Defeating "RF out of range" with light RF engineering?

JohnGaltLine posted:

Adrian,

Great information, and I think this looks promising for the folks that actually need more than the typical solutions offer.  I also don't see anything wrong with calling a dinosaur a dinosaur.  When you have a 16+ year old product that used a a 15 year old radio when it was brand new, I don't see anything wrong with offering an idea for improving it's signal, or calling it out for being plainly old.  Sadly there are folk that push back hard any time anyone suggests there may be a better way to do something than the way DCS does it, and it keeps many folk from participating in discussions on the DCS forum here.  Just know that many people do appreciate it when people come up with ideas to improve things.  

JGL

John,  I figure this is pointed at me, and your off base.  He used derogatory words about the designer. Seems extreme and an unknown.  You also live in a fantasy world, unless your going to tell me your a product manager for a major product at a small firm.  You forget the time frame to go from design to production, miss the fact that a budget is required, and the target consumer.  Don't understand using a proven design that is cost effective that work fine for your needs despite newer, more costly, and greater technology available.  Let alone your just focusing on the Remote to TIU communication, think of all the other design and programing going on to let the TIU function the way it does. 

You guy are like history revisionist. Rewriting the facts based on todays perspective.

For the record, I have no issue with going forward to improving the TIU, but whys is the constant criticism important?  Does it make you feel superior?  Does it serve a purpose?  You keep throwing out how you can build Command Boards for engine for a few bucks.  Please do, and send them to market.  You will make a killing.  But log in the hours you spend working on your cruise for LC board.  Rated it a $50 an Hr and factor that into the cost of the board and let us know what the price goes up to.

The Work Arian is doing would possibly result in a TIU price increase of $200.  Would that be a competitive cost?  It is like those sprint commercials, would you pay 50% more in cost for a 1 to 5% improvement in toy train operation?   95% of the people running trains do not have this problem, so you think they would cough up $XXX extra per TIU for no measureable change in their performance?   A techy might, a family on a budget would not.  Come on back to earth please.  G

Your wasting your time and talent G. Some guys are here just to troll around. They don't post anything constructive about MTH's products. Instead they just pipe up to bash it claiming they're discussing? Every time it's the same start to the flaming. Tick, tick, tick.....

 I have some of them blocked. You should too. One guy just came back to the forum. I don't know if his ban was lifted, or he just thinks he waited long enough? There's another that hates anything other than the one brand he runs. These are just toys.

 Sure there's new technology coming out all the time and we should look at whatever enhancements are needed. Keep the discussion to that. When someone new looks in, he might not understand what the war was over? why all the over-reaction? I'm still laughing. Good thing we don't live where there's real problems. We can complain about a toy not working correctly.

We must all be getting a little stressed this time of year. 

JGL has posted some great info on other threads, but he seemed to take something the wrong way here. GGG is one of my favorites and really helped me when I had a tough engine problem. If you read what he said carefully, he was just posting an alternative view and stating the economic realities for the hobby. Adrian is a great addition to the forum, providing some real insight and ideas, yet he was attacked in his first post in another thread. I respect Engineer-Joe and his perspective as well. It helps promote discussion and is always on topic. There is certainly some trolling going on, but let's try to keep things in perspective. I value all you guys, and this forum has enriched my hobby experience.

George

Clearly neither TMCC nor DCS were designed for the mammoth club layouts and modular layout sites (with lots of steel beams and other metal construction) they are now being used on. One of which is Adrian's club layout.  So it stands to reason that modifications are going to be needed to make this stuff work in those extreme environments.  20 years+ of TMCC and 15 years+ of DCS have taught many lessons.  There are workarounds for many things, but for some, new approaches are needed. Adrian seems the man to come up with some for DCS, at least for the huge club and modular layouts, where cost becomes a minor issue.

