you couldn't control them separately. As I understand it, you set up the link with each engine individually. Then when you decide to mu two or more together, you establish a new link, or "cab number" and specify which engines you want in that consist. 

Greg, why do you want to have two transmitters/throttles set to different links to run the same engine??

Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think you guys have a little confusion on "link", or maybe it's me! 

I have been using the correct term "link address" as per the manual. 

I want independent control of the locos, and minimal messing around when consisting, and when breaking a consist, I want to control the locos as individuals. This way you can drive 2 locos up to each other and then consist them, and break them apart WITHOUT handling them. 

The only requirement seems to be that the "cab number" be the same... but the manual does not explain further from what I can absorb. 

I also want to understand how to "hand off" a loco from one person to another, like when entering or leaving a yard. 

That's why I'm asking someone who has actually had 2 "throttles" going at the same time. 

But now, I'm afraid my questions have gotten lost, and we are probably driving Dave crazy. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Thanks Ed, but I already read through that 40-page manual. 

That manual doesn't include any technical information, even the fact that the system operates on channel 16 is buried in the text. 

You comment about a "link or cab number" as if those two parameters are the same. 

When I read the manual and the programming, it sounds like the link assignment and the cab number assignment refer to different parameters. 
That is already described in the overview at the beginning of the manual which I posted below. 

Also, in Dave's description of MU operation, one needs to set up the same link for every loco to be in a consist but obviously with different cab numbers - one for each of the engines and an extra one forthe consist - as a consist address so to speak. 

Knut 

OPERATION OVERVIEW 
Before you start working with the Revolution TE there are a few concepts that you 
need to understand. 
The transmitter and the receivers in your locomotives are designed to communicate 
and exchange information about the way you want your trains to operate. In order to 
establish a link between them you need to set up some basic parameters that define 
the locomotive for the Transmitter such as the locomotive’s name and road number. 
Once these parameters are set, the link between the transmitter and receiver is 
finalized by a process called “Linking”. Once linked, the transmitter and receiver are 
set to communicate and run your train. As you get comfortable with the Revolution 
TE, you can start fine tuning the optional settings for each locomotive. These options 
include setting the top speed that you want a locomotive to achieve, the rate at 
which you want it to accelerate, how long you want it to delay when the direction is 
changed, headlight operation and many more. 
The second concept has to do with the Cab Assignment. Once you link a locomotive 
receiver to a transmitter you must set the Cab Number that the locomotive will run 
under. Cab Numbers range from CAB-0 through CAB49. This allows you to easily 
move between as many as 50 Single Unit locomotives and Multiple Unit Consists 
while operating your model railroad. CAB-0, CAB-1 and CAB-2 might be used to 
operate three different locomotives while CAB-3 can be used to operate those same 
three locomotives in a consist. Changing between Single Unit (SU) operation and 
Multiple Unit (MU) operation is as simple as selecting a Cab Number.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04/04/2009 8:24 PM
I think you guys have a little confusion on "link", or maybe it's me! 



Well..........I don't want to pretend to know what this "link" in Aristo terminology means because I don't have a clue.


I was sure it was not the same as a cab even though the system happens to have 50 cab numbers and 50 link numbers.

But it has also been stated that locos in a consist must be linked to the same link number and then assigned different cab numbers where as individual locos should be assigned different links.


If someone can explain the link and cab concept using standard technical terms, I think it would help.

I assume from Greg's comment that Aristo's terminology of "group" is the same as a channel of the 2.4GHz band - or is that not true either?

Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

nope... in the radio setup, there are different frequencies. to avoid interference with other 2.4 ghz stuff.. 

To further avoid interference there is a "group id" so even if 2 systems are on the same frequency. 

These are 2 parameters you would not change unless you were forced to. 

Hope that helps on those issues. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

OK - 

A bit more reading rather than skimming gave me the info that the Aristo unit can be programmed as follows: 

Number of 2.4 GHz channels - 11 (channel 16 to 26, with channel 16 as the default for all units shipped) 

Number of Groups - 10 000 (group 0000 to group 9999, with group numbers assigned randomly when shipped) 

Number of Links - 50 (Link 00 to Link 49, to be programmed by user) 
Different link ID to be assigned to different locos unless locos are expected to be in a consist, then those need to be assigned the same link ID. 

Number of cabs - 50 (Cab 00 to Cab 49, to be programmed by user) 


Is that correct so far????


----------



## dbodnar (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg - I just did a quick test before I have to return the 2nd transmitter and it appears that you must use the same "link address" on both transmitters to control the same locomotive. 

I tried linking with different link addresses and could only control the loco with the transmitter that was most recently linked.

Handing off from one transmitter to another is quick and easy if you observe that programming procedure. 




dave


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By dbodnar on 04/05/2009 3:33 AM

Handing off from one transmitter to another is quick and easy if you observe that programming procedure. 



dave







Not really because now you need to change the link address *and* the cab address every time you hand control of a loco from one transmitter to another unless all the locos can use the same link with different cabs.
Ed, in his post, believes one cannot do that - the Aristo manual states that a different link must be used for each locomotive.


Comes back to the question, what exactly is a "link" assignment and how does it differ from a cab assignment - and the more general question, how is this operation defined in the Product Spec. because the 40-page manual says nothing about this hand-off procedure.


Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks Dave, by studiying how the system works and how it really must work, I came to that conclusion. 

It makes total sense, the "link address" is the common "identifier" for a loco, and the "cab number" is "who it will allow to control it"... the process of linking sets these, so linking to a second "throttle" must not "undo" the linking information on the "first linking". 

So, set it up on one "throttle" (link address and cab number), then set it up on the second "throttle" (same link address and same cab number).... now to "hand off" you simply have the "new" "throttle" assume the same cab number of the "old" "throttle" and then select your loco from your scrollable list. 

Other than the extra steps of changing the "old" "throttle" to a different "cab" first, this is no different than changing to a different loco on your "own" "throttle" in a 1 "throttle" system. 

Got it and thanks Dave! 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Knut: 

This is what I believe is happening: when you scroll through the menu of available locos, you are picking a "configuration" which is really based on the "link address". You can see the loco name, road number, etc, but it's the "link address" that uniquely identifies each loco. 

If you have multiple locos, they have to have unique "link addresses", BUT if you have multiple "throttles", locomotive "A" must have the same "link address" defined on every "throttle". 

You do not "change" the "link address", you select it when you want to run a loco. 

In the definition of a loco, you also have to say what "cab address" will control the loco. 

Now, to control a loco, you must first be sure your "throttles" "cab address" is the right one, and then scroll though your available list of locos to find the one you want (which is actually selecting a "link address") 

So, it's at least a 2 step process, just like the "binding" process for a new loco is a 2 step process, setting the "link address" and the "cab number" it will respond to. 

It all makes sense after you roll it around in your mind for a while. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Greg - 

It's starting to make some sense except for one little detail. 

You say the link addresss is the unique loco identifier, so each loco needs to have a different link address - fair enough, but when you run, say four locos in a consist, Aristocraft states that each one of these four locos must have the same link address. 
Are they suggesting one needs to change the link address whenever a loco changes from SU to MU operation and vice versa? 


On the hand off of a loco from one transmitter to another. 
Say link 00 and Cab 00 is Loco A and link 01 and cab 01 is loco B. 
I seem to be able to control loco A or loco B from transmitter A by just selecting the appropriate cab number. The associate link number is selected automatically - right? 

Why wouldn't that work when handing locos from one transmitter to another? 
Transmitter B would be set up identically to transmitter A and to hand off a loco from transmitter A to transmitter B one would just pick the appropriate cab number and the link number would automatically be assigned. 
That way it's no longer a two-step operation. 
The only thing that needs to be addressed (if it's not already) is how to avoid any conflict if both transmitters try to access the same loco. 

Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes Knut, you have found one of the problems that I am zeroing in on.... Instead of really consisting, as we do in DCC, where the individual "identity" of each loco is preserved, and they are just added to a group called a consist, it SEEMS (I still need to understand more) that you must reprogram locos to add them to a consist. 

We will have to see on that one. 

On your second paragraph, if both "throttles" contain identical programming for the loco, I believe what you say is right.. except that I believe that you can have multiple locos on the same cab, but different "link addresses" so you have to select the loco you want by scrolling through the list. 

Maybe Dave can clarify. I believe you must always scroll through the available loco list to "Select" a loco, and you must have your "throttle" set to the correct "cab number" to match the "cab number" defined for that loco. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Greg - 

On Single unit operation and Consists, the Aristo manual states this: 

3.ADD MU/SU CAB 
This Menu is used each time a new locomotive is added to the transmitter. Its purpose is to assign a Cab Number a locomotive so that it can be quickly identified and selected from the main operation screen. This is were you assign a locomotive it’s Single Unit (SU) Cab Number and where you set up consists of up to six locomotives and assign them Multiple Unit (MU) Cab Numbers. 
Single Unit (SU) Cab assignments 
1) Use the t and u keys to choose a Cab Number to assign to a locomotive. This range is set by 2.USAGE OF CABS. 
2) Make sure that MU MODE: is set to OFF for SU mode. 
3) Use the t and u keys to select the locomotive, under SU by the Link Address assigned in 1.ASSIGN FUNCTIONS. 
4) Press MENU when done to return to the Main Menu. Press MENU again to return to the operating screen. 

Multiple Unit (MU) Cab assignments 
1) From the Main Menu screen use p and q to select 3.ADD MU/SU CAB and press ENTER 
2) Use the t and u keys to choose a Cab Number to assign to the Multiple Unit (MU) consist. This range is set by 2.USAGE OF CABS. 
3) Use the t and u keys to change MU MODE to ON. The menu changes to allow you to enter a list of locomotives that are to be MUed. 
4) Select the first (lead) locomotive as MU1 by using t and u keys to select the Link Address assigned to it. Use the q key to move to the next locomotive. 
5) Select the second locomotive in the consist as MU2 by using t and u keys to select the Link Address assigned to it. Use the q key again to move to the next locomotive. 
6) Continue the MU assignments until all of the locomotives (up to a maximum of 6) that you want to MU in a single consist, are listed. 
Press MENU to return to the Main Menu. 



So setting up a consist is a bit cumbersome, but once set up. operating as a consist or individual locos is fairly simple: 


Operating multiple locomotives in consists (MUing) 
Once the set-up is complete, operating MUed locomotives is quite simple. 
THE MU SET UP: 
For this example let’s say that you set up two locomotives are called LOCO1 and LOCO2 and that their link addresses are set to [00] and [01] respectively (LOCO1 is CAB-0 and LOCO2 is CAB-1). 
Since the two locomotives can operate independently as CAB-0 and CAB-1 you set up CAB-2 for them to operate together in an MU consist. In order to make sure that both locomotives are going to work in harmony, place both locomotives on the track a few feet apart. On the operating screen, select the MU on CAB-2 with the keys. Speed up the locomotives and confirm that both are going in the same direction. 
If you want one locomotive to run backwards you can make that change under 1.ASSIGN LOCOMOTIVE, a.MOTOR [REV]. 

THE OPERATION SCENARIO: 
You want to make up an MU consist in order to haul the daily freight west. 
First, you operate LOCO1 in SU mode (CAB-0) and spot it at the assigned location in the yard. Stop LOCO1 by bringing the speed down to 0%. 
Next, Select CAB-1 (LOCO2) on the transmitter, and operate LOCO2 in SU mode to meet LOCO1. You then couple LOCO2 to LOCO1 automatically and stop it, bringing LOCO2’s speed to 0%. 
You then select CAB-2 (MU LOCO1 & LOCO2) and now you operate the MU as a single unit. You pick up your assigned train in the yard and off you go to your assigned destination. 
You now arrive at your destination and you bring your train to a full stop. You uncouple the lead engine (LOCO1), select CAB-0 and go off to the next assignment. 
Meanwhile LOCO2 is on yard duty to classify the cars it just delivered. You change to CAB-1 and work the yard with LOCO2 until all of the cars have been sorted. 



