NMRANet - Issue 4: Migration. Knowing your competition. The big "must have"

[The_Ghan]

Cap'n,

 

Good, healthy start to the debate.  I'm currently at a loss as to the best way to process all this info in forum, so I'm splitting the issues into separate threads, appending to my previous post, but re-issuing it.  I know it's not a best-forum practice, but this is a very complex subject.

 

 

Issue 4: Migration and upgrading.  Knowing your competition.  The big "must have" carrot:

 

Background:  I don't accept that OpenLCB doesn't directly compete with DCC.  It certainly does if you can run trains using OpenLCB without DCC.  The good old DC transformer competed with DCC and with OpenLCB too.  They are all in the same market of controlling model trains.  30 years ago, only 10% of model railroaders were using a command control system and nearly 25% were using the Hornby Zero 1, many to control other brands of trains.  Today, most model railway enthusiasts around the world are still using DC controllers.  Many of those, such as the advanced Tomix controllers, are quite sophisticated with separate throttle and brake control, sound effects, turnout control and interior lighting control.  After 30 years more than 50% are still using DC throttles.  This is because it is cheap, easy, and simple to set up.  There are people still using the Zero 1, particularly in the UK and Australia.  In Japan, the DCC take-up has been incredibly slow.  Few manufacturers are interested.  Kato seems to be the exception and that may be because of their presence in the US and Europe.

 

Questions:  Can/will we use OpenLCB without DCC to control trains in the future?  Who are the major DCC players?  What percentage of the DCC market does each have (if you don't know, how can we find out)?  What is the "must have", irresistable carrot that will entice contemporary DCC users, legacy command control users, and DC throttle users to migrate across to OpenLCB?  In the year 2020 worldwide, what percentage of enthusiasts will use DC throttles, DCC, and NMRAnet standard products?

 

Reason: Technology is driven by fulfilling a need, or even better, creating a need, and filling it.  The evolution of BoomBox to WalkMan to Diskman to MP3 player is a case in point.  I've not seen a BoomBox on someone's shoulder for around 30 years.  I haven't seen someone using a WalkMan for 20 or a Diskman for 10-12.  We are yet to see how OpenLCB might fit into the landscape.  To answer the last of the questions: 1983 was 90% DC and 10% Command Control, 2011 was 53% (I think) DC to 47% DCC and I'm predicting that in 2020 worldwide it will be about 48% DC, 50% DCC and 2% OpenLCB/NMRAnet.  I'm not saying that to discredit the efforts of the people involved or the product itself.  I just think that you can't go wrong with the good old DC throttle and those of us who have chosen already to go DCC have invested a substantial amount of money.  That carrot has got to be pretty big, remember some people still use the Zero 1.  There are Zero 1 decoders for sale in the UK - new and unused.

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[The_Ghan]

 

The answer depends on scale. I know of a few folks who are working on making direct OpenLCB control of HO and larger models a possibility in the very near future. But for smaller scales like N and Z, it is my belief that DCC is going to be around for a long time yet. The primary reason is that any form of direct OpenLCB control is pretty much going to require wireless technology: DCC has demonstrated that using the rails for both power and signal is very limiting in what you can achieve. But, a 2.4GHz antenna requires more room than can be had in most N scale trains, and far more room than will ever be available in Z. Processors capable of handling the OpenLCB stack are only just now becoming available in sufficiently small packages to fit in smaller decoders. I predict that for these reasons, it will be at least 10 years until we have the technology to fit a powerful, wireless equipped processor into the tiny spaces inside most N scale locos, if ever.

 

For HO and larger, however, direct control of trains is already here in some forms, albeit proprietary and expensive. We have the technology today to install OpenLCB wireless decoders into HO and larger trains. What remains is for a manufacturer with the resources and willingness to give it a shot. The carrot for end users should be obvious: throw a LiPo battery in, and you can eliminate every last bit of track wiring for ever and ever, amen. That's, to me, a pretty darn big carrot. Even without a battery, you only need to be able to throw 12V across the rails, without having to block anything out except reversing loops. That's considerably simplified wiring. That's still a nice sized carrot, I think. Nevermind that you gain very fine-grained control over various train FX (lights, sounds, animations, etc) vs. what DCC currently offers (analog whistles, for example, are a very bad hack laid over what is a system of binary functions; a hack most throttles cannot manage).

