I have been wondering the same thing

If I am understanding you correctly, you would like a device (Bridge Device) to interface a DCC throttle with a wireless router. If this is correct I have been considering the possibilities myself. Our club uses an Easy DCC controller. We currently have computer and wireless router interfaced via JMRI. A couple of club members use their smart phones as controller. I would like the idea of connecting my Digitrax Throttle to a device to let it interface with the Wireless router.

That said, I believe it may be cost prohibitive. I don't think a universal device could be built as each throttle manufacture uses different protocols. Therefore a different device would be need for each manufacture's throttle.    

Digitrax JMRI WI Throttle APP

I don't disagree with your concept but it seems like a lot of expense when the Digitrax components for wireless throttles are already in place. You can down load the JMRI WI throttle APP for Iphone or Android phone for free.  As I have stated in other posts my guests and myself don't really care for the Digitrax DT402 throttles as they appear too complex. 

The Digitrax UT4D throttle is the preference for my guests who do not care for a Smart Phone throttle.  If you have existing Digitrax DT400 or UT4 throttles, you can send them to Digitrax to be upgraded to duplex wireless.  A new UT4D can be purchased for around $105.

Exactly, Benny

That would be a very flexible way for people to utilize throttles.  As to cost, akarmani, to set up pure Duplex wireless for Digitax now requires the UR92 at about $150.  I'm not sure a bridge device should cost that much more, especially if it is just IEEE standard wireless - everything else could be in software using the same devices we have now.  It does provide more risk for DCC manufacturers, though, but I still believe the manufacturer with the best combination of cost, ease-of-use and flexibility will take the lion's share of the market, even if it means selling a few less pieces of hardware they already have.

IEEE 802.11 Throttles

Benny,

It seems to me that akarmani (name?) is correct. Since each manufacturer has its own code for implementing the NMRA DCC codes each manufacturer would have to build its own "adapter". However, JMRI has done much of the heavy lifting because it communicates with all of the command stations except MRC. (Parenthetically, MRC still withholds its code from the JMRI people. A poor business practice that is almost as bad as no web site, but that's another thread.) Each of the manufacturers makes one or more radio throttle boards for their throttles. If instead of the radio output the boards had an output like a cell/smart phone your "zany idea" would be fulfilled.

On the other hand, if JMRI can read and write to all major command stations, could this be the basis for universal "adapter device"? There is also the JMRI throttle in the Decoder Pro software. Perhaps the throttle software can be incorporated into something that could be plugged into an existing throttle. I'm not an engineer, but I suspect that it wouldn't be too expensive. Food for thought.

Dick

...

akarmani is indeed correct: each DCC manufacturer bridge would be different. 

For some manufacturers, this would be desirable - the Digitrax UT-4, for example, has a wide following.  others like the barrel in the NCE throttle.  And as I have learned, there is a group of people who are VERY STOUTLY against their buttons and knobs and dials disappearing anytime soon - but equally against the idea of sticking mechanical doodads that replicate their functions on a smartphone surface.  They want things to stay JUST THE WAY THEY ARE!

But things can't stay that way.  Every time the manufacturers come out with a new throttle, they drop one and increase the price on all the rest.  They add features, but they require a second device to use those features.  Hence, we're getting throttles and systems that are increasingly expensive but offering little to no return for the cost.  What's worse, in my mind, is how they're advancing wooden spoked wheels as the cutting edge when the communications world has gone from wood to metal spokes to solid steel and now back to open but solid aluminum rims.

There's a couple other things.  NCE wireless has those antennaes.  This would eliminate that concern, whereas good wireless is basically clear 100 yards away through stucco walls.  Digitrax has their simplex/duplex radio network, but the wLAN eliminates all concerns about whether you have a UR91 or a UR92 on the wall.  Many people enjoy the layout of the UT-4, but the bridge could indeed cost as much as the UT-4...which again costs the same amount as a gen-1 smart phone, which is a quantum leap versus even this bridge device.

