Railmaster calling Elite, come in please

[Raven_Electric]

Hi RAF96

 

Before commenting on wireless I must just say this because we are on Hornby's website. Hornby cautions users about using hubs and also ensuring they have a good quality USB cable etc. and that is excellent advice to get your railway up

 

and running.

 

I do think comments on a wireless link are a valid topic here for experienced users as it could add to the fun of using Hornby products but playing with this is for people who already have their RM Elite/eLink setup running properly after

 

carefully following Hornby's advice.

 

A Golden Rule for most things is only ever make one change at a time. It is easy to move away from a spec and have everything appear to work fine and dandy, then you attempt to use some feature you haven't used

 

before and it doesn't work but by then you have forgotten you have changed things! Either thoroughly test EVERYTHING on your new setup, tedious, or make reverting to spec for a test instant and easy.

 

So all users should ensure they have a decent quality

 

USB cable that works perfectly with the Elite in the way Hornby advises and that it never lets them down. Tie a note on it to that effect and keep it somewhere safe and instantly available and ONLY then play with a dongle and/or a home wireless network because

 

reverting to your cable will tell you instantly if your problem lies in the changes you have made. Hornby and the Forum experts can quickly and patiently get users going again but they have every right to expect users have the equipment connected exactly as

 

Hornby advises before reporting a fault and it can be easy to forget that one has changed things.

 

 

On any kind of connection it may help trouble shooting and setups if I outline the background to what is actually happening between Railmaster and

 

the Elite. There are basically four communications protocols being used between the screen and your locos, all working differently and with different timings:-

 

A - Internal computer traffic from RM to the comms port of your computer device.

B - The

 

USB comms.

C - The internal proprietary comms between the receiving USB interface in the Elite and the Elite's internal NMRA controller.

D - the NMRA spec comms from the controller to the decoder.

 

Think of it like this, Railmaster posts a letter

 

to the Elite which arrives in the Elite's letterbox and Elite posts one back. Neither needs to know or care how or by which route the letter is transported. So yes, provided it is a quality product meeting the spec a wireless link should work perfectly. That

 

is theory, RAF96 will probably tell us what happens in practice!

 

Using radio with a mobile as an extension throttle is fairly popular and is often done using comms "C". This is different to any kind of USB radio link on comms "B" as it often works

 

with the controller manufacturer's comms protocol which Hornby may use to link together components such as an Elite and Select. The "C" Hornby comms is a reasonaby well known protocol but they have every right to add/remove or change their use of it to meet

 

product needs which is a good enough reason for not publishing it.

 

As Fishmanoz points out comms "B" has nothing to do with railways or RM. Your Elite receives the USB signal using a special gizmo and converts it to comms "C" and it is really good value

 

for money because that "special gizmo" would cost the same as a very decent loco on some systems!

 

So RAF96 you have your answer. The Elite and RM are "blind" as to how the signal travels between them. You can send it anyway you want provided the system

 

you use is up to spec and thus provides a timely uncorrupted signal.

 

I have spend much time persuading people NOT to use home wireless networks for security reasons but I accept that is a battle now lost, even business networks struggle to maintain

 

security these days. The world is going mobile for the sheer convenience and added "value" of it all. Mind you, I would STILL say if you have unencrypted sensitive business or similar stuff on your computer only use a wired network with suitable security and

 

I don't care what Wi-Fi equipment providers may say about this as the response is easy, just show how quickly the security of such systems can be breached - usually from a laptop in a car in the street outside! Convenience is a trade off against security but

 

if you are using a dongle on a wireless network for your railway you could easily "Lock" the internet access, the main purpose of many systems, while you do so.

 

I started this thread to respect Fishmanoz's very valid request that items in the Railmaster

 

Software Updates thread are kept brief and in standardised format but so far there are 24 pages in the "desirable features" thread and many of these are considerably more than minor bug fixes!

 

Sure all progs have minor bugs or user interface improvements

 

that can be quickly addressed. Sliders for instance can work in different ways, output can "polled" while you are sliding or provide output only when you stop. Windows don't need to lock themselves at the front of the system or pull "focus" from other applications

 

and are nice if they multi-task with others in a prog. Such items and adding additional little gadgets are reasonably easy and in big software projects get done within version updates so they appear like V1.7.13, the 13 telling the story,

 

To help Hornby

 

deliver the most important things enthusiasts want quickly. sticking to Fishmanoz's ground rules would certainly help. Perhaps a way forward could be a running "Top Ten" - or some other number - of requests divided into a few areas, Track Plans, Signals etc.

 

The idea being to have a running list of desirable features constantly ranked by the importance forum users currently place on them. That would be a handy list for developers to keep their eye on!

