Subject:
|
Re: All plastic track
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:28:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2154 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
| |
Now I’m not saying I like every aspect of the proposed play train. For one I
really hate Infer Red “line of sight” controls. IR will seriously limit
the usability of the system for both kids and adults alike. A good example
that comes to mind is a tunnel. Imagine a child making a tunnel under his or
her bed for the train to go through only to find out it stops as soon as the
controller looses sight of the engine. Personally my belief is radio control
RC is far more reliable, cheaper to produce and doesn’t require the
so-called “bump out” that the IR system would. The electronics also already
exist and in the size proposed. Gut any Technic RC car and you will find that
the electronic board will fit in a 6x8 stud area. Another thing that bothers
me, albeit somewhat to a lesser extent, is what they’re going to do with the
train motor. Will it be RC specific or the one already produced. I’m also
worried that the motor will be permanently attached to the RC train base
instead of using the pin and power wire connector like the current 9volt
system uses. Hopefully in the next few months we will get more details.
|
Not a big IR fan either but one thing to consider about controllability is that
perhaps this system will be more like a walkaround throttle than a wired one,
that is, in many IR systems, you press the go button and the vehicle goes. Take
your finger off it, or lose line of sight, and the vehicle stops. Direct
control.
Walkaround throttles (and DCC) send “change” orders. You need the throttle
plugged in, or you need to address a command packet to the DCC receiver
(respectively) to cause a change in operational state. No change desired? no
communication required. So with a walkaround, you set the speed and direction
(and whistle/bell/light status) and unjack, walk to another place, jack in, and
then change things if you want...
If the IR is like that, losing line of sight might not be so bad. It means the
loco would continue doing whatever it was doing till you regained contact,
rather than come to an instant stop. So it would continue through a tunnel at
present course and speed, so to speak.
I have no inside info, I’m not one of the big 4 “SIGNAL” guys under NDA, I’m
just guessing, but if I were designing an IR system, that’s how I would do it.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: All plastic track
|
| (...) I think Larry summed it up nicely. Little kids want to follow the train where ever it goes, so line-of-sight and very short range would be just fine. Remote control from one spot is more of an adult appeal thing and only becomes necessary when (...) (19 years ago, 17-Aug-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: All plastic track
|
| (...) Personally I think the play train is a fantastic idea. It will be a great way to lower cost while providing opportunities for new parts, ideas and a new younger audience. Now some of you are worried about the death of the 9volt train set but (...) (19 years ago, 17-Aug-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
43 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
|
|
|
|