If you always run the same locos in a consist (or consists), that should work quite well. If you need more flexibility, ie make up consists of different locos, then you it gets a bit more cumbersome.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04/05/2009 10:05 AM

On your second paragraph, if both "throttles" contain identical programming for the loco, I believe what you say is right.. except that I believe that you can have multiple locos on the same cab, but different "link addresses" so you have to select the loco you want by scrolling through the list. 

Maybe Dave can clarify. I believe you must always scroll through the available loco list to "Select" a loco, and you must have your "throttle" set to the correct "cab number" to match the "cab number" defined for that loco. 

Regards, Greg

That's probably true Greg, (multiple locos on the same cab) but why to that.
I can select different cabs on the same transmitter, can I not?
Then why not keep a permanent link to cab assignment


Could one look at the link number as the "loco identifier" and the cab number as the "engineer identifier"?

All I'm saying is to always keep that 'pseudo-engineer' associated with the same engine and since each transmitter can access any cab (and therefore engine), the operator still has full flexibility.

What would be the benefit of using one cab ID for multiple link addresses, ie locos for normal SU operation? That's only useful for consists and those are handled via a separate consist cab ID. 


Knut 


PS: Is there any way we can get an explanation on these specifics from someone knowledgable at Aristcraft?
This is mostly a discussion between Dave, Greg and myself and it's pretty obvious that we are all guessing to some degree how this new system workd (or is supposed to work).

The Product Manager or his representative at Aristo would know for sur.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I believe Dave is pretty much the "de facto" product manager! I would be willing to bet my life he knows more than anyone at Aristo, even "Mr. Kim", because Dave has actually tried these things. Lewis has mentioned before that he uses "consultants" to fill out his engineering "Staff". 

Anyway, the association that sets the cab number for a particular loco rests in the loco, I believe, not the "throttle"... I believe we have sort of proved this by Dave's statement about having to have the same "link address" and the same "cab number" when trying to run the same loco from two different "throttles". 

I'm pretty darn sure that is basically proven. 

So, if you have multiple locos with the same "cab number" defined, and more than one was on the track at the same time, I believe they would all move... I think from a practical aspect, you want to keep the "cab numbers" for the locos unique too... 

Trying to keep this all straight would probably make most users of the TE system crazy who came from the original TE system. I would venture to guess that making the "link address" the same number as the "cab number" would help keep things a little easier to remember. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

PS: Is there any way we can get an explanation on these specifics from someone knowledgable at Aristcraft? This is mostly a discussion between Dave, Greg and myself and it's pretty obvious that we are all guessing to some degree how this new system workd (or is supposed to work).

The Product Manager or his representative at Aristo would know for sur. 






Knut - You must be new to this hobby. Pure speculation on my part, but I'm guessing (like Greg said), not only are there are no "Product Engineers", there are no engineers period. All of this stuff is probably contracted out to someone. Then when products are released, getting information, especially specifications, is a rarity. And this is not just Aristo, but all large scale manufacters. I'm actually pretty impressed with the manual for this product so far.

I thought Dave's explanation of how the loco hand-off was accomplished was quite straight forward. I think all of this discussion is just to satisfy the engineering curiosity of exactly how it works. The average user shouldn't have any trouble with it.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Knut

I know that I'm less than knowledgeable on this and don't have a physical unit(s) to experiment with, and that there have been software updates.

However, after reading the Revolution TE manual that's available on-line. The way I interpret what is being said, is as follows.

As I see it there are three parameters that uniquely define the successful bi-directional communications between any given locomotive and its transmitter, and they are...

 The hand-held transmitter's configured *Group Number*.
 The hand-held transmitter's configured *RF Channel Number*.
 The hand-held transmitter's Link Number[/b].
 To me the above is implied by the fact that at the end of the _Assign Function/Linking process_ (i.e. after pressing the hand-held transmitter's _Stop/Enter_ button), the final action by the transmitter is displaying the _"Linking Passed"_ prompt in the "m." position replacing the original _"Linking"_ text. Which happens prior to selecting and assigning any _"Cab Number"_ to any _"Link Number."_

The _Cab Number_, while partially there for end user convenience (i.e. the parameter label is static), also provides a method to address either one individual locomotive (i.e. in Aristo terms Single Unit (SU)) or a consist of locomotives (i.e. in Aristo terms Multiple Unit (MU)).

The _Cab Number_ as far as I can see is not restricted to assignment to its mating Link Number (i.e. _CAB-0_ assigned to _Link Number 00_), Any _Cab Number_ can be assigned to any _Link Number_, or for that matter multiple _Link Numbers_, which is controlled by the _"MU Mode"_ setting for a given _Cab Number_ (i.e. OFF = one _Link Number_ per _Cab Number_, ON = multiple _Link Numbers_ per _Cab Number_). And in the case of a _Cab Number_ being used for a MU consist I can find no restriction stating that the _Link Numbers_ assigned to a specific _Cab Number_ have to be consecutive in nature (e.g. _CAB-3_ assigned _Link Numbers 00, 03, & 10_).

I'm not certain just how they utilize the _Cab Number_, it could be a couple of ways (maybe more???). Maybe the _Cab Number_ is only maintained in the hand-held transmitter and used to determine which _Link Numbers_ to send commands that would be common to all locomotives in the MU consist (e.g. increase/decrease in speed etc.). Although, I would think for speed of communications downloading the _Cab Number_ to each of the locomotives in the MU consist, and then using that for commands common to all locomotives in the MU consist would be faster.

I do know that as stated in the documentation, it is implied that each individual locomotive retains its unique ID within a MU consist. On page 27 in the manual in the Notes section, second paragraph. It's stated that to set the accessory functions of individual locomotives within a MU consist you use the "*" (star) key to select the _Locomotive Name/Road Number_ of the one you wish to change its accessory function settings. To do that I believe the only way would be to utilize the original _Link Number/Group Number/RF Channel Number_ combination ID.


----------



## lathroum (Jan 2, 2008)

well I see a few good things here myself...

I think this unit looks like it does what I need for my indoor layout as it has more functions than the original TEs did...

I also read on the Aristo group that there is the capability to reprogram the unit...
so hopefully the MU-iing/consisting, if it is a problem as it seems, can be fixed with a software patch...

I still think the unit has great promise...

Philip


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Del Tapparo on 04/05/2009 1:34 PM


Knut - You must be new to this hobby. Pure speculation on my part, but I'm guessing (like Greg said), not only are there are no "Product Engineers", there are no engineers period. All of this stuff is probably contracted out to someone. Then when products are released, getting information, especially specifications, is a rarity. And this is not just Aristo, but all large scale manufacters. I'm actually pretty impressed with the manual for this product so far.

I thought Dave's explanation of how the loco hand-off was accomplished was quite straight forward. I think all of this discussion is just to satisfy the engineering curiosity of exactly how it works. The average user shouldn't have any trouble with it.




Well, not really new - I started with Large Scale in 1986.

All I'm getting at is that someone must have specified the the product requirements and that is usually the Product Manager.

I don't think the fact that one can assign 50 cabs or 1000 groups or 11 2.4 GHz channels on this Aristo TE is an accident - why not 25 cabs or 100 cabs.

Now I must admit that manufacturers in Large Scale are very skimpy when it comes to publishing specs. Back in the 80's there was a lot of detail available for the Large Scale products that existed then, then over the years the information became less and less until recently when manufacurers started to provide more information again.

Good example are Large Scale DCC decoders, when they first came out everyone was specifying the current capability (without really being specific in that area either, but better than nothing), but nobody specified the maximum voltage the decoder could handle. At one point, people assumed it was at least 27 volts since this was the NMRA spec., but then it turned out that this wasn't true at all. Some decoders were burning out at 18 volts.

Many DCC manufacturers do now specify a maximum voltage and one can take that into consideration when selecting a decoder.

Back to the Aristo TE - the manual goes into quite a bit of detail when it comes to MU operation - that's great, but it doesn't really talk about handing locos off from one operator to another, at least not that I could find.


It also says nothing about fail-safe operation (or lack thereof), the other aspect I'm interested in.

I assume, maybe incorrectly so, that those two areas were at least considered during the specification and design phase. maybe the decision was not to address these - I don't know.

Right now it seems to me we, actually mostly Dave, is trying to figure out what the product does that Aristo ended up with when it comes to these particular parameters. 


Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 04/05/2009 1:48 PM
The _Cab Number_ as far as I can see is not restricted to assignment to its mating Link Number (i.e. _CAB-0_ assigned to _Link Number 00_), Any _Cab Number_ can be assigned to any _Link Number_, 





Yes Steve - I'm not suggesting there *has to be* a one-to-one relationship between link numbers and cab numbers.
I just thought it would be easier for the operators when handing off locos from one oerator to another if the link number (which defines the loco) equals the cab number, that's all.


Knut


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 04/05/2009 4:06 PM
{snip...}[/i] Back to the Aristo TE - the manual goes into quite a bit of detail when it comes to MU operation - that's great, but it doesn't really talk about handing locos off from one operator to another, at least not that I could find. {snip...}[/i]

Knut

Based on the available documentation, so long as the two hand-held transmitters are configured the same for the _Group ID_ and _RF Channel_ values, and the linking process was performed with the same locomotive on each of the hand-held transmitters, and it was assigned the same _Link Number_, unless there is something else that isn't documented. I don't see how the locomotive could tell the difference between which of the two hand-held transmitters the information was coming from. Nor how the hand-held could differentiate the fact that the two transmitters were talking to the same locomotive.

If on the other hand any one of the three values (i.e. _Group ID_, _RF Channel_, & _Link Number_) differ between the two hand-held transmitters then to hand off a locomotive from one to another would require the _Assign Function/Linking_ process to be performed between the locomotive and the new hand-held transmitter.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

There's a story about why the consisting is so well described, I believe.... An agitating person (guess who) took great exception when Lewis was saying that the new TE was "beyond DCC", and I asked very pointedly about consisting... in fact, (and this is documented in the Aristo forum) the first firmware made you reprogram the loco with the onboard programming button to do consisting. There was a firmware update so that you did not have to do this. This is also, I believe, the first time the linking procedure included a cab number, not just the link id... again, you can find this story in the Aristo forum. 

Anyway Knut, back a few of your posts, you list 3 things, but there are 4, you have to have the frequency too, if the frequency is not set, nothing happens. 

It still seems to me that you have to set the "cab number" when you are linking, according to the manual. 

And this is more than engineering curiosity, I want to understand how it works, I recommend systems to a number of people, and I want to know it's strengths and limitations. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 04/05/2009 4:37 PM
{snip...}[/i] I just thought it would be easier for the operators when handing off locos from one operator to another if the link number (which defines the loco) equals the cab number, that's all.

Yes Sir

I totally agree, on the surface keeping all of the hand-held transmitters identical in configuration, regardless of the number, to trade off one locomotive's operation from one hand-held transmitter to any other would only require that the new transmitter make that particular _Cab Number_ the active one on their transmitter. While the old one would be switched off or make some other _Cab Number_ active on it.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04/05/2009 6:02 PM
{snip...}[/i] It still seems to me that you have to set the "cab number" when you are linking, according to the manual. {snip...}[/i]

Greg

Check the current manual, on page 14, steps 9 & 11, also check the images directly to the right and notice the change depicted the the wording for menu item "m." Which is what leads me to believe the Linking process is completed prior to any _Cab Number_ assignment takes place.

I believe that the Cab Number assignment has more to do with the user interface, until the Cab/Link assignment is made the user has no way to tell the hand-held how to use any of the established hand-held transmitter/locomotive links. This is indicated to me by the fact that the CAB-0/Link-49 values are being automatically being displayed by default, like the software just went bottom to top looking for a CAB_0/Link assignment and found none and stopped at the highest Link. To me the Cab Number defines how any given Cab Number is going to communicate to the assigned Link(s) (i.e. Single Unit (SU) assignment or Multiple Unit (MU) assignment).


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes, I am using the manual downloaded from the Aristo site, dated 3-18-09, just so we are on the same page. 

Yes pages 13 & 14 show the linking process, and say the linking is complete at that point. 

But linking alone is not sufficient to operate a loco: (from page 13) "Once linked, the transmitter and 
receiver are set to communicate. Finally you must assign a Cab Number to your 
locomotive and then you are ready run your train with the Revolution TE." 

