| |
My thoughts on the new battery-powered IR-controlled trains (BPIR trains)...
First a quick summary of the reports that I've read here on lugnet.trains.
1. IR controller has three different channels.
a. IR controller can switch between channels or control all three at once
b. It is unknown whether the IR frequency of the receiver is user
controllable, I hope it is.
2. The remote is a horn.
3. The remote allows for speed control.
4. The motor uses plastic wheels.
5. The train is powered by 6 AA batteries; therefore, it’s a 9v system.
6. The IR unit is built into a 30-stud long base plate.
Functionally, the new system provides what the rail-powered (RP) system
provides with one advantage, up to three independently controllable
trains, and one significant disadvantage, batteries.
First let’s look at the disadvantages.
1. Oh yeah, batteries. I just hate batteries. They are always dying at
the most inopportune moments. Did I say I hate batteries?
2. With the current BPIR design self-sufficient engines less than 30
studs long, self-sufficient single-truck engines and single-truck
trolleys will be a thing of the past :(
3. The current BPIR design makes it harder to build trains that are more
than 6 studs wide.
4. Disclaimer: speculation based on a single observation follows… The
metal-rail system is being placed into the care of the Direct to
Consumer branch of TLC (the recent renumbering of the RP motor to 10153
makes me think that LEGO Direct has taken the reins on the RP system).
The fear is that even though the metal-rail system is in very capable
hands, as evidenced by all of the very good 10xxx train sets that have
been produced, TLC might lose interest in supporting a system with
limited profit potential. Even if TLC continues producing RP sets, the
RP system will lose sales to the BPIR system; thus, either way the RP
system becomes less actractive due to market fragmentation.
So, the new BPIR system isn't all wine an roses, but what can
metal-railers get out of the new system?
1. Since the plastic wheels insulate the train motor from the track and
each engine carries its own power supply, using BPIR trains is an easy
way to get a second, third or fourth train on the same loop as an RP
train. I think this is cool because I could get a trolley running on a
layout without interfering with the train, well… as long as I am paying
attention.
2. Multipower lash ups in the true sense of the word are possible with
the BPIR system. Right now, the power limit to a train is the speed
regulator. If four RP motors are placed on the track, the speed
controller turns itself off to prevent overheating. Since batteries
power the train in the BPIR system, a lash up of four engines will not
overheat. Each engine has its own battery pack, so if four BPIR engines
are put on the track, and all four engines are set to the same IR
frequency then a lash up with a _lot_ of pulling power has just been
created. If more pulling power is needed simply add a fifth BPIR engine.
3. It has been suggested that the wheels can be removed from the motor
and replaced with other wheels. Now there is a already a brand of wheel
out there that could be used if the wheels are in fact interchangeable
which is cool, but I cannot help but wonder why would LEGO make the
wheels interchangeable? Is it just cheaper to manufacture the train
motors with removable wheels or are they considering making something to
interchange the wheels with? (Yeah, wild speculation... but isn't that
where all the fun is?)
4. When a BPIR train derails it won’t stop. I consider this an advantage
because, really, doesn’t everyone just love a spectacular LEGO train
accident?
5. The old 4.5v track that I have just became slightly less useless :)
6. The potential for modifying an RP motor for IR control exists; that
is, a rail-powered IR-controlled (RPIR) hybrid could be made. If the
leads from the metal wheels are cut and new leads are used to connect
the powered rails through the wheels to the battery pack, the IR
controller would get power from the track, and send command signals back
to the motor to make it go. This won’t be for the light of heart because
it will involve cracking, cutting and soldering, but I think it would be
easier than the cracking, cutting and soldering required for digital
command and control.
What can we do? Should we mourn the impending loss of our beloved RP
system? Should we shill like we’ve never shilled before? Everyone has to
choose, but if the RP system is to survive it will have to be profitable
for LEGO Direct. Some how, LEGO direct will have to make enough on the
RP system to be able to do (get LEGO to do) an occasional run of motors
and track. Will we get new track? Were we ever going to get new track?