 

But I don't have any good idea about the relative percentages. I'm not going to speculate. I personally favor a broad spectrum approach: I'd rather see NMRAnet being made to work with all three technologies as best as each can manage. Obviously, each technology has its limits: DC is limited to one train per block, and no independent control of FX, but is dead simple as far as the trains go; DCC is what it is; direct NMRAnet requires beefier technology that doesn't seem likely to fit in smaller scales any time soon. But NMRAnet can accomodate all three.

 

[The_Ghan]

Cap'n

 

I agree that wireless technology will certainly be a draw card for larger scales.  But I don't think too many HO-scale users will find a benefit.  The simple reason is that most indoor layouts aren't much bigger than can comfortably fit in a garage, bedroom, or under a bed, irrespective of scale.  Sure, club and group layouts are bigger and there will always be a handful of folks with enough cash and time to go big.  I'd submit that the benefit of the wireless technology comes into play on an outdoor layout.  It might even be a "must have" for the live steam guys. 

 

The figures I quoted on usage come from the 1983 and 2011 Model Railroader magazine surveys and related to their readership only.  My guess, and it is a guess, is that the more passionate you are about model railroading the more likely you are to subscribe to a magazine and the more likely you are to invest in the more expensive DCC control over DC.  Ergo, it is possible that there may be many more people using DC and legacy Command Control systems than the survey implies. 

 

My point of this is that I was truly hoping that either the MNRAnet group or OpenLCB team might have actually invested in some professional research before embarking on such an ambitious project.  Was my assumption misguided?  We do live in a market driven economy.  I would have thought there was a White Paper that kicked all this development off in the first place.

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[The_Ghan]

Cap'n,

 

Further two my comments in a reply to Issue 3: What is NMRAnet again?, lets add "Having to know and set CVs" as a real "must have".  As I said across thread, I think this really is a stumbling block for model railroaders thinking about migrating from DC to DCC.

 

Further, I'll amend my position regarding wireless in your favour, with a caveat: It's got to utilise my existing home Wifi.  

 

Right now, my home Wifi runs the Windows network and a separate Samsung proprietary network called AllShare.  The two operate together through my Wifi Switch and Router.  AllShare can stream a movie off the net to my Samsung SmartTV, which I control with my Samsung Galaxy, while my wife Skypes a friend on her notebook.  The Windows network can't see the AllShare devices and vice-versa, unless a Windows device has the AllShare client installed.

 

I can't see why OpenLCB can't work the same way.

 

---

Summary:

 

The two "must have" carrots thus far are:

• Wifi, eliminating the need for bus wiring.
  
• Relief from CVs.
  

 

---

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[CaptOblivious]

Cap'n,

 

Further two my comments in a reply to Issue 3: What is NMRAnet again?, lets add "Having to know and set CVs" as a real "must have".  As I said across thread, I think this really is a stumbling block for model railroaders thinking about migrating from DC to DCC.

 

I couldn't agree more. CVs are stupid. Well, actually, they're not stupid, but exposing them to users is stupid. DecoderPro is a massive step forward in removing the user from the realm of CVs, and in fact, it was the people who designed DecoderPro, and the experience from that situation, that led to the design of the NMRAnet configuration protocols. Each node carries in it all the information a human needs to understand the different options, and all the information the computer needs to present these options in a GUI presentation. Which is pretty cool!

 

Further, I'll amend my position regarding wireless in your favour, with a caveat: It's got to utilise my existing home Wifi.  

 

Agreed that that would be very nice indeed. But WiFi isn't the end-all-be-all. Zigbee is a really powerful networking technology for small devices—and it is designed for devices that move around and hence may need to alter the network topology dynamically. Perfect for trains. Also, Zigbee requires a lot less power, and a lot less processor than WiFi. Also perfect for trains.