Ultimately, I don't see these devices being built by the DCC manufacturers, but rather by the likes of a group like JMRI or other tinkerers in their own time form scrap parts.  And their utilization would be a diminishing return; as we progress forward, more and more people Will migrate to the smart phone, particularly as more people put more development into physical/mechanical interfaces/overlays for use with the smart phones. The medium as a technical platform simply offers too much power versus anything else available.

In the meantime, it would pretty much erase another line in the sand, the line between NCE and Digitrax...it's be a nice to have... 

Knob on smartphone

Has anyone added a knob to a smartphone running WiThrottle?  If so how is it done?

Thanks,

Dave

Sounds like a new product

Sounds like a new product: A JMRI Throttle!

Simply a throttle that is built with similar controls to a normal one, but ONLY interfaces to JMRI. That way, anybody with any system could by this throttle.

As a hardware engineer, I don't see why this couldn't be done.  Anybody interested in starting this project?  Send me a message if you are interested.

- Peter, San Jose (soon to be SLC, UT)

...

Peter, JMRI skipped the Hardware phase and went right to Software - they adopted the Smart Phone as a platform and now you can do just as you say, the Smart phone will run any system that has JMRI but you must have JMRI to use the throttle!

The smart phone does little for the "I MUST HAVE MY UT-4!" crowd, so I went there and found a way that would preserve their precious UT-4s while putting them on the JMRI network.  And yes, this means if another manufacturer came out of nowhere with a throttle that looked and functioned like the DCC throttles we have now, but ran on the JMRI network, they would be free to sell throttles with no care whatsoever about developing either decoders or command stations. 

But it appears hardware development is a dead end,seeing as how it leads to a device that is expensive to manufacturer upfront and not guaranteed to sell one way or the other.  Hence, you see multiple wi-throttle applications on the market now; Like JMRI, the 3rd party manufacturers skipped hardware and went straight to software,using the JMRI link.

Where might things go from there?  Perhaps we'd then see DCC manufacturers offering their throttles straight with the Wrangled Adapter built in, proclaiming their throttles are able to work either plugged into their network or over JMRI.  

But I see this as being a very hard sell, seeing as how throttles are already approaching $80-$120 for the low tech style and $250-$270 for the high tech styles, this adapter would perhaps add $25-$50 to what is already almost enough to simply go and buy a Gen-1 Smart phone that jumps straight to the JMRI chase out the gate - you don't HAVE to buy the phone service to use it on the wLAN, afterall.  And while $25-$50 would be all and well for the guy who already has a UT-4 or a DT400, I see $165 or $300 being a hard sell to anybody, even someone just starting out.

OSC protocol

There is a network based control protocol called Open Sound Control or OSC for short. This was developed to expand/replace MIDI as a method of controlling synthesizers and such, and like MIDI has escaped the farm to become a method of controlling all sorts of things, like lights and robots. You will see it in action if you go to a dance music show where the DJ is just pressing buttons or waving her iPhone in the air. Here's an example:

OSC works on any network: wired, wi-fi, bluetooth, anything.

The connection to this thread is threefold:

1. There are inexpensive (free even) phone and pad apps that let you design your own interface for sending OSC data. TouchOSC is a good example (it's on the iPad in the above video). It would be easy to lay out a controller with sliders for speed and buttons for whistle, bell, etc.
2. There is support for OSC on Arduino, and plenty of Arduino based button and knob controller kits are available.
3. OSC is well supported with java libraries.

Thus it would be simple for a JMRI developer to incorporate OSC into JMRI. The only controversial part would be determining a standardized set of commands. Once this is done Benny and others will be able to roll their own controllers any way they want to, as phone apps or hardware devices. (WiThrottle looks pretty good, but everyone has their own ideas. Building Arduino contraptions is harder than putting blue boxes together, but they are a good candidate for garage based manufacturers.) Such apps and controlers would run anywhere JMRI is found.

