Large Scale Central

Revolution

Electronics DCC
#41

Tom Stephens said:

Bruce Chandler said:

Tom Stephens said:

I think the Revolution people have addressed one of our complaints.

Transmitter VER.3.03 has added support for “Clone TX” function.

It would make it easy to have multiple transmitters with the same locos programmed in them.

Makes me happy!

Tom

Nice. How does one upgrade?

Bruce

Here is a link to the procedure.

TX Clone

I would guess that both transmitters would have to be upgraded to V3.03 first.

Tom

Definitely a step in the right direction. Have a “master” TX and clone all the other ones from it when you make changes.

#42

“.…a step in the right direction. Have a “master” TX and clone all the other ones from it when you make changes…”

Similiar to what I do with our cordless phone(s) set.

doug c

#43

Tom Stephens said:

Bruce Chandler said:

Tom Stephens said:

I think the Revolution people have addressed one of our complaints.

Transmitter VER.3.03 has added support for “Clone TX” function.

It would make it easy to have multiple transmitters with the same locos programmed in them.

Makes me happy!

Tom

Nice. How does one upgrade?

Bruce

Here is a link to the procedure.

TX Clone

I would guess that both transmitters would have to be upgraded to V3.03 first.

Tom

They added a note to the end of this “TX Clone” procedure. Read it before cloning TX.

Tom

#44

The Revolution ad in the February issue of Garden Railways was for Revolution DCC!

A few weeks ago they had a 2amp HO DCC receiver on their web site, but it disappeared shortly.

I could use that on some of my G stuff.

I wish I knew when their DCC stuff would come out. I would like to know more about it.

Tom

#45

David’s comment about designers not using their product made me laugh.

I have a 1958 MGA that I work on to keep on the road. I am convinced that the engineers that designed it were convinced they would never have to work on it. “Now why would they put that there? Whatever were they thinking.”

#46

Tom, it will be a form of “deadrail” as described on the other threads.

I’ve got some advance information, and will share it when it can be made public.

Greg

#47

Steve Featherkile said:

David’s comment about designers not using their product made me laugh.

I have a 1958 MGA that I work on to keep on the road. I am convinced that the engineers that designed it were convinced they would never have to work on it. “Now why would they put that there? Whatever were they thinking.”

Steve, I have asked that question a lot over the years of working on copiers. What were they thinking? Oh, yea, that’s right, they weren’t thinking. Like “hey lets put the electronics, including the hard drive, in a slide out tray so its easy to get to. Good idea. And lets put the slide out try over the fusing units that runs at 195°C.” Really? What were they thinking?

#48

Greg Elmassian said:

Tom, it will be a form of “deadrail” as described on the other threads.

I’ve got some advance information, and will share it when it can be made public.

Greg

Greg

I have seen the term “deadrail” before. It seems like that is a vague term that could be

used to describe any system that does not use the rail for power or control of the train.

It seems like a wind-up train would be a dead rail system. Maybe the term was created with that in mind.

It looks like this will be a system that transmits the DCC signal to the remote DCC receiver/booster.

I guess that would allow the user to do as he pleases with the output of the receiver. More than likely

it would be used to provide input to a motion and/or sound decoder most of the time.

Tom

#49

Yes, from looking at the word itself, could be anything not rail powered.

But deadrail is defined… and it’s being used for a way to transmit a DCC signal over a wireless link to a receiver that passes DCC power and signal to a DCC decoder.

Yep, intended to go directly to a DCC decoder.

https://www.deadrailsociety.com/

Greg

#50

“Deadrail” is not limited to wireless DCC. It covers all flavors of wireless battery-powered control. Here’s a link to “dead rail suppliers” from the Dead Rail Society’s web site. It includes DCC-based systems from CVP (Airwire) and Tam Valley Depot, but also DelTang, G-Scale Graphics, MRC (LocoGenie), and BlueRail. None of those 4 examples are DCC.

Later,

K

#51

Kevin Strong said:

“Deadrail” is not limited to wireless DCC. It covers all flavors of wireless battery-powered control. Here’s a link to “dead rail suppliers” from the Dead Rail Society’s web site. It includes DCC-based systems from CVP (Airwire) and Tam Valley Depot, but also DelTang, G-Scale Graphics, MRC (LocoGenie), and BlueRail. None of those 4 examples are DCC.

