| |
Messaggio tradotto in italiano seguito dall'originale in inglese.
--------
Carissimi,
come promesso nella prima comunicazione dell'1 ottobre, vi stiamo informando
sulle decisioni riguardanti lo sviluppo del nuovo sistema treni. Stiamo ancora
lavorando sui dettagli del nuovo sistema di treno Power Functions; tuttavia,
alcune caratteristiche sono state decise. Alcune di queste caratteristiche sono:
un nuovo controllo remoto con regolatore di velocità, un portabatterie
ricaricabile comprensivo di un regolatore di velocità e inoltre stiamo
esplorando e seriamente considerando nuove geometrie del tracciato grazie
all'utilizzo dei binari di plastica.
Come ben sapete questa è stata una delle caratteristiche più richieste dagli
AFOLs nel corso degli anni. Nel tardo Aprile 2007 abbiamo organizzato un
laboratorio con un gruppo di 5 AFOLs coinvolti nella comunità treni LEGO, hanno
lavorato su alcune delle possibili soluzioni e definito le necessità primarie
del nuovo sistema di treni Power Functions con un team di designer e di
ingegneri LEGO. In questo laboratorio è diventato chiaro quale tipo di parti e
di caratteristiche vanno incluse nel nuovo sistema di treni. Il risultato del
laboratorio è stato la progettazione dei prototipi delle parti. I dettagli delle
specifiche degli elementi sono ancora in discussione e si definiranno nei
prossimi due mesi. Desideriamo continuare la cooperazione con la comunità AFOL
nello sviluppo del nuovo sistema di treni Power Functions e nel tardo Novembre
abbiamo avuto un altro laboratorio dove abbiamo costruito sull'esperienza del
precedente. Al laboratorio di Novembre hanno preso parte 10 fan provenienti da
tutto il mondo: Danimarca, USA, Francia, Belgio, Olanda, Germania e Regno Unito.
L'idea era che gli AFOls e il team LEGO avrebbero creato i prototipi allo scopo
di determinare quali caratteristiche addizionali includere, cosa aggiungere al
concetto di base e rifinirlo. Tutto ciò assicura che il nuovo sistema di treno
Power Functions ottiene il supporto della comunità AFOL e inoltre assicura che
le caratteristiche siano il più vicino possibile a quanto è richiesto della
comunità AFOL.
Tuttavia, occorre tener presente che il nuovo sistema di treni deve essere in
primo luogo adatto all'utilizzo dei bambini e perciò è testato da ragazzi
esattamente come che da AFOLs. C'è un budget stabilito per lo sviluppo iniziale,
per cui mentre si vorrebbe accontentare tutte le necessità, c'è un elevato
rischio che saremo impossibilitati a farlo. Sarete aggiornati sui risultati dei
laboratori e sul continuo sviluppo del sistema di treni nei primi mesi del 2008.
Continuiamo ad apprezzare il vostro feedback e i vostri suggerimenti riguardo
questo progetto.
Richard Stollery, Head of LEGO Community Development
--------
Dear all,
As promised in the first communication from the 1st of October we, are informing you of decisions regarding the development of the new LEGO Power Functions train system. Using all the valuable feedback we received from the AFOL community, we have now reached some basic decisions about the scope of the future train system. We are still working on the details of the new Power Functions train system; however, there are certain features that have been decided. Some of these features are a new designed remote control with speed regulator, a new size rechargeable battery box with a built in speed regulator and finally we are exploring and seriously considering new track geometries thanks to the use of plastic rails.
As you know, this has been one of the most requested features from the AFOL
community over the years. In late April 2007 we arranged a workshop for a group
of 5 AFOLs involved in the LEGO train community, and they worked on some of the
possible solutions and defined the basic needs for a new LEGO Power Functions
train system along with the LEGO design and engineering team.
