That's correct, it is tailored around a smartphone eliminating the need for an extra transmitter/handheld. And of course a CS of conventional DCC. One could employ a wireless handheld and mimick the app's functions via knobs and pots by using another ESP device. Alas nobody in the group hasn't thought about that so far.
Bob Backway, NMRA Australia, is the authour of the article. He has developed a prototype which I have used. It works well but does require continous voltage or the WiFi stops functioning, so battery on board is necessary.
His unit powered the motor in both directions, turned lights on/off and the coupler could uncouple; all from my mobile phone.
It has not advanced from the prototype as yet.
____________________ Rod Hutchinson
Well, IMHO everything you need is there: You can access the extended functions, and unless you want consisting you can do all what is possible with a standard CS. For programming, you have to re-establish the on-chip data connection ( so I'd rather put in a jumper there )nad keep your old CS of course.
At least this is a much better approach than the Arduino-based one Simple Simon seemed to favour. You do not jam a channel with continuous transmission and avoid all the risks of selective fading, spuriuos echos, etc. 2.4GHz is prone to. Pieman, AKA
Last edited on Sun Nov 12th, 2017 05:23 pm by Helmut
At the moment, all available DCC-over-wire stuff suffers from the additional space it takes. Be it CVP's airwire or S-Cab or that TAM Valley system - apart from TAM they do not fit into the rather small H0 locos. And with TAM you really don't gain much: You just eliminate the track-bound data transmission to the decoder, but you still need a Central Station and there's mostly only tethered handhelds that tie you to a LocoNet/XpressNet cabling or the CS itself unless you spend a lot of extra cash in wireless controllers at the risk of them interfering with the data transmission. On the RF side, you use only one channel, and this one 100% of the time. You rely on the DCC protocol to cope with fading, multiple path problems, and interference. That's all OK as long as you operate your indoor layout in your basement- but nothing that really is feasible for outdoor operation. As soon as you want to be close to your loco in operation you really have not much of a choice if you yearn for sound and other effects in larger scales, and almost none if in H0.
Of course TAM can eliminate the contact problem in DCC, and if you're contented with only that you fare alright on an indoor layout. But it is not my kettle of fish. And I have proven what is possible in a small scale where DCC would not have offered more operability than what I have achieved with another approach.
Last edited on Wed Nov 22nd, 2017 10:16 pm by Helmut