Who knows... probably not <subliminal mode>must make re-railer... must
make re-railer... a larger radius curve would be nice too</subliminal
mode>. What we do know is that the RP system wasn’t killed outright. I
don’t know about everyone else, but I get the feeling that the LEGO
Direct team (Jake et al) and the meltdown that occurred when gray became
blay had a lot to do with the fact that LEGO hasn’t simply killed the RP
system. I mean really, why wouldn’t LEGO corporate just kill the old
line? They’ve done it before. The only reason I can think is that
someone (Jake?) convinced them that the RP system is more than just a
product line, it’s a system for evangelizing LEGO, and that LEGO really
didn’t need another blay :) Thanks.
I still fear for that we might lose the RP system, but the only thing I
can do to prevent that is to buy more RP stuff for myself, which frankly
won’t a difference, or convince more people to crossover to the RP
system. After all, the RP system still has once significant advantage
over the BPIR system; plug the RP system in and its ready to go, always.
To help us evangelize the LEGO trains, and the RP system specifically, I
would love to have a dedicated LEGO train brochure to distribute at the
train shows we do at least twice year. I suspect that a catalogue that
featured all of the trains that LEGO had for sale and showed how those
trains could be put together with the Town and City LEGO sets to make a
layout would get parents to buy LEGO trains for their kids. If the kids
keep coming back to the shows to see what the big kids are doing with
their “pro-line” rail-powered layouts, then we are bound to get a few
kids hooked, right?
Just my thoughts.
Sincerely,
Chris
--
http://users.rcn.com/cjmasi/lego/
Learn about brittle bone disease
http://www.oif.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Christopher Masi wrote:
> 6. The IR unit is built into a 30-stud long base plate.
Note that for the strong of heart, this might still allow smaller trolleys...
with some ABS shavings. But hacking the motor to allow RP and IR controlability
seems a likely direction in any event.
> So, the new BPIR system isn't all wine an roses, but what can
> metal-railers get out of the new system?
> 1. Since the plastic wheels insulate the train motor from the track and
> each engine carries its own power supply, using BPIR trains is an easy
> way to get a second, third or fourth train on the same loop as an RP
> train. I think this is cool because I could get a trolley running on a
> layout without interfering with the train, well… as long as I am paying
> attention.
Or even when you aren't. The biggest news to me at BrickFest on this was IR
control - the RCX can transmit IR, and we've already got it running things like
Manas (that may use a very similar protocol). So multiple, RCX-controled (but
not powered) trains become a possibility, with the RCX inputs and outputs
dedicated to just controling layout features (points, animation, train sensing).
And this requires no modification whatsoever, just careful coding of the RCX for
IR control.
One RCX, controling multiple trains, switching tracks, and loading &
unloading stations. If the train folks don't enjoy this, I assure you there's
some mindstorms types that are chomping at the bit.
> 4. When a BPIR train derails it won’t stop. I consider this an advantage
> because, really, doesn’t everyone just love a spectacular LEGO train
> accident?
I like the way you think. Scary, that.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Christopher Masi wrote:
>
> > 6. The IR unit is built into a 30-stud long base plate.
>
> Note that for the strong of heart, this might still allow smaller trolleys...
> with some ABS shavings. But hacking the motor to allow RP and IR controlability
> seems a likely direction in any event.
Also, for locomotices, the IR plate could be used on rolling stock pulled by a
shorter loco (this is how most of the old 4.5v trains worked). Doesn't wor for
trolleys though :(
> > So, the new BPIR system isn't all wine an roses, but what can
> > metal-railers get out of the new system?
> > 1. Since the plastic wheels insulate the train motor from the track and
> > each engine carries its own power supply, using BPIR trains is an easy
> > way to get a second, third or fourth train on the same loop as an RP
> > train. I think this is cool because I could get a trolley running on a
> > layout without interfering with the train, well… as long as I am paying
> > attention.
