PC Control of MTH Engines by Radio Connection to the TIU

[rogruth]

WOW! The above discussion is quite a bit beyond my understanding and need for me to enjoy playing with my trains.
I hope that you that do understand are able to use the info and add to your enjoyment of model railroading. Have fun.

[jlong]

I take issue with your characterization of "anti-MTH members". I've been objective in my criticism. Everything MTH has gotten from me has been deserved.

He means Neil I love my MTH locos and DCS seems to be functioning fine for now. However, I always have that sinking feeling when I fire up the trains that it will eventually fail. That's not a good feeling. There's never an operating session that I don't get the infamous "engine not on track" message.

Did you guys forget about me?

[rogruth]

John,

How?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Who?

[SanDiegoMark]

WOW! The above discussion is quite a bit beyond my understanding and need for me to enjoy playing with my trains.
I hope that you that do understand are able to use the info and add to your enjoyment of model railroading. Have fun.

From a technical viewpoint, its been interesting to learn how things were done. From the outside, you can figure out how they are done but you never learn why they were done that way.

Anyway, my RTC program is just a different way to do what the remote does. For example, when I move my speed control from 0 Smph, the horn toots twice, the bell starts ringing, speed slowly increases, and once at speed, the bell goes off.

[Neil]

"There's never an operating session that I don't get the infamous "engine not on track" message. "

Point, set and match to the DCS critics .

That said, what Mark has done is both remarkable and laudable. MTH has resolutely stopped anyone from improving upon their relatively lame
system from the getgo because of Mike Wolf's overwhelming ego and overdeveloped sense of competitiveness and entitlement. Maybe he's matured now that he's in his 50s? One can only hope. Redemption is always possible!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

That said, what Mark has done is both remarkable and laudable.

Indeed and we should not overlook that either.

MTH has resolutely stopped anyone from improving upon their relatively lame system from the getgo because of Mike Wolf's overwhelming ego and overdeveloped sense of competitiveness and entitlement. Maybe he's matured now that he's in his 50s? One can only hope. Redemption is always possible!

"We should forgive our enemies, but not before they are hanged."

[Mitch]

Knew you'd be along, Neil. Never pass up an opportunity to hammer MTH.

[Neil]

Hey, it's Greg who hammered MTH. I actually said some rather positive things about Mike Wolf. The guy hasn't sued a competitor in years for example. He hasn't sent threatening letters to those posting about working on enhancements to the system. He's apparently becoming
more rational and reasonable. I don't consider those comments hammering the poor fellow .

[G3750]

Writing a program that encompasses every aspect of train operation is not something one person can do alone. Maybe because of that, PC control will never be practicable. It is not possible for me to singlehandedly write a program that will satisfy everyone. But I can probably do enough to let enterprising and interested hobbyists have the ability to operate their trains in a different way.

Having attempted to produce two separate software products as side projects / business endeavors, I know what you mean about single-handedly satisfying everyone. It's a hard slog.

However, I would say that, unlike the approaches taken by DCS and Legacy development efforts, everything is not needed. One reason, among many, for liking TMCC is that it is simple and effective in carrying out the limited tasks I consider useful for a command / control system. Call me old-fashioned or simplistic, but what's really essential in operating a train layout?

• Individual locomotive addressing and within that:
  • Direction control (Forward or Reverse)
  • Throttle
  • Whistle
  • Bell (On / Off)
  • Couplers (front / rear)
  • Sound (volume, On / Off)
  • Smoke (volume, On / Off)
• Multiple locomotive (lash-up) operations
• Track power control (Block selection, On/Off)
• Switch control (Through / Diversion)
• Accessory control (selection, On/Off, variable power)
• Routes (construction, selection, destruction)

I think you could argue against the last item being really essential. But all of these functions are accomplished with TMCC.

Now, what does DCS bring to the table? In addition to the above, it has some neat features I find useful:

• Scale speed - not only does allow the remote to display the speed of the locomotive, more importantly it permits all locomotives in a lash-up (regardless of gearing) to run at the same speed. So that B6sb switcher and SD80-MAC can run together in the same lash-up.
• Speed limits applied to a remote - this allows you to hand a remote to a child without worrying that he/she will make it fly off the track.