I'm not a JMRI developer, and with 187 days left until retirement, will not be one soon,  but maybe some reader here could pass the suggestion along.

pqe

...

Dave, I don't know anybody who has done it yet, but the technology is certainly out there and it is attainable.

This was brought up the last time around: it's promising. 

I see no reason why, utilizing this technology, an entire overlay could not be made for the Smart Phone, such that the overall device does looks and acts just like a UT-4, for example, but underneath it all, it's just a Smartphone communicating with the DCC network over JMRI.

But if there was a way to adapt the controllers in use right now to the JMRI network, well, that's all as well too!

cost

Benny,

Seems to me that the cost of a throttle is not the point here.  The point is to have more tactile controls for a wireless throttle connected to JMRI.  As has been mentioned, one could stick physical controls around/on/over a smartphone.  As for price, this wouldn't save much, and I think a throttle designed from the ground up as a universal throttle  would be very nice.  I don't know what current throttles cost to make, but I would like to do some more research and see what the markup and ROI would be.

Thanks for the information and I agree that many control application everywhere are turning into simple apps on smartphone.  I do believe that some applications will always be nice with a dedicated controller.

Universal throttles

I agree, Peter.  I'm not too keen on the smart phone thing, and I really don't like the idea of having to pay for a lot more capability that I plan on using.  It's like buying a semi truck to carry a briefcase across the street.  If there were a basic Wi-Fi throttle with the features I want (speed knob, direction switch, up to 4 functions, and a way to select any desired address) that worked well and cost $50 or less, I'd definitely buy a few once I get the computer interface worked out.

There is still one problem which we have not addressed.  In order for any form of Wi-Fi or JMRI to be usefull, you have to have a computer and a computer interface.  What is needed is a direct Wi-Fi to Loconet (or other mfg. version of the data /track bus) connection, so that any Wi-Fi device with the correct software can access any decoder on the layout.  Program an engine from your tablet, use a throttle on your smart phone, use a future Wi-Fi throttle, and no need for any computer to be connected to the layout.

Direct connection

Ken, ABSOLUTELY.  PC-free operation is key for casual use.  I am very excited to look into a solution that meets the needs of this thread.

Any other wishlists people have for throttles or any control topics?

Peter

PC Free? Free PC's!

I have not paid a cent for the last three JMRI PC's I have installed. Since JMRI can run very effectively on what most of us would consider obsolete systems, I have been able to resurrect these outdated systems from the scrap heap. So the only cost to link JMRI to a DCC system is an access point and an interface such as a PR-3, LocoBuffer or interface for other DCC system. I have also found old IEEE 802.11G routers on the scrap pile, so only the PC to DCC interface needed to be purchased. But wait -- each of the layout owners had purchased the necessary interfaces in order to use DecoderPro, so nothing new was purchased! 

Also JMRI does not have to run on a standard PC. JMRI can run on a Raspberry PI.  Add a WiFi dongle, box, JMRI to DCC interface, power supply and the total cost in the $160 range is only a little more than a Digitrax UR-92.  If you insist on running Windows, a mini or micro PC can be had for around $120.

However, the primary advantages of keeping the PC are compatibility and consistency.  Just as with a cell phone or iPod, a WiFi throttle capable of running a DCC layout through JMRI will run ANY JMRI configured layout regardless for the DCC system Digitrax, NCE, Lenz, etc. This is also the reason that the probability of any DCC manufacturer, other than maybe Lenz, releasing a JMRI compatible WiFi throttle is slim as it would not be locked to a proprietary system!

Also if the work of the OpenLCB group (openlcb.org) is successful, supported in part by the NMRA, a great deal of the network protocol and software will be free. Note: Members of this group (commercial and open) are working on wired and wireless throttles.

Ken K

Pacos site has wireless throttles that you can build

http://usuaris.tinet.cat/fmco/home_en.htm

Search for XWL and you will find the wireless throttles. However, the idea of adding a knob to a smartphone is interesting. I would think that if it can be done the gaming industry will be the first. Maybe the RC crowd is working on one?

