Interesting

I like the idea of adding physical controls to the throttle, but it might be difficult to come up with a way to keep them universal.  You would not want a physical interface layer which is hardware-specific, since people seem to replace their touch screen devices every year or two, and no two devices are the same any more.

Have you considered listening to what people are saying, rather than what you want to hear?  You seem to suggest that those of us who insist on throttle knobs and direction switches are just stuck in our ways and trying to hold back the march of progress.  Perhaps you might consider the real functionality of the two designs.  As I see it, there are really only two things a throttle must do - control the speed, and the direction.  Controlling extra functions is a nice addition, but it comes at the cost of simplicity and price.  If the objective is to make a hand-held device which has only two controls on it, a hand-held touch screen personal computer seems just a little bit like gross overkill.

Also, note that smart phones are not likely to reach the point of being less than $50 in today's money.  If anything, the glut of new features and the short life span (which will keep used phones off the market, for the most part) will probably tend to keep prices fairly high.  Yea, a DT402R is expensive, roughly comparable to a smart phone.  I don't use or own a DT402R, though.  I use a Zephyr and homemade throttles.  I will probably invest in a PR3 or similar for easier programming, and possibly a couple UT4s for every day operation.  I can do all that for less that the cost of that new smart phone throttle.

In short, you have an interesting idea that sounds good, but my advice would be to take care to play nice, or many people will dismiss you and your ideas without even considering them.

More offensive than interesting

Even though I run DCC I find your comments regarding "DC defenders" to be offensive, and totally irrelevant to your main premise. But let's ignore your attitude for the sake of the discussion.

I've tried a WiThrottle, and while I like the basic idea, I would rather use a wireless throttle with a knob that can be held and operated in one hand (without looking at it), while I use the other for switching turnouts, uncoupling cars, etc. 

I agree that an overlay mounted on the face of the smart-phone would overcome my main problem with WiThrottles. However, it seems to me that a better way to go would be to have a cheap "universal" hand-held throttle with knob and reversing switch that communicates via blue-tooth with the smart phone in your pocket.

This, you heard from Ron first!

I like this

I like this idea.  Assuming that blue-tooth is a fairly durable wireless standard (if there is or can be such a thing) it overcomes the issue of physical dependence on a specific model or line of phones.  Also, if you want to use additional features, you could always pull the phone out and play "video train" all day long

It might even be practical to have a few configurable function buttons on the hand-held.  Maybe 2-3, for headlights, bell, horn.  One thing I would like, though it runs into complication of control issues, is a way to select a locomotive easily.  A row of 10 buttons and a 4 character numeric LCD would do the job simply, and I'm sure there a variety of other creative ways to put the selection on the hand-held.  The phone would then become an interface (though one wonders why it would really be needed at all), and good software should be able to know which loco is selected and display it automatically.

My idea for a touch screen throttle

In the interest of playing along, I do have an idea for a touch screen throttle that I might actually use.  As far as I know, it has never been done, but I don't know of any reason why it could not be with current technology.

To date, al the touch screen throttles I have seen are simply graphic representations of a physical control layout, which I and several others have complained about for a variety of reasons.  The problem is that I want to move my fingers in a circle to turn the speed up, a reverse circle to slow down, and side to side to reverse.  All that is needed is software which can recognize those actions regardless of the exact location on the screen.

Speed would be controlled by moving my fingertip in a clockwise (for the sake of argument) circle, just as though there were a large knob on the screen.  Anything roughly approximating a circular motion should be good enough.  The large (full screen width) "knob" would give much better control than a small slider, and the exact sensitivity could be infinitely variable in software.

Reversing could be recognized by a quick back and forth motion on the screen.  One possibility would be to recognize any such motion, regardless of the direction.  Another would be  to have the operator draw an arrow in the desired direction (left or right, up or down, configured by the user).  This would have the advantage of not being easily confused with a flattened circular motion, preventing an operator from accidentally reversing when he or she was trying to change the speed.

A double tap would turn off the speed/direction sensor, allowing access to function buttons.  Another double tap or a time delay would turn on the speed/direction sensor again, which should function something like a screensaver.

