| Joe Fugate's Siskiyou Line :: Forums :: DCC and electrical | << Previous thread | Next thread >> | |
| DCC University (was: MRC DCC) | ||
| 1 [2] 3 ... 52 53 54 | |
|
Moderators: admin, joef, bear creek
|
| Author | Post | ||
| NYNH&H |
| ||
 Registered Member #552 Joined: Mon Nov 13 2006, 02:17PM: posts: 349 | As for your not liking Digitrax, they are priced very competitively, well below CVP and NCE, which are their main competitors. I can't understand the whole action>>>object thing. Not only is the use of the throttle and what it does a pretty small thing, as they all do the same thing, just a little bit differently, but the action>>>object method seems wrong. Do you eat a potato chip and then pick it up (action>>> object), or do you pick it up and then eat it (object>>>action)? When I chose Digitrax, I chose it based on specifications, expandability, scalability, cost, and LOCONET. I had never actually used the throttles before I bought. I hate when people are always like "use the throttles before you buy". The throttles are like TV remotes. Would you buy a different kind of TV because it had a better remote? No. I bought based on the fact that Digitrax's system was the only system in the industry to use a real network, Loconet, and I LOVE the system. Not sure how Digitrax looks like a "kit", I have never heard it put that way before. MRC does have a good brand in the DC market, and some of this may carry over to DCC. I think, however, that most new customers will still go with the Zephyr. There are a couple of reasons for this. If they do some reasearch, they will find out that Digitrax is the most expandable system, with radio (that exists as of today), turnout control, two different types of throttles, etc, etc, etc. Next, many people are in a club. Most clubs (especially modular) use Digitrax. They will often go with what their club uses for thier small home layout, as they are familiar with it, and they can get support from the club "DCC guru" if something explodes. Next, the online forums like The-Gauge and MR are heavily pushing the Zephyr. Many people have them, and they love them, and so they are recommending them. The Diigitrax system is simple too, and the manual is written for people who have never used DCC before, at least the beginning part about how to get up and running. If people don't know anything about DCC, they need to do some research, and learn about how DCC works, and what consisting, CVs, decoders, boosters, command stations, stationary decoders, throttle networks, and other basic stuff like that are. Heck, even NMRA S9.1 and S9.2 are a good read. They do in detail about the DCC signal and such, and you can calculate the data rate of the rails and all kinds of other cools stuff from them. Sure, people may not "max out" the MRC system in terms of numbers, but in reality, the MRC system is harder to add cab panels to, as it usues 8-wire cable, as opposed to the industry-standard six, and is really meant for only four cabs. It also does not have a turnout decoder that is MRC- branded, although an NCE/ CVP/ Digitrax one should work. It also does not have much power, and has more limited booster options. Sound equipped locos suck the juice. As for the generation of DCC, we are in the second generation, although Digitrax systems with their signalling and detection can be in the third generation, as can an NCE or CVP system if Chubb C/MRI is added. Not for the beginning modeller.  The MRC system is a much better starter system than the Powercab, even with its limitations. The Powercab is a joke, as it can only have one more cab. It is more like an accessory to a PH Pro system, for bench programming and such. The Zpehyr, on the other hand, is very expandable, with up to ten throttles, and it can use any loconet component that the Super Chief uses, including signalling, turnout control, etc, etc. Bachman already has their horrible system (I have a right to say that, I owned it before going to Digitrax) bundled in train sets. Train sets are more for setting up on the floor or around the Christmas tree, and DC is just so simple and cheap, it will probably always be in train sets. DCC is more for people who want a layout, and get some flextrack and DCC equipped locos and whatnot.Large clubs may be early adoptors, but they drive a lot of sales. In general, when a club goes with a system, all of its members who have layouts also go with that system if they do not already have DCC. Clubs are also a lucrative market, as they buy boosters, and a bunch of throttles, radio gear, signalling, detection, power management, the list goes on and on. Some clubs have tens of thousands of dollars of gear, and as new stuff comes out, many of them will upgrade. While the board edge connector is a pain to install, it is brilliant on Digitrax's part, as a big club can swtich out hundreds of boards (power managers, block detectors, signal controllers) quickly when new technology comes out. The DCC guru from a club was posting on the Digitrax Yahoo! boards, and his club had 50 BDL168's, more than 50 PM42s, 50+ DS54s, at least a few boosters, a bunch of throttles, and the list went on. On the other hand, I think the large clubs are not the first beta testers. I think a select few modellers really are. On their own layouts, they can deploy new technology, like Transponding, to their locomotive fleet and layout on the day it comes out, not months later like a big club with a ton of locos, and a process to make decisions. Digitrax was able to change, with the DT400, which is super easy to use, unlike earlier throttles, and just an overall awsome throttle. They still kept the basic interface, just made it easy to use. The DT400 is awesome. It would be more awesome, however, if they had radio acquisition. What hobby stores carry varies from place to place. My LHS has only the Bachman system. I am not sure why someone would buy it from a LHS, as a place like Tony's knows about DCC, wheras most hobby shop owners are not DCC gurus. I buy from Tony's, but there are a couple of other online place that specialize in DCC as well. Most DCC users hate potentiometers. They let you accelerate too fast. A digitral encoder like NCE or Digitrax usues creates a tiny bit of momentum, as you have to turn the thing like a zillion times to get it to stop, and it gives much finer speed control, 1% at a time. I doubt that MRC will ever be a market leader. Digitrax has 55% market share, and a wide audience of fans (like me). The Zephyr looks like the familiar MRC Tech II in a way, and can be added to, as Andy Sperandeo shows (with the awful UT4R) in the Black River Junction article (Jan '07 I think). Even though NCE's intro system is pretty limited, I think they have a MUCH better chance than MRC, as they have a fully developed system with the Procab, and many different types of add-on cabs, radio that finally works, after a few years, and turnout decoders. Digitrax is still so far ahead of NCE, however. Digitrax already has the amateur system. The Zephyr is awesome, as it is really just a mini-Chief. This is reflected in its name, the DCS50. It has all of the features of the Super Chief other than the amperage, voltage, and memory (in terms of throttles and locos). You could get a Zephyr, a UT4, AND a couple of UP5s for the same price as the MRC PA. Maybe Digitrax should sell a bundle like that, and advertise the walk-around capabilities of it. The Zpehyr, unlike the MRC, has a throttle on it, two jump ports for DC throttles (which is a BIZZARE feature, and I haven't tried it on mine), AND the walkaround throttle, all for the same price as a Powercab with an extra throttle, a PA which only one throttle total, or a PE with an extra throttle. Digitrax is still wayyy ahead of everyone else in the market, especially with Loconet. I don't see that changing, as the other systems would have to abandon their old systems, and swtich to a loconet- like system. Of course, there is still a lot more to develop in the DCC market. I hope Digitrax comes out with a throttle that allows radio acquisition, AND is in the 2.4GHZ band for longer range, and less interference with other systems. It should also have an internal Li-on battery, as the 9V batteries are a PAIN. I have a feeling that with the way Digitrax has been introducing new technology first to the DCC market, if anyone brings 2.4ghz to DCC, Digitrax will be first. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| joef |