Rob Teed

Physical control Knobs for your smart phone

  "...a throttle designed

This may be true for those people who believe in having a separate device for each task they do.  However, the big technological idea of the 1990s-2000s was Convergence. It wasn't so much about making "a New Thing," it was about putting all the things we already have into One New Thing that Does Everything. What does the device do? Whatever You want to Do!

The computer is becoming an integral element to running a model railroad. It may only kind of seem like an auxiliary item right now, but once you throw in DCC switches and signaling, database handling for storing and loading decoder profiles, and shipping programs to manage operating session/print paperwork, it becomes obvious that the GUI is the easiest way to manage the whole system. Be that computer a smart phone or a standalone PC, it's ultimately the same "command station" and with more power/potential than any DCC command station will EVER have. Indeed, the computer provides Compatibility and Consistency, with the added bonus of [nearly] unlimited Capability and a very large Capacity.

Think of the old throttles as typewriters and we're just using them to compose drafts. You just want a word processor because all you want to do on that one device is compose documents. But here's the crux of the issue: the cost to produce a word processor is as much if not more than the cost to produce a computer that has a full Office Suite on it. Yes, you have to buy all those "extra addons you don't want," but you're getting the whole basket at a price Lower Than even a Word Processor - and that basket has a word processing program in it that is more advanced than any word processor unit ever was, to boot

That part you want to overlook - cost - is standing on the throat of development of Individual standalone devices that only do one thing.  The Cost to develop a physical standalone device is reflected in the prices on the DT402R, or the UT-4R, or the newest powerhouses.  It isn't even the buttons that are expensive, seeing as how Digitrax is still selling the same physical containers they used to sell for...?$50?, was it?, but as soon as you add electronics - simplex, duplex, infrared, the cost of production scales infinitely upward.

Programmers, however, are a little more forgiving.  It costs nothing but their time to produce a program, whereas the program is made in a "free" environment, the computer they already bought.  Sure, they cost a lot per hour if you buy them, but once they are done, subsequent copies of their work cost nothing to produce for the company who holds the rights.

The main problem now, for any Universal throttle producer, is the one we theoretically encountered when we had this discussion in 2007 about the GUI interface and compared/contrasted it against the Physical Knob interface: how do you change the physical layout/shape/upgrade the standalone controller when you discover there is a better ergonomic layout?  If you revise the controller, the new controller will cost as much if not more than it cost to produce the first controller. What more, the manufacturing costs overseas that made your throttle "affordable" the first time have gone up since then, while inflation has increased the level of compensation expected by your local R&D engineers.  And finally, your market is saturated with your prior product that is "good enough " for 75% of your potential market; you new device must compete against the old devices as much as your competitor's devices.

Meanwhile, the gen-1 smart phones are now becoming Very Affordable as standalone microcomputers.  That's really all they are, when you get right down to it.  And the Smart Phone offers unlimited adaptability/ upgradability/ revisionability for any throttle interface designed across that screen.  I could very well see a programmer designing a throttle interface where the virtual buttons are as dockable and movable as the little menu bars have been in windows applications; you select the ones you want, resize them to the sizes you prefer, move them to the right places on the screen, and then lock the toolbars in place until you want to move them again. Old technology, new use...

The main issue is, how do you pack all of that software in a smartphone into a universal throttle without, well, re-inventing the smart phone?

UT-4s are already what Ken describes, though tethered to Digitrax; the base UT-4 model right now lists on Digitrax's page for $80 [infrared]. At the moment it is very feasible to load a program to a smart phone that has the exact UT-4 layout on the screen and nothing more. What does the rest of the smart phone do? It does nothing; it just sits there. I realize this "unused potential" makes some insane [it can't just SIT there, unused - can it??!] but when you realize the Gen-1 Iphone is only between $70 and $85 dollars on Amazon [and it has wLAN, a protocol Far advanced over infrared], I think it becomes rapidly obvious that the smart phone IS the physical platform for future product development. It has the economy of scale, a large consumer population far larger than anything we could ever get in the hobby, that is necessary to drive prices down and rapid improvement up.  Just one more upgrade to the UT-4 and the Smart Phone is the cheaper throttle.