Now, assuming all of that fit comfortably in my hand, and could be purchased for $50 or less in today's money, I'd use a throttle like that.  It's not that I must have a physical speed knob and direction switch, but rather that I insist on the functionality of them

I was going to say it in the other thread, Benny

Traxxas, one of the biggest R/C manufacturers out there, has done something similar, though its not specific control, but the idea is there.  They have an optional cradle for your radio that you can connect an i-device too (currently only iPod Touch or iPhone), which has an app on it.  Using a few sensors in your vehicle, you can monitor temperature, RPM, actual speed, battery strength, etc. in real time, as well as export it and track these statistics over time so you can see increase or decrease in performance when you make modifications.  

Having a handheld cradle with a knob that the smartphone snaps into solves my only real beef with the smartphone apps currently available.  That beef is a showstopper, unfortunately, after using it for a while.  So I'm with you on that, Benny.  With bluetooth technology, this should be a fairly simple thing to do, really.

Automotive analogy

Just because I like analogies, here's one for you:

Ferrari is arguable one of the premier car builders in the world, and their products are some of the best you can drive.  when it comes to technological and theoretical superiority, they're at the top, and the performance, handling, look and sound are all amazing.

All other car manufacturers should quit wasting their time and money developing second rate inferior products which cannot even come close to matching the performance of a Ferrari.  They would be much better off if they simply copied or licensed Ferrari technology and design.  After tall, that's what drivers really want, and it's only the stubbornness and mental inertia of Ford and GM that is preventing us all from having what we should have.

In fact, in an effort to fix the problem, we should all make this very point each and every time anybody talks about cars.  Repetition will drive home the point and will make ignorant people realize the error of their ways.  It's for their own good, of course, because this is the future!

...

Sound familiar?  Do YOU drive a Ferrari?  No?  Why not?  I cannot afford one, and it's not really practical for what I need a car to do (move people and stuff efficiently).  My little 1.5L front engine front wheel drive hatchback may be far from the pinnacle of engineering and driving perfection, but it gets 40 MPG, only cost $15 new, and I'm not afraid to leave it parked at work or at Wal-Mart.  It is, in fact, a much better fit for my needs than the "perfect" Ferrari.

It might be well to think about that fact.  Sometimes the fanciest, newest, flashiest solution is not the best solution.  Sometimes a good old fashioned tool is better than the newfangled replacement.  And sometimes the best solution is to keep the best of the old tool and incorporate the features of the new one, where those features really are better.

phone apps.

I personally have just purchased a Samsung Galaxy S III phone. I also would like to see the model train control market embrace this new tech. I am considering using the RailPro setup for the same reason since it is much simpler to setup and program. I can stream music from my cell phone to my car stereo without even removing the phone from my pocket by using Blue Tooth tech so I see no reason why someone can't do something similar with train control systems. Currently you can control your trans with a phone but you need a computer, a wi-fi interface and a bunch of software installed to make it all work. Each item costs money where RailPro skips a few of these steps. A Blue tooth interface with a throttle could also skip a few steps. While I really like the stuff that you can do with DCC, it's time to bring it into the present. I don't need a big round knob to change the speed but if it's there, I would use it. Even my older Samsung Galaxy 1 phone could control trains and I still have it as a spare. Used phones are still a cheap option since there are lots of them out there when lots of people upgrade every one to two years. My old phone still works as a wi-fi device even without the chip.

Ah hem

Can some one explain the fascination of controlling a train via a phone?

I guess I must be getting older and don't quite understand and don't tell me it's the future.

Thank you.

Bernd

Jack of all trades is master of none.

A cell phone is a terrible interface for operating a model train, it's as simple as that.   All the "possibilities" for modification and upgrade are just an out for a poorly designed device in the first place.  A properly designed device won't need its controls changed over and over and eproms in modern throttles can be reprogrammed, giving new functionality without needing to use a cell phone. 

I don't understand the fascination with touch screens.  They inspire four letter words more often than not when I'm using them.

In fairness

there is a definite age gap when it comes to smart phone use vs. more "traditional" tools.  Most people under 30 that I know (and I work with quite a few), love their smartphone and use it more than anything else they own.  They use it for communications, tools, games, books, camera, video, photo/video editing, and even business apps.  They can't live without them, just ask them, and they already own it.  The smartphone interface is a cost-saving measure, as well as providing them something they are already comfortable with.  My son did not experience the same frustration I had when manipulating the train.  He just did it because it came naturally.  