In this workshop it became clear what sort of elements and features to include
in the new train system. The result of this workshop was the design of
prototype elements. Detailed decisions about the specifications of the elements
are still in discussion and will be for the next couple of months. We wish to
continue the cooperation with the AFOL community in the development of the Power
Functions train system and in late November we had another workshop where we
built on the experiences from the first workshop. In the November workshop
there were ten fans from around the world: Denmark, USA, France, Belgium, the
Netherlands, Germany, and United Kingdom. The idea was that the AFOLs and the
LEGO team would build with the prototypes in order to determine what additional
features to include, what to add to the concept and, finally refining it. This
ensures that the new Power Functions train system gets input from the AFOL
community and also ensures the features are as close as possible to what is
requested by the AFOL community. However, please keep in mind that the new train
system first and foremost should be suitable for the use of children, and
therefore it is consequently being tested by children as well as AFOLs. There
is an established budget for the initial development so while we would like to
address all needs that are expressed; there is a high likelihood that we will be
unable to address all needs. You will be updated on the results of the workshop
and the continued development of the train system early in 2008. We continue to
value and appreciate your feedback and suggestions with regards to this project.
Richard Stollery, Head of LEGO Community Development
|
|
| |
Marco Chiappa ha scritto:
> Messaggio tradotto in italiano seguito dall'originale in inglese. • [SNIP]
>
> --------
>
> Dear all,
> As promised in the first communication from the 1st of October we, are informing you of decisions regarding the development of the new LEGO Power Functions train system. Using all the valuable feedback we received from the AFOL community, we have now reached some basic decisions about the scope of the future train system. We are still working on the details of the new Power Functions train system; however, there are certain features that have been decided. Some of these features are a new designed remote control with speed regulator, a new size rechargeable battery box with a built in speed regulator and finally we are exploring and seriously considering new track geometries thanks to the use of plastic rails.
[/SNIP]
Tutto ciò è moooooooolto figo.... Soprattutto la parte che recita new
track geometries!
Alex
|
|
| |
Hi all,
See below. I'm not sure how many of you read the Italian posts and I don't know
if this is old news, but I didn't see this in Trains so I thought I would post.
This is the English translation; I snipped the Italian since my Italian is a
good as my Mandarin.
Rafe
In lugnet.org.it.itlug, Marco Chiappa wrote:
<snip>
> Dear all,
> As promised in the first communication from the 1st of October we, are informing you of decisions regarding the development of the new LEGO Power Functions train system. Using all the valuable feedback we received from the AFOL community, we have now reached some basic decisions about the scope of the future train system. We are still working on the details of the new Power Functions train system; however, there are certain features that have been decided. Some of these features are a new designed remote control with speed regulator, a new size rechargeable battery box with a built in speed regulator and finally we are exploring and seriously considering new track geometries thanks to the use of plastic rails.
>
> As you know, this has been one of the most requested features from the AFOL
> community over the years. In late April 2007 we arranged a workshop for a group
> of 5 AFOLs involved in the LEGO train community, and they worked on some of the
> possible solutions and defined the basic needs for a new LEGO Power Functions
> train system along with the LEGO design and engineering team.
>
> In this workshop it became clear what sort of elements and features to include
> in the new train system. The result of this workshop was the design of
> prototype elements. Detailed decisions about the specifications of the elements
> are still in discussion and will be for the next couple of months. We wish to
> continue the cooperation with the AFOL community in the development of the Power
> Functions train system and in late November we had another workshop where we
> built on the experiences from the first workshop. In the November workshop
> there were ten fans from around the world: Denmark, USA, France, Belgium, the
> Netherlands, Germany, and United Kingdom. The idea was that the AFOLs and the
> LEGO team would build with the prototypes in order to determine what additional
> features to include, what to add to the concept and, finally refining it. This
> ensures that the new Power Functions train system gets input from the AFOL
> community and also ensures the features are as close as possible to what is
> requested by the AFOL community. However, please keep in mind that the new train
> system first and foremost should be suitable for the use of children, and
> therefore it is consequently being tested by children as well as AFOLs. There
> is an established budget for the initial development so while we would like to
> address all needs that are expressed; there is a high likelihood that we will be
> unable to address all needs. You will be updated on the results of the workshop
> and the continued development of the train system early in 2008. We continue to
> value and appreciate your feedback and suggestions with regards to this project.
