I don't see why having 2 systems (the IR AND the rail power) is going to be simpler than having 1 system (either analogue, where control and power is the same, or digital, likewise)...
Alternative to Current Digital Approach?
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
You don't?
What could be simpler than
1. A nice standard 12-14 volts DC in all rails, all the time, at ANY amperage you like, all available to power the cars and the LCs (if required).
2 A wireless, dirt-cheap, well-established infra red system to signal which item does what with that 12-14 volts.
Virtually no wires required and zero worries about overloaded electronic components since power and control signals are unable to interfere with each other.
There may be a reason why it's not feasible, but I have yet to see it!
![]()
What could be simpler than
1. A nice standard 12-14 volts DC in all rails, all the time, at ANY amperage you like, all available to power the cars and the LCs (if required).
2 A wireless, dirt-cheap, well-established infra red system to signal which item does what with that 12-14 volts.
Virtually no wires required and zero worries about overloaded electronic components since power and control signals are unable to interfere with each other.
There may be a reason why it's not feasible, but I have yet to see it!
Hi all, newbie here, so if I'm well out of order just say . ..
![]()
Think the issues here are interesting.
Conventional slot depends on varying power through the rails.
Any kind of Digital varies speed by signalling to processing in the car, and constant power.
Lane changing involves powering crossovers and separately controlling two or more cars on one slot. This implies constant power with cars selecting how much they draw.
Although an IR, low power radio such as PMR, some kind of induction loop, or any other signalling could easily sit above the layout on a light fitting, and reach "line of sight" all the cars, it would have to reliably reach all cars, have enough channels, and be safe in the children-at-home environment.
Once this is decided, making the track section respond to a cars intention to change lane, avoiding collisions, and setting out track sections to approximate the "best line" ideas for realism should be easier.
In all I think IR is worth a bit of a look.
![]()
Think the issues here are interesting.
Conventional slot depends on varying power through the rails.
Any kind of Digital varies speed by signalling to processing in the car, and constant power.
Lane changing involves powering crossovers and separately controlling two or more cars on one slot. This implies constant power with cars selecting how much they draw.
Although an IR, low power radio such as PMR, some kind of induction loop, or any other signalling could easily sit above the layout on a light fitting, and reach "line of sight" all the cars, it would have to reliably reach all cars, have enough channels, and be safe in the children-at-home environment.
Once this is decided, making the track section respond to a cars intention to change lane, avoiding collisions, and setting out track sections to approximate the "best line" ideas for realism should be easier.
In all I think IR is worth a bit of a look.
Hi, David and welcome to SF.
![]()
Don't worry a bit about being new to the forum, especially if you agree with ME!
![]()
Seriously, there are lots of new people who have useful knowledge and sharing and discussing it is what we are here for.
![]()
Don't worry a bit about being new to the forum, especially if you agree with ME!
Seriously, there are lots of new people who have useful knowledge and sharing and discussing it is what we are here for.
Hi David , welcome
real tracks spill out of bedrooms onto the hallways and around corners, mine wends under and beteen furniture, so light fittings won't solve all (plus not all kids can reach light fittings every time they want to set up their track)
But the main drawback is that either you have to supply an extra power line to every lane change piece, a pain for setting up, the wires and plugs will add to the cost etc etc - or you have to go for a passive track system like SCX, with the LC mechanism built into the car. If you take this course, then you have SCX's problem of lack of compatibility for other makes and existing slot cars...
real tracks spill out of bedrooms onto the hallways and around corners, mine wends under and beteen furniture, so light fittings won't solve all (plus not all kids can reach light fittings every time they want to set up their track)
But the main drawback is that either you have to supply an extra power line to every lane change piece, a pain for setting up, the wires and plugs will add to the cost etc etc - or you have to go for a passive track system like SCX, with the LC mechanism built into the car. If you take this course, then you have SCX's problem of lack of compatibility for other makes and existing slot cars...
Nay, nay and thrice nay!
No, no no!
![]()
1. All power supplied DIRECTLY from the track - no extra wires or plugs, none.
The track rails ARE the wires.
2. Omni-directional Infra-red transmitter does not need to be carefully postioned anywhere in particular - it bounces around beautifully.
3. Although nothing to do with the Infra-red principle and unlikely to become a de-facto standard, the SCX system, in principle, has a lot going for it, not least its potentially MUCH cheaper passive Lane Changers, of which one really needs quite a few for flexible racing.
A bit off topic, but not much, I just discovered that the dainty little remote control for my VIDEO CAMERA is programmable to operate the TV AND the VHS VCR too - all three separately!
It's VERY flexible.
No, no no!
1. All power supplied DIRECTLY from the track - no extra wires or plugs, none.
The track rails ARE the wires.
2. Omni-directional Infra-red transmitter does not need to be carefully postioned anywhere in particular - it bounces around beautifully.