For fear of admitting I'm getting older, I have a smartphone and I enjoy many of its features and tools, but as I've said, the current interface for running a train doesn't work for me.  But don't discount those that are completely comfortable with the smartphone.  They really are an amazing tool when you consider what can be done with them. Its not unlike many people between the age of 30 and 50 are very comfortable working on computers and don't think they are going to start on fire if they press the wrong key.  There are always exceptions of course, but many people over 50 never grew up with a computer and the whole concept is foreign to them so they don't understand the use or value in them, though many of us understand how incredibly useful a computer is.

In 20 years, I think many of you will be shocked to see what is operating our trains as the younger generation ages within our hobby.  Don't knock the change, even if its not for you.  Joe said it perfectly - what works well for one person is completely useless to another and vice versa.  

It's not the change, per se

While I cannot speak for anyone other than myself, It's not the change that bothers me.  I'm not opposed to using a smart phone or other touch screen device on any sort of dogmatic grounds.  For me, it's:

1. Poor design which inhibits function.  As you noticed yourself, the current throttles are just not as sensitive or easy to manipulate as a well designed mechanical throttle.  That can be dealt with in a variety of ways, but it must be dealt with.  The current crop, as they exist, are not good enough to be called "the future."
2. Being told that smartphones are the future, and I must embrace it, and I'm wrong if I don't.  While not an issue with smart phone throttle apps per se, it is an issue with proponents of them.  As has been demonstrated many times over (Betamax vs. VHS, for example) it's not about the best solution, it's about the best marketed solution that still does the job.  If the smart phone crowd annoy the rest of us, they'll simply be ignored, even if they're technically right.

So no, I'm not opposed to change.  I expect it, and I hope it improves my ability to enjoy my favorite hobby.  To do that, however, any new throttle must work at least as well as what I have now - including working within my budget.

DCC Common Control Buss

Benny,

The real problem with the custom throttle idea is the proprietary control busses. The track signals have been standardized. The control buss hardware and software standards have not. If we had an open standard wireless control scheme for our DCC systems, then a new throttle could work with any system.

The proprietary busses are a way for the vendors to control market share. I do not have a problem with that.

The JMRI solution requires a computer and a fair amount of technical expertise to implement. The phone used as a throttle has the same set of issues. When the operating system for either changes so does the software and drivers.

We need a vendor with a black box that has an open standard wireless data buss that can be hooked to existing boosters. If the vendor used a existing industrial standard like ModBus then existing devices could be adapted, and new devices could be designed. The mobile phone throttles would only need one driver.

That's my opinion for what it is worth.

Regards,

John

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

The reason there are so few female politicians is that it is too much trouble to put makeup on two faces.   Maureen Murphy

The Ferrari analogy Fails...

Ken, your auto Analogy fails because our hobby is technologically still stuck in the frame of mind the automobile industry was in back in 1907.

The touchphone is the the First Model T that came along in 1908.

And YES, the manufacturers need to pay attention to this technology and wake up.

Their efforts are essentially little more than "reinventing a wheel" that has already been invented by the smart phone makers.

At this point, the smart phone has about a billion times the capacity and capability of the present buttonry boondoggles.  You ask, why on earth would we ever need that functionality.  i say, this is the wrong question - the right question is, HOW would you use that additional capacity, what could you do with it to expand your enjoyment of the hobby, and what new doors does this functionality open?

I'll give you one small example.  I also see this future where laser cutters and 3-D Printers are common place.  the issue will be design files - the software.  They're much easier to make than using a knife to hew the model out of raw styrene and wood, but it's even easier still to download a file versus create it form scratch.  Now let's say I go to your layout and see a really cool building on your layout, and want it on my layout.  Your design file for that building is on your Galaxy S III - you pull the file up, we face our phones together [that both have this ability], and in a tap later, your design file is now on my phone and I can take it home and use that design file.  Hence, we could even meet a thousand miles away at a convention, and swap design files all night long as we look at the cool structures we have in our libraries and share them.  It's just one small idea.

