My Elite does not like Zen Nano decoder.

[Traincliff]

Not here to have a whinge but to tell you about a problem I have just experienced and how I solved it. I had to purchase a Zen Blue Nano decoder to use in my Adams Radial Tank engine, it being one of very few decoders that are known to fit without any body "butchery". I put it on the programme track and checked the address and the value of CV 29. I think CV 29 read as 6 so I punched in 34 which most of my 4 digit address locos use but it would only changed it to 2. The address was 3. So I then tried to readdress which the Elite refused to do. CV 29 stubbornly stayed at 2. I reset the decoder a few times to keep trying, all quite frustrating. 

I decided then to try setting CV29 programming on the main and dialled up 34. This was successful so back to the programme track I tried to add a four digit address. The Elite added an address but did not deliver what I asked for. I then read CVs 17 and 18. CV 18 was zero. I then thanks to Google found an app in the play store called DCC Calculations. This is a brilliant app and I quickly found out from it the correct CV 17 and 18 for the address I wanted. My CV17 was correct but I now had a value for CV 18. I found the only way I could change CV18 was on the main (Operate) but once I had done this I was able on the programme track to read the address I wanted - wow!

So my Elite does not like Zen Nano decoders. It is ok with all my other makes but I got there in the end. Don't forget the useful app - DCC Calculations.

[Chrissaf]

In the Elite manual [CV29 section relating to Long / Short addresses] there is this line of text: "This parameter is usually handled automatically when programming a decoder."

.

My understanding of the above is that:

.

The Elite is clever. When you program an address between 128 and 9999 (long address) into a decoder using the normal Elite address programming procedure. The Elite automatically modifies the values of CV1, 17, 18 & 29 to suit. Trying to do it manually yourself usually ends up with issues as you have outlined.

.

However, the Hornby text does include the word "usually", which infers that this intelligent 'Long Address' programming feature may not be supportable with every single decoder brand / model.

.

I don't use 'Long Addresses' with my Elite, so I do not have personal experience of this to back up my understanding.

.

There is also a web based CV17 CV18 calculator that does not require any applications to be downloaded and installed:

.

https://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?autocom=custom&page=DCC-long-address-calculator

.

EDIT: For readers looking for the Google Play Store APP mentioned by Traincliff. The APP is called "DCC Calculator" not DCC Calculations". The developer is "Pacific231".

.

Copy and Paste the URL text above into your browser due to the current forum BUG that prevents URLs being made clickable.

[Rog RJ]

I've never enterd a long adresss by the tricky method of setting CVs 17, 18 and 29 separately.  I just put the loco on the programming track and enter the long adress and program it in the same manner as a short address.  As Chris has said, the Elite (and to an extent, the Select) is an intelligent system which works things out for itself.

 

Incidentally, when you use enter a long address, the short address stored in CV1 is still there, it doesn't get removed.  CV29 tells the Elite to use the long address rather than the short address.

[Traincliff]

Thanks as ever fellas for your comments. I accept all you say but the point was on this occasion the Elite was for some reason not able to act intelligently and do CV's 1,29, 17 and 18 by itself. I actually changed addresses and readdressed on a few locomotives first successfully to prove my Elite was not throwing a wobbly. I would never have thought about doing it the hard way otherwise. But at least I have learnt something new and I will be wary of Zen decoders in case there is a mismatch.

[Chrissaf]

I did actually deduce from your original post that manual CV29 adjustment might have been a 'work-around', but it was not made clear that was the reason for doing so. Thus my reply was more for the benefit of other readers who might possibly have gone off at a tangent by following your advice unnecessarily.

.

Have you had a look at the CV17/18 calculator in my link?

.

There is also a CV29 online calculator here [posted for other readers].

http://www.2mm.org.uk/articles/cv29%20calculator.htm

 

[Traincliff]

Thanks for the links Chrissaf. I have looked at the first one which does the same as the mobile app. I entered my code and got same answer which is a good start. The mobile app also has facility for adding up the bit numbers for any CV which could be useful for folk like me who have difficulty grasping binary and bits.

[Traincliff]

I have just reread my OP Chrissaf and can see what you mean. There is of course no reason to check CV29 normally for addressing purposes. Only thing I usually check CV29 for is to make sure DC running is turned off  - very important for me as some of my old Triang locos have largish stay alive capacitors.