So linking gets you to be "set to communicate"... Assigning a cab number is needed to run the loco. 

I believe that the cab number is necessary as an "index" to be able to select a loco to run. Also, if you have more than one loco assigned to a certain cab number, then they ALL run when you set your throttle to that cab number. 

I think we are saying the same thing here, do you agree? 

Regards, Greg 

(as a side note, I think it's interesting that page 16 describes how to get 2 locos running... select one, get it moving, then select a different one and run it. I wonder why they mention about the speed difference, like there is only one physical track and the locos might collide because they are running at different speeds!)


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Gentlemen, after reading your posts “My head hurts!” The process as I understand it is simple.

You select a unique linking address (number) for each locomotive. The manual suggests starting with 00.

Then you type in your locomotive name and road number.

 
Scroll down to the linking function.

 
Press the linking button on the receiver.

 
The red LED on the receiver will flash (as will the locomotive lights if hooked up) indicating the linking process has started. In a few seconds the transmitter will indicate “LINKING PASEED”.

 
Now you select a unique cab number for the locomotive. The manual suggests starting with 00. After the cab number has been selected, you can scroll down and the locomotive name will appear beside the selected cab number.

 
Each locomotive is identified on the first line of the operating screen by its name and road number that you entered. The cab number appears on the second line, but who cares? That‘s between the transmitter and receiver. I am running CN GP-40 #4008, not link address 00, cab number 00. 

If I had my way, after typing in the locomotive name and road number, the transmitter would assign the next available linking address (number) and cab number. It’s only the machines that need them. BTW: The final episode of the season of The Terminator is on this week. 

If you want to assemble a consist, you use the ADD MU/SU CAB menu to select a unique cab number for the consist. The names of the locomotives available to add to the consist are all listed on this screen along with their cab number so you know not to choose a cab number that has already been assigned. Scroll down and add up to six locomotives. When you return to the operating screen, the cab number will displayed along with MU so you know this is a consist (Multiple Units) not a single unit (SU). All the locomotives in the consist are controlled by this cab number.

At any time, you can select an individual locomotive and change its running characteristics such as headlight on/off. It is suggest however, that if you are going to change the running characteristics, that you do so while the locomotives are stopped. The locomotives do not have to be re-linked when added or removed from a consist.

The question about having two transmitters with the same roster had been asked before. As I did not have two transmitters, I could not answer it. Dave’s findings are interesting.

In our weekly operations, we have yard masters to assemble our trains, so we never hand off the transmitters for our road units. That would require that every member use the same system, or everyone be familiar with the operating characteristics of each. In our case everyone brings their own transmitter and locomotive and uses them for the assignment they choose: yard master, local freight, through freight, ore train, passenger train, tourist extra, etc.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Quote: The cab number appears on the second line, but who cares? 

The cab number is important Paul... we have been talking about running a loco from 2 different "throttles", matching the cab number is vital as far as we can determine. 

We have been focusing on this facet of operation.. yes the single "throttle" operation is trivial by comparison... but that was not the subject.. the concern was to understand how multiple "throttles" work... 

I can understand why you have your club operation set up the way you do, makes sense for a club where people cannot or will not all use the same system... 

But in many other clubs people do this though.... and in other scales, your situation is virtually unheard of, very few HO or N or Z scale clubs have not standardized.

But I have been considering home use, which should be the larger market for the Aristo TE, and I want to understand how it works, and make a fair comparison to DCC that this system has not only been compared to, but advertised as "beyond DCC" by the manufacturer. 

I have a layout, people come to visit. They run trains. I have (and want) no restrictions on who can run what loco, nor any desire to have it complex. 

I would think that this product that makes independent operation of locomotives on the same track means more locomotives running at the same time. 

I also believe that very few people will run two trains at the same time themselves (except on separate endless loops with no danger of collisions).


Therefore I believe this means multiple throttles, So, I am especially interested in how multiple users can operate the system... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

I was going to post pretty much the same thing in reply to Paul's comments, but you beat me to it. 

Interesting that you want to compare this system to DCC. 

Based on the capability described in the 40-page manual it's not even close. 

I'm not suggesting that this system is no good - it's a pretty basic train control system and should probably be compared to similar systems to be fair, not to DCC. 

Knut


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04/05/2009 7:35 PM
{snip...}[/i] I believe that the cab number is necessary as an "index" to be able to select a loco to run. Also, if you have more than one loco assigned to a certain cab number, then they ALL run when you set your throttle to that cab number.

I think we are saying the same thing here, do you agree?_{snip...}_


{snip...}[/i] (as a side note, I think it's interesting that page 16 describes how to get 2 locos running... select one, get it moving, then select a different one and run it. I wonder why they mention about the speed difference, like there is only one physical track and the locos might collide because they are running at different speeds!)

Yes Sir

I do think we are saying the same thing, until the _Cab Number_ is configured the hand-held transmitter (throttle) has no reference as to how you want to communicate to any of the established Links (i.e. as a single locomotive (SU), or as a consist of locomotives (MU)).

On your side note; as I read that portion (i.e. page 16, Controlling more than one locomotive, Step 5), the way it came across was they were saying that when you've gotten the two locomotives physically moving at the same rate, if you compare the the respective displayed "speeds" for each of the locomotives on the hand-held transmitter (i.e. line 3 on the display) they most likely would not be the same.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Paul Norton on 04/05/2009 9:22 PM
Gentlemen, after reading your posts “My head hurts!” The process as I understand it is simple. {snip...}[/i]

Paul, sorry about that, didn't mean to cause any headaches, just having some fun speculating based solely on the documentation.







I do agree with you that the _Linking_ and _Cab_ configuration is a simple process.

Posted By Paul Norton on 04/05/2009 9:22 PM
{snip...}[/i] Now you select a unique cab number for the locomotive. The manual suggests starting with 00. After the cab number has been selected, you can scroll down and the locomotive name will appear beside the selected cab number.

 

To me there is a slight limitation on the _ADD MU/SU CAB_ screen. That is on the locomotive assignment line, I realize that there is a physical limitation on the number of characters that can be displayed. However, by displaying the only the locomotive name (e.g. GP-40 in the above image) then if there are multiple GP-40s the user has to remember which GP-40 was assigned to a given transmitter Link (e.g. [00] in the above image), or have a reference sheet they created at the time the _Assign Function/Linking_ process was performed. If the locomotive _Road Number_ value could also be displayed it would simplify matters I believe.

Posted By Paul Norton on 04/05/2009 9:22 PM
{snip...} [/i]Each locomotive is identified on the first line of the operating screen by its name and road number that you entered. The cab number appears on the second line, but who cares? That‘s between the transmitter and receiver. I am running CN GP-40 #4008, not link address 00, cab number 00. {snip...}[/i] 

Yes I can see your point, but at the same time I can see an individual using the _Cab Number_ to identify what they do. Really it's matter of personal preference I believe and the individual will quickly become accustom to just where to glance for the desired information. 

Posted By Paul Norton on 04/05/2009 9:22 PM
{snip...} [/i]If I had my way, after typing in the locomotive name and road number, the transmitter would assign the next available linking address (number) and cab number. It’s only the machines that need them. {snip...}[/i]

Here I can see a possible disadvantage if the system automatically assigns the next available _Cab Number_. Just as I can see a drawback to the fact that the Hand-held transmitter automatically assigns the next available transmitter/receiver link. Which I would think cause an individual having a large roster of locomotives, to stop and consider the sequence in which they plan to link their locomotives. Then there's what happens down the line when locomotives are gotten rid of, new locomotives are added etc.

Which brings to mind, I don't remember seeing any mention of just how does one reuse a previously assigned transmitter/receiver link?

Posted By Paul Norton on 04/05/2009 9:22 PM
{snip...} [/i]If you want to assemble a consist, you use the ADD MU/SU CAB menu to select a unique cab number for the consist. The names of the locomotives available to add to the consist are all listed on this screen along with their cab number so you know not to choose a cab number that has already been assigned. Scroll down and add up to six locomotives. When you return to the operating screen, the cab number will displayed along with MU so you know this is a consist (Multiple Units) not a single unit (SU). All the locomotives in the consist are controlled by this cab number. {snip...}[/i]

I can only go by the documentation, but on the _ADD MU/SU CAB_ screen, when you change the _MU MODE_ setting to ON and the listing of MU1 thru MU6 is displayed. The number that is displayed within the square brackets represents the _Link Number_ not the _Cab Number_, or am I incorrect in thinking this.

Posted By Paul Norton on 04/05/2009 9:22 PM
{snip...} [/i]At any time, you can select an individual locomotive and change its running characteristics such as headlight on/off. It is suggest however, that if you are going to change the running characteristics, that you do so while the locomotives are stopped. The locomotives do not have to be re-linked when added or removed from a consist. {snip...}[/i]

From what I gather from the current documentation the only two things that would require repeating the _Add Function/Linking_ process for existing links would be a change in the hand-held transmitter's _Group ID_ or _RF Channel_ values. However I believe this would require all locomotives to be controlled by this hand-held transmitter to go through the _Add Function/Linking_ process again.


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Perhaps I was misunderstood, I was not suggesting the cab number not be shown. What I was saying that most operators will use the locomotive name and road number to identify the unit they are running, not the cab number. What on a locomotive indicates its cab number?[/i]
[/i]
Having said that, the cab numbers does appears on the second line of the operating screen under the locomotive name and road number. When programming other transmitters, the first transmitter will display the locomotive name, road number and cab number so you can copy the information over to the next transmitter. If you have followed the suggested routine of selecting the next available linking address (number) and cab number, they both should be the same number. As you can see by the screens I posted, that is exactly what I have done. CN GP-40 #4008, linking address (number) 00, cab number 00.[/i]
[/i]
Here are some of the concerns that Steve posted. My answers are in blue (I hope).[/i]

Here I can see a possible disadvantage if the system automatically assigns the next available _Cab Number_. Just as I can see a drawback to the fact that the Hand-held transmitter automatically assigns the next available transmitter/receiver link. Which I would think cause an individual having a large roster of locomotives, to stop and consider the sequence in which they plan to link their locomotives.

If they operate by locomotive name and road number, why would they care what order the linking addresses and cab numbers were assigned? If the numbers assigned were the same, they would be available two ways.[/i]
[/i]
If you can’t remember the last cab number you assigned, use the T keys while in the operating screen, it numerically lists the locomotives by cab number.[/i]
[/i]
Push the pound (#) key while in the operating screen. Scroll down and select the A -> Z Name SEARCH function. It has the names of all the assigned locomotives alphabetically and their linking addresses.[/i]

Then there's what happens down the line when locomotives are gotten rid of, new locomotives are added etc.

I see two options when selling a locomotive. If the buyer has a TE transmitter, the receiver can remain on-board and the buyer can add the locomotive to his roster and re-link the receiver with his own data. Or the receiver can be removed, and added to another your locomotives. You would not have to re-link, just change the road name, road number and running characteristics to suit.[/i]
[/i]
A new locomotive would just be assigned the next set of linking and cab numbers.[/i]

Which brings to mind, I don't remember seeing any mention of just how does one reuse a previously assigned transmitter/receiver link?

If you have removed a locomotive, use the previously mentioned search functions to find it. Use the ASSIGN FUNCTIONS menu to type in the NEW locomotive’s name and road number. If the receiver was from the removed locomotive, no further action is required as it already linked. If it has a new receiver in it, scroll down and link it using the previously assigned linking address. Select the matching cab number. You now have a new locomotive with previously assigned linking and cab numbers. [/i]

I can only go by the documentation, but on the _ADD MU/SU CAB_ screen, when you change the _MU MODE_ setting to ON and the listing of MU1 thru MU6 is displayed. The number that is displayed within the square brackets represents the _Link Number_ not the _Cab Number_, or am I incorrect in thinking this.