Ring went so far as to see one of my 2009 ideas to frutition - I forsaw then the possibility of completely eliminating the command station...and lo-behold, they did it!  It's only too bad their system architecture is not more user open or backwards compatible, or I'd be fully behind it.  It's only a matter of time, though.  Either they will, or someone else will.

New technology

New technology does not necessarily mean better.  An example is a touch screen keyboard.  Works great and has advantages in some situations.  It does not allow me to enter information or data as fast as mechanical input keyboard.  One works great when walking around until one runs into a pole.  The other works great unless one has to be really, really portable--even more portable than a laptop.

The advantage for the mechanical case is that the position of the keys are known and can be addressed without looking at the keyboard allowing visual viewing of the necessary input without continually shifting the vision from keyboard to data and back again.  The advantage of the touch is that it can be made quite small and mobile.

Both have advantages and disadvantages.

A smart phone can replace a throttle, but has significant ergonomic disadvantages including immediate tactile feedback--I don't have to look at it to see if I have the reverse switch or the speed control.

The smart phone has cost disadvantages as previously noted.  I personally do not change something that works well for new technology that costs more dollars on a limited budget.

The ability to accomplish something with new technology does not necessarily mean the concept will ever develop in to a successful product.

Terry

The fascination with Touch Screens

It's not a phone.

It's a micro Computer.

Sometimes it's not about understanding, but rather, comphrending, and then using your comprehension to chart out future courses.  You don't have to understand why the river flows from left to right, you just have to comprehend that it flows from left to right, in order to start using it to your advantage.  In using your comprehension, you'll eventually understand.

Here's what I comprehend:

http://www.androidguys.com/2012/09/06/samsung-20-million-galaxy-iii-sales-in-100-days/

Samsung has sold 20,000,000 Galaxy S IIIs in the last 100 days.  DAYS.  AKA, Samsung [and the other smart device makers] have the scale of economy and the scale of capital necessary to 1) produce the product at an affordable price and 2) retool a better product before the next quarter.  Furthermore, you're looking t an average population who will understand how smart phones work.  they may freak out when you hand them a digitrax DT402R, but a train controller app, it's like all the other angry birds apps they're used to.

I comprehend this market motion.

Now look at the DCC market.  How long did it take for Digitrax to introduce their latest buttonry boondoggle since the release of their previous same-line model?  we're now looking at Radio Simplex and Duplex.  How many of these devices does Digitrax hope to sell?  100,000 in all?  What will Digitrax's return on invest be on their new throttle?  Will that return on investment be enough capital to design and produce a throttle that comes close to resembling either the Galaxy S III or even Ring's Controller?

This is what I understand. 

There comes a point in development when you have to pick and choose your battles, when the car is simply too expensive to keep operating and it's time to change.  At this time in history, any more throttle investment by the DCC manufacturers is simply sinking money into a lost cause.  Interfaces that provide the user with the classic knob, and software, now that's where the future is at.  The device itself need not be specified,so long as the software is compatible with a wide array of smart devices.  The interfaces would be universally adaptable to any device face that offers touch capability.

I understand this electronic device, and it is our future.

Proprietary Control Buses

It is a hurdle, but then, it is not.

First, the overlay.

The overlaying interactive interface would be purely touch-mechanics [no wires, no comm at all] that would simply focus the human touch to a more manageable device.  Take apart a UT-4 and look at the buttons: all they are is pockets of air that develop air pressure when you press them down on the underlying circuit card.  The same pad could produce the same effect as a finger on a touch screen. 

If you were to look at the coded up software app, it would perhaps almost look like the underlying circuit card within the DT-400 or the UT-4, or whatever it is, with the shape changed as necessary to fit the device screen.  In otherwords, the smart device becomes the circuit card underneath, and the snap-on overlay that is your throttle interface is the soft rubber button part your familiar with.  In this model, we then eliminate the necessity for the likes of Digitrax or others to do any work with circuit cards whatsoever, provided the wireless communicates with a reciever.

Now to further address this proprietary control bus issue one step further, we have the issue of connecting to the layout. We have the USB connection that I hypothetically spliced to the pre-existing manufacturer bus interface.  That's it.  It's little more than I/O circutry, all controlled by software, with the proper hardware in the right places.

