LionChief control from TMCC? Version 2.0 - More questions (Updated 5-27-18)

Well, 24 engines are certainly sufficient for simultaneous control!   For a $10-$15 difference, I'd go for the higher amount of possible engines.

As for the target price, I'd just figure the costs and your desired markup and float a trial balloon.  You could do what I'll be doing this summer with the TMCC Buffer that I'm finally getting back to, make it a BTO project and take deposits.

Great work John!

 However, I thought the concept behind Lionchief was a more simple control system for those who felt the TMCC/Legacy remotes were too complicated?

The majority of Lionchief locos were previously offered with TMCC and Railsounds years ago.

No rant, just a little irony here.

 Now, create a DCS bridge, that will operate MTH locos in DCS mode from my Legacy handheld and I'm in, money in hand.

I don't see the reason to do this. The people who buy lion chief locomotives are not going buy any type of upgrade to run them with tmcc/legacy.

i think your barking up the wrong tree, but hey what do I know. 

Dave

gunrunnerjohn posted:

...As for the target price, I'd just figure the costs and your desired markup and float a trial balloon.  You could do what I'll be doing this summer with the TMCC Buffer that I'm finally getting back to, make it a BTO project and take deposits.

Thanks for the input.  On the pricing I kinda have a target in mind that I think is right on the edge of what I, as a cheapskate, would ever consider, but it's the lowest I can manage given having one exceptionally expensive part that is required.  I don't want to infulence the input by saying my expected cost yet, just want to see if what people are willing to pay will cover the cost of parts or not.  

RickO posted:

Great work John!

 However, I thought the concept behind Lionchief was a more simple control system for those who felt the TMCC/Legacy remotes were too complicated?

The majority of Lionchief locos were previously offered with TMCC and Railsounds years ago.

No rant, just a little irony here.

 

 Now, create a DCS bridge, that will operate MTH locos in DCS mode from my Legacy handheld and I'm in, money in hand.

This is intended only for the people that want to run LC/+ from TMCC/Legacy/(DCS)  The discussion over if people want that is something else entirely, and well covered in many other threads over the last several years.  I'm not looking to get side tracked on if such a product should exist, but rather what form it should take to be the most useful and cost effective for those that would use it.  

As for the DCS bridge, there isn't really any technical limitation to doing this, other than perhaps the two remotes not having corresponding keys for some functions.  The real limiting faction is one company's refusal to provide any information on their proprietary system, and their penchant for suing folks that do any modification to or make compatible products for their system.  I dare not even say the name of the company for fear of a law suit.  

for those that use the Wifi systems, I am VERY surprised someone hasn't yet developed an app that combines those of the two main systems, allowing one app to offer full functionality for both systems.  I expect it has more to do with a reasonable fear of lawsuits than it does anything else.  

As a side note, if you do own a DCS system, but not a TMCC or Legacy system, the LionChief bridge should work from the DCS base as well, using TMCC commands without the need for a TMCC/Legacy system.  

JGL

david1 posted:

I don't see the reason to do this. The people who buy lion chief locomotives are not going buy any type of upgrade to run them with tmcc/legacy.

i think your barking up the wrong tree, but hey what do I know. 

Dave

See above, and previous thread linked above.  It's for the people that want it, not those that don't.  

If this were made I would buy one. Pricing will be at something above your cost, whatever that works out to be. I am less sensitive to price than many others provided the device does every time what it is supposed to do. I have a Legacy/LCS controlled layout and would like to be able to operate the FlyerChief engines with the Cab 2 and have them show up on the LCS engine roster. DCS is not of concern to me since there is only one S gauge engine made with DCS.

As far as testing, the LCS needs to be included. I have 37 LCS modules interconnected by 231 feet of DB-9 cables. The signal loss was so large in the system Lionel had to custom make 3 signal amplifiers to add into the system to get it to work. Any additional signal loss would be a problem for me. If a "wye" connection feature could be incorporated that would be really useful for layouts like mine (modular) where all the LCS components cannot be mounted at a central location.

I would prefer any required programming be done from the Cab 2. I have no control panel, only an iPad, 2 Cab 2's and 2 iPhones. The bridge would be in a relatively inaccessible spot under my layout.