Later,

K

This is the best “daffynition” of Deadrail that I’ve seen. Thanks, Kevin.

#52

Yeah, I missed the " Some of the most recent are not DCC compatible." on the site.

Well, I guess the definition has changed…

Greg

#53

Greg Elmassian said:

Yeah, I missed the " Some of the most recent are not DCC compatible." on the site.

Well, I guess the definition has changed…

Greg

Have you read their home page?

"Dead Rail Society

No track power, no problem.

Battery power and radio control,

The future of model railroading! "

That would indicate that there is more to Dead Rail than just DCC.

Didn’t you, in another thread, chastise someone for not reading the entire thread (page)? And mention pot, black? Yeah, I’m enjoying this. (https://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-tongue-out.gif)(https://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-laughing.gif)(https://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-innocent.gif)

#54

Yep, mia culpa!

I had not been back to that site since the change where he added the non-DCC systems, and as you see by my quote, it is a recent addition.

so “deadrail” started with DCC, and I’m familiar with Tam Valley stuff, knowing the owner, having been to the “factory” and saw his original “deadrail” some 5 years or so ago.

Did not know people are “expanding it” to all battery. Really think that is a mistake, as the idea of deadrail was to take a track powered “system” and bypass the rails with a transmitter and receiver.

Most battery systems STARTED OUT with no rails.

I’m more impressed by the creativity and technology to take a system based on track power and adapt it to wireless. There’s no creativity taking an already worked out battery R/C system and using it as already designed.

Greg

#55

In the small scales, DCC has been the 800-pound gorilla in the room for 20 years when it comes to advanced control systems. It’s only been in the past 5 or so that battery technology has miniaturized to the point where it’s practical to do battery power in those scales. It makes sense in that environment to build a wireless control system around what folks are already using. Contrast that to wireless systems in large scale, where the concept pre-dates DCC by nearly a decade. There was no one dominant existing protocol, so each manufacturer struck out on their own individual path. The result is a variety of systems with varying degrees of complexity. It’s only been in the past 10 years that we’ve seen DCC make significant inroads into large scale, and the wireless control systems built around DCC are part of that relatively late movement.

Now, I think you’re seeing a bit of an equalization in both arenas. In small scales, you’ve got systems like BlueRail and DelTang offering simpler alternatives in the small scale arena to the DCC/Airwire-based stuff for users who want it, and you’re seeing more players bringing access to wireless DCC in large scale for those who want that. The end result is that the separation between “large scale battery R/C” and small scale “deadrail” is all but disappearing. Manufacturers are simply making their system in varying sizes and capacities for the user to choose from based on need. The software is the same regardless of the size of the trains. Makes sense, and is ultimately much better for the hobby.

Later,

K

#56

I think this thread has been very interesting and informative, but certainly has strayed from Tom’s original question.

So, as I depart:

  1. yes, appears to be a “wireless DCC” system like the original deadrail concept, a transmitter, in this case working on 2.4 GHz transmitting to a receiver in the loco, and the receiver has a DCC booster capable of directly driving a standard DCC decoder.

  2. details forthcoming, and it appears the posting on the Precision RC site was premature.

  3. It appears all the “information” is stored in the hand held (it really must be, because this is not a system of throttles and decoders) (I have screenshots of the transmitter in action)

  4. I would expect the ability to share the locomotive information, i.e. “clone” transmitters will be included. 5. I will post information as I am allowed to.

Regards, Greg

Tom Stephens said:

Does anyone know anything about Revolution DCC?

Tom

#57

Has anyone read through the Revolution DCC manual? It is a little different from what is currently in use.

I’m sure that more experienced DCC users will have lots of comments.

Tom

#58

I basically finished with this thread… the manuals cannot be downloaded now, and they are likely to change. I’m sure I’ll get one to test out, until then I would not take the specs as gospel.

Greg

#59

Greg Elmassian said:

I basically finished with this thread… the manuals cannot be downloaded now, and they are likely to change. I’m sure I’ll get one to test out, until then I would not take the specs as gospel.

Greg

This manual can be downloaded now: http://www.revoelectronics.com/blog/DCC_manual/

Tom

#60

Thank you Tom your link worked just fine. Interesting read but I do have to say at the end of each page it says TENTATIVE

Thanks Richard