Now we get to communicating over the bus.  As I see it, NCE, Digitrax, Lenz, and everybody else would program their own software programs each communicating over their proprietary bus.  In time, I think we'll see these programs communicating over the same bus, because programmers would pick the programs up and jail break them to work on the system of their choice.  At that point, your throttle of choice is no longer dependent on the command unit under the layout, and further, we see the eventual elimination of the computer/pr-3 requirement due to the integration of better components into the command station - or perhaps event he elimination of the command station in exchange for a full blown computer.  Or, we'll see the ring example take off, where the command station is eliminated altogether.

Perhaps due to this technology we'll even see the emergence of a new bus to eliminate the communication issue.  So many roads, so many branches to the tree.

I do concur with you on this, though.  This would be Phenomenal for those with pre-existing DCC decoders.

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail

If everything should be touch screen, then let's get rid of steering wheels, gear shifts, and airplane stick controls.

Touch screens are cool, no question. But they are lousy at tactile feedback. Not everything benefits from this technology. Be careful that you haven't fallen into the trap of taking your touch-screen hammer and seeing all control problems now as a nail.

The touch screen throttle is just an electronic equivalent to a keypad throttle (with more cool visual feedback possible, I get that). When I first had my Lenz system, I offered my operators both a keypad throttle and a throttle with a knob. The knob throttles always went first, and then the slackers got "stuck" with the keypads (and often mumbled about it). I especially noticed the keypad guys had trouble if they were using it on a switching job. They didn't have the fine control of loco movements that the knob throttle guys did.

For tactile feedback situations, touch screens just don't work. Claiming manufacturers "don''t get it" isn't the issue, the issue is anyone who claims touch screens replace all types of controls "don't get it". Cool is not the only reason to use a technology. It also needs to be cheaper and solve problems better for it to take over.

For tactile feedback, it's hard to beat real, physical controls that you manipulate. Knobs and toggles are cheaper than touch screens to make, as well.

Mechanical Feedback

Benny,

I disagree with your touch screen theories, I would not say you are wrong, because that would make me a pompous ass.

The design of a human interface is a science in itself. To control some things, mechanical feedback is very helpful. I wound not like to drive a car with only touch screen controls, or even worse a jet fighter.

A touch screen control is based on hand eye coordination. To run a control on a touch screen requires looking at the screen. When running a train this means that you must look away from the train to position your hand, The mechanical throttle with a knob and a switch can be operated by feel. I run model trains to see them operate, not to see how cool my throttle looks.

Regards,

John

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

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. Nikola Tesla

Hysteric Hypochondriacs Anonymous

We went a different direction in this country altogether...

Japan ended up being the first country to adopt robotics in the workplace because to be quite frank, they freaked us out - they might go beserk!!!  Computer control, conversely, also freaked us out.  A couple decades later, I think we may have finally ironed the hysteria out - though you still see places where we're behind the curve...wheeh!!!

Gestures would make a Smart Phone Throttle more usable

I've used WiThrottle and iRoc on my iPhone. Cool, but I don't like having to look at my throttle in order to control my train. I want to look at my train and simply feel my throttle. I like Ken Rickman's idea of using gestures to control the train with a smart phone, this has the potential to give you a touch only interface. Until something like that comes along, I'd prefer something with knobs and buttons.

The Future

"Interfaces that provide the user with the classic knob, and software, now that's where the future is at."

Really?  Because just earlier today, I thought you were saying that smart phones were The Future, and the idea of adding a knob to one seemed like it was just a concession to us "old" guys and our stubborn ways.  Hmph.  This "future" stuff is so hard to keep up with.  

To emphasize the importance of a physical knob with direction and function buttons:  My locomotives take me about 6-12 weeks each to build/kitbash, detail, paint, and weather.  The idea of my operators running a train with 3-4 of these locomotives while their eyes are firmly planted on their phone/throttle in order to make adjustments, activate/deactivate functions, etc. is akin to the idea of texting while you drive.  I don't want to be within a mile of someone practicing the latter activity, and I don't want someone practicing the former within a mile of my layout.