Yes, that is the way the manual reads. My bad! It was my understanding the only reason cab numbers were assigned was to use them in the consist function. I use the same number for both the linking address and cab number, so I can not confirm whether or not this is a linking address or cab number. I will add this to the beta-testers comments.[/i]

To me there is a slight limitation on the _ADD MU/SU CAB_ screen. That is on the locomotive assignment line, I realize that there is a physical limitation on the number of characters that can be displayed. However, by displaying the only the locomotive name (e.g. GP-40 in the above image) then if there are multiple GP-40s the user has to remember which GP-40 was assigned to a given transmitter Link (e.g. 00) in the above image), or have a reference sheet they created at the time the _Assign Function/Linking_ process was performed. If the locomotive _Road Number_ value could also be displayed it would simplify matters I believe.

Good point! I have two CN GP-40s (4008 and 4010) that I intend to run as a consist. I will add this to the beta testers’ comments.[/i]
[/i]
There is no need to make a list however. Before adding similar units to a consist, push the pound (#) key while in the operating screen. Scroll down and select A -> Z Name SEARCH. It have the name of each locomotive alphabetically and their linking addresses.[/i]


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Paul

Thank you for the reply.

I need to correct something that I stated in the previous reply, after going back and re-reading the manual again regarding the choice of _Link Number_ that is being established. I was incorrect, the user DOES have the ability to choose the _Link Number_ that he wants to establish (Re: page 13, Programming a Locomotive, Step 4), prior to performing the _Linking_ process.

On your point regarding the choice of using the _Locomotive Name/Road No._ information on the first line of the display. I can understand and agree with your choice, however, I can also see using the _Cab Number_ too. For example if an individual had a layout and had a guest over who had no background in railroads whatsoever. It would simplify matters a great deal using the _Cab Number_ alone (e.g. CAB-3 etc.) to describe which locomotive/train to select, instead of rattling off _BNSF -9 #4008_, which to the visitor would most likely be just a bunch of gibberish and confusing.

On the point of not using a hard-copy list, yes I realize that the information is available on various screens & it's also not overly difficult to traverse, but to make use of it requires multiple steps and keystrokes to move from where one is at, to the place where the information is available, then back to where you started from, to then use the information. That's one of the disadvantages of all devices that use small LCD displays. To me having the list is more efficient and less prone to memory errors when flipping between screens, but is really nothing more than a personal preference.


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

I've been following all this even though I don't plan on using the system. To me it is starting to look a little cumbersome. I have a question. If you own one transmitter and have say 12 locomotives programed into it and then buy a second transmitter would you then have to manually copy all the info from the first into the second?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Nope, you have to manually ENTER every loco into the second "throttle" (I don't call them transmitters, because both items are really transceivers). 

I asked lewis for a way to "clone" on throttle to another a long time ago (have documents on this system back to 2004, when we were buddies). 

It is clear that all locos must have the same "link address" between the 2 throttles, but it seems that you might be able to have different "cab numbers" for the same loco on different throttles, but I would say that would make the system very confusing. 

Every loco has to have a "link address" AND a "cab number" defined. 

This extra step of requiring the "Cab number" appears to be an outgrowth of the first firmware change, to allow consisting without "relinking" the locomotive... The first version you had to go to the loco and push the programming button and "re link" the loco... completely unacceptable, and apparently Lewis agreed with me, that's changed now, with the addition of the "Cab number"... but now you have the added complexity of the "cab number" to deal with and it is required. 

It's definitely more cumbersome than my DCC system... but this is a fundamental point... in DCC you have a "system" with a command station that knows everything and shares that knowledge with the "throttles", the TE product is NOT a system per se, it is a set of "throttles" and "locos" and since there is no "system controller" the throttles have no knowledge of each other, so they cannot share information, nor locos. 

It's a fundamental difference that Aristo failed to grasp. Since the units have bidirectional communication, the TE could be redesigned to do this, but one small manufacturer cannot "reinvent DCC" in such a short time with only one design engineer... DCC has had years to be fully "worked out". 

I have gotten about 98% of what I need to know about this system, and I know now in what situations I will recommend it... One person, one throttle, multiple trains, and sound not required on all locos (because of cost considerations). 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Like I said,seems cumbersome. If I get a new transmitter(throttle) for my Airwire system ,all I need to do is set it to the frequency of the loco I want,enter the address (road number) and basically I'm off and runniing.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

I have gotten about 98% of what I need to know about this system, and I know now in what situations I will recommend it... One person, one throttle, multiple trains, and sound not required on all locos (because of cost considerations). 


Why only one throttle? 
Or do you mean one throttle per person? 

It's a basic system - one step up from the original 27 MHz TE - with limited capability. 
If that's all one needs, it should be OK - certainly no comparison to DCC, but then again, it's much cheaper - at least if one only has a few locos. 

The thing that bothers me the most is that there is no way to stop a battery-powered loco if something goes wrong with either transmitter or receiver or the communication between the two. 

One thing I haven't gotten my mind around yet (haven't really checked) is the benefit of bidirectional communication between the transmitter and receiver (yes- they should be called transceivers). 
The one obvious capability of bi-directional communication is to report back the actual loco speed, but the system doesn't do that. 
Are there actually any features/capabilities that take advantage of the bi-directional capability of the system?


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

If you are using radio control and battery power, the cost of adding sound has narrowed with the introduction of the new Phoenix PB9.

I purchased from RLD an Air-Wire throttle $200, a QSI Decoder with sound $135, and a Gwire receiver $98 to try radio controlled DCC with sound. The total was $433. If I were to purchase an Aristo-Craft 2.4 GHz TE system $190 and Phoenix PB9 $120 from Ridge Road Station, it would cost $400 to start. The cost difference to start is $33.

That would multiply if I bought more than one throttle, but in our weekly train operations I can only run one locomotive or consist at time.

Every additional locomotive would cost $233 for the decoder with sound and the receiver. If I buy a 6 pack of receivers $330, every other locomotive would cost $265 for the receiver and sound board. The cost difference per locomotive is $33.

But just I would not buy a throttle for every locomotive, I probably will not buy a sound board for all 9 of my diesels. I had sound in my On30 Broadway Limited Consolidation. At first I liked the chuff, and used the whistle and bell. The bell quickly became annoying and I stopped using it. The novelty of the whistle wore off soon afterward. The chuff was gradually turned down as well.

Three sets of my diesels will be run as double-headers, so I will probably just add a sound to one of each set.


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By krs on 04/07/2009 11:11 AM

The thing that bothers me the most is that there is no way to stop a battery-powered loco if something goes wrong with either transmitter or receiver or the communication between the two. 




Yes, and that does indeed happen with radio control. About the only thing you can do is grab the loco off the tracks and frantically search for the power on/off switch, which is usually hidden underneath somewhere.

That is one advantage of my Critter Controls, which are semi-automatic, no radios. Emergency stop is done with the control button readily accessible on the roof. Just hold it down as it passes by.


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

Paul you are buying your STUFF at a too high price There are less expensive places to buy the same thing, then you would see a cost difference. The Regal


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

My reason/opinion to limit my recommendation to applicationw with one throttle is really in what you just said and I agree Knut: 
It's a basic system with limited capability. The extra complexity to "hand off" locos and understand "cab numbers" and other limitations would preclude me from recommending it to most people for multi-throttle use. 

That, coupled with the fact you must use the Aristo "receiver" when adding sound, which makes it more expensive, and you still only have limited control of the sound system, makes the cost/use it not justified for an entry level system, nor an advanced system, again in my opinion. 

I would also like to hear about the "fail safe" operation that was advertised. Again, I suspect this is a "system" issue, where it would require a constant "heartbeat" back and forth between the "throttle" and the "receiver" so that a communication problem could be detected and the loco stopped. That would indeed be a failsafe system. 

The AirWire system uses this. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg

I am not certain what your recommendation implies. 

At our normal operating sessions, we would expect as amany as 12-15 operators. They will come with their own locos and throttles ... or they will use one of the IPP&W locos. There are a huge variety of radio/RC systems in use. I don't see any reason why Paul showing up with his diesels and the new Revolution system would be any at any disdvantage compared to all the rest of the operators using other RC systems.

In our operation, each operator only controls one train at a time ... has extensive switching to do ... must run in accordance with track warrants issued by the dispatcher ... But we operate many trains with many operators simultaneously some with sound some without. I do not see that the specifics of the Revolution have much to do with any of this. 

What would you recommend to someone wanting a system for a loco to run in our situation?

Regards ... Doug


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

In your situation, which I believe is unusual for club operation, and not applicable to a person's home layout, I think you guys have made the right choices given your philosophy of operation. 

You can use any battery powered system, as long as you do not have RF interference. 

But home operation does not have the "rule" that the guys making up trains in the yard, do not control the road engines. I feel strongly that for a home system, anyone with a "throttle" should be able to take over control of any train. 

This is my opinion, and from my best reading of Paul's earlier post describing your club, definitely not how your club works... taking over a train can require physical "hand over" of the control. I don't want that at my house, and if someone needs multiple throttles at their house, I would not recommend the TE because of it's clunky operation in this case. 

In smaller scale clubs the control system is standardized, and also in many large scale clubs, although it's more difficult. 

I can appreciate decisions and reasons that were used in how your club is set up, but, as I posted before, I am talking about the majority of the market, which is home layouts. 

Hopefully I re-stated my foundation and reasons more clearly this time... I am trying. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Paul Norton on 04/07/2009 11:43 AM
If you are using radio control and battery power, the cost of adding sound has narrowed with the introduction of the new Phoenix PB9.

I purchased from RLD an Air-Wire throttle $200, a QSI Decoder with sound $135, and a Gwire receiver $98 to try radio controlled DCC with sound. The total was $433. If I were to purchase an Aristo-Craft 2.4 GHz TE system $190 and Phoenix PB9 $120 from Ridge Road Station, it would cost $400 to start. The cost difference to start is $33.

That would multiply if I bought more than one throttle, but in our weekly train operations I can only run one locomotive or consist at time.

Every additional locomotive would cost $233 for the decoder with sound and the receiver. If I buy a 6 pack of receivers $330, every other locomotive would cost $265 for the receiver and sound board. The cost difference per locomotive is $33.




Compared to DCC, this gets expensive real quick when you have more than just a few engines you need to equip.
A QSI decoder with sound is roughly $100 cheaper for each engine (per the numbers you quoted) - without going into the math, it looks like the cross-over point where DCC is less expensive is less than 10 engines. 


I would typically equip all my engines with decoders/receivers but only get enough throttles for the maximum number of "engineers" at a session - that's typically four.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

That is EXACTLY the reason I made the point about "not all locos with sound".... you have to "reset" your thinking from several trail cars to a "receiver" per loco and a sound system per loco. 

These is a typical point in the "analysis" of what is better... People tell me they would never go DCC because my radio "starter system" is more expensive than another "starter system", but I buy the "starter system" once... the real $$ multiplier is the cost per loco... 

$300 more for my system "basics" and $100 less per loco saved me about $2,000 overall... so you must take the entire "concept" into account when starting to use cost as a qualifier. 

Right on Knut. (I also have 4 throttles, soon to be 5) 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Sound or no sound - that is the question................... 

I suppose that's a personal choice. 

I didn't like the earlier sound systems - the sound was "too canned" and too repetitive. Didn't sound realistic even if it wasn't synthesized. 

But the newer ones where the sound is tied to the decoder and you get different sound going uphill and downhill for instance, makes it much more realistic. 

BTW - I love the PB9 sales pitch on the Phoenix web site...."Museum-quality sound"..........whatever that is...........


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Posted By krs on 04/07/2009 1:01 PM




Compared to DCC, this gets expensive real quick when you have more than just a few engines you need to equip. A QSI decoder with sound is roughly $100 cheaper for each engine (per the numbers you quoted) - without going into the math, it looks like the cross-over point where DCC is less expensive is less than 10 engines. 


The premium for the TE receiver and Phoenix PB9 is $33 based on my figures. I assume by misrepresenting my figures tby NOT including the $98 Gwire receiver. If so, you are in the wrong forum. This is the *RC/Battery Power* Forum. Track power is a dirty word here.


If you can tell me how I can buy a Plug and Play, radio controlled, DCC decoder with sound that will run on battery power for $165, I would love to hear it.


