Radio Control + Sound?

[Robin2]

Programming should be for additional features.

 

That is a perfectly reasonable point for the generality of users.

 

What model train people refer to as "programming" their DCC chips would be better described as "fine tuning". Somebody had to write the underlying program that runs on the DCC chip and accepts the fine tuning commands.

 

It is that underlying program that needs to be developed for a wireless system by some interested people. So far there is no sign of anyone wishing to contribute to a project like that. I am perfectly happy to share the code I am developing for my own BPR/C system.

 

...R

[Robin2]

I hope my suggestion made sense: simple controller, radio transmission to a Deltino, output for that via DCC++ to a DCC decoder.

That is certainly an option. Now who is going to develop it?

 

I'm not sure it is a direction that greatly interests me. It seems expensive and bulky compared to the space available inside an 00 gauge loco. I reckon on building my "receiver" for about £10 all in (without sound, of course). But perhaps I could be convinced.

 

One thing I am not clear about is this. The usual DCC Loco decoder expects to get power as well as signals from the track. Are you proposing that the Deltino would generate an output "signal" with the amperage necessary for the DCC decoder?

 

DCC chips with sound are prohibitively expensive for me. But I would be interested to explore cheaper DIY options.

 

...R

[davetheroad]

Don't be worried about using Lithium batteries. A good charger will limit the voltage to 4.2V per cell and the battery might have low voltage protection. My batteries don't but my Deltang receivers have customisable low voltage protection on board. I emailed BlueRail about having a similar feature on their boards. Dave Rees replied and they have both track and battery voltage monitoring on the board but have not activated it yet. They will be incorporating it in a update of the App.

[davetheroad]

I just want to see if I can improve the performance by altering the PWM.

 

Switcher, I have some experience with Deltang Prog 4 programming and might be able to help

[Robin2]

The idea is to create a way for someone who has invested in DCC sound decoders, who doesn't use DCC for anything other than driving trains, to go dead rails/battery powered/radio controlled.

Also, re-read post 59: this isn't for everyone.

I understand that that is your aim. What I don't understand is how you hope to get there. Expressing a wish is not likely to be sufficient.

 

Re-read post 59.

That's what the booster does.

 

I had not made the connection between the pararaph where that word appears and a Deltino. The Deltino includes a h-bridge. Is that what you mean by "the booster"?

 

 

 

I reckon I could program an Arduino with a h-bridge to produce the output that a DCC chip takes as input. However if negative voltages are required the hardware (but not the software) would be a bit more complex.

 

But it seems to me that is a relatively small part of the system and the other parts need to be properly defined before it is worth doing any work on this. Most importantly this whole thing would be a complete waste of time unless the total package can fit in a locomotive.

 

...R

[Robin2]

I can fit a 2AH 1S battery into the boiler of my models, with a speaker in the smokeox. There is room for a quality decoder, e.g. The Zimo series, plus a Pololu voltage regulator and switch. What I don't know is if there is a small enough Arduino, and where I would put the aerial/antenna in a metal bodied engine. My thought is of a ceramic antenna in the coal space, be that bunker or tender.

 

That sounds like you have all the parts except the wireless and the "booster" - and you have a generous amount of space.

 

I presume you know the size of a Deltino. The antenna is very small and would be unobtrusive if sticking out through a hole.

 

I put the word "booster" in quotes because I am still not clear what you have in mind. If you are referring to a specific commercial product perhaps you can post a link to it. In my vision of things the h-bridge on the Deltino would be the booster - does that help to explain my confusion.

 

 

...R

[Robin2]

look at the second link in the post,

 

That LMD18200 looks like a useful device, thanks. I have saved a copy of the datasheet. I have not checked its price and its minimum voltage is 12v which is too high for me - but would be fine for DCC. However it is quite big and there may be suitable smaller devices if you don't need a 3 amp output.

 

I just had a quick look at the Deltino website and I don't think those devices can operate at voltages as high as DCC requires.

 

...R

[Switcher102]

Switcher, I have some experience with Deltang Prog 4 programming and might be able to help

Oh that's excellent Dave, thanks. When I get around to it, it might be a good idea to start a new thread on that to help others or even introduce them to its advantages.

 

Now to get down to trying to understand these other replies which at first glance seem to be going way over my head.

 

Rich

[SimonME46]

Hi Folks

I've been beavering away trying to find a way to get JMRI with its VSD to talk to my locos. As indicated above, I'm not that keen on the wifi + DCC solution, meaning ESU Loksound Decoder AUD200 per loco, plus AUD22 for a speaker, plus whatever extra Arduino etc are suggested to get rather poor sound + BPRC.

 

My geek friends suggested I look at ESP8266 wifi. Looks like I could have an off the shelf solution for AUD30.00. AUD150 gets me a Logitech 5:1 sounds system, and I'd need a Pi Hat to drive it.