We use smartphone trottles here in NJ

Here in New Jersey, on one layout I operate on in particular, has embraced and uses the smartphone controller app as a throttle per session almost as much as the amount of operators use a standard proprietary throttle at a given session.

Now, here's the thing......I am one of those who would rather use a throttle made for the given system, and not a phone. To me, a phone is a phone, even if it can do everything but walk the dog, make dinner, and wash the dishes (and I fear one of those isn't far behind, LOL!). Granted, the guy who installed the WiFi software on his layout is an I.T. specialist (so he has the know-how, and the tech to go along with it), so it was easy for him. And honestly, at first it was a novelty, but it has since proven it's worth. As some others have said, I too don't like the loss of a tactile interface, and anything else that would require a "plug-in" defeats the purpose in the first place as far as I'm concerned.

But the biggest advantage is that it keeps the requirement of having to worry about having enough throttles on hand for a session. To me, THAT is the most (and dare I say only) positive thing about it. And while I said I don't exactly embrace the idea, I may very well have him install the same hardware/software, for the very reason that I only own 3 throttles, and need about 10 on hand for a session. There might just be the one time where some of the regular operators can't make it, or forget to bring their extra throttles with them, but you can probably count on at least half those guys to have their smartphones on them! I'd rather have technology I don't personally embrace to allow me to run a session, than not at all.

I doubt you'll EVER catch me using one, but I have to admit for as much as I think it's kind of a "silly" idea, it's advantageous in the right situation, though I fear (and personally get the feeling that) the entire wireless/computer/remote access mindset being constantly pushed by Benny is more "let's just do this because it's neat", and not because the hobby is clamoring for it.  I am not against things that are a legitimate improvement upon something in the hobby, or is helpful to the future thereof. After all, if people didn't try to "push" the hobby, we'd all still be building and operating 4x8 loop-style layouts and using engines equipped with rubber-band drives. But just because we can do something, doesn't necessarily mean we should, know what I mean?

Overlay that panel...

Hence, for those who need mechanical feedback, I introduced the idea of a mechanical overlay which is nothing more than a rubber pad of pneumatic buttons and an indexed dial with a stylus ball that softly touches the screen in the area where the speed control circle, encased in a frame that makes it easy to attach the interface to the face of the phone. 

For more complicated mechanical inputs [high number of inputs], it could even become an optical light interface. The side that covers the touch face is a light board. when you press the buttons on the other side, it turns on the light corresponding to the button.  the smart device application interprets the location of this light dot on it's screen, and translates that into an input - at the speed of light.

That provides you the user with the mechanical feedback you've had all along, with a device that may cost no more than $25 to produce, MSRP, while giving you the full functionality of the smart device.

In other words, I could make my Smart Device Controller look and operate almost IDENTICAL to a UT-4 with this mechanical overlay, but my "UT-4" would also have 64 GB of hard drive space, an 8 megapixel camera, a digital library of music, sound files, videos, and further, I could swap over to the "DT-400" by removing the snap on overlay, loading the DT-400 app, and then putting on the "DT-400" mechanical overlay...

One device, two controllers...the only hurdle left is plugging Right into the layout, or the IR, or the radio system - and for that, we'd add a device to the USB-port.  And there we have it...

Who says you can't "build" on top of the smart device touchpad? It's just a touch surface with an I/O port...

What improvements?

i say, this is the wrong question - the right question is, HOW would you use that additional capacity, what could you do with it to expand your enjoyment of the hobby, and what new doors does this functionality open?

So Benny, I'm curious:  In your eyes, what's lacking from our current throttles that this would address?  I'm being serious here.  I'm no tech wizard, but when I see technology that truly improves the realism of my layout and the jobs my crews are doing, I'm happy to embrace it.  However, for my own use, I just don't see this bringing anything to the table.

I operate with two-man crews (engineer and conductor), and I can't think of a single benefit this would offer to the engineer holding the throttle.  Not saying there isn't one - it's just not coming to mind.  For my conductors, having a wireless app on their own device that'd allow them to update my car management system with car spot and pull notifications might be nice on the surface, but since I model a regional railroad set in 2005, such an interface wouldn't be accurate for my prototype.  I want my crews' jobs to replicate their prototype counterparts (minus the heat and 0200 call times), so I try to avoid anything that takes them out of that "world".