 

But because WiFi is what most computers use, to get a CAN or Zigbee network talking to our computers, we need a bridge. And here is another of NMRAnet's great strengths: it can be implemented in any number of low level networking technologies, including CAN, Zigbee, and WiFi, and so designing bridges that connect two different networks like this is not only relatively easy, but—quite unlike your Samsung network—these bridges render the entire network, across all networking technologies, visible to every node, regardless of their location on the network or the technology they use to access the network.

 

 

Let me add that as far as demographics of adoption go, I am not the right person to ask. I'm a techie, mostly. I have no idea how to project adoption rates. Even so, adoption rates are not part of our decision making process: we are building this for its own sake, and because we believe it represents the right step forward for modeling, and that it's an idea whose time has come, not because we project that x% of model railroaders would adopt it.

[cteno4]

cool stuff capt. i see the wisdom in a small device network thats dynamic and robust for model trains. wifi has its issues. its not even totally safe to use it for really dynamic tablet control of devices. we fiddled with it a bit at the aquarium so presenters could walk around and control the whole auditorium presentation system via wifi, but at times it would drop out in the tests when folks were moving/turning and in certain spots in the room.

 

the more i think of nmranet i get the image of a lego set. dcc is just one lego in the box that can be a part of a larger automation structure made out of the blocks.

 

nmranet does not have to replace dcc, just supplement it to allow more flexibility and universality among a host of components form different companies and then let them all talk to each other.

 

sorry just thinking out loud for language that helps communicate that nmranet is not a dcc replacement or direct competitor necessarily.

 

jeff

[CaptOblivious]

NMRAnet as Legos. That's a really good metaphor. Really good. I'm going to use that ;)

[cteno4]

You just have to work into the specs to have the housings look like Lego blocks and integrate the various plugs into the block connectors!

 

Cheers,

 

Jeff

[The_Ghan]

NMRAnet as Legos. That's a really good metaphor. Really good. I'm going to use that ;)

 

My Lego is not compatible with my Mecano, Cap'n..... 

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[Guest Closed Account 1]

How about communication with iPhone or Drrroid? Is this a concept with the OS?

 

I just started using the JRMI app this year and it's the bomb to visitors.

[CaptOblivious]

How about communication with iPhone or Drrroid? Is this a concept with the OS?

 

I just started using the JRMI app this year and it's the bomb to visitors.

 

this is an area under active development. At first you'll still need JMRI to act as a gateway, but we plan on having standalone NMRAnet withrottle servers.

[The_Ghan]

cool stuff capt. i see the wisdom in a small device network thats dynamic and robust for model trains. wifi has its issues. its not even totally safe to use it for really dynamic tablet control of devices. we fiddled with it a bit at the aquarium so presenters could walk around and control the whole auditorium presentation system via wifi, but at times it would drop out in the tests when folks were moving/turning and in certain spots in the room.

 

the more i think of nmranet i get the image of a lego set. dcc is just one lego in the box that can be a part of a larger automation structure made out of the blocks.

 

nmranet does not have to replace dcc, just supplement it to allow more flexibility and universality among a host of components form different companies and then let them all talk to each other.

 

sorry just thinking out loud for language that helps communicate that nmranet is not a dcc replacement or direct competitor necessarily.

 

jeff

 

A number of DCC manufacturers augment their DCC systems with a Bus.  Digitrax have LocoNet and Lenz have XpressNet.  Both great products.  (Off topic: I was SO close to going down the Lenz path, it was only the Digitrax support base that swayed me).  Another company, CTI, has their own Bus and automation products, but no DCC.  In fact, you could use any basic DCC system to control your trains with the CTI products and Bus to control the layout. You can even use the CTI system with a DC layout.  The point is the Bus.  OpenLCB is a Bus.  Therefore, OpenLCB competes with any company that is supplying a Bus to the model railroad market.  Cap'n, can you concede that much?

 

If it's going to be a "standard" in the true sense of the word, XpressNet, Digitrax, TrainBrain and other proprietary Bus products should just plug and play with OpenLCB, shouldn't they?

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[The_Ghan]

.... we fiddled with it a bit at the aquarium so presenters could walk around and control the whole auditorium presentation system via wifi, but at times it would drop out in the tests when folks were moving/turning and in certain spots in the room.

