| |
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
|
|
| |
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, 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, 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!!!!!
|
|
|