These are very innovative features; they demonstrate someone has given real thought to how trains might be operated by children and their parents. I consider these DCS features to be very attractive and 10 years ago, they caused me to buy DCS. I wish MTH had done a better job of implementing DCS. BTW, I think Legacy now has these features or their equivalent.

But beyond these, what's really necessary? Or enough? Or economically justifiable? (What do I spend hard-earned R & D money on?)
Quilling whistle? Meh
Ability to turn on / off the coffee pot?
Whistle "Dixie" and spit cotton nickels?
Wi-Fi / Bluetooth interface? maybe

Like I said Mark, I think you've hit the sweet-spot of train control.

George

[Neil]

"Never pass up an opportunity to hammer MTH."

Perhaps so.

Of course, to be fair, Mitch, one might also state you never pass up an opportunity to defend MTH, no matter how indefensible their product or conduct.

[SanDiegoMark]

As I was digging into how the Remote and the TIU interacted, one part of that implementation software really stood out.

MTH's implementation of LashUps is amazing. You might think that when a LashUp is run, that the Remote is busily (and feverishly) sending sending out commands. You might think that commands to the head engine, to the middle engines, and to the tail engine would overload the radio frequency and make control of other engines impossible.

If you look at LashUps, the sounds in each engine are controlled differently, front and rear couplers are handled differently, and lights are handled differently depending on where the engine is in the LashUp.

But MTH implemented this in a different, much more efficient way -- its all done in the TIU! One command from the Remote is sent to the TIU and the TIU directs the correct set of commands to the engines. For example, when you change direction, the Remote tells the TIU "for the consist with engines '1,5,3,-22,10' set direction to reverse". The TIU sends a reverse direction command to each engine, turns off the headlight of the head engine, turns on the taillight of the tail engine. In addition, if any of the engines are reverse running (like -22 in my example), the TIU keeps that straight when it sends direction commands (that is, engine 22 actually has to be put into forward in order to go in reverse with the rest of the LashUp).

This implementation sure made my RTC much easier to write to handle LashUps.

[Mitch]

Of course, to be fair, Mitch, one might also state you never pass up an opportunity to defend MTH, no matter how indefensible their product or conduct.

I don't defend them all the time, Neil. I'll hammer them relentlessly for buyin' up SHelperService and promisin' the world, but delivering nothing in the 5 years they've had them.

What I do have is MTH and DCS. It is wired in a star pattern with blocks being only 6' to 8', and it works. Ya don't want those 1s and 0s crashin' into each other. You probably don't know it, but it's how cars are wired today, what with up to 40 on-board controllers in the car.

In the post below yours, SanDiegoMark describes how the TIU handles all of the intricacies of a 5 engine consist. It is the same principal as the Body Controller in your car, which is the Central Gateway for all communication between various modules, and it makes the decision on what commands take priority. Somewhat perplexing, but it's not exactly rocket science.

[jlong]

Hey, it's Greg who hammered MTH. I actually said some rather positive things about Mike Wolf. The guy hasn't sued a competitor in years for example. He hasn't sent threatening letters to those posting about working on enhancements to the system. He's apparently becoming
more rational and reasonable. I don't consider those comments hammering the poor fellow .

Has anyone reported you to your employer for posting about MTH from your office computer in recent years? Or did those nut cases bite the dust.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Ya don't want those 1s and 0s crashin' into each other.

Yes, that would be bad - they might make 10's.

You probably don't know it, but it's how cars are wired today, what with up to 40 on-board controllers in the car.

In the post below yours, SanDiegoMark describes how the TIU handles all of the intricacies of a 5 engine consist. It is the same principal as the Body Controller in your car, which is the Central Gateway for all communication between various modules, and it makes the decision on what commands take priority. Somewhat perplexing, but it's not exactly rocket science.

You make an interesting and valid point and also demonstrate that someone with your level of electronics experience can make this all succeed. However, consider that the average person is clueless regarding problems with their car and takes it to someone like yourself. You may in fact have just a slight advantage over the totally perplexed.

And, I think that 50 years ago it was rocket science.....and today the average person is just as lost as then.... and still can't fix the toaster.