Railmagic

[martin_wynne]

6 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

I am beginning to wonder if anyone is actually reading the information that we have posted here

 

I'm reading it. But I'm still struggling to understand what these systems are a model of? This is a forum about models of railways. Real railways do not stop trains to the nearest 3 inches (1mm in 00/EM/P4).

 

Martin.

[Andymsa]

7 minutes ago, penguin_sam said:

This is very sad. This hobby is great but so conservative. I think it is fantastic and exciting that young engineers are trying to move the technology on. It's obvious that the long in tooth are going to be resistant to change particularly with large amounts of cash tied up in  legacy systems. Its heartening to know that however much some might wish it, you can't stop the new taking over from the old.

 

no one is against new innovation and progress if you have read through all the posts. I guess you got your order in 

[WIMorrison]

The 1mm requirement was stipulated by @Railmagic. Personally I use +/- 5mm which is what my real train did ever day.

[Andymsa]

9 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

I'm reading it. But I'm still struggling to understand what these systems are a model of? This is a forum about models of railways. Real railways do not stop trains to the nearest 3 inches (1mm in 00/EM/P4).

 

Martin.

Real railways do need to stop with a certain amount of accuracy, which I have to do every day.

 

reading and understanding what is said are two different things.
 

 

[WIMorrison]

10 minutes ago, penguin_sam said:

This is very sad. This hobby is great but so conservative. I think it is fantastic and exciting that young engineers are trying to move the technology on. It's obvious that the long in tooth are going to be resistant to change particularly with large amounts of cash tied up in  legacy systems. Its heartening to know that however much some might wish it, you can't stop the new taking over from the old.

 

Innovation is good and what created trainController, iTrain and a raft of other products however when you are describing your innovation as something that cannot be done by the existing products yet the existing products can do everything then it is not innovation.

 

Presently this product has failed to demonstrate or defend any of the innovation that it has claims to have over the existing products, therefore it isn’t an innovation.

 

Currently it is a marketing campaign which hasn’t demonstrated any innovative ideas that are not already delivered already by other products.

[Andymsa]

22 minutes ago, NIK said:

Hi,

 

I'm trying to understand how TrainController can stop a loco at any position on a layout if no position detectors are fitted to the layout.

 

How does it get position information if no position detectors are fitted?. When I have used TrainController I have had had position detectors fitted to the layout.

 

Regards

 

Nick

Nick,
 

i repeat

 

Railmagic still has to use a detector or how else does it know where to stop the loco.

 

DO YOU USE TRAINCONTROLLER ? You appear to be making statements which show you are not as you do not have a fundamental understanding of how to stop trains in various positions. RFS explained it very well  may I suggest if the manual is not clear look for a YouTube channel Rudysmodelrailway there are a set of videos which explains many aspects of Traincontroller .

[NIK]

31 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

Nick,
 

i repeat

 

Railmagic still has to use a detector or how else does it know where to stop the loco.

 

DO YOU USE TRAINCONTROLLER ? You appear to be making statements which show you are not as you do not have a fundamental understanding of how to stop trains in various positions. RFS explained it very well  may I suggest if the manual is not clear look for a YouTube channel Rudysmodelrailway there are a set of videos which explains many aspects of Traincontroller .

Hi,

 

RailMagic uses one sensor detector inside each loco and magnets placed under the layout.

Does TrainController need position detectors in order to stop a loco at an arbitrary position to an accuracy of 1 millimetre?.

 

Regards

 

Nick

[WIMorrison]

How many times do you want to have this questioned answered?

[Andymsa]

19 minutes ago, NIK said:

Hi,

 

RailMagic uses one sensor detector inside each loco and magnets placed under the layout.

Does TrainController need position detectors in order to stop a loco at an arbitrary position to an accuracy of 1 millimetre?.

 

Regards

 

Nick

 

really 

[NIK]

6 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

How many times do you want to have this questioned answered?

Hi,

 

Perhaps this is a question of me using the phrase position sensors but the question that has not been answered is does TrainController need any physical sensors in order to stop a loco at any arbitrary location to an accuracy of 1mm?.

 

Regards

 

Nick

[RFS]

1 hour ago, NIK said:

Hi,

 

Perhaps this is a question of me using the phrase position sensors but the question that has not been answered is does TrainController need any physical sensors in order to stop a loco at any arbitrary location to an accuracy of 1mm?.

 

Regards

 

Nick

 

NO!! It only needs ONE detector per block! How many times do the three of us have to repeat this? Please take the trouble to read my post, quoted again below. If you don't understand this then I suggest automation is not for you!!

 

 

10 hours ago, RFS said:

 

Nick - if you're really interested in using automation on your layout, then you ought to familiarize yourself with how the main software products - Traincontroller and iTrain - work today. You might find that both of these products actually have all the features you need. Go to the Traincontroller or iTrain website and download the manual for some bedtime reading. 