>
> Or even when you aren't. The biggest news to me at BrickFest on this was IR
> control - the RCX can transmit IR, and we've already got it running things like
> Manas (that may use a very similar protocol). So multiple, RCX-controled (but
> not powered) trains become a possibility, with the RCX inputs and outputs
> dedicated to just controling layout features (points, animation, train sensing).
> And this requires no modification whatsoever, just careful coding of the RCX for
> IR control.
> One RCX, controling multiple trains, switching tracks, and loading &
> unloading stations. If the train folks don't enjoy this, I assure you there's
> some mindstorms types that are chomping at the bit.
Except the RCX will be obsolete in 6 months, and the NXT doesn't have IR. Maybe
all the mindstorms fans can pay for their NXT by selling their RCXs to train
builders???? :)
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Brian Davis wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Christopher Masi wrote:
| |
6. The IR unit is built into a 30-stud long base plate.
|
Note that for the strong of heart, this might still allow smaller
trolleys...
with some ABS shavings. But hacking the motor to allow RP and IR
controlability
seems a likely direction in any event.
|
Also, for locomotices, the IR plate could be used on rolling stock pulled by
a
shorter loco (this is how most of the old 4.5v trains worked). Doesn’t wor
for
trolleys though :(
|
It’d be a nice nostalgic moment to see a battery tender version of the IR
system, based on a short wheelbase. If you take a hacksaw to this one, your
wheelbase is still going to be a minimum of 14 studs long, if you have the
wheels right at the end. At that size you’d really want three axles to make it
look good.
I understand the IR base has a large 4-wide lump in the middle of the top which
actually houses the electrics (only the batteries hang below), so maybe a taller
version could have batteries on top, but still be narrow enough to build up the
sides of a tender. I’d have to practice my in-line SNOT though...
;-)
Jason Railton
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
> > One RCX, controling multiple trains, switching tracks, and loading &
> > unloading stations. If the train folks don't enjoy this, I assure you there's
> > some mindstorms types that are chomping at the bit.
>
> Except the RCX will be obsolete in 6 months, and the NXT doesn't have
> IR. Maybe all the mindstorms fans can pay for their NXT by selling their
> RCXs to train builders???? :)
I'm saving up to buy an NXT - at Developer's Special, or full retail, I'll
likely get one the first chance I get. But I'm not remotely thinking the RCX
will be "obsolete" in 6 months. One, the NXT doesn't have IR... yet. It wouldn't
surprise me at all that somebody makes a 3rd party "IR code box" to allow theNXT
to send IR data. Second, there's a lot that an RCX can do, so I see no reason to
abandon it.
Heck, were Manas created so that RCX hackers could control them? I suspect
this was not a major motivating factor, but yet another "interface" an AFOL came
up with... because they could.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
Also if the RCX is NOT directly powering the trains then the RCX 1.0 (with AC
jack) isn't manditory. I would love to see the IR train be controled by the RCX.
Is reverse engineering the IR codes for the IR train hard to do? Should I try to
get the IR control codes spec and post it on ILTCO web site? Who knows how to
program the RCX with new IR codes? (Is it that easy???)
SteveB
The biggest news to me at BrickFest on this was IR control - the RCX can
transmit IR, and we've already got it running things like Manas (that may use a
very similar protocol). So multiple, RCX-controled (but not powered) trains
become a possibility, with the RCX inputs and outputs dedicated to just
controling layout features (points, animation, train sensing).
And this requires no modification whatsoever, just careful coding of the RCX for
IR control. One RCX, controling multiple trains, switching tracks, and loading &
unloading stations. If the train folks don't enjoy this, I assure you there's
some mindstorms types that are chomping at the bit.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Christopher Masi wrote:
> To help us evangelize the LEGO trains, and the RP system specifically, I
> would love to have a dedicated LEGO train brochure to distribute at the
> train shows we do at least twice year. I suspect that a catalogue that
> featured all of the trains that LEGO had for sale and showed how those
> trains could be put together with the Town and City LEGO sets to make a
> layout would get parents to buy LEGO trains for their kids.