[96RAF]

If you reset a decoder to factory defaults then it gives it short address 3 (CV1 value 3) but also long address 100 (CV17/18 values 192/100) which is not technically a long address i.e. >127. As Rog says which one actually works is dictated by CV29.

[Fishmanoz]

What you seem to be telling us Rob is that you can have whatever you like in CVs 17/18 and it means nothing if CV29 is telling the decoder to read a short address in CV1.  And vice versa.

[96RAF]

What you seem to be telling us Rob is that you can have whatever you like in CVs 17/18 and it means nothing if CV29 is telling the decoder to read a short address in CV1.  And vice versa.

 

Correct Fishy

CV29 is the switch.

A bit like consisting, if this is enabled the individual loco addresses are ignored and vice-versa.

 

For those interested this is how those numbers in CVs 17 @ 18 are derived, but it is much easier to use an on-line calculator if you have to manually adjust long addressing.

First convert the locomotive address to a 16 digit binary number. Then, change the left two digits to 11. Finally, split the number into two blocks of 8, converting each back to decimal. The left block goes in CV17, the right in CV18.

For example, 1234 is NOT stored as decimal equivalent of 12 in CV 17 and and 34 in CV 18. You need to convert 1234 into a 2-byte, 16 digit binary number, then decode the low byte (left 8 zeros or ones) into the decimal presentation to be set into CV 18, and set the decimal representation of the high byte (first 8 zeros or ones) into CV 17. Complicating is the fact that the first (highest) two digits of the high byte in CV 17 are always set to 1. 

[ColinB]

I just noticed this thread I am having similar issues, I am not doing anything fancy just changing the loco address to 47. Up to now they were all set at their default address of 3, but now I have got round to giving each one an individual address. All my Zen decoders either get the wrong address so if I put in 47, I get 46 and no it is not the issue of the value changing when you press enter (really horrible bug/feature) or stay at the default of 3. I initially thought it was the "stay alive" so I removed them, still didn't work. So then I tried it on my tester still no joy. I will try it on my Fleishmann later and see if that performs any better. I have one gaugemaster that also fails to program. Funny everyone moans about LaisDCC decoders, they work fine. 

[Fishmanoz]

Colin, you are a trial at times. You've added to a thread that is exclusively about having to use the long way to set a long address, where the standard address writing function has failed to work.  Then all you've told us is you have a problem changing from default to another short address?

 

First thing I'd be doing if I were you is following Chris's oft-repeated advice on making Elite programming more reliable - solder to programming track, use newly stripped wire for your connection and burnish the Elite connectors with fine wet and dry.  That way you will likely eliminate the mechanical connection problems arising at the low programming current and leave yourself with the actual decoder problems isolated.

 

All standard sucking eggs issues for you I'm sure, but worth repeating. 

[ColinB]

Funny I have done all that, in fact that was the first thing I checked. I did find if I disconnected the 9 pin connecter and remade it, it worked for a one off, but then reverted back. I even tried them both in my decoder tester and got the same fault. I suspect I know what the issue is, timing, probably in the decoder, it was just for information for other users. When I get round to it I will check them out with the Fleishmann. I was going to replace them anyway, so it has just hastened the task. This is related to the original post, in both cases you are writing to registers in the decoder. As I say the Elite works perfectly for Hornby, Zimo and LaisDCC decoders so "butchering" the connections on my Elite with wet and dry seems a bit excessive. If don't have issues now, you definitely will in the future as you have just removed the plating. As I say for me a bit annoying but not a real issue.

[ColinB]

Contrary to what Fishmanoz says it appears, that there is sometimes an issue with the Elite writing data to Zen decoders. I found that occasionally it did work which is probably why the person who started this thread was having issues. My Elite that is happy writing to most other decoders, but failed 9 out of 10 times to change the address and similarly even doing a reset didn't always happen. I tried it with twisted pair, short leads, all on decoder tester to rule out any other variables. So I thought I would try it on my other dcc controller, a Fleishmann, it worked every time, so obviously nothing wrong with the decoder. So make of that what you will, just in case someone suffers similar issues. I tend to use Zimo and Hornby TTS decoders, so I only noticed it when I was trying to change the address with my older locos. It could be my Elite has got an issue, but then if it had, it wouldn't program virtually every other make.