Hence, I come back to the gadget overlay.  The beauty of these gadget overlays is the fact that they would require literally no advanced electronics, whereas they all reside behind the Smartphone screen, so the issue of encountering patents and copyrights is rapidly diminished.  Rob, I think you are also quite correct, it will be the gaming industry that advances these overlays, seeing as how the gaming industry is also infinitely larger than model railroading.  One of these manufacturers may even be willing to build an overlay for the model railroad market that Emulates the UT-4, seeing as how they would have the resources to develop and sell a product at very little return or effectively at a loss.

Ken K, I think you are probably correct concerning the Main established DCC manufacturers not pursuing a JMRI compatible throttle or even the widget based smartphone overlays.

Here's something else to consider; we're right now sitting at 4 digit decoder addresses.  When you throw in computers with GUI interfaces as the main driving engine, it suddenly becomes possible to throw that number out to 6, 10, 12...100 digit addresses.  Keep in mind, you and I would never actually see the physical address; we'll just see the profile description in the database [UP#4502], and upon selecting that unit, software will be handling all the Loco-Select communication.  Eventually, I'd like to see things advance to the point where there is wLAN capability right on the decoders themselves, but we're a bit further away on that one!  All of this capability rests upon using what is already inside the computer box.

This discussion really jumps the cow a bit further than the wireless throttle adapter idea.  I was aiming at something that would effectively combine the existing DCC throttle with technology as a simple standalone plugin to enable it access on the JMRI network.  Let us suppose every Dick-Digitrax, Ron-NCE and Charlie-Lenz  are still on the fence about JMRI and completely against the Smart Phone throttle altogether, stoutly entrenched behind their personal throttles of choice.  Once Dick, Ron and Charlie all discover they could use their personal throttle of choice on John's JMRI enabled DCC layout, I dare say you'd quickly see three more people adding JMRI to their layouts and making DCC consumer choices based upon JMRI capability.  Then when Jim-WiThrottle comes over and they see the Smart Phone in actual use on their layout, [and it's not the scary demon they conjured up] the acceleration of momentum to that device will increase.

My universal wireless throttle adapter idea would be a quick way to keep all those old throttles in use by those who love them, while helping these people get comfortable with the computer as being an integral part of their model railroad.

Anyhow...I Do have a Smartphone now; my RAZ-R3 finally bit the dust.  It's nice - I'm still nowhere near using it's full capabilities, but it's nice for what I've used so far.  The Ebay application has been very useful for monitoring my auctions!

Have you ever actually

Have you ever actually operated a layout?

The last thing I want while operating is to have to look at my controller.

Humans have a sence of touch why would I want to give that up just so i do not have to buy a controler?

This is an interesting topicbut if it is going to turn into another smart phone anti throttle rant i will just skip it.

This was typed on a touch device and it only took three times as long as an old fashioned keyboard would have taken

-Doug

Throttles

Throttles Adapters:

I do like the idea of add on WiFi throttle adapters; however, I fear that the implementation would not have good characteristics. Think of an adapter about the size of the throttle (e.g. UT-4, CAB-06) stuck onto the back of the throttle. In the case of the UT-4 this ~3" x 3" x 4" set would be awkward to hold and definitely not fit in a pocket. The adapter, connected by the standard cable, could reside in a shirt pocket or on a belt (hook or pocket) and except for the new appendage the operator would find little functional difference. Just don't stick a throttle in a fascia pocket and attempt to walk away. The costs of these adapters will still be fairly high, in the order of $100 to $200. Because manufacturers use different connectors, signals and protocols it will not be “universal”, but a single adapter could be designed with multiple interfaces capable of handling throttles from maybe four or five primary vendors (e.g., Digitrax, NCE, MRC, Lenz) depending on space for connectors. Almost everyone would be able to use their own throttle on any JMRI layout. Manufacturers have also been reluctant to release the full details of their communication protocols, so it has been difficult for the home brew crew to develop “universal” converters and adapters.