We've been asked for info/catalogues on Lego trains at every train show. They
simply are not available in the usual retail outlets which explains why we get
the same comment at every train show; "I didn't know Lego made
trains".Unfortunately the Lego company does not have a mechanism to supply these
catalogues or even standard range catalogues for this purpose, despite our
requests..
The scenes in the old catalogues really inspired me as a kid - you know the
ones, with non-set models sprawling as far as the eye could see, bridges,
smiling kids in amongst it all etc. There must be some experts out there who
have decided this is not worth it anymore!
Jon
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
> The biggest news to me at BrickFest on this was IR control - the RCX can
> transmit IR, and we've already got it running things like Manas (that may use a
> very similar protocol). So multiple, RCX-controled (but not powered) trains
> become a possibility, with the RCX inputs and outputs dedicated to just
> controling layout features (points, animation, train sensing).
>
> And this requires no modification whatsoever, just careful coding of the RCX for
> IR control. One RCX, controling multiple trains, switching tracks, and loading &
> unloading stations. If the train folks don't enjoy this, I assure you there's
> some mindstorms types that are chomping at the bit.
The problem you're gonna find is that the RCX can only point in 1 direction at
once. Unless you have many spaced around your layout, you're not gonna be able
to control the trains at every point on the layout. That may not be a problem -
if the trains continue running when they lose their IR signal (we don't know
that yet) you may be able to have significant chunks that don't need coverage,
but you're still probably gonna end up needing multiple RCXs - and how do they
communicate with each other if they're using IR to communicate with trains?
ROSCO
|
|
| |
Ross Crawford wrote:
[...]
>
> Except the RCX will be obsolete in 6 months, and the NXT doesn't have IR. Maybe
> all the mindstorms fans can pay for their NXT by selling their RCXs to train
> builders???? :)
>
> ROSCO
RCX Obsolete in 6 months? I program my RCX 1.0 with a 7 year old Mac.
Write now I am typing on a 5 year old Mac. Obsolescence is just a point
of view :)*
Chris
*You are correct, I cannot use LEGO Factory on either of these dinosuars :(
--
http://users.rcn.com/cjmasi/lego/
Learn about brittle bone disease
http://www.oif.org/
|
|
| |
Jonathan Reynolds wrote:
[...]
>
> The scenes in the old catalogues really inspired me as a kid - you know the
> ones, with non-set models sprawling as far as the eye could see, bridges,
> smiling kids in amongst it all etc. There must be some experts out there who
> have decided this is not worth it anymore!
>
> Jon
Man, I loved those old catalogues. In my eyes they were made even more
exotic simply due to the fact that we couldn't get any of the 12v stuff
here :(
When I worked in the Enfield factory in 1986, I even ask the people in
the comapany store if they could get them so I could buy them, but the
couldn't :( In the end, I did manage to get one :) But the catalogue was
too cruel...
Chris
--
http://users.rcn.com/cjmasi/lego/
Learn about brittle bone disease
http://www.oif.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
> Also if the RCX is NOT directly powering the trains then the RCX 1.0 (with AC
> jack) isn't manditory. I would love to see the IR train be controled by the RCX.
>
> Is reverse engineering the IR codes for the IR train hard to do? Should I try to
> get the IR control codes spec and post it on ILTCO web site? Who knows how to
> program the RCX with new IR codes? (Is it that easy???)
I cracked the Manas codes in ten minutes with a photodiode and an oscilloscope.
Turned out they were very easy to transmit from the RCX.
I suppose TLG could go to the trouble of inventing an entirely new scheme, but
why?
The only scary thing is how easy it will be for naughty little kids to go to
train shows armed with Lego train IR remotes hidden in their jackets.