I would settle for 3 engines, be happy with 6 and likely never use 12. But I am an S gauger, we have only about 1/100th of the engines available from Lionel as the O gauger's have!

$40, about the same as the universal LC remote that can control at least 3 engines. Buttons/switches not necessary if the Cab remote will handle the programming. Make SURE part of the design silences that periodic chirping for all LC engines that are powered up but not receiving a signal. Having to turn on all your LC remotes after powering up the track to stop that stupid noise is inconvenient at best.

JohnGaltLine posted:

 

 

That was then.  At this time I'm working on designing a bridge that could actually be sold to the public at large.  To that end I have some questions for the folks that would have an interest in a product that lets them control LionChief/+/FlyerChief engines from their TMCC or Legacy remote.  

The questions I need a consensus on before advancing in development are as follows:  

1. What is the price point people would find reasonable for this product?  In the simplest implementation I can do right now the bridge would allow control of up to three LC/+ locomotives from your Cab1/2.  the hardware needed to accomplish that, however leaves plenty of room for expandability.  to that end... 

2.  Is it worth while to increase the initial cost of the bridge to make it expandable to control more than three LC/+ engines?  I am not entirely certain, but expect that it would add around $10 to the cost to provide for expandability.  In exchange it will cost about half as much as the first bridge to add another module to control three more engines.  

3.  If an expandable design is chosen, how many LC/+ in total should it be capable of supporting?  I think I can manage up to 24 total LC/+ engines from a fully expanded bridge before another "master" unit is needed.  I won't know for sure until the code is written, but may run into other issues with a single master device controlling so many engines.  Would a unit that can only be expanded to control 12, or 6 total engines be acceptable?  

4.  Are tactile, physical buttons and switches on the device for programing preferred or wanted?  The implementation i'm currently working with uses the cab1/2 remote for most programing with perhaps 2 buttons on the bridge it's self.  Do people prefer to use buttons or switches on the bridge to program it, or is it ok to program from the Cab remote?

5.  Is there anyone in the Metro Detroit area that has a functional layout  with Legacy AND LCS that might be willing to volunteer some time to help do some testing to insure the bridge is fully compatible with those systems?  (DCS as well  would be nice.)  It is my intention for the bridge to be installed with the 9-pin serial port on the command base, and for any additional serial devices to then plug into a second serial port on the bridge device.  I can think of no reason this won't work, but need to test it.  It would also be nice to test the bridge with Legacy and DCS for compatibility.  Once any obvious bugs are worked out, I'll probably look for a couple "beta testers" to try the device on their layouts.  

I'm sure I'll have more questions, or forgot some of the ones I was thinking of and will add them, but thanks for whatever input can be offered.  

JGL

 

1. Cost plus profit.  $50 (3-6 locos) - $100 (24 Loco)

2. Yes

3. 24 would be fine

4. Prefer Tactical buttons but if it is easy to use with the Legacy remote that would be fine.

5. Live in Salem ,Oregon, but I would be willing to be a beta tester. I currently only have one Lion Chief Plus loco, but also have a Legacy system.

AmFlyer posted:

I have a Legacy/LCS controlled layout and would like to be able to operate the FlyerChief engines with the Cab 2 and have them show up on the LCS engine roster. 

As far as testing, the LCS needs to be included. I have 37 LCS modules interconnected by 231 feet of DB-9 cables. The signal loss was so large in the system Lionel had to custom make 3 signal amplifiers to add into the system to get it to work. Any additional signal loss would be a problem for me. If a "wye" connection feature could be incorporated that would be really useful for layouts like mine (modular) where all the LCS components cannot be mounted at a central location.

In the implementation I have working, any engines would appear as TMCC equipped engines, though they would only have the level of functionality offered by LC or LC+

My intention is to have serial communication provided by an industry standard part, so I expect it's output level would be similar to a Legacy base.  There is nothing stopping someone from placing the device at the end of the line with a SER2 serial module, but my hope was to keep people from having to buy that module if possible to connect the bridge.  

(as a side it might be worth while to look into RS-232 to RS-485 converters and run you long cable over RS-485.  I don't know how much a ready made solution costs, but the parts would cost around $10 per cable.  RS-485 is designed to work properly over hundreds of meters.  