3. Although nothing to do with the Infra-red principle and unlikely to become a de-facto standard, the SCX system, in principle, has a lot going for it, not least its potentially MUCH cheaper passive Lane Changers, of which one really needs quite a few for flexible racing.
A bit off topic, but not much, I just discovered that the dainty little remote control for my VIDEO CAMERA is programmable to operate the TV AND the VHS VCR too - all three separately!
It's VERY flexible.
Joined
·
1,698 Posts
Hi Tropi,
I have a feeling our resident gurus (who could probably clarify this issue in a couple of paragraphs) are sitting this thread out, so that we hoi polloi are kept busy
![]()
The only contribution (?) I can make is : look at model trains. Their functional requirements are very similar to MCPL, and they've had plenty of time and qualified people to arrive at the optimum solution
AFAIK a few manufacturers developed RC and IR type controls, but DCC has been embraced by the near totality of users - so there's got to be a valid technical reason
Besides, IR wouldn't work with my track !!
![]()
![]()
Beppe
I have a feeling our resident gurus (who could probably clarify this issue in a couple of paragraphs) are sitting this thread out, so that we hoi polloi are kept busy
The only contribution (?) I can make is : look at model trains. Their functional requirements are very similar to MCPL, and they've had plenty of time and qualified people to arrive at the optimum solution
AFAIK a few manufacturers developed RC and IR type controls, but DCC has been embraced by the near totality of users - so there's got to be a valid technical reason
Besides, IR wouldn't work with my track !!
Beppe
Joined
·
355 Posts
Well, I'm not a guru, but I'll give it my best shot anywayI have a feeling our resident gurus (who could probably clarify this issue in a couple of paragraphs) are sitting this thread out, so that we hoi polloi are kept busy![]()
I agree that DCC has several things going for it:
1) It's simple ... my favorite motto
2) It's cheap ... that'll get the attention of the manufacturers
3) It's got a very high signal to noise ratio, using very low impedance +/-12V power signals.
4) It's relatively immune to interference compared to the wireless alternatives.
5) It will support DC signals, eliminating the need for DC free scrambling or DC free encoding.
6) It's fast enough for this application to work without noticeable lag.
Well, that does it then ... IR is obviously not an alternativeBesides, IR wouldn't work with my track !!![]()
![]()
IMHO IR would be very usefull for providing the link from car to track. This link must support two functions:
1) Identify the car at a precise location and time, to support lap timing.
2) Identify if the car want to change lane, to support lane switching.
... just my $0,02
Søren
Beppe
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
[/quote]
Joined
·
1,698 Posts
What did I tell you Tropi ?
BTW, I agree that IR looks like the most practical way for the car > track link - this doesn't come from me (for all I know, it could be homing pigeons !!), but from several knowledgeable people I've asked
And, my track will provide a very comfy environment for that, what with everything running in a semi-dark channel below
Beppe
BTW, I agree that IR looks like the most practical way for the car > track link - this doesn't come from me (for all I know, it could be homing pigeons !!), but from several knowledgeable people I've asked
And, my track will provide a very comfy environment for that, what with everything running in a semi-dark channel below
Beppe
This is actually an interesting thread! And it may well be touching on some of tomorrow's digital control concepts.
Tropi actually has a very valid point about IR. It is a technology that has made huge advances over the years. IR detectors no longer need direct line of sight in order to function - IR, like all light, reflects from surfaces and modern detectors can pick up the much-weakened bounced signals. Yes, some "path" from transmitter to receiver must exist, and it can't be too convoluted but good equipment no longer requires accurate aiming by the user.
Beyond IR though, is a vast range of other wireless technologies. Take a look at a modern cellular phone for example. Take one apart and look at the circuitry. 90% of the unit's bulk is there just to house the battery, provide us with a viewable screen, and give us buttons almost large enough that we can actually see them! Yet they contain a transmitter, receiver, microprocessor, display and other interface circuits, and more memory than the first PCs! Wireless mice, keyboards, LANs, etc. are some of the areas where the very sort of technology that may suit us is being advanced in earnest today (and they are already very old news!).
DCC, and related technologies, are quite antiquated. I really doubt that they will survive much longer IF digital control really takes off in the marketplace. Our application is, in reality, so simple that it could be done with a single chip and one or two tiny external components.
As for whether the future, in slots, is wireless, or via the power rails, I'm not going to speculate on that. But I doubt that it will look anything like it does now in five years - if it is still around.
Tropi actually has a very valid point about IR. It is a technology that has made huge advances over the years. IR detectors no longer need direct line of sight in order to function - IR, like all light, reflects from surfaces and modern detectors can pick up the much-weakened bounced signals. Yes, some "path" from transmitter to receiver must exist, and it can't be too convoluted but good equipment no longer requires accurate aiming by the user.
