LMSTim

I've been using Windows since 1.0 back in the 80s and it just gets more and more complicated to use as each version is released. I mean complicated rather than complex. They could make it much easier to use but they insist on changing things, seemingly for the sake of it, so that they can say "This is our new operating system". Windows 8 is a case in point. The cynic in me says Microsoft wants to earn more fees from the accreditation of courses and the like and if they don't change things radically (usually for the worse) there are no more courses to sell. I read somewhere that Microsoft questioned thousands of people and 90% of them said they don't use the Start button in Windows. Can you believe that? So what do they do ... they remove it - not make it an option, just remove it. Of course, there was an outcry and now Microsoft have been forced into a reversal and add the Start button back in on Windows 8.1. They have also had to add back other things they took out for Windows 8. With UAC I see it as just another overhead of using the latest Microsoft operating system. I believe it was introduced in Windows Vista, so XP and previous users don't have this issue. I just tick and forget. Half the software I use has Windows ask "Do you want to open this blah, blah". Microsoft charge a hefty amount of money just to avoid having this message displayed for particular software. No wonder so many software companies don't bother with Microsoft registration.

"Hooligan" presumably you have sent a Help Request to the support guys, or emailed them. What was their answer? Do you have other software running in the background that is taking up lots of processing time, like bad antivirus software (Norton and McAfee spring to mind)? Even MS Office grabs a lot of system resources just sitting there apparently doing nothing. The macro should just send the command after the number of seconds spcified, to latch the sound off again. You haven't edited the name of the function? I believe the phrase "on/off" must be in there if it is a latching function. It's got to be something fundamental on your system as I am also running complex programs with sound locos and all the functions work fine (as long as you remember to leave enough time after certain functions to fire points and signals as it says in the manual). I haven't had to change any of the default macros for the Hornby sound locos I have.

There's no "glitch" in the software. I find a 2 second pause followed by 'pressing' the function function is enough for a 2-second whistle on my Black 5 sound. I have never had to alter any default macro setting when selecting a Hornby sound loco. They all work for me. You need to ensure your comms are working reliably. That means ensure Com port below 5, good USB cable, working USB port, no USB hub in the way, Standard mode, firmware 1.3 or greater ... in fact all the things mentioned in the manual.

NetManUK, just to answer your previous post about the API, you used one example, that is to develop your own front end control interface to allow your grandchildren access to only certain locos/functions on your layout. This can already be done on RailMaster by setting up a networked PC running another copy of RailMaster (you can have upto nine) where the second PC shows only the locos you want. In fact you can go further by limiting points and signals which can be operated too, so that your grandchild can only operate in a particular area of your layout. If you are a PC developer with 36+ years experience then you are bound to have another PC knocking about. You can also achieve the same thing using a hand-held iPad, iPod, Android and so on and you can also dictate which first two locos are usable and even what area of your layout you want controlling. So, in answer to your example, there are two ways RailMaster can achieve than. Now, do you see what I mean about it being somewhat pointless allowing API access to the system. You also did not address the major support headache it would add to Hornby for RailMaster. Sure it wouldn't cost much to deliver the software, and detailed documentation would have to be produced, but the support would need more staff. Any product that introduces such a technical level of control will inevitibly cause a support nightmare. Hornby is not a development software company. Again, it is not feasible and I don't see Hornby providing an API any time soon. Whilst there are a handful of people who would undoubtedly like it I again question the value. You said yourself that you have not used RailMaster. Presumably, then, you have not thoroughly read the manual to see what it can do (that would be suggested by the example you used to justify an API). You also mention that you do not have a model railway yet. If you have 36+ years as a developer and want to get "down and dirty" with PC model railway control then I would really recommend that you go for something like JMRI. It will allow you to control a Honrby Elite and play about with the source code infinitely - far more than RailMaster. A I said earlier, there are different packages for different users. Hornby is not a JMRI producer or primarily a software development company. Their users just want something that works straight out of the box. I would compare your desire for an API against those who don't with those modellers who prefer to build their locos from scratch or from kits and wouldn't buy from Hornby because it's too easy. Do you see now the logic in why Hornby are highly likely not to make an API available .. maybe in 20 years time when the current generation of mainly computer-illiterate users are goine and everybody is very computer-savvy.

