Revolution DCC - Access to functions

I was more referring to trying to update older hardware, or being unhappy that the "normal" Revo and the DCC Revo transmitters are not the same hardware.

For what it accomplishes, the system is a very good value.

I have the HO version, the "normal" version in both trackside and on board, and the DCC version, besides the USB updater.

But then I was in the Beta program, before it took it's final form, and was initially a 900 MHz unit with a thumbwheel for speed...

Greg
 
We have one outspoken contingent in the US that does not want knobs at all. They operate in inclement weather and put the throttles in zip lock bags (hopefully ziplock is the same there)

Of course they can only use buttons.

I prefer a knob, or getting very used to my Zimo with a slider, even easier to see what percentage of full throttle you are at with a glance.... the knob has a nice feel, but does not give you much visual feedback unless you use a knob with physical limits and they are marked...



Greg
 
Have to say for what it os worth that once you get used to buttons they are good. In years gone by on my 0 Gauge Exhibition Layout I had a press button Controller rather than a twidly knob, certainly for Shunting using an uncoupler it is much easier to use buttons as it can be trickier to use a twidly knob with just one hand. But it is horses for courses and I know that many have their own preferences. For me the Aristo with buttons is just fine.
 
I used an NCE system for a long time. It has a thumbwheel, coarse up and down buttons for speed, and fine up and down buttons for speed.

I used both... .the thumbwheel for mainline running, but when I was coupling and uncoupling I used the buttons, the fine ones were in single speed steps and I run in 128 speed step mode, and my locos will typically crawl at under 1 smph.

Greg
 
Just to re-waken this thread. Wondering what people think of the Revo DCC with the updated firmware for function selction.

Any news welcome before I buy.

Tim
 
Good afternoon John from Finescalebrass here, just to clarify a couple of points, the price for the UK systems come with a UK return guarantee, as some of you may have found the revenue are getting quite keen on collecting but slow on responding, so 3 weeks in the bond is not unusual, Plus by the time you have paid credit card fees, shipping, VAT & Royal Mail handling charges the cost is higher than we are selling the systems for, and of course if there is a fault you have the cost of sending it back to the US. We bulk buy so have stock for next day delivery, including extra receivers.

I also have a repair system set up for the DC system if anyone has faulty components.

Finally use the USB dongle with care it will not work with original crest receivers(the ones without capacitors built in) and needs a patch for the early "new" type receivers.

With regard to the US pricing its a permanent sale a bit like DFS :-)

Have fun

John
 
FinescaleJohn said:
Finally use the USB dongle with care it will not work with original crest receivers(the ones without capacitors built in) and needs a patch for the early "new" type receivers.

With regard to the US pricing its a permanent sale a bit like DFS :)

John
Click to expand...

I have some of the original model of the non-sound DC Revolution RX boards, some of the sound equipped DC RX boards (bought about 3-4 years ago)
and three of the new DCC RX boards.
When you say that the 'dongle' has issues depending on the model of RX being updated and needing a patch for the 'early 'new' type' which ones are you referring to the newer DC RX or the new DCC RX or both?.....The thread is actually about the DCC version of the RX
 
Sorry is there a thread for the DC version upgrade? id so maybe the Moderator can move this answer

There are 3 types of RX receivers,

The original one sold by Aristocraft/Bachmann as Crest they are identified by the link button being on the receiver, no capacitors & no sound. Sold with the handset with plastic as opposed to rubber buttons.

The second batch were sold by Aristocraft/Bachmann for a short while then marketed direct by Navin as Crest they used the rubber button handset and can be changed (eg diesel to steam or visa versa) or upgraded using a patch first but it is at your risk (i quote JK)

The third batch is the current manufacture and is identified by the sticker on the side of the box and can be upgraded or changed without too much fuss

Back onto DCC, I have successfully upgraded a TX & DX to the new version, I have had a couple of test mules running for some months now using the new system with Loksound V4XL decoders and ESU synchronised smoke unit in one as well all who see are impressed

John
 
Thanks John that info is very helpful
 
Greg

No they are two totally separate animals I'm afraid the electronics are different, although they and the handset appear similar they re just using as many basic parts as they can to keep the costs down, if you think back to the HO sets even though the handset appeared the same you could not mix them either.

John
 
So you have compared the electronics... thanks, was just wondering, because really there should be no need to change the transmitter electronics... it is still passing tokens to the receiver... but the receiver may be doing less or more, depending on how they partitioned the software.

Greg
 
Greg

if you think about it the transmitter in the DCC system is acting like the whole of a DCC set up, the receiver is a slave forwarding the commands to the decoder but also acts as a converter of DC power to AC for the decoder,

The DC system the receiver translates the commands from the transmitter and carrier out certain functions and is DC only

Excuse lack of technical terms I am not an electronics expert

the only common item is the radio control

John
 
John, I'm not sure about that. There are 2 ways this can be implemented:

1. Throttle sends tokens like (go faster, stop, reverse) to decoder in loco.
2. decoder received the tokens and converts to DCC signals to output to DCC decoder.
This method is very much like DCC system where command station function and booster is in decoder.
This is similar to most traditional DCC systems

other way

1. Throttle sends DCC commands over wireless link.
2. Decoder just forwards DCC commands to attached DCC decoder
This method is like "deadrail" and AirWire
Command station function is in throttle, booster function on board loco.

It's not clear which of these 2 methods is in use. Your post indicates the first method, the way it was explained to me by Navin (works at Precision RC, the manufacturer) is the second method.

I'll have to wait until someone actually determines this.

Greg
 
Maybe a call to JK or Navin at Revolution Electronics or Precision will make it clear.
Greg, I am sure that your reputation and experience in the field, and as an early adopter, will give you more chance of getting an answer than us mere hobbyists.
 
Greg Elmassian said:
John, I'm not sure about that. There are 2 ways this can be implemented:

1. Throttle sends tokens like (go faster, stop, reverse) to decoder in loco.
2. decoder received the tokens and converts to DCC signals to output to DCC decoder.
This method is very much like DCC system where command station function and booster is in decoder.
This is similar to most traditional DCC systems

other way

1. Throttle sends DCC commands over wireless link.
2. Decoder just forwards DCC commands to attached DCC decoder
This method is like "deadrail" and AirWire
Command station function is in throttle, booster function on board loco.

It's not clear which of these 2 methods is in use. Your post indicates the first method, the way it was explained to me by Navin (works at Precision RC, the manufacturer) is the second method.

I'll have to wait until someone actually determines this.

Greg
Click to expand...


John's post no.37 above actually seems to agree with you, Greg, in that it suggests what you refer to as the "second method" - which is the opposite of how I understood the Revo DCC to work from the information in earlier posts and threads..... other systems like the Tam Valley/Stanton setup that I have experience of, work by transmitting a DCC signal over the air from the Tx, and the Rx just passes these commands to the decoder - that's why you can use the Tam Valley system by hooking a simple transmitter module to the outputs of your exisiting DCC central station.

As I originally understood it, the Revo system was to work by transmitting a proprietary command set from the Tx to the Rx, and the Rx then converting that into a DCC command signal for the decoder...... but posts above would suggest this is not the case.

The fundamental question is, where are the DCC commands created - in the Tx, or in the Rx?

Jon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom