| |
In lugnet.trains, Ralph Hempel wrote:
| |
All,
As I’ve mentioned before, I have a version of pbForth firmware
for the RCX that allows you to control trains modified with
DCC controllers.
The benefit of pbForth is that you can write, test, and debug
your application interactively using something like a terminal
emulator on your PC.
The other thing is that you don’t need to be an expert and
Cygwin guru to install the toolchain. I’ll be the first to
admit that pbForth intallation isn’t quite as easy as it shold
be either, but I’m working on that.
The questions are these:
How much interest is there in the train community for
truly programmable operation of the train layout?
Is Mark Riley’s remote control sufficinet for most needs?
How “pure” a solution to shortcomings like power requirements
and switch control do you need.
As some of you are aware, writing firmware and supporting it
are very time intensive, and I’m reluctant to spend too much
time on this if it’s not going to get traction :-)
I’d like to open up some discussion on what kinds of things the
train folks really want to do now, but can’t.
|
I have been working on a different project toward the same end-- improved train
layout automation, and I have had similar questions as to whether it is worth
the effort for the small number of people who might actually benefit from it.
Since the first NELUG train layout, I have used RCXes and reed switches to
detect trains and automate level crossings. For the past several shows, I have
incorporated a laptop computer and a Control Lab interface in order to handle
more crossings without breaking the bank. I’ve only got six RCXes after all! I
wrote a program called TrainLab that displays a bitmap, usually the Track
Designer plan for our layout, and superimposes graphics to show the state of the
reed switches and crossings. This has proven to be a very useful tool in
debugging the train layout during a show.
When Mark Riley released LDCC, I started to adapt my Virtual Remote program to have a user interface that was focused on train
control. When I told Mark about this project, he informed me that he had a
better control protocol in place, so I used that instead of using simple IR
Remote messages. The result is a program that I call
Full Throttle. Since its
release, I’ve had fewer than 30 downloads and have received absolutely no
feedback from anyone about this program, good or bad.
Meanwhile, I have been trying to get TrainLab into shape for release as
freeware. Seeing as I have the code written to control LDCC as well as Control
Labs, RCXes, and other MindStorms hardware, I decided to roll all of this
functionality into TrainLab with a simple event-driven scripting environment
that runs on the PC. The new-and-improved TrainLab will still have the ability
to control level crossings and display bitmaps, but it will also be easily
extended to perform other types of automation. It will be able to address a DCC
train engine as easily as it commands a Control Lab motor output. I have much
of the raw functionality for this new utility working today. In fact, I used
the latest incarnation of this program on last weekend’s NELUG train layout at
the Greenberg Train Show, and it worked just fine.
Still, I have come to question whether it is worth the additional time and
effort to improve the user interface, fix all of the obscure bugs, and document
this program given the very limited size of the audience that I have seen so
far, and also given their apparently limited interest in providing feedback that
will help me to further refine these programs. Especially when I balance it
against the time demands of some of my other projects that might be of benefit
to a wider audience. I suspect (but certainly do not know) that you will find
the same thing.
Granted, my programs do not come close to being as cool or ground-breaking as
LDCC itself, so I don’t expect people to be dropping out of trees to
congratulate me or thank me for my efforts. But when you release free software
into the ether and hear nothing but crickets chirping, you begin to wonder if
anybody is using it at all.
Personally, I would love to see more alternatives for railroad automation, such
as an enhanced pbForth would provide, and I should be the last person to
discourage you from following this path. I will happily try out anything you
would care to release, and I vow to give you better feedback than I have gotten
from the train community. Sorry to sound negative, but I’m just relaying my own
experience.
To answer some of your other questions, I can see a need for a couple of pieces
of “impure” hardware before DCC will be fully useful on a LEGO train layout.
One would be a simple driver circuit that would take the low-current output from
an RCX and switch the polarity of a high-current DC source such as a train
transformer so that LDCC could be used without fear of damaging the RCX. This
would also make LDCC work on a 2.0 RCX that doesn’t have the AC power input
jack. I think something like this could easily be built using a few MOSFET
transistors or opto-isolators or some other rapid-switching devices. Another
piece of hardware that any DCC-head could easily make would be a stand-alone DCC
decoder packaged in a 2x4 brick which could be used to run the motors of
automated switch points, roundhouses, decouplers, or other motorized or lighted
trackside structures.
- Chris.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Trains, DCC, and pbForth
|
| In lugnet.trains, Chris Phillips wrote: snip (...) snip (...) I know that I was one of those 30, Chris--sorry about not getting back to you. I d/led it but never actually used it yet :( So busy just getting a layout up and running--making buildings, (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth, FTX)
| | | Re: Trains, DCC, and pbForth
|
| In lugnet.trains, Chris Phillips wrote: snip (...) I'm just going thru my mind (which is always a bad idea), and this would be, as stated, very easy-- My DCC chip has motor out, and 2 light wires out. Connect 'em to a electric plate and we're good (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth, FTX)
| | | Re: Trains, DCC, and pbForth
|
| I realize this thread is kinda old but ...does anyone know if Chris Phillips ever made his TrainLab software available? I have tried a few times to contact Chris without any success. I have been looking into automating my train layouts and would (...) (16 years ago, 11-Apr-08, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Trains, DCC, and pbForth
|
| All, As I've mentioned before, I have a version of pbForth firmware for the RCX that allows you to control trains modified with DCC controllers. The benefit of pbForth is that you can write, test, and debug your application interactively using (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