>
> Richard Stollery, Head of LEGO Community Development
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Rafe Donahue wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> See below. I'm not sure how many of you read the Italian posts and I don't know
> if this is old news, but I didn't see this in Trains so I thought I would post.
> This is the English translation; I snipped the Italian since my Italian is a
> good as my Mandarin.
>
> Rafe
>
> In lugnet.org.it.itlug, Marco Chiappa wrote:
> <snip>
> > Dear all,
> > As promised in the first communication from the 1st of October we, are informing you of decisions regarding the development of the new LEGO Power Functions train system.
Thanks Rafe! Much appreciated. I was intrigued when I saw the title of the
post in Italian.
Jonathan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Rafe Donahue wrote:
| |
This is the English translation
In lugnet.org.it.itlug, Marco Chiappa wrote:
(snip)
| |
Dear all,
(snipped) and finally we are exploring and seriously considering new track
geometries thanks to the use of plastic rails.
Richard Stollery, Head of LEGO Community Development
|
|
Wow - that part right there got my attention - and I’m sure plenty of hard core
L Gauge trainheads!! That has been a pain when trying to build a larger 9V
train layout since unlike scale modeling (HO, N, O, S, etc.), the lack of track
curves with different radius did seem to affect potential layout designs to a
large degree.
For next time, you probably want to watch the wrapping (Preview should show you
mostly what it will look like after you hit post) when quoting another post - it
didn’t wrap and went out to the right side a crazy distance.
|
|
| |
If they are still using IR (i.e. line of sight) for communications, forget
it. If they go to some kind of non line of sight control (e.g. whatever the
Fischer-Price GeoTrax system is using), I will consider it.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> If they are still using IR (i.e. line of sight) for communications, forget
> it. If they go to some kind of non line of sight control (e.g. whatever the
> Fischer-Price GeoTrax system is using), I will consider it.
The Lego workshop participant from the Netherlands wrote on the Dutch Lego forum
the following:
- infrared control;
- rechargeable battery;
- track the same as current, maybe curves with bigger radius;
- stepless speedcontrol from new remote;
- new PF is already in preproduction fase;
- cables not attached to motors;
- seperate receivers;
- multiple channel receivers i.e. lights can be controlled independant from
speed.
OK, I accepted that I had to stock up on 9V track (which I did) but silently
hoped for a radiocontrolled remote. I already use the IR remote with my track
powered motors, which is great fun, but after a few meters it does not respond
anymore... So not much good news accept for the compatibility and maybe the
bigger curves!.... but still all plastic.
greetings from Amsterdam!
Remko
|
|
| |
Hi all,
well, I'm not particularly fond of the IR remote controller as well - I spent a
significant amount of money on 9V stuff (the original w/ metal tracks) and hope
to keep that in a usable state for some time.
The good part is that the plastic rails do interconnect well, so there's
probably a chance of having a mixed layout where appropriate. New track material
with wider curve radius and the new switched crossing already got my attention
(with the latter being already in the stores), but I'm hesitant. Fortunately, I
am not in the hurry of buying new material right now.
IR is not exactly the best idea they ever had about trains - in all other
aspects a lot of things they are considering right now might have been there
much earlier (and certainly would have earned LEGO a lot of money...).
Oh well...
Jerry
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Remko Stift wrote:
> wrote on the Dutch Lego forum the following:
>
> - infrared control;
One interesting possibility is an IR remote that does not have to have a
constant signal to work. In other words, have the remote send commands that
change the state of the train, but not need to continuously send a "go forward"
command or similar. That would solve the "long dark tunnel" problem as well.
> - rechargeable battery;
Good. I wonder if it will be related to the NXT Li-ion battery. There's good
(rechargeable, light weight) as well as bad (limited shelf life) issues there,
so I hope a non-rechargeable option is available as well.