As explained in my previous message, a DCC controller can only process one command at a time, therefore the answer to your question "Does it also mean that, for the duration of the 8 to 12 seconds, no other commands can be actioned ?" is yes. DCC controllers do not include multi-threading processors and there is no room in memory to create firmware complex enough to multi-task. You still haven't said why you would want RailMaster to read every loco on your layout. What use would it actually be? You say you think it should logically work but haven't told us why you would like to see the function. At the heart of a DCC controller is a tiny, low-powered microcontroller. The microcontrollers in DCC decoder chips are even smaller and lower-powered. To put it in perspective, a PC's processor is around 1,000 times more powerful than that built into a typical DCC controller and 10,000 times more powerful than that in a decoder chip. This means the DCC controller and chips, as explained earlier, are where the limitations are and any PC software has to work around these limitations. I'm sure we would all still like to know what value you put on obtaining details of all locos on a layout automatically, especially when you bear in mind that RailMaster will start up with a built in list of locos it expects to be able to find on your layout and when you run programs, they are for specific locos, which you ned to set up first. Please let us know as I'm sure many of us are curious.

Whilst the software my be able to utilise multi-threading or multi-tasking technology, the DCC controller cannot, so there is still a sequential operation in gathering the loco information. The DCC controller can only handle one operation at a time. Indeed the NMRA specification for DCC supports this. As stated before it is the loco decoder chip that takes up to 12 seconds to respond. Therefore, it will take many, many hours, if not days to enumerate all potential locos on a layout. Whilst it may sound like a reasonable request (although you haven't explained why you would want the resulting information or what it would be used for) It's just not feasible.

If you read my post carefully you will see that I did not say railMaster will be the best in the world. I said that Hornby's aim is that it is. There is a difference. Please do not misquote me. Do you work for a tabloid newspaper? (You see, I can make daft assumptions too). Secondly, it is obvious to a child that the loco detection proposed by Hornby is going to be superior than anything out there. All you have to do is drop a loco detection box on your plan in the current available version of RailMaster to see all of the options, even without documentation. You show me where in RailRoad and Co. or JMRI or indeed any other program, that shows 1) which loco has passed a detector 2) what speed it is doing 3) what direction it is facing and take decisions based on those factors. Current systems use block detection to merely know that an object is there and nothing more. You make the statement "I really can't see how RM will be able to do what that software does". How can you say that? So, by your reasoning, no other company that starts later than the supreme champion can ever produce a better product? If I am not mistaken, Railroad and Co is written by a chap in Germany, working from his home? Surely a company like Hornby can put their resources into producing something better as well as easier to use in a shorter space of time. You say that RM cannot obey signals set against locos. Of course not. There is no loco detection system. Are you saying that Railroad and Co can do that without block detection? Of course not. Again, you are not comparing like with like. Who says that RailMaster will not be able to do that when the loco detection system is available. I just look forward to it. You make great assumptions without knowing the facts. I make statements based on the known facts. I simply recognise when something good is out there, whether it be a piece of software, a TV set or a car. I don't have to be a "Sales rep" or "programmer" for a company to recognise what is obvious. If you know something the rest of us don't then please share it with us. Perhaps you work as a UK sales rep for Railroad and Co?