AmFlyer posted:

I would prefer any required programming be done from the Cab 2. I have no control panel, only an iPad, 2 Cab 2's and 2 iPhones. The bridge would be in a relatively inaccessible spot under my layout.

I expect even if buttons/switches are offered, there will be an option from the remote as well, though it may be more complex/cumbersome.

Doug Kinsman posted:

Make SURE part of the design silences that periodic chirping for all LC engines that are powered up but not receiving a signal. Having to turn on all your LC remotes after powering up the track to stop that stupid noise is inconvenient at best.

There is nothing that can be done to actually "fix" the chirping without replacing the electronics in the engine, however the bridge would remain connected to any engines, acting just like a remote that is turned on.  

Thanks for the input so far.  

1. What is the price point people would find reasonable for this product?  

$50-100 is fine by me.  That said, even more would not be a hindrance for many of us, myself included.  It's a one time purchase.

2.  Is it worth while to increase the initial cost of the bridge to make it expandable to control more than three LC/+ engines?  

I would say yes.  But not essential if keeping costs down is the main goal.

3.  If an expandable design is chosen, how many LC/+ in total should it be capable of supporting?  I think I can manage up to 24 total LC/+ engines from a fully expanded bridge before another "master" unit is needed. 

I would think 5-10 would be more than enough for most people. 24 should meet almost anyone's needs.

4.  Are tactile, physical buttons and switches on the device for programing preferred or wanted?  The implementation i'm currently working with uses the cab1/2 remote for most programing with perhaps 2 buttons on the bridge it's self.  Do people prefer to use buttons or switches on the bridge to program it, or is it ok to program from the Cab remote?

Program from remote, which is obviously owned by anyone who would be interested in the device.  No need to duplicate features.

Thanks for doing this.  I would think Lionel ultimately might want to buy the concept from you the way they did with Jon Z. and ERR, once you've put in the initial hard work .  Clearly something they logically should be considering at some point.

As I understand it, with Legacy, it can be set up to run everything you have, except Lionchief. So, yeah it sounds like something people would buy. 

As to price, what does it cost to add conventional running to an all Legacy layout?That might be a starting place.

JohnGaltLine posted:

Doug Kinsman posted:

Make SURE part of the design silences that periodic chirping for all LC engines that are powered up but not receiving a signal. Having to turn on all your LC remotes after powering up the track to stop that stupid noise is inconvenient at best.

There is nothing that can be done to actually "fix" the chirping without replacing the electronics in the engine, however the bridge would remain connected to any engines, acting just like a remote that is turned on.  

Thanks for the input so far.  

I didn't say fix it (in the sense it is permanently turned off), just stop it. If the bridge is continuously communicating with the engines it should stop the noise and would be a welcome addition to my layout. Good luck with the development.

JohnGaltLine posted:

The questions I need a consensus on before advancing in development are as follows:  

1. What is the price point people would find reasonable for this product?  In the simplest implementation I can do right now the bridge would allow control of up to three LC/+ locomotives from your Cab1/2.  the hardware needed to accomplish that, however leaves plenty of room for expandability.  to that end...

$75-$100 seems quite reasonable, especially if it controlled more than three locomotives.  Hell, even it it only did three I think that would be OK.

2.  Is it worth while to increase the initial cost of the bridge to make it expandable to control more than three LC/+ engines?  I am not entirely certain, but expect that it would add around $10 to the cost to provide for expandability.  In exchange it will cost about half as much as the first bridge to add another module to control three more engines.

For $10-$15, this is a no-brainer for me, I'd add the functionality.  Why limit yourself to somewhat of a kludge to do it in pieces?

3.  If an expandable design is chosen, how many LC/+ in total should it be capable of supporting?  I think I can manage up to 24 total LC/+ engines from a fully expanded bridge before another "master" unit is needed.  I won't know for sure until the code is written, but may run into other issues with a single master device controlling so many engines.  Would a unit that can only be expanded to control 12, or 6 total engines be acceptable?  

I would think 12 would be more than sufficient, and 6 would be probably good enough for 99% of the intended audience.

