Re: [Jmri-developers] Digitrax board programming (was Re: First 4.9.6 files available

[Dave H. <dg...@gm...>]

Just checked that email enclosure and yes it does outline my planned concept, which I am fairly sure would be applicable to your case, and others. I noticed someone (I think it may have been Michael Mosher or Alain LM) mentioned recently that the number of sounds/models with some other decoder brands were getting out of hand.

I see no reason why my concept could not be extended to alternatively provide matching to existing roster entries (if that is what you have in mind) rather than a predefined template set. Am I understanding your concepts at all correctly?

My biggest problem at present is trying to maintain some semblance of normal family life while dealing with the fire-fighting/maintenance tasks. I would desperately like to finish my clean up and completion of the code I have written to handle text strings stored in CVs (for the ESU and at least one other existing decoder type). Then I can think about returning to my work on user-editable sound labels, making the Function Labels pane and items conform to the standard pane and variable conventions rather than the bizarre special case it is now (yes, ESU decoders do store some of the existing items thereon, plus other new ones, in decoder CVs), moving forward with the templates concept...

Meanwhile I need to get out of bed, have breakfast and wait for the arrival of a loan loco with a decoder required to test a current issue, deal with a spin-off issue, a grandchild for (joint?) care while the mother takes a break, pay the bills, attend the weekly clubhouse meting, find out who this stranger is that inhabits my house with me...

Why did I even start glancing again at the plans for my replacement layout posted some years ago on a cabinet in my existing neglected layout room????

Sent from my iPad
-- 
Dave

> On 28 Nov 2017, at 1:30 AM, B. Milhaupt <dcc...@sb...> wrote:
> 
> Yes, I was referring to you and your work.  Your ESU-related functionality
> was specifically referenced in our previous discussions - see the attached
> e-mail.