| ||
   Registered Member #3 Joined: Wed Dec 08 2004, 09:01PM: posts: 2112 | While I am pleased to see someone who really likes the Digitrax system, I think the whole Loconet component is not an aspect of the system that will matter much to most people, and like all the systems, Digitrax has its own set of quirks that irks people as you use the system for a while. The whole loco slots thing that Digitrax uses has really driven my friend Charlie Comstock, who has a Digitrax system, to distraction. And in research done by Tony's trains, they have found the Digitrax systems are the most sensitive to issues with QSI locos and the current inrush, making it easy to "swamp" a Digitrax system so they will not reset on a short unless you start taking QSI locos off the track. My friend Charlie mutters under his breath a lot at op sessions because of issues with his Digitrax system on his large home layout. So much so he has been giving some serious consideration to moving to some other system. As to the question of the Zephyr being much more expandible than the NCE PowerCab, I would have to disagree with you there. I have an NCE Powercab, and for another $160 I can add the NCE Procab command station and I can hook the NCE up to my current boosters and have a completely functional DCC system with a computer interface where the sky's the limit. From there I get a wireless receiver for $125 and now I can start adding wireless cabs -- with true wireless acquisition. I don't have to plug in the throttle to acquire a loco. It's almost as if Loconet became a hindrance to Digitrax in this instance, making you have to plug in with an otherwise wireless system. One big reason I want a wireless system is to NOT have to run a throttle bus or some other network all over the layout. Just let me run two wires around the layout to power the track and no more. The TRACK is the data/command bus on a DCC layout. I don't need or want any more than that. I also find Digitrax is very limited with how they handle consisting. Out of the box, their system defaults to command station consisting, which means the loco consists are carried in the command station and so command traffic to the layout is increased dramatically with each loco in the consist getting its own commands through the rails. Decoder-based consists are the clear trend in DCC, since the consist only needs one set of commands sent to it, reducing command traffic on the rails. Digitrax does allow nesting command station consists, which is handy. But their system does nothing to support decoder-based consisting. If you want a decoder based consist with Digitrax, you have to program CV19 by hand yourself -- oh yes, and don't forget to add 128 to the consist number for locos running in reverse. Now to be fair, you can set an option in Digitrax to make it use CV19 for consisting instead of doing command station consists -- but now I can't do command station consists! But all the other systems allow you to do both types of consists natively, which is very powerful, especially if you model the diesel era as I do where loco consists are common. Digitrax's either/or approach to consisting is extremely limiting and like much of their system's approach, requires you to get under the hood and mess with primitive programming techniques yourself if you want to use all the features of DCC. NCE's consisting, on the other hand, is amazingly well thought out. Even with decoder consists, they allow you to enter the lead and trailing loco numbers, then you can address the consist using the loco number, not some artificial consist number. And to top it all off, if you address the loco at the other end -- hey now that's the front of the consist, that end responds to functions and so on. Very handy and useful. And did I say that NCE lets you nest a decoder consists within a command station consist? Very handy for things like helpers. In fact, this consisting example is one reason why I find Digitrax might look really cool as to its technical specs, but in actual practice, the system feels less-than-friendly. We can all discuss how cool loconet is, but if I can't mix and match different kinds of loco consists easily, and if I have to plug in my so-called wireless throttles to acquire a loco -- just how useful is loconet to the day-to-day operation of my modern diesel layout? Not very. And that's my point when I say that Digitrax is just a rather unfriendly DCC system. Can you learn to live with it, and even make Digitrax do cool things? Sure. Is their system well built? Yes. But if you regularly operate on various layouts and get a feel for how each of the DCC systems work, in day-to-day op sessions, you may learn, as I have, that Digitrax will make you mutter under your breath a lot, too.  [ Edited Sun Jan 07 2007, 04:42PM ] Joe Fugate http://siskiyou-railfan.net - 200,000 hits and counting!  In video ... | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| jwils1 |
| ||
| Registered Member #524 Joined: Fri Oct 13 2006, 08:35AM: posts: 83 | I think everyone agees that each person's situation is unique. System requirements can vary widely depending on how your railroad is run. For example, take a lone wolf modeler who runs lots of sound, needs one fixed or tethered throttle that does F0-F12, easy/quick decoder consisting, read/write programming, runs stationary decoders, has a large loco stack, plus, also needs one wireless throttle that does F0-F8 and operates stationary decoders. Lenz 100 plus a cordless phone does all of that for $360 (now $380) plus provides 5 amps and a 10 year warranty. What other system can beat that price and quality for one with these requirements? P.S. Oops, maybe I wasn't supposed to talk about Lenz on this thread but it's terrific and really works for me. I've studied the other systems in detail, and, while I really like several of them I would still have to go with the Lenz setup for my specific situation. By the way, for extra cost, I have added Decoder Pro for with a $90 interface but this was just for fun and I didn't really need it. I have ZugDCC ($25 one time cost) which provides throttles, turnout control (including a layout map) and programming. Again, this was just for fun and I didn't really have to have it. Jerry | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| JeffShultz |
| ||
  Registered Member #6 Joined: Wed Dec 08 2004, 09:30PM: posts: 582 | I guess the "problem" with Lenz is simply that so few people have used it - despite having invented the standard! Jeff Shultz Willamette & Pacific - Oregon Electric Branch W&P RR Photo Gallery | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| joef |
| ||