 

Early versions of Traincontroller required 3 indicators per block, but that all changed in 2005 when version 5 was announced which coincided with the arrival of decoders with BEMF, thereby allowing configurations with a single occupancy dectector per block. Subsequent versions of TC have further exploited BEMF as decoders implemented more accurate versions. Brake and stop markers are no longer physical contacts but virtual contacts (what TC calls shifted brake and stop markers) which are defined as offsets from the start of the block. TC then uses "dead reckoning" with the measured speed profile of the locomotive to position it exactly in a block as you want it to be. 

 

Let me give you an example from my layout.  The main station has its "facilities" in the centre, so I need stopping trains to stop in a convenient place for the passengers. Thus the stop marker is defined as "middle of train". The actual stopping place of a train is that value + half the length of the train, so the train straddles the centre. 2, 4, and 8 car trains all have different stopping places, and all is done with one detector. And platforms are bidirectional so there are markers for both directions. Further, trains which aren't due to stop but have to do so for a signal check (eg freight trains) have their own stop marker which is always end of platform regardless of length. So you see there is great flexibility already.

 

It's all very well for Railmagic to know exactly where a locomotive is anywhere on the layout: you still need the automation program to be able to make use of that information, and as far as I can see they're a very long way from achieving that. And it can't detect anything without a tracker, such as lighted vehicles or vehicles with resistor wheelsets. So it can't deal with coupling failures causing a train to split, for example.

 

[martin_wynne]

does TrainController need any physical sensors in order to stop a loco at any arbitrary location to an accuracy of 1mm? ... ... NO!! It only needs ONE detector per block!

 

If it needs one detector, then the answer to "does it need any?" is clearly YES.

 

Assuming a "sensor" and a "detector" are the same thing?

 

It's no wonder folks are confused.

[NIK]

Hi,

 

So a difference between RailMagic and existing train automation software is that RailMagic requires one tracker in each loco (plus magnets around the layout and RailMagic control unit(s)) and the others need one detector per block (plus feedback bus).

 

I guess if someone was starting a layout from scratch they could make a stab at working out which would be cheaper. However RailMagic have said that a number of types of DCC loco decoders are not accurate enough for RailMagic so that makes things confusing until those DCC decoders are listed.

 

Regards

 

Nick

[Andymsa]

 

57 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

 

 

If it needs one detector, then the answer to "does it need any?" is clearly YES.

 

Assuming a "sensor" and a "detector" are the same thing?

 

It's no wonder folks are confused.

 

There is no confusion at all, I say tomato, you say tamato. There are those who look down on automation with distain and think that no enjoyment can be brought from running the layout and refuse to grasp the concepts or the technical understanding. Now yes there are certain deep aspects of these programs that can be quite deep but the basic bread and butter operations are easy. But if even these easy operations are difficult to understand then automation is probably not for you.

[Andymsa]

40 minutes ago, NIK said:

Hi,

 

So a difference between RailMagic and existing train automation software is that RailMagic requires one tracker in each loco (plus magnets around the layout and RailMagic control unit(s)) and the others need one detector per block (plus feedback bus).

 

I guess if someone was starting a layout from scratch they could make a stab at working out which would be cheaper. However RailMagic have said that a number of types of DCC loco decoders are not accurate enough for RailMagic so that makes things confusing until those DCC decoders are listed.

 

Regards

 

Nick

if you read back through the posts RFS did a cost comparison for his layout. 
 

no confusion at all, the reason being that this 1mm stopping accuracy should be viewed carefully as all locomotives behave differently and even the coding of a decoder between different manufacturers are different. 
 

maybe automation is not for you ?

 

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Andymsa

[Trofimow]

I've been following this discussion with some interest.

 

Railmagic looks interesting given the claims made for it. It will likely find a place in the market if it performs as advertised.

 

Cards on the table, I'm a long time user of Traincontroller, but with a new layout under construction, if a new system comes along offering greater capability, simplicity or economy, now would be the time to consider it.

 

Yes, it's true that I have a large legacy investment in an existing system in terms of time, money and acquired experience, so an alternative has to offer a step change in capability, simplicity or cost, preferably more than one of these.

 

I would also need to see a convincing demonstration of reliability. My layout already has a very busy magnetic environment with every item of motive power fitted with multiple traction magnets, with typically around a dozen in motion at the same time over 5 different levels plus helices. There are also moving magnets for uncoupling and in due course there will again be road vehicles moving using both faller and magnorail systems, all with moving magnets.

 

Add to this the need to modify an existing fleet of locos and multiple units with additional electronics, and I can't see any advantage in my circumstances, which may well be the case for many other existing users of computer control.

[RFS]

5 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

 

 

If it needs one detector, then the answer to "does it need any?" is clearly YES.

 

Assuming a "sensor" and a "detector" are the same thing?

 

It's no wonder folks are confused.

 

There are two ways of telling the software a train has entered a block: a simple current detector (where blocks have IRJs at each end) and a physical switch (eg a reed switch triggered by a passing train which has a magnet fitted to the underside). The terms "sensor" , "detector" and "indicator" mean much the same thing. You would likely need more than one reed switch per block to cater for entry from either direction, but I suspect most modellers today use occupancy detectors now and only one per block with TC and iTrain.

