|
|
 | | Re: lugnet.trains.dcc?
|
| (...) I guess I really really don't see the need for a moc group... what would be left after you take the mocs away? I don't think any other theme has separated out mocs, has it? After all isn't just about everything we do a moc? Help me understand (...) (21 years ago, 13-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: lugnet.trains.dcc?
|
| (...) Oh, it still is. But allowances must be made, after all... a DCCized motor is a good thing that outweighs any impurity. Or does it? Gee... maybe you HAVE rubbed off on me. (21 years ago, 13-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: lugnet.trains.dcc?
|
| well if it goes, on the same note, lugnet.trains.moc? Sort out the trains group so you can follow one subject matter? I like the thought of DCC, I'm gonna start fooling around with it after I do a test Run, & maybe a learners run on an HO model... (...) (21 years ago, 13-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: lugnet.trains.dcc?
|
| <snip> (...) required (...) </snip> I must be rubbing off on you Lar. Before now, ANY mutilation of parts was considered sacrilegious blasphemy by you! :P Rob "Have Lego, Will Dremel" Hendrix (21 years ago, 12-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: lugnet.trains.dcc?
|
| (...) It may make sense from a compartmentalization standpoint but has the volume been that great? I admit of bias since it's a topic of interest, but I'm not thinking it's high enough that we NEED to do this. As for mutilation of parts... ??? There (...) (21 years ago, 12-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: lugnet.trains.dcc?
|
| (...) I think it's a great idea. I like reading .trains for the neat models, but I don't have an iota of interest in DCC programing. (I don't mind the mutilation that much.) Jason Spears | (URL) BrickCentral> | (URL) MichLUG> (21 years ago, 12-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
| | | | | lugnet.trains.dcc?
|
| Hi All, Just a thought: I know Lugnet likes to keep things nice and tidy... perhaps it is time for a DCC .trains subgroup? I'm wondering if eyeballs glaze over when DCC programming is discussed or some cringe at the wanton mutilation of pristine (...) (21 years ago, 12-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: leJOS & LDCC IRP
|
| (...) Yes, this is right, to be friendly to as many implementations of the Lego IR protocol as possible, receiving programs should just mask off bit 3. (...) While the code is there to discern packets with different addresses, I haven't yet added (...) (21 years ago, 12-Sep-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.java, lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: leJOS & LDCC IRP
|
| (...) I'm not really there yet, just couldn't resist the Lion, Tin Man and Scarecrow metaphor. -Brian (21 years ago, 12-Sep-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.java, lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: leJOS & LDCC IRP
|
| (...) Receiving IR commands from a Lego Remote, IR Tower or possibly another RCX. They're not DCC signals, but LDCC IRP messages. Roughly the same data, different medium and different protocol. (...) LDCC IRP is still unstable, but it will support (...) (21 years ago, 12-Sep-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.java, lugnet.trains)
|
|