| Registered Member #3 Joined: Wed Dec 08 2004, 09:01PM: posts: 2112 | Yep, I started with a Lenz back in 1993. I had the option of purchasing a Digitrax system or a Lenz system back then at a stiff discount (since the NMRA National was coming, and the vendors wanted to get some DCC layouts as a promo), but I opted to go with the Lenz system because I preferred their more substantial feeling throttle design. I used the Lenz system for 7 years, then the system starting having issues and needed some repair work. I wanted wireless, and so revisited the systems again. NCE's interface was the simplest, and Digitrax's manuals just struck me as full of tech-head key sequences, and EasyDCC's system wasn't quite as simple as NCE's but close. Finally EasyDCC had real wireless throttles on the market then (2000), but everyone else's wireless offerings were just a promise -- and EasyDCC had a nice simple throttle design, so EasyDCC it was. Now, my EasyDCC system has become largely obsolete and if I need to do any replacement of parts, I will have to sink up to $2500 into doing a total system upgrade. I can completely replace my EasyDCC system with NCE for $1800, and get all the great features of NCE. So that's my direction over the next year or so -- to migrate to an NCE system. Just a note on the Digitrax tech-head key sequences. With my computer background, I can learn and use tech-head systems just as good as anyone. But from several years experience with an operating layout, if there's one thing I've found, keep it simple. Your operators will thank you for it. People make much of the NCE Cab4 and Cab5 NCE cabs as not being very powerful. Hey, my operators don't need powerful, they need simple and obvious. The Digitrax DT400 throttle is powerful, but it is not simple ... just like the NCE dogbone throttle is not simple. I don't want my operators dealing with something that looks like a DVD remote on steroids. I look at the NCE cab 04 and I find buttons labeled "Select loco", "horn" and so on ... all pretty obvious stuff. Even EasyDCC's latest crop of throttles have gone arcane on me, with "#" and "*" being the magic keys that do these common functions. Even Digitrax's "SEL" key on the UT4 is better than that. So for me, EasyDCC's system design is moving in the wrong direction, and at $200+ for their good throttles, the pricing is also moving in the wrong direction. If Digitrax's consisting was handled better, and if their wireless was true wireless, that would go a long way toward making their system more worth serious consideration for my needs. But Loconet doesn't sway me one way or the other, because I just don't need it. I don't use accessory decoders and when I get around to doing signalling, I'm not going to use DCC -- I going with tried and true (and more flexible) CMRI. [ Edited Mon Jan 08 2007, 01:57AM ] Joe Fugate http://siskiyou-railfan.net - 200,000 hits and counting! In video ... | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| jwils1 |
| ||
| Registered Member #524 Joined: Fri Oct 13 2006, 08:35AM: posts: 83 | JeffShultz said ... I guess the "problem" with Lenz is simply that so few people have used it - despite having invented the standard! Yes that's true. I wonder why that is? It must have something to do with their overall marketing and sales plan. Maybe their satisfied with their overall sales worldwide and are just not zeroing in on the U.S. Their cordless phone wireless option seem indicative of that. At any rate, I think that if they had a fully expandable starter set, priced competitively with Zepher and Power Cab, and if they put on a customer oriented marketing effort that their system could really catch on. Many people apparently are just hesitant to spend $310 (Set 100 inc. power supply at my LHS) for their first entry into DCC. Anyway, I can certainly see why Joe and others on this forum go with the systems that they do because their specific needs dictate it. I continue to be fascinated by the Digitrax/NCE debates. They really give everyone good food for thought. Jerry | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| bear creek |
| ||
   Registered Member #305 Joined: Wed Feb 01 2006, 01:57PM: posts: 342 | I am the afore mentioned under-my-breath mutterer. My relationship with digitrax could be described as a love-hate relationship except I don't think I've ever loved the bugger. Between arcane throttles and problems dealing with the inrush current of QSI equipped locos. Ugh. And the default short detection period is 125ms (1/8 second) which turns out to be too short for an 1156 lite bulb to reliably light up. There's a 500ms short detect option which I now use - but reluctantly as I really don't like the idea of dumping full current through track and wheels and what not for a half second before the booster cuts out. Yeah, I know. I'll probably spend the bucks on a Tony's 4x block isolator and replace all the tail light bulbs (which seem to introduce acceleration and pogoing artifacts into certain locos when ascending or descending my long steep grade. I finally invested some bucks in a LocoBuffer USB last fall. Probably the best money I've spent on DCC component. In the past I've had problems with the Chief overflowing its throttle slots (the symptom is that some throttles refuse to acquire some trains - real nice...). With the decoderpro throttle slot monitor I can see how full everything is getting. When a loco decides to go walk-about during a session I can emergency stop it from the dispatcher station (where the computer is located) or free up it's throttle slot. (But why should I have to know that much about the inner workings of the system?). Decoder pro also lets me control the chief's configuration switches (honestly, why do they call these "thrown" or "closed"? Why not on or off? Or enabled or disabled? Or even 1 or 0?) With 6 blocks protected with 1156 bulbs I've pretty much tamed the QSI inrush current problem. Of course with my turnouts being "DCC friendly" I don't get too many shorts unless someone really hits the ties big time so that helps. In fact, this last Saturday I don't think the booster short circuit protection triggered even once. Did I mention that one of my two main 5 track staging yards is set up so only the track pointed to by the yard ladder has power? I suspect this helps with short recovery too... I gotta agree that the graphics on the Digitrax throttles looks pretty amatuer to me. But I don't have a problem with the toggle switch used for direction changing on the UT series throttles. Anything in the DT100 to DT300 range is a joke in terms of arcane button pressing sequences (especially so if you have sound - which I admit was not available when these throttles were design. As far as needing a throttle bus for wireless throttles to plug in its true. BUT you only need one throttle jack in the towns where locos might be acquired or dispatched. You don't need the fascia festooned with 'em. I don't like DT400s because the sea-of-buttons intimidates me. Plus theres too much chance of a beginner (or even me) hitting the wrong button and putting the system in moose -mode. Speaking of buttons, the buttons on their throttles seem toy-like. And the tiny rotary selectors on the UT4R I have are too darn small and close together for my prototype thumbs. A digitrax plus is I can use page mode programming (programming track) while the system is in operation. Can't do that with NCE. NCE also (after monitoring the NCE egroup list for a while) seems to require delicate handling of the buttons with radios (and lots of radio repeaters). They're more expensive than the lazy D brand too. As in "you need to be deliberate when pressing the buttons so as not to overrun the command station". NCE is full duplex so you don't need to plug in to do anything. But with the lethargic and somewhat intermittant button pressing response (as alledged on the NCE list - I've never used one) there are enough problems to go around. FWIW Tony the K has determined he needs a NCE radio repeater within 15 feet of every location in his train room. That sounds like the cash register at the hobby shop going "Ka-ching" to me. Of course being simplex radio the lazy D radio throttles have a different set of problems. As far as I can tell they are: o gotta plug in to acquire or release - which I don't really regard as a problem o no feedback leds or lcd display on the throttle to know which functios are active or not (the UT1 throttle had this but with only 2-digit addressing and no radio they are on the way out) o Loconet is (as far as I remember from reading their personal LN spec) a 16.7 kbaud multidrop protocol using collision detection and retries (somewhat like ethernet). This means that if you press a throttle button at the same time a BDL whatever blathers about detecting something both the throttle and BDL need to re-blather at a later time (retry the transmission). This has the advantage of not requiring the master station to poll all the secondary stations but has the disadvantage of when the retry count gets too high retries collide with retries causing even more retries to occur. But a WIRELESS simplex lazy D throttle has NO means of determining that a collision occured. So that button press or throttle twist gets lost. There is good potential for a single throttle to