----------



## Michael Glavin (Jan 2, 2009)

RC with a programmable fail-safe has been around for twenty years or better with RC aircraft. The tried and true systems are digital PCM (pulse code modulation) variety and later IPD (intelligent pulse) on inteligent PPM hierarchy. Failsafe is triggered after a given time-out for lack of RF signal and or multiple corrupt data packets are decoded consecutively. The user is able to program how the RX is to react to failsafe, i.e., throttle down; turn left, a little up elevator trim or whatever as soon as GOOD data is received the link is reestablished. RC Train systems with fail safe should be easy, it only has to be applied to our hobby IMO… And now 2.4ghz SS (Spread-Spectrum) has become common place in aircraft, trains wanted the kool-aid too I suppose… 

Greg, 

Are you suggesting the AirWire gear is capable of bi-directional communication TXRX? If so I completely over looked this ability when I was evaluating choices for gear? Not sure it would have been a deal breaker I just missed the info on the attribute. 

Michael


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think you are right Paul, I think Knut and I both downshifted into track power. At $130 you get the DCC decoder and great sound. 

By the way battery forum or not, this thread is on the Aristo TE which is also usable on track power... but you are right, the battery controlled system should be 130 + 80... $210 in my book, that's an average street price..... The Aristo combo should be $90 for the "receiver" and $220 for the phoenix PB9 which totals $310... so there's your $100 per loco... on R/C battery. 

You have to agree to compare apples to apples, where do you get comparable sound and features to a QSI for less that will connect to the TE? The Dallee is not even comparable, so I'm at a loss where you get a sound board with 4/6 triggers (much less functions than DCC) for $165 - 90 ? A high quality large scale sound board with 4/6 triggers for $75? Uhh... did I miss something? 

So, no, I cannot tell you where to get what you asked for for $165, as the same as you cannot tell me where I can get the equivalent of a QSI for $30. Neither of these exists as far as I can tell... 

Back to the post by Knut.... the above still shows $100 bucks less per loco... battery power... the point is AGAIN that with sound, the Aristo system certainly seems to me to be more expensive and less functional than an AirWire system. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Paul Norton on 04/07/2009 4:55 PM




If you can tell me how I can buy a Plug and Play, radio controlled, DCC decoder with sound that will run on battery power for $165, I would love to hear it.



QSI decoders are around $130, they can run on battery and I assume-- I might be wrong--you could get the same kind of functionality you get on DC with any battery/remote control system. If you had a 27 mhz Aristo TE, you could use the QSI with that. Then you'd have sound




To get the full DCC set you'd need their "G-wire" receiver, which is around 95 bucks. But I did a lot of looking--it's cheaper than any other decoder + a Phoenix card


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

woow, sniff sniff, you all are so good. I wish I was that smart......9 pages, have you come to any conclusions???


----------



## Michael Glavin (Jan 2, 2009)

I think Phoenix's PB9 cost is being confused with the P5's. The P5's are well suited for DCC while the PB9's are feature orientated for the needs of RC, Battery power, DC and magnet/trigger applications. 

PB9 retail @ $245.00, $210.00 street price 
P5 retails @180.00, $150.00 street price 

Discounts on Phoenix stuff is minimal, you'd be a lucky dog to get 20% off list prices IMO. However in some cases you really get the pleasure of receiving the perceived value you paid dearly for... 

Michael


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Michael Glavin on 04/07/2009 5:03 PM

RC with a programmable fail-safe has been around for twenty years or better with RC aircraft. The tried and true systems were digital PCM (pulse code modulation) variety and later IPD (intelligent pulse) on inteligent PPM hierarchy. Failsafe is triggered after a given time-out for lack of RF signal and or multiple corrupt data packets are decoded consecutively. The user is able to program how the RX is to react to failsafe, i.e., throttle down; turn left, a little up elevator trim or whatever as soon as GOOD data is received the link is reestablished. RC Train systems with fail safe should be easy, it only has to be applied to our hobby IMO… And now 2.4ghz SS (Spread-Spectrum) has become common place in aircraft, trains wanted the kool-aid too I suppose… 






I started a new thread to address this topic. Fail-Safe Operation for Battery Power


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

I'd have to attend to agree that using the AC system with any sound is going to cost more than what I'm using now. Later RJD


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04/07/2009 5:17 PM

the battery controlled system should be 130 + 80... $210 in my book, that's an average street price..... The Aristo combo should be $90 for the "receiver" and $220 for the phoenix PB9 which totals $310... so there's your $100 per loco... on R/C battery. 

Regards, Greg

You math is off again. I quoted my sources and prices, and and you can go to their web site to verify them.

The QSI decoder with sound is $135 and Gwire receiver is $98 for a total of $233 per locomotive.

The PB9 is $210 and the TE receiver $55 when purchased in a 6 pack, for a total of $265 per locomotive. That’s premium of $32 dollars for a superior sound system.

Since you gentlemen seem intent on distorting the information, if you buy a system for every locomotive you own so you can have the full roster on every transmitter as you have suggested.

The AirWire Transmitter is $200, the QSI decoder with sound is $135 and Gwire receiver is $98 for a total of $433.

The Aristo-Craft 2.4 GHz TE system $190 and Phoenix PB9 sound board $210 for a total cost of $400. A savings of $33 for every system you buy.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

this is the RC/Battery Power Forum. Track power is a dirty word here. 


Aristocraft advertises the TE Revolution as providing "control beyond anything conceived in DCC", so I thought it would be reasonable to look at some DCC pricing when you posted the pricing for this new TE control. 

In any case, technology and products have evolved since these forum sections were established and named - one can configure an R/C controlled battery-powered DCC type system today. Those theoretically won't fit in any of these existing Power & Sound forums.


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

Posted By NTCGRR on 04/07/2009 5:26 PM
woow, sniff sniff, you all are so good. I wish I was that smart......9 pages, have you come to any conclusions???

Yes, the only worthwhile piece of information appears in the first post on the top of page one. Click on the link. ;-)

The rest is all the usual Aristo-Craft bashing and Dam Crappy Control BS. Need any for your corn crops?


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Paul - 

There is no point in throwing numbers around. 
None of the numbers you quoted are for a complete system, they are not even directly comparable. 

I think it makes more sense to concentrate on functionality and issues - the cost of these systems will vary tremendously depending on individuals needs (ie features and capabilities) and the size of the roster they need/want to equip.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

OK, the P5 with the accessory board will save you 10 bucks more... 

Prices from RLD hobbies: ( I know that he will stand behind his prices....) 

P5: 159.89 (DCC sound board) 
P5T accessory board: 49.89 ( NECESSARY to give trigger inputs to DCC sound board) 
TE receiver: 62.48 ( $374.89 divided by 6) (and I'll believe the price when they actually appear, I have heard it will be a 5 pack at this price) 

Total: 272.26 


QSI: 134.89 
Gwire receiver 97.89 

Total 232.78 

Giving you every single advantage I can, the 6 pack discount that is not proven, the aggressive recent pricing by Aristo, and using the P5 and the clunky extra board instead of the cleaner install P9 

So it is $39.48 more per loco to go with the Aristo TE and have less sound control and less flexibility and less control.... 

If I was to purchase and Aristo "throttle" per loco on the TE side, and only one DCC loco per user on the DCC side it would be way more lopsided... and this is how your club operates I guess... but I was talking individuals... 

OK so I only saved $800 for my 20 locos going DCC.... but I have more than that and will double it... so unfortunately I will save more money... 

Oh, while I consider the sound on the Phoenix superior, I consider the limited control via the TE inferior to that possible with DCC.... so a ferrari with bald tires is not necessarily better than a corvette with good tires... 

A request, please avoid the beginning of the name calling and "distortion" remarks/accusations... ... I was getting the receivers for $80, so it was not a distortion, a mistake... lets keep this courteous 

Regards, Greg


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

I continually see that Aristo has advertised that the Revolution TE provides "better control than DCC". The only place I have seen this statement applied by Aristo is in the number of increments of speed control that the new TE provides, which is basically 1000 steps. This is claimed to be more steps than DCC provides, hence "better speed control". I THINK this is true, although I am certainly no expert on DCC. 

Ed


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Paul Norton on 04/07/2009 8:07 PM

The rest is all the usual Aristo-Craft bashing and Dam Crappy Control BS. Need any for your corn crops?





Seems the thread was just derailed.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I doubt seriously there is really 1000 measurable steps, but since most DCC decoders have BEMF control, there is really no comparison in speed control... also virtually all DCC decoders let you set start "voltage", max "voltage" and "mid" voltage, or a complete custom speed curve with a defined voltage at every speed step... nope, in that "race" DCC wins hands down.... 

It was funny the comments Lewis made putting down BEMF, and then later in the same post that his engineers are working on something "better".... 

If you ever get a chance, have someone running DCC with BEMF on show you really low speed control... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## GG (Jan 1, 2009)

Well, I say 10 pages later +

Worn out this thread is. 

Revolution is now "old" 


Everyone will make their choice. One thing I know and thanks to this thread... I personally will not be looking at the Evolution for my DCC system. 

Blunt I say... What can I say? 


gg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By GG on 04/07/2009 8:34 PM
SNIP... I personally will not be looking at the Evolution for my DCC system. 

Blunt I say... What can I say? 


gg 




Not to worry GG. 
The EVOLUTION R/C I make is not DCC capable anyway.


----------



## GG (Jan 1, 2009)

This revolution bit is really turning me off. 2 years of education to make the loco move forward. ( no, I am not stupid.... ) 


DCS... plug and play... proven ... my only issues were transport damage. 

DCC... I want it... I see opportunities for both. (MASSOTH!!!) Pay once... get what is correct. ( Hopefully acquire a system that is as simple as that of DCS) 


LOCO's.... as required for individual needs.. be it DCC or DCS... or Battery refits. Room for all. 


Battery... No problem however... my house is consumed with batteries... s*** I need a psych shift here. 

simple as that. 


gg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04/07/2009 8:27 PM

If you ever get a chance, have someone running DCC with BEMF on show you really low speed control... 

Regards, Greg



To be fair............it has now been about 20 years since Lenz first developed the basic DCC system and it took a good chunk of that time and many design iterations before the slow speed performance of DCC decoders became what it is today.
I don't think one can ever achieve that outstanding slow speed performance without Back EMF control - that's just the nature of the beast (modeltrains) - but then again, everyone doesn't care about that either.


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Greg, educate me, please. What controls can I apply to the Phoenix soundboard with a DCC system, that I cannot apply with the Rev. TE?? Not trying to give you a hard time, just trying to learn.

Thanks,
Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I'll make it easy Ed, since you have a TE... how many "trigger inputs" do you have on your TE? That's how many functions you can control. I think it's 6 right? 

That is your limit... Take a look at your manual for your Phoenix, the DCC manual... I think you will see there are more possible than you can control. 

On a QSI there are over 30 different sounds that can be controlled from DCC... even if it took trigger inputs, it's clear no R/C system makes 30 trigger inputs. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Greg, Thanks. Understood.

Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

New information today, the Aristo TE system does NOT support speed matching, as it was advertised. 

You can LIMIT the top speeds of locos differently, but you cannot match speeds throughout the speed range. 

For those who do not understand, in DCC you set a "start speed" and a "max speed", then this defines a speed "curve" between these two limits. By picking these properly, 90-99% of the time you can exactly match locomotive speeds AT ALL SPEED SETTINGS. 

Aristo just revealed that this is not how the new TE works (after several users said they could not accimplish it) 

It appears the problem with the TE firmware is that the top speed setting is just like a "governor", changing it does not affect the speed at a given setting, thus locos cannot be matched. Read the Aristo forum where several people comment they are unable to speed match locos. 

Lewis said: 
"We will work on a software solution here, but not for the first run of Revolutions. Perhaps an exponential power curve choice would work, but not at this moment. Does any other system allow for disparate speed matching before consisting???" 

Beyond DCC? .... Lewis, I know your people monitor this forum closely, since you rebut whatever I say here in just a few hours. 

This is a FUNDAMENTAL requirement when MUing locos.... Have your people study DCC and see how it is done, and has been done for years, since it works. 

Don't try to invent anything new, just copy how DCC works, and be sure to study custom speed curves, not just start, mid, and top speed. 

