DCC sub-forum area re-structure

[JohnR]

I agree that the DCC section needs alteration - but probably more, and distinct sections, rather than amalgamating sections!

 

If the need to move topics is a problem, could Ron Ron Ron be a mod just for the DCC section?

[Mike Storey]

I support Ron3's assertions.

 

It would be highly confusing to merge all the DCC topics, and much harder to navigate queries and help.

[Ron Ron Ron]

.......this morning an old post of mine was moved and now it's disappeared.

 

Dave Smith

 

 

Is that post a topic you started?

If so, was it about a Cobalt PSU2+ power supply?

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/138434-cobalt-psu2-power-supply-for-nce-power-pro/

 

If I've got the right one, that topic is currently at the bottom of page 4 and shortly to move back to page 5, unless another post is added to it, or it's "bumped".

 

Ron

 

 

 

.

[GoingUnderground]

I agree with Ron, keep it as it is. It works for me.

 

Folks will always post in the wrong sections no matter what you do, but the current division is logical. There will always be potential cross-overs, for instance is asking for help fitting a decoder a Help or a Fitting topic.

 

I also agree with Nigel that streaming or grouping by manufacturer won't work because almost everyone mixes snd matches products from different makers on their layouts.

 

But DCC isn't the only digital control system even though it is far and away the most common in the UK. There's also the two Maerklin systems MM and mfx, and the DCS system ftom MTH. There was a system from Lionel called Trainmaster Command (TMCC), the old Selectrix system from German Trix, plus the defunct Hornby Zero 1.

 

So should there be a sub-forum for non-DCC digital control systems? Or as the guy in the local toy shop used to say when asked if he had a particular model in stock, "There's no demand for it".

[dasatcopthorne]

Is that post a topic you started?

If so, was it about a Cobalt PSU2+ power supply?

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/138434-cobalt-psu2-power-supply-for-nce-power-pro/

 

If I've got the right one, that topic is currently at the bottom of page 4 and shortly to move back to page 5, unless another post is added to it, or it's "bumped".

 

Ron

 

 

 

.

 

 

Wrong one.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Wrong one.

 

 

OK

I didn't know if that would be helpful or not.

[Tricky Dicky]

I am with those who want to leave well alone. What I think you might want to consider is to change computer control in special interests to Automation & Computer Control as many questions on both seem to crop up in the DCC sections. It might also be useful to direct questions/discussions on automation and computer control to that relevant sub-forum.

 

Richard

[Sir TophamHatt]

I can see merit in merging the "questions" and "discussion" together, but perhaps making the titles a little more specific would be better - I like the idea of "news and discussion" to show it's DCC news and subjects about the system as a whole.

 

While I get not everyone uses DCC, it might be worth looking at something a little more major, like having a "DC" section and a "DCC" section that mirror each other in terms of subsections (to a degree). DCC is only going to grow, and I can imagine DC is slowly on the decline.

 

At the moment, I see most people post in the "modelling help and questions" which covers everything - it's easy to allow topics to be pushed down and usually has the same caveat of question replies: "DC or DCC?". Splitting this up into two sections would stop this and allow focused discussions on either mode of power.

 

Having "Sound" in it's own subsection is better.

I'd consider adding more subsections like "decoders" or "power supplies" that can involve questions and discussions instead of lumping everything together in one main section but then there's a risk of creating too many forums with too many subsections. The plus is focusing discussion on particular subjects all in one place.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Sir TophamHatt

[WIMorrison]

Can I make the case for Computer Control to be moved under DCC because DCC and Computer Control are so intrisically linked? It may be true than when the forum was placed under 'Special Interests' it was a niche activity whereas that is now far from the case. It is a very much discussed subject elsewhere and it seems wrong to deny the existence of computer control by hiding it as I explain below.

 

Currently anyone looking for it won't find it - this is what you see if you land at the front page

 

 

and even when you look into Special Interest, assuming you had some reasoning for assuming Computer Control is 'special interest' then what you will see is all sorts of prototype forums with Computer Control being totally lost in the myriad of other subjects

 

 

and finally, I suggest that the complete lack of activity is because people cannot find it which would also explain the questions asked in the DCC about computer control programmes because the poster has been unable to find the right forum

 

I have asked a question with a poll about it being moved, and the 4 people who said No to moving it have never asked a question within Computer Control, nor do they seem to have any interest in the subject therefore I would question the validity of any vote they made and I think that the lack of votes and comments is down to no one knowing that the forum exists!