work pretty well. But a roomful (yeah a highly precise number there...) of D. radio throttles can suffer collisions. Now I don't know how many collision would occur in practice. I don't work for Dx so the following is conjecture, but if I were designing the radio throttles I 'd have the radios sending their packets at very high speed (mega bits per second) so the transmission duration would be much much shorter than a packet on the wired Loconet. This would tend to reduce collisions, probably to the point where they become rare. Finally, being simplex the Dx brand radio throttles get to use a slightly higher power radio transmitter than the duplex NCE throttles. This results in a better range. For a highly inaccurate example I have one (1) radio receiver in my 1100 sqft train room. I didn't hear complaints about radio drop outs at last Saturday's session. Or course, I did get some complaints during the December session. But I think these were likely due to batteries with insufficient change left. Speaking of which, if you choose to go radio throttles and op regularly you'll probably want to invest in a cadre of NiMH batteries and a good charger. Or you'll be enriching the energizer bunny and putting lots of toxic stuff into the local landfills. (of course the same is true for radio head sets). Decoder Pro has been a life saver for me. The ability to configure and program a loco from the computer and save the configuration for a later reburn should the decoder happen to "reset itself" is a blessing that can not be over appreciated. The throttle slot monitor and command station config switch editor I think have saved my life (or at least what's left of my sanity) by letting me see and control what's going in within the command station (Chief). Looking over all this stuff from a hand held throttle is a nightmare.... So what else is wrong with digitrax? Their consisting is stone knives and bear skins. Sure, I can consist up to 4 locos together. But they don't neccessarily (spelling?) have a semblance of intelligent head light management. If the consist is in reverse the lead units backup light is on with nothing on the tail unit. There's also no way to reverse a consist. If a consist consists of (front to back) 12 13 14 you can't say 12 is the consist address for foward and 14 is the consist address for reverse. Plus it doesn't (as best I know anyway) integrate advanced consisting into the UniVerSal (or however they capitalize it) consisting. NCE does a much better job on the consisting. What would I like? The ability to put all engines into an advanced consist and send NO lighting commands to the consist. Instead the command station would keep track of the leading and trailing units in the consist and send lighting commands directy to their address. Want to swap directions? No problem the command station reverses its concept of head and tail units and sends lighting commands accordingly. Consists are added and broken up using on-the-main programming. NCE does some of this. They've reserved the top 27 consist addresses for use with their special consisting mode (don't remember what their marketeers decided to call it). NCE also allows dynamically changing the accelleration curve of a consist. Something to do with changing the throttle commands sent to the consist (putting momentum in the command station instead of the decoders). So you 're running with 20 cars and the yard gives you 20 more. Do a little consist momentum adjustment and now your train behaves like it's twice as heavy. Neat feature. Sorry, I don't know diddly about Lenz, Zimo, Atlas, or MRC (other than an impression that MRC and Atlas are toy-like). So why do I stay with digitrax if I think it sucks? Bucko's matey. I have 5 UT1 utility throttles and a UT4R radio throttle and an antique DT100 system throttle. My sessions can use a fair number of throttles at once (up to a current max of 7). If I went fully radio I'd need to spend about 6 x $110 = $660 for radio throttles. If I switch to NCE I'm looking at about $1600 (Ouch!) But it gets even worse. None of my crew has NCE. Several have Digitrax radio throttles. I don't really need to buy any more throttles at this point (maybe when the layout is finished and there may be 10 throttles in use at a time. Signalling? Pah, I'm 1) too cheap for signalling and 2) I want a dark railroad because it's a lot more fun to operate than following a mother-may-I set of greens around the mainline (which is fun for the DS in front of the CTC machine but kind of boring for the crews). A personal observation: The Dx brand looks like a bunch of semi-knowledgible geeks got together and designed it in their garage. Over time they go more knowledgible and the quality of engineering got a bit better. But it's still a techo-nerd system. I've been a pro computer geek for around 30 years now and I find their documentation painful to read. User interface? Oh that's right, we might need one of those. And why on earth do they have keep alive batteries in the command stations instead of using a seeprom to hold consist settings when the power is off? And the AR-1 auto-reverser won't work with brass steamers or if the gaps in the track are not directly opposite each other. I can't recommend 'em. Pay the extra for a TTX auto reverse unit if ya gotta have one. Unless you can live with a relatively slow reverse needed detect period and are sure you'll never, ever have brass steamers on the layout. What would I do if I were starting from scratch? I'd be tempted to go NCE. The cost difference when starting from scratch would be much less (although still noticible D.radio throttle=$110 N.r.t=$150 x10 throttles = $400!! Someone mentioned buying a system without trying the throttles. They claimed it was like buying a TV because you liked the remote control. I say "not so!". With the TV you set the station or select the DVR and let her rip making an occaisional volume change. With a DCC system you are CONSTANTLY using a throttle while running a train (unless you are a put a train in endless orbit, get something cold to drink and sit back to watch 'em run type). If you are serious about operating in an at least somewhat proto-like manner the throttle - human interface becomes even more significant. Frankly I'm concerned about the delays reported on the NCE list regarding button pushing. I'd definitly need to try them out before I'd invest that many buckoroonies. Joe is the only guy I know with Easy DCC. It gives a hack around solution to the double ended consists. But I've not been very impressed by it's level of relibility of late. And it's only 2 digit addressing. It's radio range also seems week when at the far end of the Coos Bay aiso or sometimes standing in front of Oakland. And their new pricing is simply outragesously expensive... A final note. ALL DCC systems suck. They all have stuff in them that will make you want to puke (least-wize I haven't met one yet that didn't). Unfortunately, being able to dispense with block switches and have direct control over a loco, its lighting, and what ever sound capabilities it might have is a pretty necessary thing. Once you know how to use one of the DCC throttles and have aclimated to its idiosyncracies you can settle back and run on a foreign layout without needing to under how to get power to the block occupied by your loco (and where that block ends). Fully independent helper control is also really really really cool (necessary). So I put up with the crap that masquerades as DCC products. So what would I like? How about wireless USB in each loco and throttle or perhaps bluetooth? Each loco would be completely full duplex meaning a throttle could show actually train speed (instead of throttle notch). The engine could communicate back to the throttle (or command station if there is one) how much fuel or water is left. Fuel (and water) consumption could be monitored by back-emf computation. If you you're driving a steamer and don't get enough water (at an approved water plug with a rate of tender fill computation possible with the water plugs also being wireless) you'll run out on the mainline and either stop moving (if you're smart) or blow up the bolier if you didn't pay attention to the sight-glass ont he throttle! It also could be feasible to have a micro-camera in the loco and put a display on a wireless handheld throttle so you can have a loco-style view of what ever on-coming signals may be in view. Whatever... And yes, I do have an attitude problem about DCC systems (and other stuff)... Charlie Comstock Superintendent of Mysterious Electical Maladies The Bear Creek and South Jackson Railway Co. Hillsboro, OR Bigwig Bear Creek & South Jackson Railway Co. http://www.bcsjrr.com | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| NYNH&H |