> - stepless speedcontrol from new remote;
> - new PF is already in preproduction fase;
> - cables not attached to motors;
> - seperate receivers;
> - multiple channel receivers i.e. lights can
> be controlled independant from speed.
Now speaking as a Mindstorms type... *very* good. The questions start popping up
fast. Two off the top of my head:
- Stepless (continuous?) speed control: That could imply PWM from the
receiver(s), so "smarter" receivers at least. Same for multi-channel receivers.
- Motors without attached cord: Not more flexible for building & wiring, but
perhaps implying a two-ended PF cord, or perhaps using a hybrid cord with a
different connector (NXT?)
> I already use the IR remote with my track
> powered motors, which is great fun...
How do you do that?
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Remko Stift wrote:
>
> > wrote on the Dutch Lego forum the following:
> >
> > - infrared control;
>
> One interesting possibility is an IR remote that does not have to have a
> constant signal to work. In other words, have the remote send commands that
> change the state of the train, but not need to continuously send a "go forward"
> command or similar. That would solve the "long dark tunnel" problem as well.
Ummm.... except that you lose control when the train goes into a tunnel, or you
have areas of unreliable control on your layout. Losing control in a tunnel
would be a big deal for "serious" model railroaders that like off-stage
"staging" yards. Not such a big deal for any but the most ambitious Lego
layout, I suppose.
Personally, its the "unreliable control" aspect of IR that concerns me.
One thought that comes to mind is that if we can reverse engineer the IR
protocol, there is no reason we can't build repeaters or our own controllers.
You could sprinkle IR transmitters throughout the layout and wire them all in
parallel. With that, the loco should never be out of reliable communication
range.
An IR controlled turn-out motor would also be on my wish list.
-dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Dave Curtis wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Brian Davis wrote:
> > In lugnet.trains, Remko Stift wrote:
> >
> > > wrote on the Dutch Lego forum the following:
> > >
> > > - infrared control;
> >
> > One interesting possibility is an IR remote that does not have to have a
> > constant signal to work. In other words, have the remote send commands that
> > change the state of the train, but not need to continuously send a "go forward"
> > command or similar. That would solve the "long dark tunnel" problem as well.
>
> Ummm.... except that you lose control when the train goes into a tunnel, or you
> have areas of unreliable control on your layout. Losing control in a tunnel
> would be a big deal for "serious" model railroaders that like off-stage
> "staging" yards. Not such a big deal for any but the most ambitious Lego
> layout, I suppose.
>
> Personally, its the "unreliable control" aspect of IR that concerns me.
>
> One thought that comes to mind is that if we can reverse engineer the IR
> protocol, there is no reason we can't build repeaters or our own controllers.
> You could sprinkle IR transmitters throughout the layout and wire them all in
> parallel. With that, the loco should never be out of reliable communication
> range.
>
> An IR controlled turn-out motor would also be on my wish list.
>
> -dave
HiTechnic / LEGO now offer an "Infrared Link" for the NXT that seems to be
exactly the sort of thing you're describing here - and it is advertised as being
compatible with the Power Functions and train IR protocol. This would mean that
no reverse engineering is necessary - just hook it up to the NXT and go.
It will be interesting to see what people come up with when they combine this
with trains. I foresee a sort of primitive DCC - sensors on a layout would be
coupled with the IR links to send signals to a train in response to movements of
a train. You know, one train pulls into a yard, signaling another to pull out
of the station. I think all of that will be within reach with the new IR link.
Here's the link to the, um... "link":
<http://shop.lego.com/Product/?p=MS1046>
-Jordan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jordan Schwarz wrote:
> HiTechnic / LEGO now offer an "Infrared Link" for the NXT that seems to be
> exactly the sort of thing you're describing here - and it is advertised as being
> compatible with the Power Functions and train IR protocol. This would mean that
> no reverse engineering is necessary - just hook it up to the NXT and go.