With the high cost, I would just a soon have a standard JMRI compatible WiFi throttle. Of course it would have a nice display, a real knob, a direction switch and real buttons. This avoids having to deal with the proprietary protocols, and for the most part the OpenLCB crew has already defined the necessary protocol(s) . See http://www.openlcb.org/trunk/specs/index.html.For a base throttle design check out Don Goodman-Wilson's progress towards an OpenLCB (MNRAnet) throttle.

< iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XspEvkrDgIs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> < /iframe>

Add a FCC licensed IEEE 802.11 g/n dongle and its almost there. Note: one can not use cheep chip sets or even modules because their use will incur significant expense, testing and time required to get through the FCC certification / licensing process.

Cell Phone Throttles:

I find the lack of tactile feel and response poor ergonomics which limit the usefulness of touch screen devices, and I do not want to clutter up my cell phone with apps which in many cases fail to perform as well as dedicated units. But I do find them useful, so do to cost consideration I have purchased used iPod Touches (average cost $35) to use as extra throttles. The younger generations have no problem using the iPods, but I have found that do to the ease of use and "real" controls with tactile response they also prefer to use UT-4's. I was also very happy when a drop resulted in a broken screen to a cheep iPod and not my phone.

Note: I have played with some of the mechanical add-ons for touch screen devices including some designed for gamers and, as have many gamers, found them ineffective. Most of the problems with these gadget overlays are actually do the characteristics of current touch screens including sensitivity, positional accuracy and resolution. These are some of the many reasons touch screen manufacturers are attempting to design screens with physical features such as electromechanical or fluidic bumps that pop-up when buttons are turned on and “clickers” that thump the screen to attempt to simulate the tactile feedback of snap-action switches.

Otherwise:

And for those who doubt that I run trains or have a direct interest in these technologies: As I write this I have an iPod JMRI throttle running my LS Shay around the indoor test track (still need to chip ice outside) while watching an Engineers view out of the cab using an IPTrains IEEE 802.11g camera system. My home brew telemetry system provides speed and battery status. If I switch to one of my QSI / Gwire Receiver (RF DCC) equipped battery powered engines, I can run with all the same features but without requiring any track power. The ultimate goal is to have all of these functions (e.g., Train control, video and telemetry) in a single engine “decoder” with wireless communication (e.g., WiFi, wireless DCC such as a duplex Gwire, custom RF such as the Digitrax system) all linked to a throttle with an adequate video capable display (e.g., Phone, computer, tablet, custom), so I can sit “in the cab” and play engineer even in very cold or hot weather. These current systems could be jammed into an O or S scale engine, and there is definitely the possibility of an HO system in the future.

Ken K

Universal Throttle Adaptors

Ken,

Another problem with the universal throttle adaptors is the buss interface is proprietary. Development of these adaptors could lead to lawsuits.

Doug,

Even if many of Benny's ideas are thought provoking, I would not spar with him about knobs. This has been discussed in his past postings, He considers the knob to be the modern day equivalent of a club. You may find verbosity to be his very effective weapon of choice.

Regards,

John

************************************************************************************************************************************************

The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.  Winston Churchill

Benny may get his wish by default

John:

After many years of verbal sparing (As a Quality System Manager & Auditor who could with a long report or a few direct words shut a company down), still find debating (When I do not fall into my Drill Instructor command mode) a great entertaining diversion. I could probably draw Benny into another almost endless round of rhetoric in support of smartphones, but signs are that he is winning.