| ||
| Registered Member #552 Joined: Mon Nov 13 2006, 02:17PM: posts: 349 | WOW, a lot to think about, and some really good information about all the different systems and DCC in general. JoeF (first post): I have to disagree about Loconet. Loconet is the reason I chose Digitrax, and the reason that I think it is the best system out there. Not only does it speed up the response, but it makes the system as a whole easier to use. While NCE systems need an address for each cab, the Digitrax system does not, plug and play. Also, for larger installations, the NCE system can only have a certain number of Procabs, a certain number of engineer cabs, and a certain number of radio engineer cabs, and the addressing system is complicated. With Loconet, you can combine the signalling, detection, and everything else into one system. This way, a computer can monitor all of the loconet packets, which is great for troubleshooting. Loconet is Digitrax's biggest asset, and if they were using an RS-485 interface like the others, then they would not have many of the advanced products for Loconet, like turnout feedback reporting, signalling, detection and transponding. Not only that, but for modular applications, it is the system of choice, as the boosters and throttles and radio all connect to the same network, although that has less to do with the Loconet architecture, and more to do the way the cables are wired, as Lenz has done something similar with XpressNet, which is NOT a network, and is based off of RS-485. All systems have the idea of slots. They may or may not have the same number of slots, or manage them in the same way, but they all have them. In general, unless the system is VERY large, the slots, for all practical purposes, are just there, and no one has to worry about them or what they are doing. Even on a large layout, using opsw 36 after every op session clears all of the addresses out the system, so it is ready for another session. The Super Chief has 120, and as long as locos are dispatched after they are used, everything is fine. As for the current inrush, there are some solutions out there. There are some new Tony's breakers that do something to help (delay the start-up of each district slightly), and this is usually not a big issue, as most layouts don't have more then a couple of sound locos per booster district. If it is their boosters, you could always use an NCE or Lenz booster with Loconet, it is simple to make an adapter cable, is those other brands of boosters just needs pins 1 and 6 of loconet (rail sync). Joe, you are not the typical "new customer" to a particular brand. You happen to have a bunch of boosters. In my comparisons, I was assuming that the user has no equipment, and that the decoders are a constant cost, as one brand can work with another system, most of the time (Bachman decoders are an exception for programming. Ugh.). The Powercab can only have one cab added before going to the full PH Pro system, which is even more expensive than the Digitrax Chief. If you want more than one extra throttle on the Powercab, you have to add the Smart Booster, which is $140 including the PSU, and that investment is lost if you move up to the PH Pro system. The Zephyr, on the other hand, can handle 10 throttles out of the box. If you need to move up to a bigger system, then you can add a DCS100, and essentially have a Super Chief. The Zephyr can still be three throttle (internal plus two jump), AND a booster, which would be useful for accessory decoders or a small yard that needs a separate circuit breaker. The Powercab, on the other hand, can be added to the larger system as a Procab, but then you lose the Booster functionality, and are just using it as a cab. The Zephyr feels like a full system (mini-Chief), wheras the Powercab feels like a Procab that someone stuffed a pathetic booster into. That being said, the Powercab is a great accessory for PH Pro users, whether it is for testing, or decoder programming, and as a regular ProCab during an operating session. As for having to plug into the Digitrax system, this is a total pain. It is simply a stupid design move on Digitrax's part, NOT a feature of Loconet. Clearly, it is possible to acquire a locomotive through a radio based system, as CVP does it with EasyDCC. The Loconet command station may need to send a signal back to confirm that the loco has been gotten. In this way, the radio reveiver could receive this signal, although the operator would not know for sure that he has gotten the loco, like CVP's system. The 2nd direction, however, is the user's eyes when the loco moves or not. This "safety feature" should be able to be disabled through an option switch, as some users may want it, although many do not. There are actually four different things that could happen when the user requests a loco that is already in use. This would have been a good use of and opsw. 1, radio acquisition is not allowed. 2, The person trying to acquire just doesn't get the loco. 3, both people have control (like stealing). 4, the person trying to acquire gets exclusive control. As for having to have a throttle bus, EASY DCC is the only system that is a "Radio system", and it just happens to have a wired bus as well. All of the others are wired systems with cab busses, that just happen to have radio for the one or two users that are running commuter trains or whatnot and need wireless. There are a few problems with wireless. The biggest is probably the batteries. With NCE and CVP, you have to have 4 AAA batteries, Digitrax uses 1 9V. Either way, you have to find NiMH batteries for the throttles, have chargers for them, and then remember to actually charge them! This is already a pain with the Digitrax radio throttles. If it were just for my home layout, I would order 5 UP5 panels from Tony's, and abandon radio altogether. I am going to be using it with my modular club, so I need the radio. Also, there are some performance issues with radio cabs, and they vary from system to system, but none of them are perfect. I have heard with with CVP, if there are too many users in one small area, the performance drops way off, sometimes not working at all. And, if you have more than 8 throttles, they have to share a channel, leading to low performance. At least with tethered throttles, operators can operate with tangled cords that work, as opposed to wireless freedom that has limited or no functionality. NCE's radio system cannot be used with modular layouts, as it sort of kills Digitrax's system. As it polls over the radio, it spits out a TON of garbage at 916.5mhz, and thus when Digitrax tries to "talk" in its non-polled fashion, it momentarily disrupts NCE, and NCE has to ressent, effectively killing the Digitrax system, and killing the NCE system while the Digitrax use is trying to transmit. Their earlier systems with 1/4 wave antennas needed an aluminum pie plate stuck between the antenna and the base to work well at more than just a short distance from the radio base. They have since fixed that issue with the longer 1/2 wave antennas, but they legally have to have one half the TX/RX power that a one-way system has, so it has significantly less range than the CVP and Digitrax systems. It also shows problems sooner than the other systems, as the polling has to work in both directions for the throttle to function correctly, not just one way. You can add radio repeaters to combat this, but they have a separate bus, in addition to the cab and booster busses. Digitrax only has