Instead of attacking DCC, just clone the features that are good and people use. Just like the switch machine you just made. 


By the way this is not sniping... I believe you promised this feature.. and it's an honest and objective appraisal of how your system does (not) work in this area. 

Regards, your friendly troll, Greg


----------



## GG (Jan 1, 2009)

I received and out of the blue an email from "[email protected]" with direct comments re the ability of TE product to "speed match" up to whatever. 

I have no real answer to the apparent mis-information here and I must say, "let the buyer beware" 

I am glad that I did not go with Aristo technology. 



gg


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By GG on 04/24/2009 5:04 PM
I received and out of the blue an email from "[email protected]" with direct comments re the ability of TE product to "speed match" up to whatever. 

I have no real answer to the apparent mis-information here and I must say, "let the buyer beware" 

I am glad that I did not go with Aristo technology. 



gg 







Smart man.........


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Well you can count me in as to not buying into the product. First off took to long to get here, by then I'd done DCC and now its a good thing that I did not wait. Not up to what I would really like in a train control system. Looks good for battery folks tho. Later RJD


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

I would think the importance of speed matching depends on the specific engines one uses. 
I run mostly European narrow gauge, so MU operation is really not required, but I have run two similar LGB locos in analogue behind each other and the difference in speed was pretty minimal across the whole speed range. 

Don't know how good Aristo or USA Trains locos are in that respect. 

However - one thing REALLY bothers me about this - has Aristo not designed the capability that they advertise into the product? 
Begs the question 'what else that is advertised doesn't work'?


----------



## GG (Jan 1, 2009)

Posted By krs on 04/24/2009 6:42 PM
I would think the importance of speed matching depends on the specific engines one uses. 
I run mostly European narrow gauge, so MU operation is really not required, but I have run two similar LGB locos in analogue behind each other and the difference in speed was pretty minimal across the whole speed range. 

Don't know how good Aristo or USA Trains locos are in that respect. 

However - one thing REALLY bothers me about this - has Aristo not designed the capability that they advertise into the product? 
Begs the question 'what else that is advertised doesn't work'?


Yup... total loss of credibility. 

Not good for any marketing effort. Basic business 101



Shame

gg


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Gavin, would you forward that unsolicited email to me at [email protected] please? 

I really did not think that my review of the $17 adapter board would throw Aristo into such a tizzy, and so the latest revelation (Which can be read in the Aristo forum) must have really hit a nerve if the disclaimer is out already. Funny thing, is Aristo JUST had to take a swipe at the rest of the world: 

"Does any other system allow for disparate speed matching before consisting???" 

.... Aristo, why do you keep putting out disparaging comments about the rest of the world? (remember the comment about not having BEMF, but "does anyone really do it right?") 

A simple: "yes, you cannot do speed matching, we are considering adding it in a future version" would have been fine. 

To answer your question Lewis: yes, ALL DCC systems do this, of course... for years. 
Technical stuff: CV2 and CV 5 in the simplest sense, and most decoders do custom speed curves. The QSI does the basic speed curve, has several more curves stored and lets you create a custom curve. 

If sometime in the last 4 years in development, any of the highly touted Aristo engineers had bothered to look for even 5 minutes at a DCC manual... or listened to some people who used to be their friends, or asked anyone in the DCC community, this would not have happened. 

Ahh well.... maybe in the next version of firmware. 

While you are at it, make the start and top speed setting work the same way as DCC... that will help... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Truthman (Dec 13, 2008)

Lewis said: 
"We will work on a software solution here, but not for the first run of Revolutions. Perhaps an exponential power curve choice would work, but not at this moment. Does any other system allow for disparate speed matching before consisting???" 



Greg, I hope you asked for Mr. Polk's permission to to post something he said. At least that's what I've been told I had to do. Don't worry someone will run to Lewis and tell him everything that's been said. LOL


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04/24/2009 9:01 PM
Gavin, would you forward that unsolicited email to me at [email protected] please? 

I really did not think that my review of the $17 adapter board would throw Aristo into such a tizzy, and so the latest revelation (Which can be read in the Aristo forum) must have really hit a nerve if the disclaimer is out already. Funny thing, is Aristo JUST had to take a swipe at the rest of the world: 

"Does any other system allow for disparate speed matching before consisting???" 

.... Aristo, why do you keep putting out disparaging comments about the rest of the world? (remember the comment about not having BEMF, but "does anyone really do it right?") 

A simple: "yes, you cannot do speed matching, we are considering adding it in a future version" would have been fine. 

To answer your question Lewis: yes, ALL DCC systems do this, of course... for years. 
Technical stuff: CV2 and CV 5 in the simplest sense, and most decoders do custom speed curves. The QSI does the basic speed curve, has several more curves stored and lets you create a custom curve. 

If sometime in the last 4 years in development, any of the highly touted Aristo engineers had bothered to look for even 5 minutes at a DCC manual... or listened to some people who used to be their friends, or asked anyone in the DCC community, this would not have happened. 

Ahh well.... maybe in the next version of firmware. 

While you are at it, make the start and top speed setting work the same way as DCC... that will help... 

Regards, Greg 



Hey Mr troll !!!!!! DO YOU MIND NOT TALKING ABOUT THE OLD MANS PRODUCT LIKE THAT YOUR GIVING HIM A HEAD ACHE......he he he The engineers you refer to would they be the same ones that design there engine and other items as well. the ones that dont work most of the time anyway no surprise their...also your buddy coprrighted his site, i guess once again, he cant take the truth and needs to update the sugar content in his kool aid.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Why does this discussion have to take this kind of turn? There's no need to insult someone's age, just as there's no need for Lewis to call Greg a troll. There's no need to compare people who like a certain company's product to the people who drank cyanide at Jonestown.




I'm perpetually puzzled by the weird brand loyalties here. I bought a live steamer after asking for advice. Some people advised X, some advised Y. After buying brand X, and mentioning some problems I was having, I got gloating private messages from people who wanted to tell me that I should have listened to them all along, etc etc. Odd. And I'm sure if I had bought brand Y, and made the same post, I'd have gotten messages from people who liked brand X.


----------



## Truthman (Dec 13, 2008)

These forums are for people to express their thoughts, opinions, problems, jokes or whatever. People have strong opinions about certain things whether it be religion, politics or TRAINS. And yes, that means we may all not always get along or agree with everything everyone says. Someone may think someone else may not have said something absolutely perfectly, just chill, relax, read and post when you want and enjoy trains. Let people have their say whether agreed with or not. You can always not read it or participate. Done deal simple as that.


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Speaking as a moderator ... people do have strong opinions about politics and religion but those subjects are verboten here. Folks also have strong opinions about trains. They are permitted to express those opinions AS LONG AS they remain withing the bounds of common courtesy. Constructive criticism is encouraged ... frivilous bashing is not.

Enough said ... the discussion can continue ... after everyone takes a timeout to count to 10 and remember their manners.

Regards ... Doug


----------



## jmill24 (Jan 11, 2008)

I generaly choose not to participate on this forum due to some of the sniping that goes on. I own alot of AristoCraft products which seams to be not very popular here. However, I still come here to learn what I can by reading posts. But lately, I don't read certain posts because all that can be learned is how to be ugly to a fellow RR modeler. This is a fine example for the newbies.......Jim


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Guys, I am trying to keep it objective and factual. 

You have to realize how the product is marketed and what features it is supposed to have. 

So, while it may seem like bashing, I am presenting facts where there is a significant discrepancy (this is being very nice) between what is claimed and what has been delivered or revealed. 

Unfortunately in this case, there are several important features that are not as advertised or presented. 

I will be making a nice comparison chart of features and pros and cons on my web site, but this current situation on speed matching is a very big problem for MU operation, speed matching is a fundamental requirement. 

Also, unfortunately, Aristo seems to want to "dig" at other systems to either bluntly claim, or infer that they do not have the same "missing" feature. 

Deciding upon the control system for a number of locos is a serious choice, and not all of my fellow modellers have the time or money to "experiment", so they take the manufacturer's word on feature content and functionality. 

So, this is sort of an ongoing "product review" thread, as I see it. 

I do ask that people refrain from name calling, although I would prefer to be called an old man as opposed to a troll. Let's all keep it to facts, and if it is an opinion, I do strive to state so. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

Eating too many sour grapes causes LEWIS Polking!!!!! IT's your money use it where you choose!! They're your trains run em like YOU want. Chew on all the info and swallow what you like, and spit out the rest i say!!!! That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. That's how I ended up with Airwire throttle, QSI pnp, and g-wire. Too much yakkity yak, and not enough real one on one help to a fellow hobbyist, I just researched what was out there at the time product info, ease of installation(do it yourself) no installer involved, cost factors what I wanted to be able to do with a "system" and went for it. If something else comes along I might like better it's Going Going Gone with the old and in with the new, as I can sell the old, and afford the new. The Regal


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By jmill24 on 04/25/2009 8:25 AM
I generaly choose not to participate on this forum due to some of the sniping that goes on. I own alot of AristoCraft products which seams to be not very popular here. However, I still come here to learn what I can by reading posts. But lately, I don't read certain posts because all that can be learned is how to be ugly to a fellow RR modeler. This is a fine example for the newbies.......Jim 



Do you really feel there is sniping going on in this thread?
I thought that posts in general were pretty factual and on topic and whenever the thread had the slightest possibility of being derailed, the moderator jumped right in.


Having said that, I decided to take a look at the Aristo forum yesterday to see what was being posted there on this subject, and I was rather surprised to the degree people 'sugarcoat' the products.
I assume justified criticism of Aristo products is not allowed there in the same way that one can't comment about competitive products on the Aristo forum - pity.


However, one thing I noticed is that Mr Polk actually stated that speed matching *does* work if you read his complete reply - only the last portion was posted here.


Mr Polk's comment on the Aristo forum is:

There is a top speed setting as Ed said, which you can set it to different speeds and there is a start speed that you can adjust to near the top speed limits.* It will take some experimentation to match disparate locomotives, but can be done. You can adjust all of this before adding the locomotives to the consist, which is why we say to run the locomotives separately next to each other before nesting into the consist. *

We will work on a software solution here, but not for the first run of Revolutions. Perhaps an exponential power curve choice would work, but not at this moment. Does any other system allow for disparate speed matching before consisting???


I bolded the relevant text - to me this clearly states that speed matching can be done with the Revolution as delivered now, it just takes a bit of experimentation.
Or am I reading this wrong?


Knut


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Truthman on 04/24/2009 9:32 PM
Lewis said: 
"We will work on a software solution here, but not for the first run of Revolutions. Perhaps an exponential power curve choice would work, but not at this moment. Does any other system allow for disparate speed matching before consisting???" 



Greg, I hope you asked for Mr. Polk's permission to to post something he said. At least that's what I've been told I had to do. Don't worry someone will run to Lewis and tell him everything that's been said. LOL


Posted By Dwight Ennis on 04/22/2009 1:24 PM
I wasn't criticising you for posting it Nate - I was just trying to clear up a misconception previously posted about web contents being legal to copy.  It's also a subject MLS members should recognize and think about as it affects us all.


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Knut, perhaps the reason you believe the folks on the Aristo forum are "sugar coating" the Revolution TE is that on that forum are roughly 100 people who have the unit and are thrilled with the way it operates. It seems to me that from the perspective of those who are working with it on a daily basis, there have been relatively few problems and most of these people are very happy with the results.

I speak as one of those people who do own one and is very happy with it.

Ed


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Ed - 
I mean "sugar coating" in a broader sense, not only specifically related to the revolution - that's why I referenced "products" in general. 
It's just the tone of many of the posts that surprised me. I don't have much experience with Aristo products, just a dozen of their diesels over the years, maybe two dozen cars and the older TE and Elite. 
Unfortunately some of that wasn't very positive. 

Knut 

@ Dwight - Sorry, I missed whatever was said on MLS about "about web contents being legal to copy". 
My understanding is that this is perfectly legal if they are relatively short 'snippets' to make a point or to use them as a reference. If they weren't, all forums should eliminate the 'quote' option.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Knut. 
This is the important bit. 
*We will work on a software solution here, but not for the first run of Revolutions. Perhaps an exponential power curve choice would work, but not at this moment. Does any other system allow for disparate speed matching before consisting??? 
* 
Why would they have to work on a solution if it worked the way the DCC speed matching worked?