...

 

jeff

 

Off topic: Jeff.  I've had similar experiences with IP Phones, particularly when they border on signal strength between two WAPS.  There would be very few layouts where this would be an issue though.  Even a layout as big as Doug Coster's would be covered with a single WAP.

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[cteno4]

Ghan

 

I think your problem with this is that your existing dcc can be just another few Lego blocks that CAN play with other nmranet blocks, they need not be mecanos. The existing situation with automation is much more like the analogy of a collection of small and more limited sets of block systems that if you try really hard you can get some of the different set parts to go together.

 

Jeff

 

NMRAnet as Legos. That's a really good metaphor. Really good. I'm going to use that ;)

 

My Lego is not compatible with my Mecano, Cap'n..... 

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[The_Ghan]

Cap'n,

 

Is there someone from NMRAnet or OpenLCB teams who might provide us with some demographics?

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[CaptOblivious]

cool stuff capt. i see the wisdom in a small device network thats dynamic and robust for model trains. wifi has its issues. its not even totally safe to use it for really dynamic tablet control of devices. we fiddled with it a bit at the aquarium so presenters could walk around and control the whole auditorium presentation system via wifi, but at times it would drop out in the tests when folks were moving/turning and in certain spots in the room.

 

the more i think of nmranet i get the image of a lego set. dcc is just one lego in the box that can be a part of a larger automation structure made out of the blocks.

 

nmranet does not have to replace dcc, just supplement it to allow more flexibility and universality among a host of components form different companies and then let them all talk to each other.

 

sorry just thinking out loud for language that helps communicate that nmranet is not a dcc replacement or direct competitor necessarily.

 

jeff

 

A number of DCC manufacturers augment their DCC systems with a Bus.  Digitrax have LocoNet and Lenz have XpressNet.  Both great products.  (Off topic: I was SO close to going down the Lenz path, it was only the Digitrax support base that swayed me).  Another company, CTI, has their own Bus and automation products, but no DCC.  In fact, you could use any basic DCC system to control your trains with the CTI products and Bus to control the layout. You can even use the CTI system with a DC layout.  The point is the Bus.  OpenLCB is a Bus.  Therefore, OpenLCB competes with any company that is supplying a Bus to the model railroad market.  Cap'n, can you concede that much?

 

I do. But I am also keenly aware that there is a difference between this and this.

 

If it's going to be a "standard" in the true sense of the word, XpressNet, Digitrax, TrainBrain and other proprietary Bus products should just plug and play with OpenLCB, shouldn't they?

 

Depends on how you parse the normative value a standard has. NMRAnet, as I have said, does not compel manufacturers to use it. The specs are out there if they want to make bridges between their stuff and ours (although someone already has a working XpressNet bridge). The ability of others to make those bridges is severely hindered by the legal protections on LocoNet and perhaps other buses. Obviously, the value of NMRAnet's openness depends on other manufacturers a) wanting to get on the BIG bus (as it were) and b) seeing the potential for increased sales if they do so. However, the unwillingness of a few manufacturers does not undermine the project. Far from it.

[CaptOblivious]

Cap'n,

 

Is there someone from NMRAnet or OpenLCB teams who might provide us with some demographics?

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

 

Not at this time. We haven't the time or money to fund any studies right now! If you'd like to strike out and put together and fund a study, I think we'd certainly welcome that. I say this only half-kidding.

[cteno4]

It can get worse with control even over short distances with movement. VoIP os built to drop packets and just keep on trucking, where as control requires all packets get thru and be acked or you start over. We had one strong wifi node in the room an it was pretty interesting to see it would have issues even pretty close. It then forces you to do a lot of validation. The max programmer said that they were having various similar gotchas when doing regular wifi control (instead their usual dedicated wireless systems). It's doable I'm sure, but there are other more robust systems (like Zigbee) to do this so much better.

 

Jeff

 

.... we fiddled with it a bit at the aquarium so presenters could walk around and control the whole auditorium presentation system via wifi, but at times it would drop out in the tests when folks were moving/turning and in certain spots in the room.

