Subject:
|
Re: Future GBCs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.laflrc
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:37:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
896 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> John Brost wrote:
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1441391</link>
(OK, I've got to say my first impression was of an octopus on LSD, but
actually after looking at it a bit that's a good diagram for this stuff. Thanks,
John!).
> > It reduces the number of RCXs we need down to 3
> > for the whole thing, and allows us to have a motor
> > for unloading and loading on each spur.
Also, it means that RCX #2 is completely independant of RCX #3, meaning each
of those GBC segments can be designed completely independantly. Coordination is
all relegated to RCX #1, which as Steve points out could support a third GBC
segment.
The other point I like is that a two-station GBC train is a *lot* easier to
engineer than a multi-station GBC train like we had at BF'05 (although I really
really liked that setup, I never did get it to the 99% reliability that I feel
it needed for BF).
> The one addition is the need to watch for passing trains,
> before allowing the local train to leave the siding.
Yes. Also, two trains shouldn't be "close" to each other as the different
speeds will make for rear-end fender-benders (with potential coupling of the
trains together). Notice that the switching RCX might be able to send messages
to the GBC RCXs, by powering a LEGO electrical light shining on the GBC RCX
light sensors. This way the GBC RCXs could be informed of the state of the
switch points (no need for another output from the switching RCX, lust wire the
lights to the motors driving the switch points).
> Of course the first thing that SCREAMS at me is the
> fact that RCX #1 has an open motor & sensor port that
> are going to waste. :) Perfect for adding another
> station, right? What about adding a passenger station
> for the non-GBC train?
It could be a 3rd GBC segment (controled by a 4th RCX) if we want. Also, it
could be used to automated the non-GBC train. For instance, have RCX #1 control
a switch point for another "scenic" loop (powered via a train controler). Every
other non-GBC train can be put on the "scenic" loop, varying the behavior of the
entire display. One problem I can see immediately is the possibility of
collisions where the "scenic" loop re-enters the primary loop... hmm, need to
think about that.
> Here's a pretty cool train detection light sensor:
> http://news.lugnet.com/org/ca/rtltoronto/?n=7281
And it might count cars, too, making multiple trains distinguishable by car
count. I wonder if I can detect trains via LIDAR...
> Oh, and the really long wire thing... we've
> been there, done that.
And have the bruises from tripping to prove it.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Future GBCs
|
| (...) ... (...) I was just thinking about this. For non-GBC train loops, one RCX could control the whole siding (detect train, throw switch, power track, watch for oncoming trains...) (...) At the train show last weekend, my train had 2 GBC cars, (...) (19 years ago, 18-Oct-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Future GBCs
|
| (...) Things were not looking good when Payton first touched the ball and the score was 10-0... But, it all worked out in the end. (...) Yes, this will work. It looks like a good way to divide the tasks between RCXs. We can NOT connect 1 light (...) (19 years ago, 18-Oct-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
6 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
|
|
|
|