Beyond IR though, is a vast range of other wireless technologies. Take a look at a modern cellular phone for example. Take one apart and look at the circuitry. 90% of the unit's bulk is there just to house the battery, provide us with a viewable screen, and give us buttons almost large enough that we can actually see them! Yet they contain a transmitter, receiver, microprocessor, display and other interface circuits, and more memory than the first PCs! Wireless mice, keyboards, LANs, etc. are some of the areas where the very sort of technology that may suit us is being advanced in earnest today (and they are already very old news!).
DCC, and related technologies, are quite antiquated. I really doubt that they will survive much longer IF digital control really takes off in the marketplace. Our application is, in reality, so simple that it could be done with a single chip and one or two tiny external components.
As for whether the future, in slots, is wireless, or via the power rails, I'm not going to speculate on that. But I doubt that it will look anything like it does now in five years - if it is still around.
One quick thing...
SCX did IR controllers... No-one uses them... Why?
Because the transmission rates are not high enough to make a responsive controller. The car is always a fraction of a second behind the trigger position. And it IS noticable.
Obviously the RC car does not require such high speed changes of direction and speed (because it's an £8.99 toy) and therefore it isn't noticable...
Surprised no-one mentioned that before, I just remembered.
Andy
SCX did IR controllers... No-one uses them... Why?
Because the transmission rates are not high enough to make a responsive controller. The car is always a fraction of a second behind the trigger position. And it IS noticable.
Obviously the RC car does not require such high speed changes of direction and speed (because it's an £8.99 toy) and therefore it isn't noticable...
Surprised no-one mentioned that before, I just remembered.
Andy
Speed of gravity, JP? If you fall out of an airplane (God forbid!), you will fall at what? About 120 MPH? Speed of light? 186,000 MPS! The only thing faster than light is the speed of female gossip!
![]()
![]()
![]()
Wait a minute!
![]()
I may have discovered the key to the future of digital!
![]()
I'm kidding, ladies.....
![]()
Wait a minute!
I'm kidding, ladies.....
Gravity waves travel through space almost instantaneously - much faster than the speed of light!
(some say)
Joined
·
10 Posts
To an electronic moron like me, infra-red just seems so much simpler than mixing control and power on the same transmission 'lines' with all its problems. I LOVE simple!
I love simple too. Slot racing was one of the few hobbies with it's concept and mechanics still pretty much like it was in the 60's until DIGITAL came along. As Robert Schleicher says in the newest issue of MCR, this is another hobby. I guess there is a place for it and I like the idea of more realism but, more electronics means more problems. Reliving childhood days just became harder. Pretty soon we'll be driving our slot cars on a video screen produced by Nintendo. Nothing is sacred anymore!Mike![]()
Old guard thinking. I suppose from his perspective it is another hobby. From my perspective, it is a better hobby.
I agree, digital is in its infancy and there are growing pains. Complexity level does not concern me. Digital slot cars have less complexity than RC and RC is very popular. It still meets the primary objective which is to get me off the computer, and the additional "complexity" is not a problem for those in the computer generation.
People get smarter all the time and demand more from their hobbies. Digtal meets my expectations in that way and Im excited to be an early adopter. Having run Carrera Digital on a moderately large road course I am seeing the potential. The light really "goes on" when you accidentally jump lanes and realize you still have control of the car. No more riders! Throttle response is identical to analog so from driving perspective, you do not know it is digital.
I agree, digital is in its infancy and there are growing pains. Complexity level does not concern me. Digital slot cars have less complexity than RC and RC is very popular. It still meets the primary objective which is to get me off the computer, and the additional "complexity" is not a problem for those in the computer generation.
People get smarter all the time and demand more from their hobbies. Digtal meets my expectations in that way and Im excited to be an early adopter. Having run Carrera Digital on a moderately large road course I am seeing the potential. The light really "goes on" when you accidentally jump lanes and realize you still have control of the car. No more riders! Throttle response is identical to analog so from driving perspective, you do not know it is digital.
All HAS to be simple for me, incapable of anything clever .. ..
So, to avoid complexity / expense / incompatibility in the car, we have "rail-powered" active change sections ?
Now we need to talk to the car :
IR still looks viable. Number of posters have vouched for non-line-of-sight performance, speed, and signalling capacity. If not, there's now Bluetooth, wiFi, PMR radio etc. Constraints being cost, component availability (hence curiosity for codes on Carrera car chips) and speed of signal interpretation.
Then the car needs to talk to the change section :
What needs to be said ? Change or not ? Left or Right ? Not complex surely. Seems real need is for simple /cheap / very robust ? Ideal for IR ?
And what about collision avoidance ? Or do we like bouncing off each other ?
Just trying to gather the better thinking of others and complete the solution.
David
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