>
> It will be interesting to see what people come up with when they combine this
> with trains. I foresee a sort of primitive DCC - sensors on a layout would be
> coupled with the IR links to send signals to a train in response to movements of
> a train. You know, one train pulls into a yard, signaling another to pull out
> of the station. I think all of that will be within reach with the new IR link.
>
> Here's the link to the, um... "link":
> <http://shop.lego.com/Product/?p=MS1046>
Hi Jordan,
while this sounds like an interesting solution, it also sounds like a very
expensive one as opposed to going for RF in the first place (yep, I know that RF
remote controls have their own issues, power consumption being a significant one
above all).
It would seem to be a good idea to have a similar IR solution for the RCX (which
is more readily available (read: cheaper)). That would need to be in software
since the RCX is perfectly IR equipped as far as I am concerned.
The all-plastic tracks have their pros and cons - I'd have preferred to stay
with the metal tracks after all. As a matter of fact, I still don't own _a_ new
IR train set...
Jerry
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Gereon Stein wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Jordan Schwarz wrote:
> > HiTechnic / LEGO now offer an "Infrared Link" for the NXT that seems to be
> > exactly the sort of thing you're describing here - and it is advertised as being
> > compatible with the Power Functions and train IR protocol. This would mean that
> > no reverse engineering is necessary - just hook it up to the NXT and go.
> >
> > It will be interesting to see what people come up with when they combine this
> > with trains. I foresee a sort of primitive DCC - sensors on a layout would be
> > coupled with the IR links to send signals to a train in response to movements of
> > a train. You know, one train pulls into a yard, signaling another to pull out
> > of the station. I think all of that will be within reach with the new IR link.
> >
> > Here's the link to the, um... "link":
> > <http://shop.lego.com/Product/?p=MS1046>
>
> Hi Jordan,
>
> while this sounds like an interesting solution, it also sounds like a very
> expensive one as opposed to going for RF in the first place (yep, I know that RF
> remote controls have their own issues, power consumption being a significant one
> above all).
>
> It would seem to be a good idea to have a similar IR solution for the RCX (which
> is more readily available (read: cheaper)). That would need to be in software
> since the RCX is perfectly IR equipped as far as I am concerned.
>
> The all-plastic tracks have their pros and cons - I'd have preferred to stay
> with the metal tracks after all. As a matter of fact, I still don't own _a_ new
> IR train set...
>
> Jerry
Hi Jerry,
I certainly agree that this might not be a cost-effective solution or a very
efficient way to implement DCC (although there are surely those out there who
will pursue it anyway). I was just trying to emphasize that there isn't reall a
need to "reverse engineer" the IR protocol to build a controller, because there
already is one. Also, for many years, trainheads have thought it would be nice
if LEGO produced a DCC platform for us to use. Although very primitive, the
potential is here for a computer-controlled train system using parts available
from LEGO, without modification.
(Of course, that will cost $250 for the NXT plus another $50 for the sensor plus
whatever you pay for the train)
-Jordan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Dave Curtis wrote:
> > have the remote send commands that change the state of the train,
> > but not need to continuously send a "go forward" command or
> > similar. That would solve the "long dark tunnel" problem as well.
>
> Ummm.... except that you lose control when the train goes into a
> tunnel, or you have areas of unreliable control... Personally, its
> the "unreliable control" aspect of IR that concerns me.
If there are "dead zones" that could be a problem, but we also get to run
doglegs this way. There are trade-offs, and I know where I'd like to be:
LEGO-certified DDC built-in that is usable with anything from a regular train
controller, to a remote, to full automation with the NXT supplying the commands.
But, I suspect that's not going to happen, so I'm looking for advantages to the
system that I can brainstorm into a neat feature.
> One thought that comes to mind is that if we can reverse engineer the
> IR protocol, there is no reason we can't build repeaters or our own
> controllers.
