DCS wouldn't it be nice additional features

 I thought for sure you'd say:

Bluetooth!!

Let's send the engine's sounds to an external source instead of just playing them thru the trains. The soundsets are better than most guys realize.

this is me:https://ogrforum.com/topic/fm-wireless-mounted-at-loco-is-working

bluetooth next.

Writing the loader program to work with MAC.  

Customize sound sets with only the sounds you want.  I have some engines where the crossing sound is not available.  I'd gladly give up that silly "train wreck" feature.

Not just customized sounds "sets", but a full listing/index of individual sounds to choose from with the ability to hear them before downloading.

Let's say I don't like the horn sound of my RS3, I should be able to go to a list of horns, listen to them, then pick the horn I want to download.

Odd thing, I ran my steamers the other day and kept turning off the sounds (the bell and whistle cab can still be played), I kind of enjoyed not having all that noise of 2-3 steam engines chuffing and popping their way around the layout.

I guess I'm one that appreciates the control of the engines under DCS more than I appreciate the sounds.

I'm with you all, sounds like some very good ideas to me. Good suggestions. You should send these to Barry for the MTH meeting coming up at the spring York spring. He posted the other day about sending him things for MTH at the meeting.

Writing the loader program to run off Linux.  I've been using Ubuntu for several years now and love it!

• clikity clack at all speeds
• train defaults to the direction of your horn signal[can't see my locos sometimes and i start off in the wrong direction]
• icon for train direction
• mute all..in my MU's eng sound will mute 1 loco but not the other in the same lashup
• a dedicated air brake soft key
• back light text not needed..takes up command responses time
• crossing signal with MU's
• SCS sound coupler slack would stay on until toggled
• Cab chatter would stay muted [sometimes comes through even with eng all sound off]

I would like to see communication via the "air" vice the center rail with no regard to how the trains are powered (i.e. 3 rail, 2 rail or Battery)

Ron

Ron,

I would like to see communication via the "air" vice the center rail with no regard to how the trains are powered (i.e. 3 rail, 2 rail or Battery)

To do that you must bypass the TIU entirely. You then lose the variable channels, Z4K Tracks, E-Stop, and any ability to operate conventionally.

You would also have to build all of the TIU's functionality into the remote.

I can pretty much assure you that this will never be implemented in DCS.

I want them to make a new small board that uses the AUX key (Currenty unused).

Yes, A Protocouplers add on for any car. And 3 digit numbering for the addresses.

Yes, I know it takes RAM, RAM is CHEAP.

Hearing the sounds without loading in an engine would be nice.

I actually don't like Clickety clack. I prefer the steam engine sounds.

Bob; I actually set the sounds to different levels, Whistle 80, Bell 60 to 80 depending on engine, All other sounds 50 or less.

They all go up and down with this relative offset from that point. So you can set them softer for late night running or louder for when the room is full of people.

I can pretty much assure you that this will never be implemented in DCS.

Maybe not in the immediate future.  But it is not unrealistic or unachievable.  Why couldn't you put a transmitter in the TIU and a receiver in a new (hypothetical) PS4 engine?  Better yet eliminate the TIU and put it all in the remote, like you indicate.

All your talking about is the engine getting it's power from one source and data being sent via another.  Not terribly hard to conceive.  It's already a reality in the RC world.

What does Lee's quote say at the bottom of his posts?  "If it's never been done that way, it might be fun to try".

Ron

Ron,

It's not cost-effective, it is very difficult to do and there's no upside for MTH.

You can wish, just don't hold your breath.  

... and there's no upside for MTH.

MTH is not interested in an expanded customer base for DCS?

I think your logic is spot on.  The DCC folks already have after-market modules that take the DCC "data" signal from the base command stations and send that wireless to the engines.  A module in the engine then decodes the wireless signal and presents it to a the DCC receiver in the battery-powered engine.  The DCC engine is no wiser.  The DCC engine gets it power from the battery and its "data" from the wireless receiver.  In other words, as you suggest, the power and data are split apart with the data being sent wireless.  I believe this could be done via DCS also.  Sure, there are special cases such as Emergency Stop where removing track power at the TIU obviously would not remove battery power but these special cases could be handled with some thought.