 

https://tronixlabs.com.au/arduino/boards/wireless/wemos-d1-mini-arduino-compatible-esp8266-wifi-australia/

 

https://tronixlabs.com.au/esp8266/wemos-esp8266/wemos-d1-mini-motor-shield-tb6612fng-australia/

 

https://tronixlabs.com.au/esp8266/power-shield-for-wemos-d1-mini-australia/

 

The wifi idea has been explored somewhat http://members.iinet.net.au/~backway/DWiC/DWiCintroduction.html

 

My geek friends may be able to assist with the extra code to send the commands from JMRI, noting that plugins for say xbee may be an assist.

[SimonME46]

Getting somewhere I think. Found a JMRI IoT directory http://jmri.org/jython/IoT/

[Robin2]

I may have said this before (because I had forgotten that I investigated it 12 months ago) but I have just been experimenting and it is possible to get good quality sound from an Arduino and an SD Card - and probably a single transistor as an amplifier. An Atmega Attiny and a micro-SDCard holder would take up very little space.

 

That would allow you to have BPR/C and sound without needing any DCC chip.

 

Now, where do we get the sound files?

 

...R

[Robin2]

Alternatively, you might now understand why getting a simple interface between a radio controller and a DCC decoder is a cheaper and easier option.

I am hoping that some people might be interested in contributing some Open Source sounds.

 

You can buy a music CD for £10 or so. I don't see why one has to pay £100 or thereabouts for train sounds - you don't even have to pay the musician!

 

...R

[SimonME46]

I may have said this before (because I had forgotten that I investigated it 12 months ago) but I have just been experimenting and it is possible to get good quality sound from an Arduino and an SD Card - and probably a single transistor as an amplifier. An Atmega Attiny and a micro-SDCard holder would take up very little space.

 

That would allow you to have BPR/C and sound without needing any DCC chip.

 

Now, where do we get the sound files?

 

...R

But then you need to program a sound schema to play the library of wav files. That is why I am looking at the JMRI VSD. And also in N gauge, the speakers would be tiny, albeit you shouldn't have much volume from a small model. The reason I want under baseboard sound is for bass and also DCC speaker volumes are a bit underwhelming for O gauge. Paul Chester did post up the files for a std class 5 which could be used to experiment, and then do as Simon suggests and record your own.

[Robin2]

Making these 'sounds' costs money in travel expenses, food, accommodation and donations to the locomotives owning group, which then deters sharing when others in the 'Open Source' group don't contribute and things get out of hand.

 

This is a very sad reflection on the model railway community when you contrast it with the free time worth £millions that is routinely contributed by the Open Source software community.

 

...R

[SimonME46]

Apparently the train sim community have some excellent sound libraries, some of which is open source?

[Robin2]

Apparently the train sim community have some excellent sound libraries, some of which is open source?

Do you have any relevant links?

 

...R

[SimonME46]

Do you have any relevant links?

 

...R

Like this? http://www.uktrainsim.com/filelib-info.php?form_fileid=6481

[Robin2]

I think you should consider reframing your words, if not apologising, to the "model railway community" you so casually slur.

Sorry, but based on the comment I responded to I don't think any apology is required. Especially as you seem to be confirming @Doddy's point of view.

 

I don't think anyone in the model railway community who is actually making an Open Source contribution will be offended. And, presumably, the others are happy with their profits and consider me a communist.

 

...R

[Robin2]

Like this? http://www.uktrainsim.com/filelib-info.php?form_fileid=6481

Thanks. That looks very interesting.

 

...R

[Spotlc]

He states why, and that he thinks the £10 extra charge is a it high.

I agree with him on the facts, but never expressed anything as my point of view with respect to his.

The simple fact is, access to good sounds costs time and money, and only a few individuals have done it.

You have lost me there. I was talking about your remark denigrating railway modellers compared to a group of people doing something different. The is no link between the two, and I am not sure how you made the leap to railway modellers making contributions to open source.

My point was, DCC sound decoders are a business proposition, with very, very few providers doing this. As a business.

Open Source software projects are cooperative entities working towards a common goal, with many contributors. As a hobby, or an ideological commitment.

They are different things.

What you did, was to glibly complain about all railway modellers in comparison to OS participants.

You may not have meant to refer to all railway modellers, but that is what you did.

They probably realise that under communism, model railways would be a frivolous bourgeois pastime and therefore banned, that Open Source software would be a serious subversion of State control of software development, and that communism has been shown to fail, and only an idiot would wish to compare himself to one, but if you must draw such a comparison, having insulted what you referred to as "the community of railway modellers", then go ahead.

I'm not bothered, personally, but in my opinion, superficial understanding of control systems other than the one which works for you is not a good basis for casually criticising them.

 

If what you are saying is that you don't like paying for someone else's work, then please simply say so. I am sure that you will find plenty of support amongst others with a similar viewpoint.

