InCarPro (ICP) is it still relevant?

InCarPro (ICP) is it still relevant? - Printable Version

+- SlotRacer Forum (https://slotracer.online/community)
+-- Forum: Digital (https://slotracer.online/community/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Forum: Scalextric (https://slotracer.online/community/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: InCarPro (ICP) is it still relevant? (/showthread.php?tid=4013)

InCarPro (ICP) is it still relevant? - Dr_C2 - 17th-Nov-23

In Car Pro (ICP)
===========

A gentleman by the name of Ian Harding did some great work a good few years back creating third-party firmware for Scalextric decoders (in particular those using the 16F630 microcontroller such as the C7005/6 and C8515 revs F/G and the older version of the C8516).

The code is known as ICP v3.3 and it has several advantages over standard Scalextric firmware as follows:

1/ it removes analog mode thereby reducing power surges as vehicles traverse lane changers (or other dead-spots).
2/ when used with the APB it enables adjustable braking strength and control of
vehicle lighting including functioning brake lights.
3/ it adds 7bit motor control via throttle mapping giving finer resolution at lower speeds. Standard SSD is normally limited to 6bit resolution.

Many APB users over the years have enjoyed the opportunity to upgrade their decoders to unlock these additional features. They, including me, all owe a big thank you to Ian.

With the introduction of ARC PRO and C8515 rev H decoder, both a few years back, I took a further look at updates to ICP firmware (building on Ian’s great contribution).

I transferred the firmware across to the later C8515 rev H decoders (which are based on the newer 16F1503 microcontroller) and I added the following:

1/ IR LED strobe timeslots changed from 48 microseconds to 45.75 microseconds to improve lap counting reliability across all other SSD powerbases (including ARC PRO). The v3.3 firmware was specifically designed and tested for use with the APB.

2/ the 7 bit throttle curve was modified for improved compatibility with ARC PRO internal throttle curves plus options were added for both ‘standard’ motors (A06) and ‘hot’ motors (A00).

3/ Improvements were introduced to suppress a noise related ‘non-power-up’ issue which affected some users and which was unique to ARC PRO when only lightly loaded.

This updated release is known as ICP v4.0.1 and it has been widely shared from 2019 onwards. All user feedback has been positive with the exception of two users who are/were operating braided/routed SSD tracks.

On this basis ICP v4.0.1 remains the latest release version but any new users should be aware it is not recommended for use with braided/routed tracks. This applies both to release versions v3.3 and v4.0.1. Copper taped tracks are reported to be OK.

So does the ICP story stop there?- well no and yes.

Myself and fellow enthusiast Dave spent a fair bit of time looking into the braided track issue. We drew firm conclusions around the underlying cause. ICP v3.3 and v4.0.1 were found to have a vulnerability to electrically generated noise caused by braid-to-braid surface friction. We then proceeded to develop new firmware code which fully suppresses this noise characteristic.

The results have been highly positive and the learning will be applied to all future decoder firmware design in which we are involved.

That said, given that very few SSD users have braided/routed tracks there is no current plan to release an updated version of ICP.

It remains a possibility for the future.

c

RE: InCarPro (ICP) is it still relevant? - Drifter2 - 18th-Nov-23

Ian's work is awesome but that was a while back now.

Something new altogether would be good. New features, new thinking, new name to avoid confusion.

RE: InCarPro (ICP) is it still relevant? - Dr_C2 - 18th-Nov-23

Hi Drifter2, I think you are right.

That said, it was an extremely interesting challenge looking in depth at ICP to address the braided issue run-aways which I did in collaboration with my kind friend Dave. Over the months we looked into a whole range of potential causes. In the end, we pinned the problem down to electrical noise generated by braid-to-braid friction though there were some other contributing factors along the way too. We were then able to refine the firmware code appropriately and the issue was finally sorted. Literally a ‘game changer’.

Interestingly we saw similar issues with other brands of decoders that used track packets for communications. At times we used nRF wireless modules to telemeter the status of the decoder prior to, during and after runaways had occurred. This included telemetry of the number of ‘good’ data packet reads per second - typically 50 per second for SSD.

The conclusion of this work is that we believe we now know how to make rock solid run-away-free decoders which use track packet protocols.

So coming back to Drifter2’s point - yes probably the end of the road for ICP development but the learning along the way for sure will inform our future decoder designs - both hardware and firmware.

As mentioned elsewhere our focus is now on C++ decoder firmware rather than asm as used for ICP. Faaaaaasrrrrrrrrrrr easier!

Yes, time for new code, new features and new branding.

c

RE: InCarPro (ICP) is it still relevant? - flat4 - 10th-Jan-25

Wavegreen

C!

Even if something new, with new features, is hyping me, I have to say that I'd also love to see some updates to ICP, especially if it can help some folks like me.