What I find curious is the DCC capabilities of PS3 engines has increased over time to the point where many key features of DCS can be performed via DCC.  So we have a case like TMCC control where if you could put a DCC base-station (they can be controlled like a TMCC base) under TIU control you could use existing off-the-shelf DCC after-market wireless modules to run battery-powered PS3 engines via the "air." 

Ron & Stan,

MTH is not interested in an expanded customer base for DCS?

Let me know when you've completed your marketing survey...

Let me know when you've completed your marketing survey...

Well if Stan and I went ahead and did it... Why would we tell you?  I guess MTH should not worry... I do not have that entrepreneurial spirit.

What was I doing thinking outside the box again?  Bad.  Sorry, I'm back in line now.

I like my DCS as it is!

I like my DCS as it is!

I like my DCS as it is!

Ron

Hey Ron, perhaps you haven't heard... The beatings will continue until morale improves.

I'm baffled why your "nice addition" idea isn't as legitimate as the others that have been proposed.  It seems over time that DCS has become a "bigger tent," whether it be adding AC/DC support rather than just AC, adding TMCC support rather than just DCS, adding DCC support rather than just DCS, adding DCS-lite support (Remote Commander) rather than just full-blown take-it-or-leave-it DCS, etc..  So why not add wireless support rather than just wired?  Makes sense to me...

So why not add wireless support rather than just wired?

Because it would make it a completely different product.

I believe in KIS and DCS is getting way too complex. I use only a fraction of DCS capabilities / commands to run trains.

Another vote for OSX support!

The Remote to Engine Wireless will not happen for one good reason:

It would make all existing engines and DCS systems obsolete and anger the customer base. Why? Because it is radically different than the current system.

MTH made that mistake once (PS to PS2) and got burned, I doubt Mike will do it again.

And the shift to PS2 was not changing an existing Command system, just moving from a sound only system to a Command system with sound and it still angered off the Customers.

NOTE: 

The PS Engines can still run as they always did, they just can't run on Track with constant max power, same as all other conventional engines. 

In the DCC large scale world all you need is the handheld remote (throttle) that sends the DCC packets thru the air to the receiver that's mounted in the engine. It then sends the packets to the motor drive/ soundcard but it's expensive. Say like $325.00 per locomotive and if you use battery power add another $150.00 for them...at least!!

Be interesting as I'd think that a GWire DCC receiver can be grafted onto a PS3 board...then use a NCE GWire throttle to run it but why??

I'll stick with PS2 & 3, DCS and track power thank you  

I agree with Russell that a DCS accessory decoder would be great to say do things like turn on/ off caboose lights & smoke units. 

The Remote to Engine Wireless will not happen for one good reason:

It would make all existing engines and DCS systems obsolete and anger the customer base. Why? Because it is radically different than the current system.

Guys... really?  No one has an imagination?  On the computer I'm using right now I have the choice of using a hard wire to connect to the internet and I also have the choice to connect wirelessly.

Maybe not tomorrow, but technology gets better and better every day.  Why couldn't a TIU and DCS remote send data to a PS2 engine using the 3rd rail and a Hypothetical PS4 engine over the "air" at the same time?

Some of you sound like this guy...

Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899. Mr. Deull's most famous attributed utterance is that "everything that can be invented has been invented." 

I'm glad no one listened to that guy.

Ron

I think a more appropriate computer analogy would be that upgrading to a wireless internet connection requires you to junk your existing motherboard and OS, since this new "wireless internet" added a bunch of new sites and services that refused to allow you to connect if they detected you were using the older OS (which was not supported by the vendors peddling the new wireless devices).

It's technically do-able, but an unappetizing prospect to the bulk of your user base, heavily invested in the existing system but would have to buy yet another set of hardware in order to continue buying new locomotives for their fleets. Contrast this with the progression from PS2 to PS3, which required no new hardware to use the newer locos.

My "nice thing to have" would be volume settings that aligned themselves with the lead engine in an MU consist. The last time I created a double-header, all locomotives in the group immediately went to full volume--which was the last thing I wanted to do being the layout room shared a wall with the next-door neighbor's lving room. Last time I checked into this, there weren't any workarounds. Indeed, i don't know if this was even on the "to do" list.

---PCJ