Subject:
|
RE: pbForth Does DCC!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:04:13 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
<rhempel@bmts.^AvoidSpam^com>
|
Viewed:
|
1020 times
|
| |
|
|
> > Now, I'd like to ask some quesitons of the train-heads before
> > I finalize things and release the first cut...
> >
> > 1. How important is multiple DCC channels? If unimportant, is it
> > OK to just use Motor Port A as the default or should the port
> > be programmable?
>
> This depends on how many trains will be running, but IMO should at least be
> programmable (ie the ability to use 1, 2 or 3 ports depending on load). Because
> you can plug LACC[1] boosters into the output, and drive extra motors off them,
> I don't think having free motor outputs is a big requirement.
I think I mis-stated my question. I meant to ask how many _independent_ DCC
channels would you like to see. That is, one DCC loop controlling trains and
another controlling switches, lights, crossings, etc.
I'm going to wait for more input before figuring this out...
My booster is a simple H-bridge driver that is controlled by the RCX. Each
output from the booster can drive up to 3A.
I might add the ability to read DCC signals to the RCX, but that's very
CPU intensive and basically kills the capability to do anything else with
the brick.
> > 2. Are there any things you would like to do with a DCC capable
> > RCX that are difficult with a brickOS system?
>
> Drive more than 3 motors ;) although it can be done it is much more cumbersome.
Although expensive, I could see having a simple DCC brick that plugs
into the bus on one end and the motor on the other. Now you can control
MANY motors from on motor port (within current limits)
>
> > 3. Can you describe some things you would typically want do on
> > a train layout that you can't do at all now?
>
> Well I think controlling multiple trains is the biggest one.
I think Mark Riley's firmware does a nice job of that. I'm talking about
thins like monitoring sensor inputs and then controlling the layout based
on the input.
Ralph
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: pbForth Does DCC!
|
| (...) Hi Ralph I do not think it would be a good idea to have multiple DCC channels. Sure you can have multiple power supplies (which I think the DCC people call 'power stations') but each one should carry the identical DCC signal. DCC packets are (...) (21 years ago, 30-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
| | | Re: pbForth Does DCC!
|
| (...) Oh I see what you mean - and I agree with john that there's no real need for multiple channels. (...) Well I was thinking of relatively simple slave units, but with the ability to operate various devices when they receive appropriate DCC (...) (21 years ago, 30-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: pbForth Does DCC!
|
| (...) Excellent! (...) This depends on how many trains will be running, but IMO should at least be programmable (ie the ability to use 1, 2 or 3 ports depending on load). Because you can plug LACC[1] boosters into the output, and drive extra motors (...) (21 years ago, 29-Sep-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.trains)
|
7 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
|
|
|
|
