 | | | | | | |
| |
|
> 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.
| | | | | | |