 

Railmaster is a big project because railways are. Just

 

consider the current discussion on signals. There are two powerful enthusiast produced programmes and a track one too that probably defeat 90% of people who look at them because of their complexity. Hornby have to work hard to deliver complexity while making

 

it appear as simple and intuitive as possible straight out of the box so people are gently led into learning the more powerful features if they want to and in their own time. On top of that they have to do so in way that works with future development. Most

 

regular Forum users are enthusiasts and can do a lot to help this process so I say again let Fishmanoz continue to provide some leadership and guidance on how to go about this.

 

 

 

[idlemarvel]

Hi R_E

Quite a wide-ranging posting there, and I won't attempt to comment on all of it, just the basic point of how to collect requirements. The problem is that a free format text only Q&A forum structure like this is not an ideal way to capture requirements.

 

There is no easy way to spot duplicates for example when you have timed sequential entries, and nothing to stop people going "off topic" unless the moderators get more assertive. It really needs a different kind of forum structure with a summary list at the

 

beginning and voting or at least a "like"/"disagree" buttons on posting so moderators can gauge the amount of support an idea has. With the current forum structure the only way to indicate support is to post "I agree" but once the original idea is three screens

 

back you have no idea what the "I agree" was referring to! My 2 cents. Dave

[Raven_Electric]

Hi idlemarvel

 

Yes, I agree with every point you make. I tend to a quick browse of the forums now and again so I am not usually up to speed on what has gone before in long threads. In fact it was an unlikely chance for me that I noticed RAF96's post

 

on wireless.

 

I have a fair bit of programming and code design experience and I am sure some kind of structured measure of the experiences and views of the many expert users on the forum would be valuable input for Hornby.

 

As far as I know Fishmanoz

 

led on this and he certainly commented. Perhaps keeping a tally of suggestions and a post from time to time with the stats might work.

 

Of course I'm only looking at it casually from the user end. There is plenty of powerful analysis software available

 

that could do a decent job of going through all the threads picking on on user views so it may be Hornby is already on the case!

 

[RDS]

Raven_Electric said:

... but so far there are 24 pages in the "desirable features" thread and many of these are considerably more than minor bug fixes!

When I first started the 'Desirable Features' thread, I initially

summarised the features being suggested. I then exchanged emails with Hornby who confirmed that the thread was being viewed and there was no need to try to summarise. This was a relief to be honest!
In terms of those comments that are more than minor fixes

and at times, just meaningless chat, I would have liked to be able to use a pair of editors electronic scissors!
I was pleased to see Fishmanoz trying to keep the thread to meaningful requests, because I have also asked on many occasions.
I am not sure

that we would be successful in maintaining a top ten and I personally am not convinced it is required either. Quite a number of the suggestions are ones that could probably be incorporated into the .ini file, so users can decide if they want the feature in

their version or not.

[Raven_Electric]

Sorry RDS for failing to give credit where credit is due. Its those Australians you see they are always hogging the limelight.

 

A comment about the .ini file. A far better way of setting user preferences is in an "Options", "Preferences", "User_Settings"

 

call it what you will item in menus. The danger with script files or text files is that it is very easy to wreck them. I recollect coming across Hornby making this point somewhere too so I would hope getting rid of it is a high priority but that is work that

 

won't do much for peoples' diagonal points or their signals.

 

A menu item opening an Options box only allows structured input controlled by the programme and the data can be stored in a binary file or in the Registry. Menus work well too as a way of

 

offering a lot of complex options, down a cascade if needed, but in an easy to use way.

 

I suppose from time to time issues arise for those on the forum offering advice where they have little choice but to advise an .ini file change. It is all down

 

to how much error checking of the input RaliMaster does and their are limits but it will help to mention to users that the likes of "Handheld plan area=" is miles away from "Handheld Plan Area =" and they need to take care because if they do accidentally change

 

an entry they won't have the original by them to check against.

 

Making a copy of the original .ini file along the lines of Railmaster.ini.Master or any other name that reminds the user what it is will allow them to check their changes or get back to

 

the default easily.

 

 

 

 

[Fishmanoz]

Thanks for the compliments R_E, although I'm not sure I have been taking any leadership on this, or that leadership is appropriate on the Forums. I'm reminded of a not long ago comment by someone which effectively said "I own this thread so butt out!"

 

And thinking that was most inappropriate. Nobody owns all of the knowledge on any topic and everyone is entitled to ask what they don't know, contribute what they do and take advice on where they may be in error, all in an environment of mutual respect to

 

the benefit of model railways, particularly those of the capital H variety.

 

However, if you are thinking of my tidy mind approach, then yes I think this will benefit all of us. Certainly Desirable Features benefits from people restricting themselves

 

to saying RM doesn't do this and I'd like it to. I agree that trying to keep a priority list is difficult but then other discussion is likely to give a strong hint. And signalling is the example that is at the front of some people's minds right now. Certainly

 

tidy mind got much more difficult for people when eLink was released. For example, setting up your eLink is a valid DCC Forum topic but, as soon as you've done that, using it immediately becomes an RM topic. Once operating, eLink is just the message carrier,

 

as in R_E's mail analogy, and the problem is then the correct use of RM, or the lack of RM functioning as it should.