...

 

jeff

 

Off topic: Jeff.  I've had similar experiences with IP Phones, particularly when they border on signal strength between two WAPS.  There would be very few layouts where this would be an issue though.  Even a layout as big as Doug Coster's would be covered with a single WAP.

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[The_Ghan]

 

But I am also keenly aware that there is a difference between this and this.

 

 

Hey Cap'n, no contest there and it isn't my point.  So, OpenLCB competes with other Bus type model railroad products.

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[The_Ghan]

Cap'n,

 

Is there someone from NMRAnet or OpenLCB teams who might provide us with some demographics?

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

 

Not at this time. We haven't the time or money to fund any studies right now! If you'd like to strike out and put together and fund a study, I think we'd certainly welcome that. I say this only half-kidding.

 

You're kidding me, right?  Surely you guys haven't gone into this on a wing and a prayer.  Surely there must be some Model Railroader or NMRA survey information at hand that you guys are relying upon.  You just don't go developing a product without understanding the market.

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[CaptOblivious]

 

But I am also keenly aware that there is a difference between this and this.

 

 

Hey Cap'n, no contest there and it isn't my point.  So, OpenLCB competes with other Bus type model railroad products.

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

 

I guess I'm not seeing your point. Yes it is a new bus, and insofar as it is, it is in competition with other established buses. But this is hardly news, or even interesting. The interesting question, the one I keep urging you towards is: "So what? New competition eh? Why should I care?"

[The_Ghan]

Off topic:

 

Jeff,

 

When you've got a minute, if Zigbee is useful in commercial / residential telephony applications then I wouldn't mind you flicking me a couple of links on the PM.

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[CaptOblivious]

Cap'n,

 

Is there someone from NMRAnet or OpenLCB teams who might provide us with some demographics?

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

 

Not at this time. We haven't the time or money to fund any studies right now! If you'd like to strike out and put together and fund a study, I think we'd certainly welcome that. I say this only half-kidding.

 

You're kidding me, right?  Surely you guys haven't gone into this on a wing and a prayer.  Surely there must be some Model Railroader or NMRA survey information at hand that you guys are relying upon.  You just don't go developing a product without understanding the market.

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

 

Tell me why we need to have done this? Why is this such a joke? I've given you the reasons to embark on this project, reasons that are sufficiently motivating by themselves.

[cteno4]

Off topic:

 

Jeff,

 

When you've got a minute, if Zigbee is useful in commercial / residential telephony applications then I wouldn't mind you flicking me a couple of links on the PM.

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

 

Zigbee is specifically NOT for residential telephony, it's a very low bandwidth, but robust wireless system specifically designated for device control. Exactly what you want for a wireless decoder or other types of automation and simple communications like transponding. You get low bandwidth communications at low power requirements that well acked so you know your command got through to the device you wanted to communicate to.

 

Jeff

[cteno4]

You're kidding me, right?  Surely you guys haven't gone into this on a wing and a prayer.  Surely there must be some Model Railroader or NMRA survey information at hand that you guys are relying upon.  You just don't go developing a product without understanding the market.

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

 

Ghan,

 

Sorry but you have got to be kidding me -- trying to design with surveys and focus groups is a recipe for disaster. They can so easily be lead astray in how they are done in the first place and on the back end can be impossible to figure out what is really needed as usually you end up with a bizillion wants with little common ground or practability and loads of conflicting input. I know I've had piles of it dumped on me in past projects, much of it with "scientific surveys" and professional marketing focus groups. They never lead anywhere good only bad and if I would have let those in charge force the design to have been driven by it we would have failed -- miserably.

 

All the home runs I've been involved with or observed have been the result of a few talented folks that knew the issue and dived on it with their creativity, skills, and vision. You do need to have some external checks but you have to be careful that process takes over the design as well or you are back to design by survey.

 

You want a new standard that will get you the next generation or two in capabilities, it will happen with a few good folks like the capt and crew who have a good personal grasp on what model railroading needs and a good grasp on the technologies sitting down and doing what they did. Using surveys will just end up with a mess and a step backwards.

 

Jeff