4.  Are tactile, physical buttons and switches on the device for programing preferred or wanted?  The implementation i'm currently working with uses the cab1/2 remote for most programing with perhaps 2 buttons on the bridge it's self.  Do people prefer to use buttons or switches on the bridge to program it, or is it ok to program from the Cab remote?

I'd minimize the buttons on the device if at all possible.  Why complicate the build, it's probably far easier to do it with the CAB remote.

Controlling a LionChief loco from a TMCC remote would be interesting, but would be technologically comparable to putting a gas engine in a Tesla.

I,d be interest in a 24 LC model. I have 1 LC and and 10 LC+ engines now. 

I want to make sure I understand this part, because I don't think people are accounting for the total cost properly if I read the original proposed trade for adding more engines (I'm not picking on either John quoted below, just think I am reading it differently than they are):  

(though it's of course possible I'm reading it wrong too....)

JohnGaltLine posted:

.........................

2.  Is it worth while to increase the initial cost of the bridge to make it expandable to control more than three LC/+ engines?  I am not entirely certain, but expect that it would add around $10 to the cost to provide for expandability.  In exchange it will cost about half as much as the first bridge to add another module to control three more engines.  

3.  If an expandable design is chosen, how many LC/+ in total should it be capable of supporting?  I think I can manage up to 24 total LC/+ engines from a fully expanded bridge before another "master" unit is needed.  I won't know for sure until the code is written, but may run into other issues with a single master device controlling so many engines.  Would a unit that can only be expanded to control 12, or 6 total engines be acceptable?  

.....................................

JGL

gunrunnerjohn posted:

Well, 24 engines are certainly sufficient for simultaneous control!   For a $10-$15 difference, I'd go for the higher amount of possible engines..................

John Graser posted:

1. Cost plus profit.  $50 (3-6 locos) - $100 (24 Loco)

................................

Let me throw together a theoretical cost (using nice numbers to make the math simple).  The $100 several have proposed seems fine to me, and I wouldn't probably find it necessary to run more than 3 or maybe worst case 6 LC+ engines at once.

So lets say a basic unit without the expandability would be $90.  If it adds $10 to get the expandability, you get $100 for the master that does 3 engines.  If I want more than 3 engines, I need to buy a new module for every 3 engines, each at half the cost ($50) of the master.

So if I want to control 6, I'd spend $150 (master plus an extra module), 9 would be $200 (master plus 2 extra modules), 12 would be $250 (master plus 3 extra modules)..... and 24 would be $450 (master plus seven extra modules).

JGL, do I have it right?  (again, just the breakdown, I know the actual price is not set yet).

Even though I'm probably interested in only controlling a small number of engines, I would not let a small delta in the basic master unit price dissuade me form purchasing.  I'm all for the expandability for those who desire it, even if I may not ever go beyond the master unit myself.  (i.e., I'm not about to suggest I'd buy it at $90, but change my mind to no at $100, or whatever the actual is - that small delta is inconsequential in my mind for the master unit)

-Dave

I would purchase your proposed product. I don’t care what it costs. Great idea!  I Don’t like the cheap LC remotes. The way you are implementing it, I could also likely be able to control LC engines from the MTH DCS app too. Finally, everything controlled from one app.  

Dave45681 posted:

ISo lets say a basic unit without the expandability would be $90.  If it adds $10 to get the expandability, you get $100 for the master that does 3 engines.  If I want more than 3 engines, I need to buy a new module for every 3 engines, each at half the cost ($50) of the master.

So if I want to control 6, I'd spend $150 (master plus an extra module), 9 would be $200 (master plus 2 extra modules), 12 would be $250 (master plus 3 extra modules)..... and 24 would be $450 (master plus seven extra modules).

JGL, do I have it right?  (again, just the breakdown, I know the actual price is not set yet).

I think you have it wrong Dave.  I'm pretty sure he was talking $10-15 to the base cost to allow for control of more than 3 engines, but it would be built into the cost of every unit. 

An alternative design was to save the $10-15 and simply stack more controllers on to the base configuration.  I believe the whole point was trying to come in as low as possible or adding a small cost for the version that handles a lot more locomotives.  My take is I'd simply go with the simpler option, even though it's slightly more expensive out of the box as it's far cheaper in the long run if you run more than three at the same time. 

I'm sure JGL will chime in and let us know who's right.