Edited December 13, 2018 by WIMorrison

[Bucoops]

Can I make the case for Computer Control to be moved under DCC because DCC and Computer Control are so intrisically linked? It may be true than when the forum was placed under 'Special Interests' it was a niche activity whereas that is now far from the case. It is a very much discussed subject elsewhere and it seems wrong to deny the existence of computer control by hiding it as I explain below.

 

Currently anyone looking for it won't find it - this is what you see if you land at the front page

 

special insterest 1.jpg

 

and even when you look into Special Interest, assuming you had some reasoning for assuming Computer Control is 'special interest' then what you will see is all sorts of prototype forums with Computer Control being totally lost in the myriad of other subjects

 

special insterest 3.jpg

 

and finally, I suggest that the complete lack of activity is because people cannot find it which would also explain the questions asked in the DCC about computer control programmes because the poster has been unable to find the right forum

special insterest 2.jpg

 

I have asked a question with a poll about it being moved, and the 4 people who said No to moving it have never asked a question within Computer Control, nor do they seem to have any interest in the subject therefore I would question the validity of any vote they made and I think that the lack of votes and comments is down to no one knowing that the forum exists!

 

To add weight to this - until now I didn't know there was a computer control section - I would have asked any questions on that in the DCC bit anyway!

[Gordon H]

Can I make the case for Computer Control to be moved under DCC because DCC and Computer Control are so intrisically linked?

No, they're not. They only appear to be so because DCC has been seen as an easy route for achieving it.

[WIMorrison]

The subtly in your post in trying to draw a line between DCC (which is a trademark)  and Computer Control escapes me as they are both the same thing achieving the same objective using the same technology - unless you are using some form of analogue computer but I haven't seen or used one of them for 40 years or more, they are all digital now.

Edited December 13, 2018 by WIMorrison

[GoingUnderground]

There is a case for a 5th DCC sub-forum for DCC & Computer Control for the users of Freiwald RailRoad & Co, iTrain, RocRail, etc. which rely on DCC. I suspect that the existing forum isn't used much because of the price of some of the software, and the amount of time needed to get it working properly on many layouts.

[DaveArkley]

The subtly in your post in trying to draw a line between DCC (which is a trademark)  and Computer Control escapes me as they are both the same thing achieving the same objective using the same technology - unless you are using some form of analogue computer but I haven't seen or used one of them for 40 years or more, they are all digital now.

 

Not the same thing at all. Imagine I hook an irDot to a piece of track and an Arduino, then code the Arduino to drive a servo to lower level crossing gates. No DCC in there.

 

Most layouts using computer control will be DCC, but neither presupposes the other.

 

Cheers

Dave

[Vistisen]

Motion carried in time for lunch; I like that.

We have confidence in........

[WIMorrison]

Not the same thing at all. Imagine I hook an irDot to a piece of track and an Arduino, then code the Arduino to drive a servo to lower level crossing gates. No DCC in there.

 

Most layouts using computer control will be DCC, but neither presupposes the other.

 

Cheers

Dave

 

And when I code it using Java to operate a servo motor using a current sensing circuit that informs my computer there is something drawing current and I want the java code to operate the servo to shut the gate I achieve exactly the same function as you have and both methods are digital, excepting the detection which is - and in my case using a DAC in you case an IR detector.

 

There is no difference, a computer controls both activities - one happens to use Java from Oracle using an Intel processor, the other uses an arduino (which can use the same computer I use to programme it)

[DaveArkley]

And when I code it using Java to operate a servo motor using a current sensing circuit that informs my computer there is something drawing current and I want the java code to operate the servo to shut the gate I achieve exactly the same function as you have and both methods are digital, excepting the detection which is - and in my case using a DAC in you case an IR detector.

 

There is no difference, a computer controls both activities - one happens to use Java from Oracle using an Intel processor, the other uses an arduino (which can use the same computer I use to programme it)

 

Sorry you missed my point. It is digital, but not DCC. You claimed computer control and DCC are the same thing. I was pointing out why they are not.