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Tony, you are right, but part of the problem is that we really don't know how well or how poorly the Revolution TE does this in its current configuration. We have a lot of people conjecturing and concluding that it does it poorly, and one guy on the Aristo forum had trouble trying to do this. Personally I would like to try it myself before I reach a final conclusion. I am away from home right now, but after I get home, when I get the chance, I'm going to try this myself on two disparate engines to see for myself if it can be done and how well or how poorly it does it.

Ed


----------



## GG (Jan 1, 2009)

*"We will work on a software solution here, but not for the first run of Revolutions. Perhaps an exponential power curve choice would work, but not at this moment. Does any other system allow for disparate speed matching before consisting???" *











Question on the above quote: 




Can anyone elaborate on the* "Does any other system allow for disparate speed matching before consisting???"* part of this quote. I am confused and my train lingo is weak. I note the words *"any other system" *... 





In the MTH world, I push a button to sync (speed wise) any DCS based loco on my track. One button. 

Sorry for intruding here, but I had to challenge the quote. Educate me please. 





gg


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By GG on 04/25/2009 5:35 PM


In the MTH world, I push a button to sync (speed wise) any DCS based loco on my track. One button. 

Sorry for intruding here, but I had to challenge the quote. Educate me please. 





gg





I've only seen one MTH system in my life, but I think it uses closed loop speed control via an optical speed sensor. All of this speed matching stuff is only necessary when you are running "open loop" (no actual speed control, just feeding voltage to motors with different characteristics and gearing). And now that you mention it, this is a much cleaner and easier solution. Personally, I have never tried speed matching, but while it is certainly possible to build a custom speed curve using X number of segments to approximate the response of your motor. It would seem to be very time consuming, and a compromise at best. Of course, like others have said, I don't think the speeds need to be matched that close to work "well enough".


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Knut, several people on the Aristo forum on the thread I quotes mentioned they were unable to match speeds in mu mode. 

As far as I can tell speed matching does not work, and if it did, why would Aristo say it's not in this firmware, but will seek a "software solution"? 

Here is what I can understand: 

On the TE, you can set a "Start speed". In DCC this means the "voltage" applied at speed step 1. On the TE this means what percentage of the full voltage is applied at the first speed step. From the manual, an example states if you set the start speed to 25%, then when you start the loco, the system immediately goes to 25% speed. There is a difference here. 

Likewise, you can set a "max speed". In DCC this means the "voltage" applied at speed step 128 (in a 128 ss system). On the TE this is like a "limiter", once you get to 80% throttle, for example, the loco will not go faster, even if you increase the speed steps. Again, there is a fundamental difference. 

So, in DCC, once you set the "voltage" for step 1 and for step 128, the system interpolates voltages between those steps, usually in a linear curve, (I will keep it simple here, there are other options). 

On the TE, it appears that while you set the voltage for step 1, your voltage for the max speed step may be limited. The problem lies in the steps between just starting and full blast. 

So, again, it appears you can match speeds only at the first step, and "top" speed. So 50% throttle would result in different voltages and different speeds. 

Therein lies the problem, you cannot "adjust" the speed curves of 2 locos to match each other. 

I hope this helps explain the difference and the problem. 

And there are 100 beta users, but read the fourm, there appears to be at least 4 people who cannot make this feature work, and consisting was a highly advertised feature. This makes sense, why have independent control of locomotives on the same track if you don't want them to run together? (the system is used for track power as well as battery power). 

Maybe there will be further clarification, or Paul Norton, or Dave Bodnar will come forth, or even an Aristo employee. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 04/25/2009 5:21 PM
Knut. 
This is the important bit. 
*We will work on a software solution here, but not for the first run of Revolutions. Perhaps an exponential power curve choice would work, but not at this moment. Does any other system allow for disparate speed matching before consisting??? 
* 
Why would they have to work on a solution if it worked the way the DCC speed matching worked?




Well Tony, if I take Lewis post at face value I would suggest that he is saying right now you can match speeds but it takes some experimentation and the software solution he is talking about would just make the speed matching exercise easier.
But then again, only Lewis knows what he really meant. All I'm saying is that one can't just ignore the first part of his post (which is what was done when he was quoted on mls).


Regards, Knut


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 04/25/2009 2:41 PM
@ Dwight - Sorry, I missed whatever was said on MLS about "about web contents being legal to copy". 
My understanding is that this is perfectly legal if they are relatively short 'snippets' to make a point or to use them as a reference. If they weren't, all forums should eliminate the 'quote' option.


Knut - see Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums[/b][/b]. It's a murky area.

Quoting something said on a forum on the same forum isn't the same thing as quoting it on another forum. As I said, it's a murky area, but normally should fall within the "Fair Use" clause... however, it's "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" section that could be a potential cause for concern. Still, another sentence on the same page states, "quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations" implies protection under Fair Use. 

Like I said, it's a murky area. hehehe


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Thanks for the link. 

The thread tries to address the "fair use" concept but doesn't address the question if one can even copyright a discussion forum. 
For one, the content of the forum changes on a continuing basis, from what I can ascertain, copyright law assumes that the document is completed. 
Not only this, the copyright always stays with the originator of the document (or post). Lewis can't transfer any copyright of Aristo members posts to himself or Aristocraft or the forum. 

There is a bit of a discussion about that here: 
http://www.webmasterworld.com/content_copywriting/3191566.htm 

I don't really want to pursue this subject in this thread - I'm more interested in the technical aspects of the Revolution TE. 
But what is the ruling right now.......can we quote from other sources to make a point or do we need to paraphrase?


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm afraid I can't give a ruling due to the murkiness of the law as I understand it. All I can say is keep it in mind and use care. As I understand it, web sites cannot be held responsible for content posted on said web site, which may mean the lawyers will be coming after the poster. 

Is there a member who is an attorney who can clear things up a bit? We used to have some attorneys here.


----------



## Paul Norton (Jan 8, 2008)

I believe the function that has not been mentioned is the step speed adjustment. After setting the start speed and top speed, this function sets the increments at which the locomotive will accelerate or decelerate. The settings are adjustable from 1 the slowest to 5 the fastest, the factory default is 2.
Speed Setting 1 – 1000 steps in 0.1% increments Speed Setting 2 – 200 steps in 0.5% increments Speed Setting 3 – 100 steps in 1.0% increments Speed Setting 4 – 40 steps in 2.5% increments Speed Setting 5 – 20 steps in 5% increments [/list]


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Paul Norton on 04/26/2009 10:52 AM


I believe the function that has not been mentioned is the step speed adjustment. After setting the start speed and top speed, this function sets the increments at which the locomotive will accelerate or decelerate. The settings are adjustable from 1 the slowest to 5 the fastest, the factory default is 2.
Speed Setting 1 – 1000 steps in 0.1% increments Speed Setting 2 – 200 steps in 0.5% increments Speed Setting 3 – 100 steps in 1.0% increments Speed Setting 4 – 40 steps in 2.5% increments Speed Setting 5 – 20 steps in 5% increments 
[/list] http://ovgrs.editme.com/files/Revolution/ItemQB.JPG


The speed step increment adjustment provided by Aristocraft does absolutely nothing for the lack of speed matching between different locos.

What is needed is a way to adjust the motor drive voltage for each individual speed step so that all engines one wants to run in a consist run at the same speed at any point from zero to the maximum.


Aristocraft offering five different speed step increments makes absolutely no sense. All that controls is the number of absolute speeds that one can get in theory.

Take a loco that runs at 100 mph equivalent scale speed - if you use speed setting 5, you can get 20 absolute speed points, 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 mph etc. up to 100. Probably not what most people are happy with.
Speed setting 4 would give you 0, 2.5, 5. 7.5 mph etc....that's better

Speed setting 3 would move in 1 mph steps - sounds ideal to me; setting 4 and 5 provide 0.5 mph and 0.1 mph steps - doesn't make much sense.


The other thing to consider is how one moves from one speed step to the next - if you have to push the 'fast' 'slow' button each time to move one speed step, then you want the fewest increments that are practical; if however the speed steps increment automatically by just holding the 'fast' or 'slow' buttons depressed (which is what I would expect), then a larger number of increments is fine.

But regardless - I see no purpose in offering five different increment adjustments, one would have been adequate plus half of that for switching operation.


Knut


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By krs on 04/26/2009 12:52 PM


But regardless - I see no purpose in offering five different increment adjustments, one would have been adequate plus half of that for switching operation.


Knut 










While this adjustment does nothing for the speed matching that has been discussed here, it does provide adjustable "momentum"; i.e. the time it takes for the speed changes to be made by holding down the inc/dec button.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

The way I read the manual, I was under the impression that the momentum adjustment and the speed step increment are two separate settings. 
For the speed steps I have five choices from a 5% increase per step to a 0.1% increase per step or from a low of 20 steps to a high of 1000 steps to move from standstill to maximum speed. 

Momentum determines the rate of change at which the receiver applies the voltage to the loco and it's adjusted as a percentage (based on the display in the manual). I don't understand how momentum can be a percentage or what that means, but regardless. 

So if the momentum setting is 0%, according to the manual there is no momentum and if you are using the speed step 5 option, when you move from speed step 1 to speed step 2, the voltage to the motor increases by 5% immediately. However, if your momentum setting is 50% say, then moving from speed step 1 to speed step 2, the voltage to the motor will increase at some rate (which is not defined, but it's not immediate). 

What is not really clear to me is what happens if the momentum is still set at 50% but now speed step option 4 is programmed. The steps are now only 2.5% steps and if the momentum setting was zero, the voltage to the motor would increase by the 2.5% immediately. But if the momentum is set to 50%, is the rate of change the same as when the speed step option 5 was used or is it now half of what it was before because the voltage only increases 2.5%? 

Anyway.......I look at the speed step options and the momentum options as two separate and distinct settings, but there seems to be some interaction between the two. 

Maybe one of the Beta testers can shed some light on this - I can't figure it out based on the information in the manual.


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

I believe that some people are comfortable with adjusting momentum. Exactly what the momentum percentages relate to with respect to speed changes, I am not certain. I haven't played with that yet - I've been running at 0% momentum.

As others have hypothesized, the speed steps is another way of achieving momentum. If you push the "faster" button or "slower" button it will progress until you let off on the button. Obviously if you are at .1% increment, the speed will change slower as you hold the button down than if you are set at 1% increment.

Hope this helps.

Ed


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

I realize that Aristocraft does describe the use of speed steps to simulate momentum, but there are two basic problems doing it that way. 

For one, the step increment is the same (for each option) when increasing or decreasing speed, that means the momentum simulated is the same for acceleration and deceleration. Not true in real life. 

But the second problem is worse IMHO - the speed step option is only selectable on a per operator (or transmitter) basis, not on a per loco basis. So all the locos that are being controlled by one transmitter will have the same momentum settings and accelerate and decelerate the same. 

The momentum setting on the other hand is programmable on a per loco basis, so a passenger train can accelerate and decelerate faster than a freight for instance when run with the same transmitter. However, it's not clear to me if acceleration and deceleration can be adjusted independently, I rather think not based on the transmitter programming display option. 

Maybe I'm expecting too much from the R-TE.


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

I have not worried about that, and hence have not experimented a lot with that, but I believe you are correct. You may have just hit on the main difference between momentum and speed steps for controlling momentum. I do believe that there are some people out there who want the finer control on speed offered by the TE, but from a momentum standpoint you point out a very good difference.

Ed


----------



## Truthman (Dec 13, 2008)

Krs, 

I don't think anyone is expecting too much necessarily from the Aristo R-TE. I think we're all trying to sort through all the hype of this new unit. I think if we all were to look at it as just a new updated version of the old TE we'd all pretty much agree its a great system compared to. If I was Aristo I would have kept the beta testing very low key and confidential until all the can and can't do's were addressed. I don't have much interest in the the new Revo as I am already invested in another sound and battery R/C system. But, I'm sure the new Revo is much better than the 27mhz TE I used to have.