That said, when someone comes along with even the mildest of critiques of these relatively ancient systems, they often get scolded in varying degrees by the self-appointed forum "elders." Just as Adrian and John are getting reamed out a bit here. I've recently had the pleasure of similar treatment from the "elders" for my strong opinions on LionChief and LionChief+.  This  technology is far superior to TMCC and DCS as an RF link, and more importantly, it works more reliably.    Apparently such thoughts are verboten to some.

So how about we just let people express their opinions without the need for accusations of being unfair to the founding fathers of TMCC or DCS, or being apostates to the one true religion?  Frankly, nothing Adrian or John wrote seems particularly provocative to me, and certainly not worth being sent to the DCS or Legacy prinicipal's office .  Give Adrian and John enough gas about not much and you will lose their contributions to the forum, potentially.  This is a public space, it belongs to no one of us, or any opinion group.  So please back off before criticizing anyone's style of communicating, as opposed to their facts or opinions. Just one man's thoughts.

Landsteiner posted:

 Just as Adrian and John are getting reamed out a bit here. I've recently had the pleasure of similar treatment from the "elders" for my strong opinions on LionChief and LionChief+.  This  technology is far superior to TMCC and DCS as an RF link, and more importantly, it works more reliably.    Apparently such thoughts are verboten to some.

 

Seriously! Do you even read what you write? This post has nothing to do with LionChief. BTW, how's the iPhone app coming along for your LionChief system? Thought so.

I have a challenge for you, try not to mention LionChief on a topic that is not about it.

Anyway Landsteiner, I will say that you have contributed to the forum. I have had to educate myself about your favorite system just to keep up with you.

I don't believe the OP ever mentioned that this should be a factory change, or that there was anything really wrong with the original design, other than it being straight out of the datasheet without any additional tuning that could have improved performance.   I read the original post as an option targeted at a very small percentage of DCS users that had a specific problem that could not be solved by the means offered to typical home users.  As such it seems to be a fantastic solution.  I read it as being intended for the small market of very large layouts, and I can't imagine anyone that can afford such a layout having any problem with even a $200 fix that lets them properly control their trains.   

I don't think there is anything wrong with building a product down to a price, so long as that doesn't affect functionality for most users.  In past threads, however, subjects have come up where the DCS system could be improved at no cost in parts. Sure there are developmental costs involved as well, but I would think that these would be happily incurred over the 16+ years the product has been on the market.  

There are other cases where even at the time of development a better solution could have been implemented at the same cost, but was not.  Taking shortcuts is all well and good for a home hobbyist, but it is bad form for commercial product.  Even then, we all understand the cost/benefit computing that must go on.  W

hen a problem is identified, or an idea emerges to improve on the system, it seems that the typical response from the DCS gurus here on the forum is: " You don't know what you're talking about, you don't understand anything, and you are a worthless human being, Don't ever suggest that there is room for improvement ever again.  "  This is counter in every way to how folks behave on every other sub-fourm on this site, where people readily share new ideas, discuss the merits and flaws of such ideas, and then in some cases even create new products that can come to market to make the hobby more fun for everyone by improving on what was offered by the larger manufacturers.

For what it's worth I was not calling out any one in particular, but was most annoyed at the reply hawking a book with a solution that does not solve the problem that was addressed, where anyone that took the time to read the original post could see the poster knows what they are talking about on the subject and wouldn't have gone through the trouble if case plastic and internal interference was the issue. 

JGL

Johngaltline@comcast.net  Responses to these comments should be sent here, so as not to further derail this thread.  

JohnGaltLine posted:

.  In past threads, however, subjects have come up where the DCS system could be improved at no cost in parts. Sure there are developmental costs involved as well, but I would think that these would be happily incurred over the 16+ years the product has been on the market.  

There are other cases where even at the time of development a better solution could have been implemented at the same cost, but was not.  Taking shortcuts is all well and good for a home hobbyist, but it is bad form for commercial product.  Even then, we all understand the cost/benefit computing that must go on.  

JGL

Johngaltline@comcast.net  Responses to these comments should be sent here, so as not to further derail this thread.  