Personally, I cannot wait for the IR trains to show up. I can see myself modding
a few to use RF (418MHz ?) instead of IR. This would make it immune to that kind
of problem. And a simple RS232 - 418MHz PC gizmo would make PC control easy too.
JB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Barnes wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
> > Also if the RCX is NOT directly powering the trains then the RCX 1.0 (with AC
> > jack) isn't manditory. I would love to see the IR train be controled by the RCX.
> >
> > Is reverse engineering the IR codes for the IR train hard to do? Should I try to
> > get the IR control codes spec and post it on ILTCO web site? Who knows how to
> > program the RCX with new IR codes? (Is it that easy???)
>
>
> I cracked the Manas codes in ten minutes with a photodiode and an oscilloscope.
>
> Turned out they were very easy to transmit from the RCX.
>
> I suppose TLG could go to the trouble of inventing an entirely new scheme, but
> why?
>
> The only scary thing is how easy it will be for naughty little kids to go to
> train shows armed with Lego train IR remotes hidden in their jackets.
>
> Personally, I cannot wait for the IR trains to show up. I can see myself modding
> a few to use RF (418MHz ?) instead of IR. This would make it immune to that kind
> of problem. And a simple RS232 - 418MHz PC gizmo would make PC control easy too.
>
> JB
how difficult do you think it's going to be to convert from IR to RC? this is
one of the many things i wouldn't mind trying but i honestly hadn't thought of
it before your post. another option is to somehow offset the frequency that the
IR trains work off of to add additional channels. granted the user would need to
have 2 controlers but it would be a huge advantage over only 3 channels.
ondrew
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
> how difficult do you think it's going to be to convert from IR to RC? this is
> one of the many things i wouldn't mind trying but i honestly hadn't thought of
> it before your post. another option is to somehow offset the frequency that the
> IR trains work off of to add additional channels. granted the user would need to
> have 2 controlers but it would be a huge advantage over only 3 channels.
Well, until I buy one and dig into it, I am not going to know how much space
there is within the housing.
I like RF 'cos it works out of line of sight.
As far as different sub-carrier frequencies for IR, there are a number between
25KHz and 76KHz for which you can obtain integrated IR receivers. This is an
obvious alternative, but if you are going to go to the trouble to modify the
train module to swap out the IR receiver and replace the transmitter (becuase
you know the subcarrier frequency is going to be embedded in the microcontroller
in the Lego transmitter), I figured it would be best to jump straight to RF. TLG
don't like RF because they have to obtain certification for their transmtter in
every country they plan to sell it in, whereas IR has no such regulatory
control. But for us, we can build what ever we want.
JB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
> > The biggest news to me at BrickFest on this was IR control - the RCX can
> > transmit IR, and we've already got it running things like Manas (that may use a
> > very similar protocol). So multiple, RCX-controled (but not powered) trains
> > become a possibility, with the RCX inputs and outputs dedicated to just
> > controling layout features (points, animation, train sensing).
> >
> > And this requires no modification whatsoever, just careful coding of the RCX for
> > IR control. One RCX, controling multiple trains, switching tracks, and loading &
> > unloading stations. If the train folks don't enjoy this, I assure you there's
> > some mindstorms types that are chomping at the bit.
>
> The problem you're gonna find is that the RCX can only point in 1 direction at
> once. Unless you have many spaced around your layout, you're not gonna be able
> to control the trains at every point on the layout. That may not be a problem -
> if the trains continue running when they lose their IR signal (we don't know
> that yet) you may be able to have significant chunks that don't need coverage,
> but you're still probably gonna end up needing multiple RCXs - and how do they
> communicate with each other if they're using IR to communicate with trains?
>
> ROSCO
Surely the automated sections of the layout can be as complicated and widespread
as you have RCXs? You only have one?, that just controls passing at a second
station with control on the rest of the layout being down by you, manually (for
example).