RDS, just to answer the point about detecting locos on a layout, it is not the power of the PC that makes it non-viable, but rather the time it takes for the loco decoder chip, in conjunction with the DCC controller, to feed back to the PC the fact that the loco is there. In practice, the software would have to cycle through each of the 1 to 9999 potential locos that could be on the track and send a command, in effect asking "Are you there?". The loco decoder chip (depending on the manufacturer and model) will take between 8 and 12 seconds to respond. You do the maths and you will see it is not feasible to scan all locos. Even if you were to think laterally and say, okay, only scan the known locos in the RailMaster database that have been set up by the user (this of course will leave any other - visiting or unknown locos out) it will still take ages. Again, I ask a simple question: Why do you need to scan all locos on the layout. What practical benefit does it give you. Nice but, useful? From what I am seeing I get the feeling that people are making suggestions for the sake of it, without actually thinking it through from a practical point of view. I can come up with one. Wouldn't it be nice if RailMaster could be interfaced to my Morphy Richards kettle so that once a program has finished, RailMaster could have a nice cup of tea ready for me. Not viable. For my part, I am happy with what Hornby have done, thus far. They are producing world-beating functions: the app is the best I've seen on any device for railway control, the loco detection (when it's out) will clearly be the most sophisticated available, voice control (an amazing feature which will have taken a great deal of work to achieve) will bring another form of control. It is clear that Hornby are concentrating their efforts on this product (together with the new eLink interface - again never done by a mainstream company before) and I am happy to be pleasantly surprised by new features which seem to come along on a regular basis. I am sure that Hornby already get feedback from many users (including me) as well as put their own thoughts into the program otherwise good software doesn't move forward. Having spoken with somebody from Hornby recently they have made it clear that they want RailMaster to be the best system in the world. Looking at what they have done from a standing start in just two years, if you extrapolate over the next two years, there is no doubt in my mind that they will achieve this.

MetmanUK, it is not outright dismissal, but rather scepticism. Look at it this way: why did Hornby produce RailMaster in the first place when the likes of RailRoad & Co, JMRI and plenty of others are already in the marketplace and have been for years? Answer: RailMaster is infinitely easier to set up and use than the others. The others are for techie geeks and nerds (not being insulting, just realistic). The other (free) packages allow a certain amount of tailoring and techie intervention. This is a different user group to the vast majority of Hornby and mainstream users, who simply want a working system that is supported and developed onwards in its native format by a large company like Hornby. To allow access to the workings of RailMaster is pointless. Why would somebody else want to develop their own interface and merely use RailMaster communications (which is what the API would boil down to). Anybody with the skills to produce their own interface merely needs to go through the NMRA spec and produce their own comms handling too. You see why it is pointless for Hornby to spend hundreds of hours creating an API that, perhaps, only you would use. Let me finish by asking you this: suppose Hornby did produce an API for you to link into RailMaster externally. You give us a list of what you would actually develop on the back of it that Hornby have not already? I will then counter each point, playing devil's advocate. To help answer your question I would throw in the following:- 1. Hornby have taken months, if not years, to profile every loco going back to 1975. Nobody else in the world has done this. This will have cost a fortune and you couldn't possibly replicate that, which means from the off your control interface will have to be inferior to RailMaster's as you cannot use the scale speed, shunting and so on, or would you expect the API to give access to those features, and how on earth would that be enabled, practically. 2. Would you develop your own programming front-end, with the amount of work that has gone into RailMaster already? 3. Would you expect Hornby to give up technical secrets on the way certain things work? I am thinking here of interfacing the wireless handheld apps and loco detection, which are unique ideas in the way they work? In summary, there is a lot to think about before just saying "I want an Application Interface to RailMaster so that I can do my own stuff". It is, at the end of the day, pointless and I believe Hornby will never provide it simply because it will become counter-productive and it is hard to imagine that anybody, using even a sophisticated API (which must also be fully documented and supported by Hornby) could produce an interace that is better than RailMaster already has. Hopefully that explains, from an 30-year I.T. professional's point of view, why an API to RailMaster is not viable.