DCS probably could stand some additional investment, but it becomes difficult taking backward compatibility into account. That said, we did get a USB port on the rev L TIU. I would like to see MTH offer a serial retrofit for the older TIU. Not all USB to serial converters work. Better antenna? Sure, why not? Will it really add $50 to the cost of the TIU? I'm not sure.

What happens in business is that there is only so much R&D dollars available. MTH has a lot on their plate. We need to grow the hobby or consolidate competition to get everything we want.

I'd like better radios in my DCS system. It's common knowledge the DCS radios are flakey. I also don't see why everybody is all up in arms about Adrian's posting. Nothing here that I see that would get anybody's knickers in a twist yea there they are all twisted. I will say that LionChief sucks. Keep up the posts Adrian, seems like you know what you're talking about, don't let the kermudgens get you down

George S posted: 

What happens in business is that there is only so much R&D dollars available. MTH has a lot on their plate. We need to grow the hobby or consolidate competition to get everything we want.

I suppose this is why I find it especially annoying when someone is jumped on when they find a solution to a problem on their own time and dime, and just wants to share it to anyone that may find it useful.  Products often have limitations, but when an a solution is offered by an independent party they should be encouraged, not assaulted with claims that there is nothing wrong with the product, or that it was the best that could be done at the time.  Just admit there is a short coming and thank someone for proposing a solution, even when the problem only affects a tiny number of users.  

Matt Makens posted:

 I will say that LionChief sucks. 

While I have been disappointed with the build quality of many LionChief products of late, when Lansteiner, or I make the claim that LionChief is superior, we are referring to the underlying technology, not necessarily the execution of one low end starter set or another.  There are several threads you can look to discussing the inherent superiority of a 2.4GHz digital transceiver with built in error correction over analog transmitters and receivers in the CB or 1990's cordless phone/baby monitor range, so I'll not go further into that here.  Just be aware that the same underlying technology used in LionChief is what is used in any modern wireless device and is the groundwork upon which Bluetooth and Wifi are based, enabling all of those wonderful wireless devices we take for granted today to work.    

JGL

john, don't you have features to add to GRJs ideas?

John, Go read all the post.  I did as they came out.  I agree a great asset and some one who can improve the long range communication of the TIU.  But when you make flippant comments about the engineers work ethic in the design, or use negative adjectives about the product chip choices, you are critiquing and criticizing someone with out a direct conversation with them and from a significant different time perspective and environment.  Maybe I am just sensitive to this.

1 to 2 guys working for a toy company designing something never before made, versus a team of NASA engineers working on advancing products.  Really? Beta testers who are just hobbyist, not some firm with a team of scientist.

By the way, have you bought a Legacy or DCS System yet?  Previously you were critiquing these systems and the only thing you owned was a LC engine?

Not an elder, just some one who can appreciate what was done by a few hobbyist and entrepreneurs to benefit this hobby.

How the product can be improved can be full discussed without having to be so negative.  All the rest of your diatribe is manufactured criticism never stated by me or anyone else in this post.  No one claimed the product was the best ever made and needs nothing. G

I doubt MTH is going to invest R&D to upgrade the wireless between the remote and TIU. They are focused on the WiFi module and mobile apps. Once all the remote features are available through the WiFi app, there will be little need for improved remote radio. The next app release is due very soon.

Also, it's great to talk about the superior radio technology of LionChief, but it doesn't run MTH trains and doesn't operate accessories or switches, and Lionel should invest in making a tool belt and labeling system to hold and label all of the remotes you would need to operate a club layout.

George

ADRIAN,  while all of this is over my head! hopefully you will inform us how this works out for large layouts.

I find nothing wrong with your posts wording as I run conventional engines they too are dinosaurs by today's standards that's factual yet not demeaning to JLC whom started the Lionel corporation.

why can't we embrace new thoughts ideas even if it involves thinking an older product can be improved no matter whom originally built it or designed it.

ADRIAN I would pm you but found no email listed.