As noted in recent JMRI user forum posts (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jmriusers/message/90444), the use of smart phones seems to be gaining ground on layouts and especially at shows. It is not only gaining ground, Manufacturers including Lenz and Roco demonstrated plug and play, back box WiFi interfaces to their networks. There were hints from other Manufacturers that more PC-less interfaces were on the way, but the Digitrax WiFi to LocoNet unit has yet to appear. Benny may get his wish by default because, with inexpensive smart phones or iPods linked through proprietary or JMRI WiFi interfaces, it will be hard for manufacturers to continue to justify the costs of even low-end RF Throttles.

And now that JMRI has been ported to the Raspberry-Pi and several low cost micro-boards, the cost of an interface for us hackers who already own a USB to DCC system interface is down to about $65.  I guess I need to buy some of the CapWidget knobs and buttons and get working on a my Wings.

Ken K

...

Ken...and there you go with the reason button, that's just no fun...

But that's the point: It's just a matter of common sense.

We are a hobby of common ground.  Anything that threatens that common ground, we don't like it.  Once something is big enough to be the common ground, we shut up and move to the common ground and start all over.  Some people get there first, some people...well, the phrase "you can take if from my cold..." actually becomes true before they can even finish the sentence and they win the race.

The point here is this: We have about ten different DCC decoder manufacturers.  We don't buy our DCC systems based upon what decoders we want to use, and the idea that we wold pick one command station over another based upon the manufacturer's decoders is just plain stupid.   There, I said it. 

We use the DCC systems we have because in general the decoders all use the same common ground.  Those who have tried to run against the current have discovered just how true this is.

Right now we have a large crowd who picks and chooses their DCC system not by how well it works internally but by how the user interface looks and feels, by how well that controller inputs machine code - in other words, by the CONTROLLER? 

Well gee, that would be me buying an HP PC because I like how the mouse looks feels, and then getting mad because the Box itself doesn't have half the crap the other box had, but it didn't have the cool little Intel HP logo on the mouse. 

We don't have these issues with computers, though, because all the user input device connectors use a Common Ground.  So why should we tolerate this issue in our hobby now that we do Have a common communication ground [JMRI]?

If we have two layouts in town, Bill's and George's, and 20 Model railroaders who operate on both layouts, and they each pick a different system, either Bill and George are each going to have to buy 20 controllers, or between the 20 people in the community, everybody is going to have to buy two controllers, one of which they won't be using half the time even if that is their personal throttle design of preference.  That's just looney...you should not have to commit to a throttle like that.  We don't tolerate this with decoders, I see no reason why we should tolerate it with throttles!

Once we have throttles on a universal common ground, the whole smart phone smart phone debate becomes a moot point.  Regardless of what's running under the hood, You use the throttle you want, I use the throttle I want, We're all happy!

Granted, this may be pushing the DCC market in a direction the DCC manufacturers may or may not appreciate, but I feel it's already going there whether they like it or not.  If anything, it further strengthens the market for DCC decoders, and for those components each manufacturer produces that works with a JMRI enabled environment.  And while it does not fix the communication issue inherent with present DCC [track signal], it does put throttle communication on a level where it is in direct competition with the best radio signal, while preparing the manufacturers for developing and implementing DCC decoders that operate on a wLAN network without a command station whatsoever.

The nail on the head

Ken,

I believe you are right. The IEEE 802.11b/g/n standard will be the wireless control system in the future. We will see a number of bridge products that allow DCC and WIFI to work together. The final outcome will be the demise of the DCC command station as it is replaced by WIFI throttles that talk directly to WIFI decoders. The track will just supply power to run the motors and maybe the battery pack. I just hope some of the throttles still have a speed knob and forward-reverse switch.

On the verbosity issue I rest my case. It seems that the number of words is not dependent on one's agreement or disagreement on an issue. 

Regards

John

*************************************************************************************************************************************************

Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler.  Albert Einstein

...

John, there are many computer mice on the market today...

Yet the most sold mouse remains the one with two buttons and a wheel...and a cord...

Your knobs and buttons will be here for a very long time. Just don't get too attached to using a DOS prompt...