From the things people have said my guess is that the trains will continue
without signal from the control handset. While a lot of what has been written is
speculation I'm sure I have seen it mentioned that there is an 'All trains
Emergency Stop' function, unnecessary otherwise.
Do multiple RCXs need to communicate to run a layout? Surely if they can sense a
train has come in to their 'section' they just deal with it without reference to
other areas of the layout (planning IS required tho!). The problem actually
comes with the need to:
A: deal with multiple trains simultaneously
B: recognise trains to allow signals to be send using the correct channel (to
avoid interference with other passing trains)
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Christopher Masi wrote:
> Ross Crawford wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > Except the RCX will be obsolete in 6 months, and the NXT doesn't have IR. Maybe
> > all the mindstorms fans can pay for their NXT by selling their RCXs to train
> > builders???? :)
> >
> > ROSCO
>
> RCX Obsolete in 6 months? I program my RCX 1.0 with a 7 year old Mac.
> Write now I am typing on a 5 year old Mac. Obsolescence is just a point
> of view :)*
Who makes people believe that old stuff is obsolete as soon as a successor
becomes available? To stay ontopic in this .trains area, I'm still using
blue tracks and motors and remote controled points (yes blue points!).
Still working beautifully.
The best change Lego ever made, making the old stuff obsolete is the change
from CA to ABS. Although I have built a house with CA bricks that doesn't
collapse when I breath or a fly lands on it :-)
Niels
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
> The problem you're gonna find is that the RCX can only point in
> 1 direction at once.
Actualy, so can a remote. The IR signal from the RCX is fairly "bright"
(i.e.- you don't need the RCX pointed right into the Manas IR receive units to
function, it can be bounced off other objects).
> if the trains continue running when they lose their IR signal
> (we don't know that yet)
We don't, although I suspect strongly they do.
> you're still probably gonna end up needing multiple RCXs - and how
> do they communicate with each other if they're using IR to communicate
> with trains?
Right off the bat, I can think of two ways: wire connection (connecting
together two RCX input ports and interpreting if the RCX has set them to powered
or unpowered status), or using IR. The standard RCX firmware can transmit and
receive RCX messages (they appear in the firmware as numbers from 0 to 255) or
transmit (not recieve... wel, not in an easy to locate way) "raw" serial data;
the Manas codes are implemented using serial data, while RCX-to-RCX message
passing is via IR messages. There's the risk of RCX messages being overwritten
by serial "noise", but that just means you need some handshaking between the
RCXs.
I wouldn't have predicted LDCC - that took a *Lot* more work than this is
likely to. And with the IR trains, no hardware mods at all for this. Well, until
John makes us all beg for RF :-)
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Niels Karsdorp wrote:
> Who makes people believe that old stuff is obsolete as soon as a successor
> becomes available? To stay ontopic in this .trains area, I'm still using
> blue tracks and motors and remote controled points (yes blue points!).
> Still working beautifully.
A lot of people are still building their collection, and don't want supplies to
dwindle and the price of their hobby to go any higher than it already is.
That is to say, I don't want my mains trains to be obsolete, but you Mindstorms
lot can lump it, 'cos I like the look of the new ones! ;-) It would be nice if
they'd made the three motor limit obsolete though...
Jason Railton
|
|
| |
What about ripping out the IR and jumping right to Blue Tooth. This way the NXT
can directly control 3 or 4 trains wirelessly (more if you use a hierarchy), as
well as many laptops and smart phones!
I know tha Blue Tooth is designed to be low power and inexpensive; for cell
phone/headsets, mice and keyboards etc.
SteveB
In lugnet.trains, John Barnes wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
> > Also if the RCX is NOT directly powering the trains then the RCX 1.0 (with AC
> > jack) isn't manditory. I would love to see the IR train be controled by the RCX.
> >
> > Is reverse engineering the IR codes for the IR train hard to do? Should I try to
> > get the IR control codes spec and post it on ILTCO web site? Who knows how to
> > program the RCX with new IR codes? (Is it that easy???)