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Truthman, I agree to a lot of what you just said. There is no question that the new system has a lot more features than the 27 MHz system had including some "DCC like" features. Please note my use of quotes there. I do not want to open up a big argument concerning if it equals DCC or not. I think that has been aired quite completely on this forum.

Ed


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

First let me say that operating two or more locomotives in a consist is not on the top of my personal priorities. However, my curiosity has been aroused, so after I got home today, I headed out to my railroad. I took a Dash 9 and an RS3. With about 5-10 minutes of adjusting the top voltages and starting voltages, I had to two engines running around my layout a few feet apart at a number of variable speed rates. I believe Greg has stated that with DCC he can take two disparate engines and run them 2 feet apart for up to 6 hours. I guarantee I could not have done that this afternoon. However these engines, which have VERY different speed/voltage characteristics, were going around as close or closer together than my two U25 locos do with the same voltage applied to them. The Revolution certainly had these two engines traveling close enough to the same speed that I would not hesitate for a minute to run them together in a consist; and I'm pretty cautious about putting different engines together.

This is not a conclusive test, but it was enough to convince me that if I ever do want to consist two or more engines together, I would be comfortable doing it with the Revolution TE.

Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

That is good news Ed, did you have to play with the speed step also? 

You may be the first person to document the procedure... 

Regards, greg


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Greg, No I did not play with the speed step. I am sure that with a little more time I could have gotten the match even better, but I mostly wanted to see for myself if in fact I could get those two locomotives to run together. I suspect changing the speed step might have helped, although I think with just the start and stop voltages I could have gotten the two engines VERY close. As I said, this was not a real detailed, documented test, but more for my sake to see if indeed we could get the two engines to run together.

I have to say, as I'm sure you know, the difference in speed/voltage response between an RS-3 and a DAsh-9 is LARGE. It was striking to see them running around the track a few feet apart with a common control. And again, as I said previously, they were NOT synched the way you have said you have done. They would have not maintained their distance for any 6 hours!!

Ed


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

If the relationship between voltage and rpm is linear for both engines. then adjusting the bottom and top end of the speed to match each other would automatically sync them close enough for MU operation. 
The problem comes in if one or both voltage vs rpm curves are not linear. 
I don't really see how adjusting the speed steps would help since it wouldn't change the voltage vs rpm curve.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Wow Ed, you did something that wouldn't be possible in the 1:1 world: MU'ing a 1950s Alco RS-3 with a modern locomotive. Good for you!


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Knut,

You are absolutely correct on the non-linear issue. Are there many locomotive motors that are unlinear?? Do you know of some specific examples?? I am reasonably confident that my motors were probably linear.

Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

virtually all motors are nonlinear with respect to voltage vs. rpm. Try this on any loco, you will notice all the top speed comes in the last 4 volts or so. 

the question here is does the TE interpolate between the start speed and the top speed? 

Also, apparently some people believe changing the speed steps on one loco would change the "Scale" of the voltage. 

Ed, can you tell us your example settings just for reference. We probably cannot completely understand what is going on, but this will start the process. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Has anyone watched the on-line video presentation of the Revolution that was done at the East Coast Train show? 

I just watched a few bits and pieces so far, but two interesting tid bits came out of it - one that there will be a track side receiver that can be switched between PWM and linear mode just like the old TE receiver - I think tha's good news for the pure analogue, track power crowd that doesn't want to mod their locos; the other is that one needs to send in the transmitter to do software upgrades - that's not so good news in this day and age where upgrades are done over the net.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The send it in for firmware updates has been mentioned on the web site even before the "beta" units were delivered. $30. 

In fact, apparently the first "production" batch is now delayed. 

Lewis Polk posted that he held up production to add a new feature (speed matching), and also that firmware updates will not be done until after the first production run. See the Aristo battery/rc forum. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

I have a question about DCC speed matching. 
Assuming the decoder has 128 steps. When the start speed, mid range and top speed are set, does the speed range remain at 128 steps for all matched locos?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

DCC has several different options for the number of steps. 14, 28, and 128 in terms of the real commands. 

in the 128 speed mode, you have steps from 0 to 127... although many only show 0-126 (127 is actually reserved)... 

There is a "voltage" associated with each step, no matter how you set anything, no matter what mode you are in. 

The mode is completely independent of the settings of "Voltage" for start, mid, and top speeds. If you change modes, they still apply. 

I think you are confusing something, but I can't quite make out what it is... hope this helps. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

No Greg, I am not confusing anything. 
You should know me by now. That question was leading up to another one. 
I just wanted to check to see if the chosen steps remain the same with DCC speed matching and the reduced maximum output voltage is not actually curtailed by reducing the number of steps. 

So, is the answer, yes the steps stay the same?


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Tony -

I'm not really clear what your question is either.

Taking this picture:















Are you asking if I set Vmax at 75%, do you still get the full number of speed steps.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Knut. 

Not knowing much about DCC I am not sure how to ask the question. 
A bit like using HELP with a computer. If you know how to ask the question you probably already know the answer. I find HELP not useful at all. For anything. 

This was the essence of my question. It was not a trick question against DCC. 
*"I just wanted to check to see if the chosen steps remain the same with DCC speed matching and the reduced maximum output voltage is not actually curtailed by reducing the number of steps. "* 

I think that graph answers it but a simple yes or no would have been better for this neophyte to understand. 

It was a lead up to this: 

Does anyone know if that is how the steps work in the revolution? But with a different step regime? 
Is the speed curtailed by chopping off the steps, or does it work like DCC does?


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Excellent question, Tony. 

I figured I would just look at the Revolution manual to get the answer, but the manual is confusing in that respect. 

For maximum speed settings, it gives examples how the maximum speed is set at 70% 

TOP SPEED - Sets the locomotives top speed as a percentage of its possible 
top speed. This comes in handy if you have visitors who are operating your trains 
and have been known to run them at too high a speed. If you set this to 70% that 
is all the faster the locomotive will go, 70% of its possible top speed. Use the t 
and u keys to set the locomotives Top Speed. 

_Page 24 of the manual _ 

Then on page 30 the manual talks about speed steps: 

When Step Speed is set to ‘1’ each time you press the p or q Keys the speed 
changes by 0.1 %. When set to ‘2’, the speed changes in increments of 0.5 %. A 
setting of ‘3’ changes the speed by 1.0% each time the p or q Keys are pressed. A 
setting of ‘4’ will increase speed by 2.5% and a setting of 5 jumps up or down by 5% 
each time the p or q Keys are pressed. 


This tells you that the speed changes by 0.1% or 0.5% or 1.0%.......but 0.1% of what? 

That seems to be explained by the heading in the next table where it talks about the "Number of steps to go from 0 to 100%" 
100% based on the information in the "Top Speed" paragraph is the speed at maximum voltage, so based on that, it sounds as if the Revolution does indeed chop off the top speed steps but maybe that is just a documentation error, maybe the table heading should have read "Number of Speed steps to go from Min to Max Speed". 
.............because there is the same question at the low end when one sets the starting speed to say 20%.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Tony asked about DCC... so the revolution manual is not the place to look to answer his first question. 

Tony, the number of speed steps is a mode you set in DCC and it does not change unless you change it. Most people run in 128 speed step mode. 

No other settings change this, you have 128 speed steps forever. 

Now, there are many different ways to change the "voltages" at each speed step. 

The simpilest method in DCC is to just set the start and max "voltages". The speed steps in between 1 and 128 are linearly interpolated. 

There are many variations, on some units you can also set a "mid" voltage at speed step 64 (or 65 or 63, I forget). That breaks the "curve" into 2 pieces, and linear interpolation betwen them. 

There are also systems that have several different curve shapes you can select, as opposed to linear. 

Finally, there are custom speed curves, where you can set a "voltage" at EVERY speed step. 

In all of the above, NONE ever change the number of speed steps available. 

Now, one thing I suspect, you might want want to know what the Revolving TE does. 

As far as I can tell, it expresses your "speed" as a percentage of 100%. If you set the "start speed" to 25%, it seems that you have reduced your available number of steps by 25%. 

I don't think anyone really understands this fully yet, and of course I cannot ask this on the Aristo forum. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04/29/2009 8:41 PM
Tony asked about DCC... so the revolution manual is not the place to look to answer his first question. 




Greg -

Did you seriously think I would look in the revolution manual to answer Tony's DCC question? 

That first question was already answered - we (Tony and I) were onto the follow up question how the revolution TE handles that and that's what my quotes from the revolution manual refer to.


However, even though the manual suggests the speed steps are just cut off at the low and high end reducing the total number of speed steps by that amount, I can hardly believe that this is actually true.

But it's easy enough to test if yoy have a unit to try it on.


Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Sorry... somehow missed the answer to the first one, split posts across pages... 

Yep, manual states it, but I can't bring myself to buy one yet... maybe a friend will and I can tear into it. 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg. 

The question about the steps in DCC was just a preface (so I understood how DCC works) to the question on how the revolution goes about setting their way of "matching" locos. 

I though I was correct about how DCC did it, but was not sure. 

Now, like you and Knut, I too would like to know exactly how the revolution does it.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Ooooooops!!! 

I didn't know about the post in the review forum before I started asking questions about speed matching locos with the revolution. 

That asks my question in a different way.


----------



## Mr Magoo (Mar 1, 2008)

Ridge Road Station seems to have the best prices for the CRE57000 Train Engineer Set 2.4 GHz. And most other things also. But if there is anyone cheaper please let me know


----------



## rmcintir (Apr 24, 2009)

The speed curve discussion you guys have had has been very enlightening! I'm thinking that specifying about 5 points to define a speed curve plus a max speed would give petty good results with 127 steps. I have built my own radio system which uses Back EMF for low speed and I will have speed table loading finalized this weekend based on this. 

Here is a link to another forum which shows some of the progress I have made to date: 
http://www.kronosrobotics.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=894 

My focus right now is on speed table construction/upload to the receiver and reworking the transmitter LCD to eliminate the less reliable serial LCD. Radio, receiver and BEMF are working great now. In fact the low speed shunting video is fast compared to what I can do now. I'm at about 1/3 of the speed shown and it will still drag another diesel locomotive at dead stop at that speed.

------- edit ---------


I have completed speed curve calculation and setup for the receivers. I provide for entering the start and maximum setting as well as 4 points in between. These create a curve of your choice. It then can be loaded via radio into the receiver. I have successfully matched an Aristo RS-3 (real sprinter) with an Aristo SD-45. They work quite well together now in a MU consist.


The info you all discussed here was a huge help to keep me on track (pun intended).


----------



## rmcintir (Apr 24, 2009)

I apologize for taking this thread off-topic but... I haven't been able to find out if the new TE Revolution uses BEMF for slow speed operation or not. I thought I would post a painfully slow video of my own BEMF R/C implementation. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze2J7dilVIo


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

It does not, although they might add it in the future, In one post, Aristo said they did not need it, that others don't do a good job of it, and they had something better, and then they might do it in the future. 

So, someone a lot smarter than me can figure it out... suffice it to say the current hardware does not do it. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## rmcintir (Apr 24, 2009)

For people wishing to establish a standard set of speed curves for all their engines the train speedometer would be perfect: http://www.trainelectronics.com/speedometer/speedometer_manual.htm 

This would make it easy to plot the curves as shown in an earlier post and pick or enter the curve that works best.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

You mean like this one?


----------



## rmcintir (Apr 24, 2009)

Yes, that's the one in the link I posted. When I made my speed tables they were with respect to one engine as a reference. I ran them together at different speed points to determine differences and made up a spreadsheet with graph. Using that information I was able to match locomotives to the baseline. Using actual speed is much better.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I am about to speed match all my locos, and I think I will try setting my DCC speed step to actual smph. 

Those pictures are of a custom unit built for me with a fancy enclosure and also reading track voltage. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## rmcintir (Apr 24, 2009)

I may make something similar for my own RC control. I like the idea. I will correlate the actual speed step on the RC throttle to the speed recorded rather than voltage. Right now I'm focusing on identifying any last little bugs in the RC system.


----------