one. Digitrax is far from perfect, with the obviously dumb "feature" of plug-in acquisition. Also, if there are more than about 10 throttles on the Digitrax system, it starts to slow down quite a bit. Also, if there are "twiddlers", who are constantly changing the speed, it can make the system slow with only a few users. If most of the users just set their speed and let their train roll, significantly more throttles can be used. For switching, users should be plugged into Loconet. A really good radio cab would have to have a few things. First, it would have to be in the 2.4ghz range. Not only would that stop interference between systems, and it could work around wifi, phones, and other stuff, but it would increase the range significantly. There is a model airplane control system based on 2.4ghz technology, and it has some SERIOUS range, as you would expect. Next, it would have to be full two-way and the features of a master cab, and not require a plug-in, like the CVP system, and the NCE system on a lucky day. It would also have to have an internal rechargeable battery. Some people would want to have regular batteries, so it would have a standard size NiMH battery, like 9V or 4xAAA, but it would have the charger built-in, so that the batteries would never have to be taken out. It would then have a "charging station", where 6 throttles could be plopped in slots to charge overnight. This would be EASY, as opposed to the current process of taking the batteries out and recharging them and putting them back in. It would also use NO power when shut off, so that it doesn't kill its batteries when it is not being used. Digitrax radio throttles have this issue, and one workaround is to separate ThrottleNet and BoosterNet, and then supply constant DC voltage to ThrottleNet all of the time, regardless of whether the system is on or not. What a Kludge. The Lenz system essentially has an internal rechargeable battery, as all cordless phones recharge themselves. If the phones bases' wall-warts were put on a different power strip than the system, then that strip could be left on to charge, while the system is off. Unfortunately, the Lenz throttles have the same problem that the DC Aristos have, in that they use a pushbutton style throttle, and have no indication of what speed step you are on. The problem with this "ultimate" throttle is that it a) doesn't exist and b) if it were to exist it would cost $500. Basically, what I am saying is that wireless throttle sound cool, but they are really a pain. Coily cables have been around forever on phone handsets, and the 6-wire version for throttles works very well. I have seen a couple of the layouts of other members of the club, two of them being powered by NCE DCC. Both owners say that they have no desire for radio, as they have plug panels every 4 feet or so, and they just plug in. They don't have to worry about batteries, their throttles are just connected to the command station's power. One of them, who built his layout in 1978, used to use the radio Aristo-Craft radio throttles before 1999, when he converted to NCE DCC. He said that the ProCabs with the coiled tethers are just as good as the totally radio Aristos. You can't possible only have a track bus. You have to have a booster bus, and with the NCE system, you may need a radio bus. Don't you have an old cab bus from the Lenz system? If it has 6-wire plugs it should work with anybody else's system, if not, you could always replace the little panels with UTP style panels. I will say more about busses later on in the post. Having both kinds of consisting sort of defeats part of the purpose of having advanced consists, and if you don't have a track bandwidth issue, why even bother with the more complicated advanced consists that some types of decoders may or may not work with? I don't seem to think the track bus bandwidth is an issue, as it can send out 33 commands per second. On the biggest Digitrax system, with 120 slots for locos or advanced consists, that means that even if EVERY person on the layout sent a command at the SAME time, it would take 4 seconds to run through them all. Probably not going to happen. Realistically, there could be a half-second wait with all 120 slots in use, not exactly a big deal. Using decoder-based consists is more for HUGE layouts, like the Club in New Jersey that once had 98 throttles running simultaneously on their Super Chief! Isn't the artificial consist number just a regular (not extended) DCC address? Thus, you could give the consists the same address as the lead loco's normal address. Or am I missing something about advanced consisting? I think Digitrax can nest as well, as the advanced consists are just another DCC address. The double-ended consists are cool, but having the right headlight on is not exactly a selling point for a system. I will say more about having Loconet later in the post. I am also learning the power of an AWESOME DCC system with a true peer-to-peer architecture that allows super fast throttle response. AWESOME! jwils1: Yes, system requirements vary from modeller to modeller. Because of its wide range of accessories, and great architecture, Digitrax is the only system that could serve ALL DCC users (in HO scale anyways, G gauge is another story). Some people would be BETTER served by another system, however, if they want to sacrifice on the system architecture to gain other features (like $60 auto re-charging throttles). Lenz is a neat system in some ways, in others it is dead last, as there are few add-ons, and a limited system capacity (31 throttles). On the other hand, it would be awesome for G scale, as you could get a cordless phone that is waterproof, and run trains from the pool or hot tub!!! It is good that you brought Lenz into the discussion, as it is one of the four (in descending order, Digitrax, NCE, CVP and Lenz) big DCC systems. ZugDCC is cool, but what does it do over the JMRI suite? JeffShultz: Lenz is big in Europe, NCE in Austrailia, Digitrax in the US. In Europe, there are like 20 different countries, with DIFFERENT radio frequencies, so they have to get a cordless phone locally, and use it with Lenz to have wireless. Lenz is also a very European company, based in Europe, whereas NCE is in New York, and Digitrax is in Norcross, Georgia. NCE is big in Australia, because a dealer got it approved for use there (the radio part). They use the same radio frequencies as the US, but the government has to test and approve products. Some CVP and Digitrax systems have been smuggled in, even though they have not been approved by the government. Lenz is also a very European system, as Europe typically has smaller everything, including layouts, than the US, and thus they don't need a "mega" system like NCE or especially Digitrax. JoeF (second post): Wow. You have had DCC longer than just about anyone else. Did you use proprietary command control or DC before you got your DCC? Stiff discount. About the same price as the stuff is today?? Digitrax has had wireless since 1995 or before. All of the radio systems are exactly the same as the one they use today, although they now have radio versions of the easy-to-use DT400, as opposed to the earlier and somewhat more cryptic DT100 and DT300 series throttles. I should pick one of those old ones up off Ebay. It would be fun, as they program in Hex! That would be fun to program in Hex! A total system upgrade to the newer throttles? I bet you can still get parts for your system on Ebay. You will be pretty happy with the NCE system. It is not Digitrax, but it is still a strong competitor in the DCC market, it would be my choice if Digitrax didn't exist. I like the interface on the ProCab, although it is a bit big. The Digitrax interface is easy to use. Just hit Loco XX Loco (XX being the loco address, it can use extended addresses if you have a SERIOUS collection of locos), and you have the loco. Hit Loco Disp to dispatch. To MU, grab the lead loco on the right throttle, the second loco on the left, hit MU Y+ . Repeat for additional locos, setting direction if necessary. Programming is even easier. Just hit Prog until Po shows up (ops