I am actually really surprised to discover that ICP wouldn't be recomended for cars used on braided slot tracks.... as this is my situation, and as beside the huge improvement in terms of performance / tour, it fixed some problems, such like random ID change on cars which was very frequent (I would say easily 2 to 3 per hour for 4 cars running together).

I feel like I don't experiment car runaways, but maybe I misuderstand the term, may someone clarify me?

Anyway, ICP has been a game changer for me and some people I know but are nor forum friendly, and thank you very much what you've done to it

RE: InCarPro (ICP) is it still relevant? - Dr_C2 - 10th-Jan-25

Hey Flat4, many thanks for the positive review of ICP.

C

RE: InCarPro (ICP) is it still relevant? - Dr_C2 - 19th-Jan-25

Interestingly, an avenue never explored with ICP is the fact its adjustable braking feature could be enjoyed with the ARC PRO, similarly to how it was enjoyed in earlier times with the APB C7042.

It simply requires an app developer to add the commands as covered in the BLE protocol manual under the title ‘scale.it’.

Both ICP firmware and ARC PRO firmware are ready and waiting for the implementation of adjustable braking and have been for a while ;)

c

RE: InCarPro (ICP) is it still relevant? - flat4 - 19th-Jan-25

Now that you mention, I seem to remember reading somewhere that it was possible to adjust breack strength in the firmware, but as I was (and still am) happy with the results given by PCLC, I never explored that feature.

But even if my first thought was not play with it, this may actually be an intersting path if it can fix the flickering at the rear lights. now that this is said, it still would be easier to adjust these settings while racing on the PC than to have to open the car and reflash the fimware with new adjustments.

I'll probably give it a try

RE: InCarPro (ICP) is it still relevant? - Dr_C2 - 20th-Jan-25

Just to explain for anyone following this thread:

Flat4’s reference to lights flickering is a specific and well understood issue when decoders with functioning brake lights are placed on a SSD track where the rms slow-modulates the brake signal on the track packets to implement a basic level of braking adjustment. This is achieved by low frequency turning off then turning on the brakes with a repetition rate of a few Hz. The brake lights follow this sequence and hence are seen to flicker.

This is different from the full 6-bit resolution 50Hz braking which can be achieved when the powerbase encodes a ‘full-resolution’ braking signal into each track data packet. In this case the braking is very smooth and the lights do not flicker.

The latter braking method has been used widely with ICP in car decoders in combination the APB C7042 and, as indicated in my post above, could be implemented with the ARC PRO too if this feature was built into the rms app.

c

ps On a separate subject I note the latest slot.it SSD decoder, the SP15d, uses a Nordic microcontroller rather than a Microchip 16F630 microcontroller and so will not be compatible with either ICP v3.3 or v4.0.1.

RE: InCarPro (ICP) is it still relevant? - MrFlippant - 20th-Jan-25

(20th-Jan-25, 01:07 PM)Dr_C Wrote: ps On a separate subject I note the latest slot.it SSD decoder, the SP15d, uses a Nordic microcontroller rather than a Microchip 16F630 microcontroller and so will not be compatible with either ICP v3.3 or v4.0.1.

Is it possible that this might explain why some people are discovering that their SP15d is not working properly on an ARC Pro powered track?

I don't have one to test, but if you could check on that, and think of any reason why that might not work properly, I'm sure that user would appreciate it.

RE: InCarPro (ICP) is it still relevant? - Dr_C2 - 20th-Jan-25

(20th-Jan-25, 05:58 PM)MrFlippant Wrote:
(20th-Jan-25, 01:07 PM)Dr_C Wrote: ps On a separate subject I note the latest slot.it SSD decoder, the SP15d, uses a Nordic microcontroller rather than a Microchip 16F630 microcontroller and so will not be compatible with either ICP v3.3 or v4.0.1.

Is it possible that this might explain why some people are discovering that their SP15d is not working properly on an ARC Pro powered track?

I don't have one to test, but if you could check on that, and think of any reason why that might not work properly, I'm sure that user would appreciate it.

Hi MrF, so far there appears to be one report of a user having one SP15d which is giving drivability problems with the ARC PRO powerbase. Hopefully this is a one-off.

I am aware from earlier work that the ARC PRO does have stronger ‘transient’ noise spikes than the APB C7042 - particularly when very lightly loaded. A similar drivability issue was observed with ICP v3.3 and subsequently corrected as part of the ICP v4.0.1 upgrade. Not sure if this is relevant to the SP15d with standard firmware but worth mentioning.

It would be interesting if the user in question were to add a few additional digital cars onto the track (powered-up but with zero throttle) to see whether this affects the drivability issue they are seeing with their SP15d?

c