Sure. As another person pointed out, we've actually already got that, in the
form of the Hitechnic IRLink and the NXT. No, it's not a "cheap" solution, but
one costing about $250 all told (just an NXT, Li-ion battery pack to run it from
a wall source, and the IRLink). And with all the expandability I want - add
sensors, more NXTs in BT connectivity, etc. The biggest drawback of this would
be the IR system currently only allows four channels (8 motors). That's not
enough for everyone I'd guess, but it would be enough to do an awful lot.
> You could sprinkle IR transmitters throughout the layout and wire
> them all in parallel.
Perhaps. Only if they were clearly out of interference range, so you didn't get
cross-talk issues.
> An IR controlled turn-out motor would also be on my wish list.
Huh. Again, we have that: and NXT with the IRLink, and a normal PF motor driving
the point. The entry costs for this route might seem a bit steep (the NXT), but
the possible flexibility it provides is substantial.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jordan Schwarz wrote:
> > That would need to be in software since the RCX is perfectly
> > IR equipped as far as I am concerned.
I'm pretty sure the RCX could be programmed to throw PF control messages... and
while this would be a lot cheaper from a HW standpoint at the moment, I'm not
sure it would be long-term. Right now the RCX is cheap(er) on eBay, but as they
become rarer over time, you will have less HW to play with, and fewer people
writing custom SW to get it to do it. On other words, if you move towards a HW
solution that is no longer currently produced, there are other issue to
consider.
But if the RCX can control the Manas, it should be able to handle the PF stuff.
> Of course, that will cost $250 for the NXT plus another $50
> for the sensor plus whatever you pay for the train)
True, but given the amount of money spent on the large (or even medium sized)
layouts, I'm surprised the cost is too much of a barrier. At S@H right now, you
could grab an NXT & a rechargeable battery set for $189 (less if you already
have enough transformers). Add an IRLink for $47, and you have a DIY three-train
control system for $236*. Not cheap, but when I look at the cost of the track,
rolling stock, and brickscaping (!) that people will pay for, I'd be surprised
if this is too great a barrier. How much does a DCC controller cost, $30-$40 or
so per train or device? So for an LDCC system, you need a minimum of the 1.0 RCX
($50 if you wait for it on eBay) and three decoders (another $90 to $120 or
so?), so you're already edging towards $200.
--
Brian Davis
*I'm not sure why it says "up to three trains" - I was guessing up to four, with
four channels, but the IR train commands may be different... and may change
further with this possible new system.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jordan Schwarz wrote:
>
> I certainly agree that this might not be a cost-effective solution or a very
> efficient way to implement DCC (although there are surely those out there who
> will pursue it anyway). I was just trying to emphasize that there isn't reall a
> need to "reverse engineer" the IR protocol to build a controller, because there
> already is one. Also, for many years, trainheads have thought it would be nice
> if LEGO produced a DCC platform for us to use. Although very primitive, the
> potential is here for a computer-controlled train system using parts available
> from LEGO, without modification.
On second thought, that doesn't look all that bad actually. Provided there is a
way to eventually control more than one train and set up several IR interfaces
(for positions where the optical link would otherwise fail) with a single RCX,
the solution might even become affordable, not to say elegant.
I guess I'll take the time to dig into this - not that I had the spare budget
right now, but who knows... (with three working RCXes at home, I'd like a
solution that utilizes those, though)
Thanks,
Jerry
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Brian Davis wrote:
> True, but given the amount of money spent on the large (or even medium sized)
> layouts, I'm surprised the cost is too much of a barrier. At S@H right now, you
> could grab an NXT & a rechargeable battery set for $189 (less if you already
> have enough transformers). Add an IRLink for $47, and you have a DIY three-train
> control system for $236*. Not cheap, but when I look at the cost of the track,
> rolling stock, and brickscaping (!) that people will pay for, I'd be surprised
> if this is too great a barrier. How much does a DCC controller cost, $30-$40 or
> so per train or device? So for an LDCC system, you need a minimum of the 1.0 RCX
> ($50 if you wait for it on eBay) and three decoders (another $90 to $120 or
> so?), so you're already edging towards $200.