mode), and dial away! With a few clicks of the dial, you can access any of the normally useful CVs (1, 2, 5, 6). For sound locos, you have to spin the wheel a bit to get up into the 50's or higher, but still super easy to do! What if your operator needs to change a CV quickly, or consist? Then they need a full cab. The only reason not to get full cabs for all operators would be cost, which is significant on a large fleet of cabs. I think the Cab04 is like $70, while the ProCab is $125. Multiply that $55 out over a dozen cabs, and well, thats a bunch of money. The ProCab, DT400, and Lenz 100 all have nice LCD displays, so you can see the speed and direction of a loco and the loco acquired on a throttle. Also, the ProCab has the really neat yard mode. Digitrax has little pictures above the number buttons for functions, at least for the bell and whistle, and headlight. Of course, operators should know the function numbers of those very basic functions. Based on their web site, I think CVP is going three different directions, none of which include selling new EasyDCC systems as their main goal. In increasing importance, the first is to sell EasyDCC users upgrades to their existing systems, with the new throttles, chip upgrades and such. This brings me to another point. I HATE how NCE, CVP, and Lenz have hardware upgrades. NCE has the EPROM, which can be upgraded to add new devices and such. This is like buying a new computer to support a new model of DSLR. Ugh. Meanwhile, Loconet hasn't changed since it was born in like 1993. The NCE systems have to poll everything on the cab bus, including input and output devices. Digitrax's Loconet, on the other hand, can have two devices on it that do not need to ever "talk" to one another. For example, a command station and an SE8C signal decoder may never need to communicate, and the SE8C is being instructed by the computer, which is not dealing with the the throttles, but the BDL168's, DS64s, and SE8Cs. As for CVP, the second is to sell their throttle to Lenz customers in the US. Small market. Big opportunity. Why develop a new command station and system throttle that can do programming, when you can just supply the other 75% of a system? I think they are intending to get customers who don't like EasyDCC's rather fixed master cabs. These people can get Lenz, and then get CVP throttles. On a decent sized system, the throttles are most of the cost. I think they are phasing out the NCE throttle base, as they have not made a new one for the newer throttles. I think NCE's throttle system, which has the same throttles as NCE's wired system, is completely killing this business. The single biggest thing they are going towards is the AirWire9000. It allows a G scale loco to have its DCC, radio, and power gear in a trailing boxcar, and to have NO track wiring, power supplies, etc. Because people tend to only have a couple of locos in G scale, this is the perfect application, and it can even have a DCC decoder attached to it for functions/ sound. There is direct radio control, so the range is not an issue. There are no longer issues with dirty track and reversing loops and such with this system. With newer, higher capacity NiMH and Lion battery systems, users can get more than four hours of running time on a single charge. This system also allows users to bring their locos to a friend's railroad, and use their loco with DCC regardless of whether the layout own is using DC, DCC or direct radio. It is like the next generation of AristoCraft's direct radio control systems, which *I think* could use track or battery power. Although running off of track power in G scale may seem like the best method, direct radio has some serious advantages, especially in wet climates where it is nearly impossible to keep good electrical contact with the rails. Ah, Loconet again. There are a number of advantages to using Loconet for signaling and detection, some of them independent of whether you use it for your DCC system (Loconet can run in parallel to a different brand of DCC or even for DC). The first is that with Loconet, you can use the awesome Railroad & Company. It is a pricey piece of software, but awesome nonetheless. Using it has little to do with Loconet's architecture, and more to do with the fact that RR&Co doesn't have hardware support for C/MRI. RR&Co has a neat new throttle, called the SmartHand. It is a neat little throttle, a little like MRC's throttle, that has cab signaling, and a huge display built in for graphical representations of turnouts and tracks. It can also send text messages back and forth with the computer. Its main problem, however, is that it uses a proprietary RS-485 bus, with 8-wire connectors, so you need ANOTHER bus just for these throttle, in addition to Loconet. If they made a Loconet version, they would be a pretty awesome throttle for users who want lots of control from their computer. You can also control where people can go on the layout with the SmartHand. You can also simulate needing to get fuel (and water in the steam era) with the SmarHand. It is a neat idea, but not quite ready for prime-time yet. The other main option is JMRI's PanelPro, which is neat, because you can mix C/MRI and Loconet components, with the computer acting as the bridge between the two systems. With Loconet, you can have your throttle, wireless, booster, and signalling/ detection buses on ONE 6-wire cable. Earlier you said that you did not want more wires running everywhere, BUT C/MRI will add to the tangle a lot more than Loconet. Although the newer C/MRI systems are decentralized, the Loconet systems are MORE decentralized. Many people complain that Digitrax's components are really expensive, which they are, but now the guys over at RR-Cirkits (makers of the Locobuffer USB and Locobuffer II) have made the TC-64. This is a 64-line universal I/O module for Loconet. They can be used directly with some types of signals and CTC panel switches. There are also daughter cards to drive other types of signals, turnout motors (although without turnout position feedback reporting), and do block detection (although not transponding). Your signaling system will probably need to know what position the turnouts are in, which could probably be accomplished even with manual throw turnouts, using a TC-64 for input. I think a TC-64 is about $100, so it is really cheap for 64 lines of I/O. C/MRI is based on the RS-485 system, which again limits expandability, and slows the system down. Another issue with C/MRI is that it is owned by Dr. Chubb, and if Dr. Chubb stops supporting it, then it is a dead system. Loconet, on the other hand, is owned by a company, Digitrax, that is not likely to stop supporting their stuff anytime soon. C/MRI seems like the old pre-loconet way of doing things. Loconet is neat, because all of this stuff can be plugged into Loconet, and it still works really well, as there is only a signal sent over Loconet when something actually happens (like a train enters a block). As for the actual signaling, Loconet is very flexible. The SE8C can do many different types of signals, and the TC-64 can be programmed to do anything. It is just an I/O module. The sky is the limit with the TC-64. Another key advantage of Loconet is transponding. Transponding is the only system that can talk bi-directionally with locomotives, to see where a particular locomotive is. This helps in dispatching, and allows fully automated operations! This is an easy way to show "civilians" they layout, or let some trains roll while you are working on the layout, and then, with the click of a button, you can switch it over to being a system made for operations, with dispatching and operators and whatnot. Transponding can also be used for surround sound, using good quality speakers mounted under the layout, instead of those tiny little speakers in the locomotives. Transponding is a pretty heavy investment, as it requires BDL168 block detectors, and RX4 transponders. It also requires Digitrax decoders in all of the locomotives that need to be able to transpond. You can have a layout where some can transpond, and some can't, and the ones that can