>
>
> I cracked the Manas codes in ten minutes with a photodiode and an oscilloscope.
>
> Turned out they were very easy to transmit from the RCX.
>
> I suppose TLG could go to the trouble of inventing an entirely new scheme, but
> why?
>
> The only scary thing is how easy it will be for naughty little kids to go to
> train shows armed with Lego train IR remotes hidden in their jackets.
>
> Personally, I cannot wait for the IR trains to show up. I can see myself modding
> a few to use RF (418MHz ?) instead of IR. This would make it immune to that kind
> of problem. And a simple RS232 - 418MHz PC gizmo would make PC control easy too.
>
> JB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
>
> > The problem you're gonna find is that the RCX can only point in
> > 1 direction at once.
>
> Actualy, so can a remote. The IR signal from the RCX is fairly "bright"
> (i.e.- you don't need the RCX pointed right into the Manas IR receive units
> to function, it can be bounced off other objects).
Using the Manas as a practical example, because I can't imagine they're going to
completely revamp the IR system...
The signal from the Mana remotes works GREAT in a small room with white wall.
You can point it in just about any direction and get the signal through. But in
a large open room like at a typical show, controlling a device on a table,
they're terrible. You have to stand within a couple of feet and point the
device in the right direction. If you've got anything in the way at all, you
will have to hold the device way over your head.
> > if the trains continue running when they lose their IR signal
> > (we don't know that yet)
>
> We don't, although I suspect strongly they do.
It's not like Lego has never made a mistake, but it would be a horrific design
problem if you have to point the thing at the train the whole time.
--
Tony Hafner
www.hafhead.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Brian Davis wrote:
> The standard RCX firmware can transmit and receive RCX messages (they
> appear in the firmware as numbers from 0 to 255) or transmit (not
> recieve... wel, not in an easy to locate way) "raw" serial data;
> the Manas codes are implemented using serial data...
I've got a question along these lines:
Is there any "addressable space" left over in the messaging system for Manas?
In other words, they've already got 3 "channels" implemented as different sets
of codes for the Manas. Have they used up all of the available messages, or
could they easily fit in three new channels?
My hope is that the trains don't use the same signals as the Manas, and so you
could still use Mana devices on the layout.
--
Tony Hafner
www.hafhead.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
>
> > The problem you're gonna find is that the RCX can only point in
> > 1 direction at once.
>
> Actualy, so can a remote. The IR signal from the RCX is fairly "bright"
> (i.e.- you don't need the RCX pointed right into the Manas IR receive units to
> function, it can be bounced off other objects).
Plus a remote is usually in the hands of the controller, so can be re-targetted
as necessary - whereas an RCX controller would most likely be fixed to the
layout somewhere, and disguised as an object of some kind on the layout.
Otherwise you lose the advantage of mains power.
> > if the trains continue running when they lose their IR signal
> > (we don't know that yet)
>
> We don't, although I suspect strongly they do.
Me too.
I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it isn't as easy as it might sound.
For instance, I would probably work out a few critical points on the layout, and
place an RCX at each, making sure it gets good coverage of all trains going past
(assuming "blind" running is possible). It would also allow time "gaps" where
I'm not directly talking to trains, so I can use IR to talk to other RCXs, but
it may not be easy to place them for best train coverage and still be able to
communicate with each other. I'm sure these problems are not insurmountable, but
it's gonna take some dedication to get it to work right in a show situation. I
would also need sensors to tell me when a train was going past, and logic to
know when there *should* be one - now I'm running multiple trains, my "network"
needs to know when there's been a derailment, otherwise my emergency rescue figs
are gonna start complaining of overwork ;)
ROSCO
|
|
| |
"Tony Hafner" <lego@NOSPAM.hafhead.com> wrote in message
news:It1nyG.13w1@lugnet.com...