RDS - you need to be a little more discerning about the things that go on the list, and also bear in mind that some of them are not feasible. For example 58001's suggestion that RailMaster discovers every loco on the layout is not workable as it takes far too long to interrogate a loco (even if you know the ID). Bearing in mind RailMaster cannot possibly know the ID of every loco you have put on the layout it would, in reality, have to cycle through every ID from 1 to 9999 to test if the loco is there. You'd be waiting all day for the results to come back. Other items on the list, like producing an API link is again not feasible. If Hornby are creating something which they are making better and better on a regular basis (presumably wanting to be the best), why would they want to create a support nightmare by allowing third parties to mess about with control of locos, points and so on from outside the program, whilst still using the program as a conduit. It is clear, from the announcements that are being made (i.e. apps, voice control and so on) that hornby are really working hard on making RailMaster the best system on the market. Once the loco detection system is out I don't there will be anything out there to touch it. The likes of JMRI are there for those very high-tech users who like to fiddle and write their own programs. After all, it was written by many users all over the world. What you need to do is put together a coherent list that makes sense and that really provides useful functions, for example, making the screen bigger by removing the top buttons and even the logo at the bottom and so on. I think people are now starting to think up things for the sake of it without realising how much work would be involved to implement them and the few users who are likely to take advantage of them. Remember that RailMaster has come from nowhere in just two years and is now one of the most popular systems on the market (from the chats I've had with other modellers). I know what I use it. It is by far the easiest system to use. I have a long wish-list in my mind of niceties to add to RailMaster but I'm sure the developers will make those improvements. When you present your list to Hornby, don't be surprised if they say "Can't do this" to some of the entries.

One thing to note, though. If you play about with the loco CV speed settings, you'll invariably affect the RailMaster scale speed system for that loco. You also need to remember that RailMaster has built in all the variants of each loco, e.g. about 10 different Flying Scotsman locos alone, because each has a different motor, gearing arrangement and therefore will run at different speeds. It is important to choose absolutely the right loco (preferably by the R number) to ensure that it is the one with the correct motor/gearing. The scale speed system will then work properly. If it doesn't then it is invariably due to loco CVs having been changed from the default settings, or faulty loco decoders or motor. You can reset the loco chip by writing 0 to CV 7, I believe (you'll need to double-check this). I have over 200 locos, even very old Hornby ones and they all run nicely when the scale speed system is switched on. You can, of course, switch scale speed off entirely within settings but I would never do that.

When you refer to "regions" are you actually talking about the loco grouping facility which allows you to put locos within groups then list all locos in that group, selected from the pull-down list at the top-right of the screen? If it is that facility is does remember the last group you used the next time you start RailMaster. You can also put a single loco in as many groups as you like so, for example, an early BR GWR loco could also appear on a late GWR roster (where company logos still mixed with BR ones).

I too have the new Blue Pullman (although without sound - just the standard model) and it runs very well from RailMaster. Adding Hornby's own locos is a breeze because you just select your particular model from the list and all the speed profiles (scale running) are already there for you as well as the know maximum speed. They have also pre-programmed the lowest shunting speed you can get away with, based on the motor, wheels etc. going over Hornby's own track system. There is a 'default' speed profile when using any other non-listed loco and it seems to work pretty well at scale speed - much better than non-scale running. If you switch off scale speed operation you should certainly get exactly the same top speeds when controlling the loco from RailMaster as you would from the Elite directly as there is no scale speed translation going on. If you do not then something else very fundamental is wrong. I would ensure the following:- 1. The Elite is set to Standard mode 2. It is running firmware 1.3 or later 3. You use a shielded USB cable as short as you can get away with 3. Your Com port is below 5 (force it if necessary in control panel) If you DO use scale speeds then NEVER choose a Hornby loco from the list if you have another manufacturer's loco of the same type. You'll have noticed that there are about 20 Hornby "Flying Scotsman" locos alone. This is because over the years Hornby have made many, all with different motor/gearing characteristics and so they are all profiled differently to maintain the same scale speeds. When I put the Blue Pullman in, for example, I created a brand new loco (didn't choose one from the list) and set the cruising speed (normal main line speed) to 90mph and shunting speed to 20mph. It works very nicely. Another minor but important note is, if you do use scale speed (which you really should) set the scale correctly in settings. If you have a OO layout but have selected N within settings then all locos will run at half their normal speed (OO being 1:76 scale and N 1:148). I think the scale speed operation is a good idea and should be used. It limits the maximum speed of locos to a more realistic speed (for example out of the box the Hornby 08 shunter does a scale speed of about 65MPH, whereas in real life it can't go beyond 15!) and it also uses far less power, thus allowing the Elite to control many more locos at the same time. I hope that all helps.