Simon, what a pity that this interesting thread has been reduced to thinly veiled invective. I am new to R/C controlled model railways, though not model railways in general, and looked to RMweb as a source of information and ideas about the latest developments, and hitherto have found it useful.

 

However, it is becoming clear that in certain quarters there is a rearguard action being fought by people who have invested heavily in DCC, particularly onboard DCC sound, and while this is perfectly understandable, I'm not sure if it is really relevant to the way R/C train control is going to develop.

 

I am reminded of the fierce arguments which took place in the 1980's about the superiority of Sony Betamax versus VHS video tape systems, only to see the whole discussion rendered obsolete by the arrival of DVD's! Whenever new ideas are suggested or tried there are a multitude of deniers ready to dismiss them as either unwanted or irrelevant, but if an idea takes off, like DCC for example, they quickly become among it's champions.

 

Of course, the control systems developed for DCC have much to offer for the development of R/C train control, - they both have the same objective and it is pointless re-inventing the wheel, - but their associaton is neither mandatory, or even necessary.

 

 Finally, I suggest we keep our political views separate from our model railways, which are only a hobby, but just for the record, I have been a Marxist for most of my very long adult life, and without boring you with my personal details, I do object to being called an idiot, - and you might care to reflect that whatever systems might be developed for model railways in the future, they will almost certainly be manufactured in China, the largest communist country in the world, and they are not all idiots either!

 

Mike

[Robin2]

PS Public apologies to Robin: my response was more robust that it really should have been.

Apology accepted without reservations.

 

I guess I see two strands to this sound subject.

 

On the one hand I can see Simon's view that the existing value in DCC sound equipped decoders can be leveraged by BPR/C.

 

On the other hand it should be possible to produce sound at very much lower cost without needing the expensive DCC decoders. For obvious reasons the non-DCC sound quality may be inferior to start with, but there is no reason why it could not develop if there is interest in it.

 

I had the impression around about Reply #66 that Simon was close to a concept which would marry the two very conveniently. It would be great to see that taken forward. But someone in the modelling community has to take responsibility to do that. I can't see the existing DCC manufacturers having sufficient interest. IMHO if Simon (or someone else) does not try to take this forward all the discussion will have been wasted.

 

Even though I am not really interested in on-board sound for 00 or N Gauge even if it was cheap (and I have no space for anything bigger) I am prepared to help with the RC programming. In principle if you can get an RC device to produce a DCC signal it can control any type of DCC chip - with or without sound.

 

And if someone is interested in non-DCC BPR/C I would also be interested in that.

 

...R

[Robin2]

This is a poorly lit photograph of the nRF24L01+ transceiver that I am using for my 00 gauge trains. The squiggly bit at the bottom is the antenna. Obviously it would not work inside a metal body but it may be possible to replace that antenna with a short piece of wire as on the Deltino modules. In either case the antenna is very small.

 

The other smaller chip is an Atmel Attiny1634 which I am proposing to use as the "computer". It can be programmed with the Arduino IDE.

 

There would also need to be a h-bridge. The one I am using is about the size of the nRF24 without the antenna part but a somewhat larger one may be needed for larger gauges.

 

The marks on the grid are at 10mm intervals and there is also a £1 coin for comparison.

 

 

For anyone who may be interested in non-DCC sound I believe it could be done with another Attiny1634, a micro-SD card and a one transistor amplifier. (Assuming of course that the sounds were prepared and put on the SD card on a PC).

 

...R

[Mike Storey]

Sorry to intrude, but haven't S-Cab already cracked this particular nut using DCC? I understand you may be seeking a cheaper solution, and perhaps non-DCC, but the mechanics of radio controlled, dead rail sound, in HO, seem already to be have been conquered? Sure the technology can be improved and further miniaturised, but what is your aim with this thread?

[Robin2]

but what is your aim with this thread?

I like tinkering with computer stuff and I like Open Source alternatives.

 

And it is the general opinion among economists that competition is "a good thing"

 

...R

[SimonME46]

This topic has certainly warmed up

I'm still beavering away on my wi-fi options, and have been patiently waiting for trainboard.com to recover from a hacking incident. I'm part way through reading all of the 76 pages of DCC++ introductory/development thread in the hope that I might turn up a wi-fi decoder sketch. I'm not holding my breath and must admit to being at a bit of a loss as to why this is the case! I have turned up something close at http://www.trainelectronics.com/DCC_Arduino/DCC++/RECEIVER/index.htm however I note that this is using an RF transmitter. My thinking is that RF is fine when there is little radio traffic (eg at home), however this and IMHO the Tam Valley solution would fall over in an exhibition environment. Hence the preference for the Deltang solution, and I gather wi-fi should be very robust as well as mainstream.

 

For Simon Dunkley, one option could be a battery powered onboard DCC++ 'base station', and connect directly to the DCC decoder power wires, rather than the rails. They normally use an arduino mega+ motor shield + wifi shield. You might be able to get a small device which has the requirements to run that sketch?