Brian, the more I read this, the more I am with you. I think I really need to
re-think my LEGO budget for next year...
Three trains sounds like fair enough to me, since our house is not supposed to
grow and the trains need some space to be guided through by the NXT.
Jerry
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Gereon Stein wrote:
> I think I really need to re-think my LEGO budget for
> next year...
I've got to say if I muttered those words aloud, my wife would likely come at me
with a large blunt object :). But I agree - I need to lay hands on an IR train
and start working out more of this myself as well.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Gereon Stein wrote:
>
> > I think I really need to re-think my LEGO budget for
> > next year...
>
> I've got to say if I muttered those words aloud, my wife would likely come at me
> with a large blunt object :). But I agree - I need to lay hands on an IR train
> and start working out more of this myself as well.
If someone can get hold of Mark Riley and have him 'fix up' LDCC to be 'Power
Functions/RC Train' IR compatible instead of DCC, that'd be a quick fix :) The
rest is already built in--remote control, LACC, etc...
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Gereon Stein wrote:
>
> > I think I really need to re-think my LEGO budget for
> > next year...
>
> I've got to say if I muttered those words aloud, my wife would likely come at me
> with a large blunt object :). But I agree - I need to lay hands on an IR train
> and start working out more of this myself as well.
It's those smaller, sharp and pointy objects that I'm worried about actually...
plus I've got a couple confessions yet to make about my other hobby (there are
some more saxophones in this house than she is aware of... ;-) )
But I've got the kids as reinforcements (and in the given case "protective
devices", so to speak). And my wife actually likes to build and play with LEGO
as well, so I'd better just keep the bills out of sight.
Oh well, it will work out somehow - at least I have no need to hurry and buy new
track material - just an IR train and eventually my first NXT (which I was going
to get at some point anyway). There are some MISB sets around that I could sell
to refinance...
Jerry
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Dave Curtis wrote:
> One thought that comes to mind is that if we can reverse engineer the IR
> protocol, there is no reason we can't build repeaters or our own controllers.
> You could sprinkle IR transmitters throughout the layout and wire them all in
> parallel. With that, the loco should never be out of reliable communication
> range.
I already did something very close. I reversed engineer the IR protocol of the
Power Functions and created a small device that can both send and receive IR
commands. The components in this device probably cost around $10-15 (but
excluding the gadget that connects the thing to a PC to program it, which costs
$20-50 more). It connects to the NXT, but it's possible to build similar
stand-alone devices like repeaters, custom remotes, etc. One person used my
specification of the protocol to build a custom Power Functions remote.
Last year I made some measurements of the IR protocol of the IR trains, but I
wasn't methodical enough to allow me to reverse engineer that protocol from my
measurements. But I think that the two protocols are closely related. If
somebody lends me a Trains IR remote for a couple of days (in the Boston area),
I can probably reverse engineer that protocol as well.
The details are at <http://www.tau.ac.il/~stoledo/lego/AVR-ir/>.
Sivan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Sivan Toledo wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Dave Curtis wrote:
> > One thought that comes to mind is that if we can reverse engineer the IR
> > protocol, there is no reason we can't build repeaters or our own controllers.
> > You could sprinkle IR transmitters throughout the layout and wire them all in
> > parallel. With that, the loco should never be out of reliable communication
> > range.
>
> I already did something very close. I reversed engineer the IR protocol of the
> Power Functions and created a small device that can both send and receive IR
> commands. • <snip>
>
> The details are at <http://www.tau.ac.il/~stoledo/lego/AVR-ir/>.
>
> Sivan
Very good! That is exactly what I was thinking. I work a lot with AVR's, too,
so I'm happy to see you made the "right" choice in microcontrollers :)
-dave
|
|
| |
> It's those smaller, sharp and pointy objects that I'm worried about actually...