transpond are the ones that would be run automatically and with surround sound. The non-transponding locomotives can still be detected as being in a block. For locomotives and cabeese that do not have Digitrax decoders in them, you can add the tiny TF-4 function decoder, and use it only for transponding, or in a caboose, for four lighting functions, and transponding. Another interesting note pertaining to the use of a computer, are the possibilities for that "ultimate" wireless throttle mentioned above in the form of a PDA. Some PDAs have digital encoders (scroll wheels), as well as wireless to connect to a computer. You could even have it use a "yard mode" like NCE, or push the button to reverse direction. The few buttons could also be used for common functions. The disadvantage is that to do anything else, you would have to look at the screen, and then hit it with your finger. This would be like a wireless version of the rather hilarious LocoPalm. There is some software already out there for doing just that, but it is from KAM industries, who both have terrible software, and sued JMRI for stealing their code, when in fact, they stole JMRI's code. That was such a big deal, that it made it to /. . This can be done for a single user with a remote desktop connection to a PC running JMRI's throttle. Although very expensive and clunky, a very powerful system (4GB/ RAM, Core 2 Duo) could run 8 or 10 VMs of Win 2K in VmWare, each having its own instance of JMRI, and having a PDA remote desktop into it. Clunky, but it would be pretty cool. Other than the problem that PDAs are expensive compared to dedicated throttles, using a PDA could give users a true two-way wireless system, an internal rechargeable battery, and long-range operation (300+ feet with a big antenna on the AP) in the 2.4GHZ band. If RR&Co would make a piece of software to do this, it would be pretty cool. It would also be a cash cow for them, as they could charge $50/ license, with the average (RR&Co controlled) layout need a dozen licenses or so. Sorry about the long post, but I just have so much to say... Lots of interesting points that people are making. jwils1: The Atlas system was their starter kit. It was even worse than the Powercab when it was actually sold, as it has to be sold when you move up to the full Lenz system, as it is the command station. You can, however, run the Atlas throttles on a Lenz system, as they both use XpressNET (which IS NOT A NETWORK!!!). Lenz is now doing a lot with Bachman, as Bachman's system is horrible (I had it, so I have the right to say so), but it has mass-market appeal, at $99 WITH locomotive. They also supply the decoders for Bachman and Atlas. The Digitrax/ NCE debates are pretty interesting. This particular post is like an all-you-can-eat buffet for thought, as are Joe and Charlie's posts. Bear Creek: wow. More info. Your post just rolled in, as I have been working on this post in my spare time since around noon. wow. You are not dumping full current, as the bulbs limit the shorts to 2.1A, and eat the current up. Adding higher amperage lights (see the thread about that) may help your pogoing, maybe 3A or so. Interesting that you say you like the Locobuffer. I got one, and I have not used it yet. I just use the throttle for everything, as I find that it is plenty easy to use, and quick just to dial up the CV and punch in a value in Ops Mode. If you dispatch locos correctly, and enable the 120 slots, instead of the default 22, you shouldn't have any problems. You can get at the opsws through the throttle as well. They named them opsw in order to make it sound "railroady". Its easy. Its all in the manual, and eventually I will know them all from memory. As we discussed either earlier in this thread, or in another thread, there is not prefect turnout control method. With your DCC friendly turnouts (my preference BY FAR), you can run the loco over a turnout thrown the wrong way, and it probably won't derail. Then, the cars will start derailing, and you will finally figure out why. With a power-routing turnout, you would have shorted the system before running over the turnout the wrong way. I prefer the DCC-friendly ones, as they are sooo much easier to wire. Those staging yard tracks sound pretty cool. Especially to shut up those annoying sound equipped locos. I have played around with a sound-equipped Athearn Genesis Challenger, and it has convinced me to avoid sound AT ALL COSTS. What a pain sound is. DCC YES! Sound NO! The DT100 and DT300s are pretty bad, but the DT400 is AWESOME. True you can have just one throttle jack, but see what I said above (I should have posted this in parts so you would have seen my earlier responses. oh well). The DT400 may look bad, but it is not. It is really easy to use, and the only time that you can hit an extra button is when you are dialing up a loco. Even then, it is not too bad, as it is just Loco XX Loco. The dials are just dumb. The DT400 is worth the extra $$, even for regular operators. I would love to say that the programming track running simultaneously is an awesome features, but the programming track does DO anything that ops mode doesn't, other than read back. Of course, you can just write your settings down, so you have them handy to use again, or store them in DecoderPro. You can even read back CVs in ops mode on a transponding-equipped system (definitely not one of its selling points, but its a cool technical implementation nonetheless). Yeah, polling radio is a BAD idea. Even CVP wasn't dumb enough to try it, even though they use polling on their throttle bus. The UT1 is still a perfectly good throttle, even though it is a limited throttle, which as you can tell I don't like. Its not like anyone other than the biggest clubs actually use 4 digit addressing, as you need 100 locos to justify its use, and you can put a loco up for grabs, even a four digit one, and snag it with a UT1, or one of those weird European home-brew Loconet throttles that cost like $20 to build, and have only a potentiometer speed-control knob and direction switch. I think the throttles use a high speed wireless, faster than Loconet, not sure though. I would think that the radio receiver makes sure that the command is sent out, as long as it gets it from the radio throttle. Because there is no polling, Loconet is faster than any of the other systems, even with a couple of hundred devices. I read that there is no way to run out of Loconet bandwidth, as the current biggest uses have used up about 35% of its data capacity, and the collisions are resolved faster than a polled system gets all of the way around to poll again. The collisions are also resolved faster than a human can perceive. If a single throttle notch is lost, the next will be picked up, and the user will probably not even know what happened, unless they were at like 1% or 2%. For the NiMH, I can't find a battery that will fit correctly. I have an old Rayovac one for R/C cars, and it works fine, but a newer Energizer one is too big. It sort of fits, but it really hard to get in and out. I am afraid it may damage the throttle over time, so I am going to look for one that does not have the plastic casing, which doesn't have the same depression on the end that the metal casing has. As I mentioned above, if it were not for the modular club, I would just abandon radio, and buy UP5s. I don't see that DecoderPro is that great. Just keep a paper of setting, and then dial them up on a DT400. Yeah, the headlights are a little annoying. Oh well. Just get fast at re-consisting the locos. NCE's system for dynamic momentum sounds like the way it was done in DC, applied to DCC. Kinda weird. I hate momentum myself, I only like a little TINY bit, as to not jerk the couplers when starting up, or coming to a grinding halt. MRC is almost becoming a real system, as we described earlier in the thread. Now they just need a pathetic throttle (engineer throttle), and they will have a full-featured system. I guess since their cab is only $75 anyways, they don't need a pathetic throttle. You have the BEST DCC system on the market. Why on earth would you want to downgrade to NCE? