 | | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) One interesting possibility is an IR remote that does not have to have a constant signal to work. In other words, have the remote send commands that change the state of the train, but not need to continuously send a "go forward" command or (...) (17 years ago, 15-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) Ummm.... except that you lose control when the train goes into a tunnel, or you have areas of unreliable control on your layout. Losing control in a tunnel would be a big deal for "serious" model railroaders that like off-stage "staging" (...) (17 years ago, 19-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) HiTechnic / LEGO now offer an "Infrared Link" for the NXT that seems to be exactly the sort of thing you're describing here - and it is advertised as being compatible with the Power Functions and train IR protocol. This would mean that no (...) (17 years ago, 19-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) Hi Jordan, while this sounds like an interesting solution, it also sounds like a very expensive one as opposed to going for RF in the first place (yep, I know that RF remote controls have their own issues, power consumption being a significant (...) (17 years ago, 19-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) Hi Jerry, I certainly agree that this might not be a cost-effective solution or a very efficient way to implement DCC (although there are surely those out there who will pursue it anyway). I was just trying to emphasize that there isn't reall (...) (17 years ago, 19-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) If there are "dead zones" that could be a problem, but we also get to run doglegs this way. There are trade-offs, and I know where I'd like to be: LEGO-certified DDC built-in that is usable with anything from a regular train controller, to a (...) (17 years ago, 19-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure the RCX could be programmed to throw PF control messages... and while this would be a lot cheaper from a HW standpoint at the moment, I'm not sure it would be long-term. Right now the RCX is cheap(er) on eBay, but as they (...) (17 years ago, 19-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) On second thought, that doesn't look all that bad actually. Provided there is a way to eventually control more than one train and set up several IR interfaces (for positions where the optical link would otherwise fail) with a single RCX, the (...) (17 years ago, 19-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) Brian, the more I read this, the more I am with you. I think I really need to re-think my LEGO budget for next year... Three trains sounds like fair enough to me, since our house is not supposed to grow and the trains need some space to be (...) (17 years ago, 19-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) I've got to say if I muttered those words aloud, my wife would likely come at me with a large blunt object :). But I agree - I need to lay hands on an IR train and start working out more of this myself as well. (17 years ago, 19-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) If someone can get hold of Mark Riley and have him 'fix up' LDCC to be 'Power Functions/RC Train' IR compatible instead of DCC, that'd be a quick fix :) The rest is already built in--remote control, LACC, etc... Dave K (17 years ago, 19-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) It's those smaller, sharp and pointy objects that I'm worried about actually... plus I've got a couple confessions yet to make about my other hobby (there are some more saxophones in this house than she is aware of... ;-) ) But I've got the (...) (17 years ago, 19-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) I already did something very close. I reversed engineer the IR protocol of the Power Functions and created a small device that can both send and receive IR commands. The components in this device probably cost around $10-15 (but excluding the (...) (17 years ago, 20-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Very good! That is exactly what I was thinking. I work a lot with AVR's, too, so I'm happy to see you made the "right" choice in microcontrollers :) -dave (17 years ago, 27-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) Ohh...my wife and I have a deal, I can have as many steam engines as she has animals. (+1, which I had before her!). So, at present I have 2 large engines here. There's a 3rd one that I part own, but it isn't here...hence, it doesn't count. (...) (17 years ago, 28-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) It could, but I'm not sure what the increase in cost would be. IR is extremely mature technology, and can be done without and special hardware; very, very cheap, yet (within its limitations) fairly robust (especially LEGO implementation of it, (...) (17 years ago, 28-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO 9V Train Communication II
|
|
(...) Bluetooth is indeed probably way too expensive and complex. Perhaps the costs would go down, but probably not enough to make this cost-effective. There are cheaper radio systems, like 804.15.4 (ZigBee) that would make more sense than Bluetooth (...) (17 years ago, 28-Dec-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