> plus I've got a couple confessions yet to make about my other hobby (there are
> some more saxophones in this house than she is aware of... ;-) )
Ohh...my wife and I have a deal, I can have as many steam engines as she has
animals. (+1, which I had before her!). So, at present I have 2 large engines
here. There's a 3rd one that I part own, but it isn't here...hence, it doesn't
count.
One of these days, I will get to have another steam engine. (Traction engine).
Now, about the battery IR trains, I have been playing with my current generation
one (the green freight train) and was actually quite suprised how well it works.
I don't know how long it would last doing it, but it will pull 6 bogie cars
without too much problems, and fast enough to unload the entire train in a
rotary direction at a curve...just like the 9V trains.
The IR stuff is a totally different direction than the 9V line, DCC is not
something which a battery operated train should consider. The best coms scheme
I can think of is probably the IR one, as RF rules differ so much from place to
place. The alternative would have been bluetooth, or similar international
computer standard, but Lego have decided not to go down that road at this time.
It is possible that by 2009, when the next generation of trains are released,
they will have changed their minds depending on price point. I would not be
supprised to see such a change, depending on the relative costs of circuitry
construction. The IR stuff is fairly specific to TLC, whereas Bluetooth is a
very universal thing. Therefore, the cost for IC's/circuity for bluetooth is
more likely to drop than the IR equipment.
The Power Command setup would seem to be friendly to a change, as the motor and
battery box are not going to need to be changed, but the transmitter/reciever
combo would. Bluetooth would give some excellent options to the system...
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, James Powell wrote:
> Bluetooth would give some excellent options
> to the system...
It could, but I'm not sure what the increase in cost would be. IR is extremely
mature technology, and can be done without and special hardware; very, very
cheap, yet (within its limitations) fairly robust (especially LEGO
implementation of it, avoiding signal collision). For Bluetooth, you need a
special chipset (usually not cheap, and I'm not sure even getting cheaper, just
better), as well as constant power consumption (when BT is "on", it is using
power, even if it's not connected or active). I agree it would increase the
possibilities significantly, but I think it would have a significant increase in
cost. The "master-slave" nature of the system might have some advantage here
however: each loco or powered feature needs only the ability to have a single
"slave" connection to a "master" that can handle many slaves, so the slaves
might end up relatively cheap, with more of the cost ending up in the
controller... which could, quite reasonably, be an NXT (on the high side of
price, but the flexibility!).
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Brian Davis wrote:
> It [Bluetooth] could, but I'm not sure what the increase in cost would be. IR is extremely
> mature technology, and can be done without and special hardware; very, very
> cheap, yet (within its limitations) fairly robust (especially LEGO
> implementation of it, avoiding signal collision). For Bluetooth, you need a
> special chipset (usually not cheap, and I'm not sure even getting cheaper, just
> better), as well as constant power consumption (when BT is "on", it is using
> power, even if it's not connected or active). I agree it would increase the
> possibilities significantly, but I think it would have a significant increase in
> cost. The "master-slave" nature of the system might have some advantage here
> however: each loco or powered feature needs only the ability to have a single
> "slave" connection to a "master" that can handle many slaves, so the slaves
> might end up relatively cheap, with more of the cost ending up in the
> controller... which could, quite reasonably, be an NXT (on the high side of
> price, but the flexibility!).
Bluetooth is indeed probably way too expensive and complex. Perhaps the
costs would go down, but probably not enough to make this cost-effective.
There are cheaper radio systems, like 804.15.4 (ZigBee) that would make more
sense than Bluetooth (but you would lose the ability to control the train from a
cell phone or NXT), but they probably are still more expensive than IR, and the
licensing issue is still there.
I hope that Lego would consider the possibility of releasing the connectors and
appropriate enclosures to allow third-party vendors to make radio components for
Power Functions, much like their arrangement with HiTechnic with respect to NXT
sensors, which are even sold on the Lego web site. These vendors can make a
profit at much lower volumes. A $30 remote/receiver pair may not make sense for
Lego, but it may be a good product for one of these vendors.
|
|
|
