Subject:
|
Re: pbForth Does DCC!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:33:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1242 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Ralph Hempel wrote:
> > > 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.
Oh I see what you mean - and I agree with john that there's no real need for
multiple channels.
> 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.
Well I was thinking of relatively simple slave units, but with the ability to
operate various devices when they receive appropriate DCC signals. LACC can do a
very simple version of this, in stationary decoder mode, but the ability to do a
little more than just basic DCC functionalty would be neat (eg when func 1 is
received on DCC #8, run motor A until sensor 2 is triggered, then motor B until
func 2 is received on DCC #8 - you get the idea).
> > > 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)
Well that would be neat, but I was thinking more along the lines of RCXs used as
above.
> > > 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.
Yes that would be good.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: pbForth Does DCC!
|
| My project is along a quite different track, I am attempting to create the DCC control packets with a PC sound card feeding an 'H' bridge power booster. I think my hardware is finished as I have checked it far as I can using an osciloscope but I (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | RE: pbForth Does DCC!
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 29-Sep-03, to 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
|
|
|
|