 

Anyway my vote is for keeping Computer Control as a special interest section, so those who want read about some kind of automation, without DCC, can find it.

 

Cheers

Dave

Edited December 13, 2018 by DaveArkley

[GoingUnderground]

Sorry you missed my point. It is digital, but not DCC. You claimed computer control and DCC are the same thing. I was pointing out why they are not.

 

Anyway my vote is for keeping Computer Control as a special interest section, so those who want read about some kind of automation, without DCC, can find it.

 

Cheers

Dave

 

And digital control of a layout doesn't have to be DCC. Just ask a Maerklin user.

[newbryford]

And digital control of a layout doesn't have to be DCC. Just ask a Maerklin user.

 

Sometimes I use two fingers for digital control.........

 

[WIMorrison]

As I said before DCC is a trade mark, and too many people forget that.

 

It is simply another form of digital control, like the many other forms of digital control and what I am proposing - as have others - is that all forms of digital control come together under this grouping since they are all simply different versions of the same thing.

[Gordon H]

DCC is merely a convenient way of combining both power and control over a single pair of connections, i.e. the two rails.

If anything, DCC should be regarded as a subset of Computer Control rather than the other way round.

The various control busses that are now being developed and used (MERG CBUS, NMRA LCC, etc) are also applications of computer/digital technology - but they don't necessarily have to use DCC to achieve their ends.

Chances are in most cases that DCC would be used as the means of delivery of power and control to the trains because that is what it is good at, but it remains a servant to the higher system which can achieve much better results for accessories by other, more appropriate means.

[Ron Ron Ron]

DCC is merely a convenient way of combining both power and control over a single pair of connections, i.e. the two rails......

 

 

 

That's not necessarily true Gordon.

Although originally conceived and mostly used in that format, as an alternative, wireless transmission of (NMRA) DCC exists and is used by a few systems, most commonly in 'dead rail" applications.

 

.

[Gordon H]

That's not necessarily true Gordon.

Although originally conceived and mostly used in that format, as an alternative, wireless transmission of (NMRA) DCC exists and is used by a few systems, most commonly in 'dead rail" applications.

 

.

DCC in its original guise is exactly how I described it.

Now that its components have been further developed to allow the same data to be transmitted wirelessly, and an independent power source used, is a separate matter.

The fact is that combining the power and controls in the same signal is how DCC came to the fore, which in itself is quite a neat solution to the original 'problem' it was designed to overcome.

The only reason to use the same data format now for wireless use is for backward compatibility with existing command stations.

If that was not deemed necessary, much better and more comprehensive communication protocols could be used.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Gordon H

[Ron Ron Ron]

DCC in its original guise is exactly how I described it.....

 

I did say as "originally conceived", but you didn't actually say that, even if you meant it.

 

Forgive me; not trying to pick an argument, but just pointing out that your original statement was not entirely correct, from the way I read it.

 

 

Now that its components have been further developed to allow the same data to be transmitted wirelessly.....

Wireless DCC systems have been around for nearly 20 years.

 

 

The fact is that combining the power and controls in the same signal is how DCC came to the fore.....

Indeed.

 

The only reason to use the same data format now for wireless use is for backward compatibility with existing command stations......

Not only with command stations, but mainly backward compatibility with decoders, with or without "existing" DCC command stations.

 

 

If that was not deemed necessary, much better and more comprehensive communication protocols could be used.

Indeed.

However, those more comprehensive communication protocols and systems already exist, but unfortunately outside of a set of common standards endorsed by bodies such as the NMRA and MOROP.

 

 

 

.

[Tricky Dicky]

Not having visited this topic much since my last post I did not realise what a lively debate ensued. In my original post I was careful not to suggest that Automation & Computer Control was put into the DCC section as there is no reason why a DC layout can not be controlled by computer although most equipment and software available is targeted at DCC systems. Also quite a few DC layouts demonstrate automation using readily available kit.

 

My main aim was to establish a single point where these two related topics could be dealt within a single sub forum and not as now across several sub forums. Also without actually saying it, I was making the same point as Iain that the present computer control forum was not getting much action tucked away as it is in the Special Interests section which you have to actually open to get the full list of sub forums.

 

Richard