 

There are two issues I see with the Railmagic solution

 

1) You have to physcially hard-wire a tracker into every one of your locomotives

2) Regardless of how accurate its position reporting is, the hardware cannot be used by any other existing automation software so they have to write their own version. Replicating Traincontroller or iTrain will be a mammoth task I would suggest.

Edited August 25, 2021 by RFS
Clarification

[WIMorrison]

Just for the hell of it I replicated the RailMagic comparison table with real world numbers rather than advertising gloss. 

 

 

 

The results show that their figures are optimistic (at best). The price for detectors is not what they quote at $150 per item, you can purchase detectors for $75 per item that provide 16 channels.

 

The cost of RailMagic features has been increased to provide the same level of functionality between the commercial product and the RailMagic offering - if you don't then it is not a true comparison.

 

This suggests to me that the only potential scenario to save money is on the large layout, however as RailMagic cannot actually deliver the functionality of iTrain or TrainController this is a largely academic issue. If we assume that their main target are the frustrated RailMaster users (which I suggest it is), then there is no comparison at all as it will cost them more to adopt an unproven, unfinished and claimed to be a  bleeding edge product which presently has no support community.

 

Food for thought, perhaps 

[RobjUK]

Still no response from Railmagic as to whether their system can cope with other magnets in a layout - switched and/or moving - without the field from those confusing the detectors in the locos?

 

That seems to be the biggest weakpoint to me; software features can always be added in, but if the position detection system cannot cope with typical hardware as used in many layouts, it's a showstopper.

 

[SamThomas]

14 hours ago, RobjUK said:

Still no response from Railmagic as to whether their system can cope with other magnets in a layout - switched and/or moving - without the field from those confusing the detectors in the locos?

 

That seems to be the biggest weakpoint to me; software features can always be added in, but if the position detection system cannot cope with typical hardware as used in many layouts, it's a showstopper.

 

I would hazard a guess that Railmagic has "finished" with this thread.

 

Whilst a lot of the questions &/or comments have been fair & helpful quite a lot that have be unconstructive to say the least.

 

If some of the contributors had been a little less hostile then I'm sure the thread would have been more informative.

 

Clearly, Railmagic is not for some & these members will never use it, so why pick holes in it for the sake of it.

 

Let Railmagic develope their system then when it's fully available, take a positive & constructive look at it & then decide.

[WIMorrison]

All the developers that I know would see the posts as constructive and helpful because they highlight issues seen in the product that need to be addressed.

 

If the points that have raised are invalid, then the website needs to be reworked to remove the misunderstandings that have been only been gained from the information supplied on the RailMagic website.

 

It is really over to RailMagic to correct all the misunderstanding - if that is what they are - because the corollary to them being misunderstandings is that they are in-fact all correct and what the thread has done is provided valuable information to the modelling public who use RMWeb on the shortcomings of the product.

[Andymsa]

3 hours ago, SamThomas said:

I would hazard a guess that Railmagic has "finished" with this thread.

 

Whilst a lot of the questions &/or comments have been fair & helpful quite a lot that have be unconstructive to say the least.

 

If some of the contributors had been a little less hostile then I'm sure the thread would have been more informative.

 

Clearly, Railmagic is not for some & these members will never use it, so why pick holes in it for the sake of it.

 

Let Railmagic develope their system then when it's fully available, take a positive & constructive look at it & then decide.

holes were certainly not being picked in for the sake of it. That was the point it’s not a fully developed product and was comparing itself to existing software hardware solutions currently available, and making itself superior  to existing products. Even the developer had admitted he had little knowledge of existing products so how can such comparisons be made. 

[SamThomas]

16 hours ago, Andymsa said:

holes were certainly not being picked in for the sake of it. That was the point it’s not a fully developed product and was comparing itself to existing software hardware solutions currently available, and making itself superior  to existing products. Even the developer had admitted he had little knowledge of existing products so how can such comparisons be made. 

My comments were simply based on what I read posted & I have no intentions of quoting specific posts.

 

FWIW, I like automated layouts myself (& used my own system tailoured to my needs) & my only experience with the "competition" is deciding that none of the available systems would suit my needs. However, I would be interested in how Railmagic operates.

 

Maybe the fact that the developers first language is not English has some bearing on how he "came over".

 

 

[Junctionmad]

As I understand it Railmagic works by triangulating positions from known magnets placed in a pattern around the layout. The detector board on the loco has a magnetic field sensor. 
 

what  not clear is how you are expected  to translate that physical position into say a block occupancy signal , surely you would have to map all “ useful “ positions on a layout and record them then access that info and relate it to a track diagram. 
 

secondky if it’s used precision magnetic sensing , surely it will be disrupted by motor fields , uncoupling magnets and so forth. 

[Junctionmad]

I should add that precise geographical positioning solves many problems that conventional computer automation can’t easily solve 

 

the first problem is that automation software doesn’t know what’s actually happening , it’s “ modelling “ what’s happening , precise position feedback is actually relating what is really  happening 

 

precise position reporting is superior to point detection mechanisms and modelling profiles .  The issue is how the system can generate those precise positions and that the proposed solution works and can be handled by ordinary model railway users and compatible with existing systems. 

Edited August 29, 2021 by Junctionmad