 

Anyway, back to the topic, certainly ability to run RM with your computer remote to the layout would be useful, even considering we

 

can already use an RM app wifi-ed on a tablet. But it would also be an additional level of system complexity that will challenge the new user. And expecting them to understand even simple fault finding change one thing at a time logic is not realistic. I would

 

have far fewer posts on here if they didn't include a lot of suggestions to go through a process one step at a time to find out what the problem is so it can be fixed.

 

But a worthwhile capability to pursue.

[RDS]

@Raven_Electric

That is a very valid point you make about the .ini file and I always do as you suggest and make a copy of the original.

An Options or preferences type item you describe in the menu's would be a much more user friendly way of doing

 

the same thing. I don't recall seeing that suggested in the 'Desirable Features'. Maybe you would like to add it?

[96RAF]

Well that suggestion of mine certainly provoked some lively debate and resulted in some very good information and about much more than the wireless possibility I intend to look at.

I agree with not confusing those who may already be struggling to set

 

up their kit but this was something I thought I would try with my spare Elite.

I also agree that that use of menu driven options (say radio buttons or tick boxes) is a much better way to go than fiddling with the .ini file especially for the less confident.

 

Other model railway software uses this approach to good effect (e.g. Rocrail)

I wondered if a poll would be a good way of listing future features, but this doesn't allow for new ideas not already listed in the poll unless the poll itself was addable to

 

(if that's a word).

On the matter of my wireless trial I have every USB adaptor known to man in my bits box but not one that allows a BT dongle male A plug to fit in the female B socket on the Elite, so I await delivery before I can proceed.

 

[RDS]

RAF96 said:

I wondered if a poll would be a good way of listing future features ...

I think our 'Desirable Features' thread works quite in it's current format as long as members just stick to the point they want adding,

as Fishmanoz has stated.

I look forward to your next instalment regarding wireless operation.

[Raven_Electric]

Hi Fishmanoz, RDS and RAF96

 

Yes, I could do with a tidy mind. Mine switches between work mode and leisure mode. In the first I can code the hardware in a DVD recorder but in the second I have no idea how to use the controls on the front. I keep

 

a clockwork alarm clock because my mind cannot be bothered to remember the 230 button combinations needed to set the alarm on my digital radio and the scrap of paper with it written down keeps getting lost! That is why I like the Elite so much. Railway control

 

from the computer is a no brainer but I still get a buzz at trackside when I get hold of the knobs and press the buttons even though in my heart of hearts I know THEY are connected to a computer!

 

Your mention of the RM wifi app is interesting I wasn't

 

aware of that. After posting my reply to RAF96 I did wonder if the USB "power on" state was being used as a part of the link

initialisation but the app suggests it is not so the instructions that come with the home network should be all that is required

 

to establish the link. Powered USB to radio receptacles are readily available anyway. It amazes me just how easily young folk handle connecting their myriad gadgets to their home networks too. I refuse to let my life be dominated by the current battery status

 

of my mobile phone so in the main the whole thing passes me by.

 

I wasn't so much suggesting users go down a cascade of one at a time fault tests more that with a decent USB cable always handy if any problem arises, let alone experiments, they could

 

instantly revert to the "Standard" setup and see if things are OK then before seeking help and of course that help can respond best if it knows the equipment is setup as Hornby advises. The suggestion of a "master" .ini file follows from the same logic.

 

There

 

is a post somewhere on here about loosing track plans when the system fails and the OS user folder gets overwritten. The lesson from that of course is keep a copy of the folders somewhere else. It amazes me that some of the biggest, most expensive software

 

packages still don't give users full control of things like default folders locations AND the location of their own configuration files. It can always be overcome of course but not by general users. One world famous application STILL insists on keeping its

 

user configuration setup control in the EDIT menu, what kind of logic is that? I am sure the RailMaster team will have the programme design in mind so it is probably best if the "Desirable Features" thread stays focused on railway matters.

 

Leading

 

from that and as you say Fishmanoz categories do become difficult. What appears to be a RailMaster problem may be an eLink or even loco problem. A solution to that would be subject rather than object based categories at the top of the forum cascades. But,

 

with computers behind most things in our world today such definitions will always be difficult.

 

Finally, I've just noticed you are with us RAF96. It is an immutable law that no matter how many adaptors for anything you amass there is always one you

 

don't have when you need it. Despite a huge boxful of bits my garden hose is perpetually dependent on insulation tape to keep the water going though rather tham out of the connectors. Also note my comment on power on state initialisation above and power up

 

sequence could be of consequence too.