[ ... snipped ... ]
>
> It's not like Lego has never made a mistake, but it would be a horrific
> design
> problem if you have to point the thing at the train the whole time.
[ ... snipped ... ]
You definitely do not need to point it at the train the whole time.
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring.com
http://www.ncltc.cc - North Carolina LEGO Train Club
http://www.carolinatrainbuilders.com - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=mpw - CTB/Brick Depot
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
> I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it isn't as easy as it might sound.
> For instance, I would probably work out a few critical points on the layout, and
> place an RCX at each, making sure it gets good coverage of all trains going past
> (assuming "blind" running is possible). It would also allow time "gaps" where
> I'm not directly talking to trains, so I can use IR to talk to other RCXs, but
> it may not be easy to place them for best train coverage and still be able to
> communicate with each other. I'm sure these problems are not insurmountable, but
> it's gonna take some dedication to get it to work right in a show situation. I
> would also need sensors to tell me when a train was going past, and logic to
> know when there *should* be one - now I'm running multiple trains, my "network"
> needs to know when there's been a derailment, otherwise my emergency rescue figs
> are gonna start complaining of overwork ;)
You've also got the problem that if they work like the volume control on a TV
remote (which is likely) the signals are "speed up" and "slow down", not
absolute speed values. Since you have no way of knowing whether the train
received a particular signal or not, you have no way to tell what speed it is
travelling at.
Jason Railton
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Jason J. Railton wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
> > I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it isn't as easy as it might sound.
> > For instance, I would probably work out a few critical points on the layout, and
> > place an RCX at each, making sure it gets good coverage of all trains going past
> > (assuming "blind" running is possible). It would also allow time "gaps" where
> > I'm not directly talking to trains, so I can use IR to talk to other RCXs, but
> > it may not be easy to place them for best train coverage and still be able to
> > communicate with each other. I'm sure these problems are not insurmountable, but
> > it's gonna take some dedication to get it to work right in a show situation. I
> > would also need sensors to tell me when a train was going past, and logic to
> > know when there *should* be one - now I'm running multiple trains, my "network"
> > needs to know when there's been a derailment, otherwise my emergency rescue figs
> > are gonna start complaining of overwork ;)
>
> You've also got the problem that if they work like the volume control on a TV
> remote (which is likely) the signals are "speed up" and "slow down", not
> absolute speed values. Since you have no way of knowing whether the train
> received a particular signal or not, you have no way to tell what speed it is
> travelling at.
Agreed, and even if your RCXs can tell each other "I sent XX speed signals to
the train" there's no guarantee it received them. I would be surprised if the
control doesn't have a "stop" button though.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
what if the operating system was something like the rokenbok line? they have a
central hub with hand controllers that use miniature 'walkie talkies' to control
individual units.
although, commands are only delivered while communication is maintained with a
specific unit. if the actual train receiver maintained the speed after
communication was lost, you could operate numerous trains simultaneously.
this would be great with no real hardward mods required, but the main control
hub could be pricey.
i guess we'll have to WAIT and see:( I HATE WAITING!!!!!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Christopher Masi wrote:
| |
My thoughts on the new battery-powered IR-controlled trains (BPIR trains)...
First a quick summary of the reports that I’ve read here on lugnet.trains.
1. IR controller has three different channels.
a. IR controller can switch between channels or control all three at once
b. It is unknown whether the IR frequency of the receiver is user
controllable, I hope it is.
2. The remote is a horn.
3. The remote allows for speed control.
4. The motor uses plastic wheels.
5. The train is powered by 6 AA batteries; therefore, it’s a 9v system.
6. The IR unit is built into a 30-stud long base plate. • --SNIP--
Just my thoughts.
Sincerely,
Chris
|
Hi all,
I’m trying to keep track of informations as it comes on
this BrickWiki page. Please edit it when new information comes to light. It
includes information gleaned from here and from Brickish so there may be stuff
there people haven’t heard about so please take a look.
Tim
|
|
|
