Gamesontrack GT-position

[don9GLC]

If it?s too good to be true, then it is generally false.

A principle that I have learned over the years, sometimes expensively. But we are always on the look out for a bargain and advances in technology can offer almost unimaginable performance for a modest price.

So when I read about Gamesontrack GT-position
http://www.gamesontrack.co.uk/

I was intrigued. I don?t believe the inference of using GPS technology. If that?s available to the general public then I have been sadly deceived by sat nav!

However I don?t know what technology they actually use. So we are back to my opening statement.


Does anyone have experience with this system on a garden railway, especially with tunnels and other ?blind? spots?

There are many problems with the traditional track detection systems that I would love to avoid so I would like to be sure that this system is worth investing a significant sum.

They state that its not available for all G scale systems (item 10) on
http://www.gamesontrack.co.uk/gamesontrack-overview-and-links.html < Link To http://www.gamesontrack.c...verview-and-links.html

so that only makes me wonder more what exactly they offer.

Looking at their listed UK supplier (DCC Supplies) seems to infer that its a voice activated interface to an existing (by others) control system. That's quite different to the manufacturer's website.

 

[muns]

Looks to me that the "Position" bit uses ultrasonic sound.

According to this page http://www.gamesontrack.co.uk/pages/webside.asp?articleGuid=64556 each "item of interest" (loco/wagon) is fitted with a sender.

Receivers (2 or more) are positiones outside/above the layout. The software triangulates each "item's" position.

 

[nicebutdim]

Some automated systems are ok and fun to use, but eventually having too much will begin to wittle away at the 'fun' factor. Nothing will run faultlessly forever and having to much of a too complicated system will end up with a chore of constantly trying to keep it going. I think part of the fun is keeping an eye on where a train is and operating it.

 

[don9GLC]

Looks to me that the "Position" bit uses ultrasonic sound.

Thanks for that, Mark. I had missed the bit about ultra sound.

My SWMBO is a dumb blonde, but with 4 paws and a waggy tail, and she can hear things far enough away that I have trouble seeing them. I could be in real trouble with ultra sound. And the garden is her playground.

Woofs!

 

[Cliff George]

I suppose that a system such as this, which could work out where a train was without the use of occupancy or other detectors could be quite useful in computer control applications, if it were cheap enough.

Putting in detectors can sometimes be a bit of a pain, wires out to the track, cutting the track (possibly), false detection, no detection, track cleanliness, rain etc. Does this herald the true only two wires to the track principle in DCC?

I wouldn't want to have two bits of electronic stuff to put in a train so I'd want this to be integreated with a DCC decoder. I imaging the manufacturer wouldn't want that since presumably the system is control agnostic (i.e. analogue, DCC, battery, steam, other etc)

 

[don9GLC]

I suppose that a system such as this, which could work out where a train was without the use of occupancy or other detectors could be quite useful in computer control applications, if it were cheap enough.

Putting in detectors can sometimes be a bit of a pain, wires out to the track, cutting the track (possibly), false detection, no detection, track cleanliness, rain etc. Does this herald the true only two wires to the track principle in DCC?

I wouldn't want to have two bits of electronic stuff to put in a train so I'd want this to be integreated with a DCC decoder. I imaging the manufacturer wouldn't want that since presumably the system is control agnostic (i.e. analogue, DCC, battery, steam, other etc)

Yes, I'm completely with you on the problems of occupancy detection. Probably even more isolated sections than analog! And its not cheap conventionally, either. (360?-420? for the Zimo version). I'm accustomed to an engineering environment where someone else is paying!

I can't see why a DCC supply with suitable buffer (for RailCom interruptions) should not be capable of powering the transmitter. Most G scale locos have space for a few extra components. It could even be powered by a 'spare' function output.

I'm also attracted to the 'logical' programing. I am accustomed to the challenges in designing a full scale system with appropriate safety measures, but as I mentioned before, when someone else is paying the bill.

As I said, it all seems to be too good to be true, but at around £350 to start its a dad too expensive for me as a 'throwaway trial'.

And my 'test' layout is probably too small for any useful results.


I'm tempted to open a new thread on block occupancy detection. Its beyond the aspirations of some, but I am surprised that they feel using a computer is routine, but DCC and electronics generally is the 'dark side'.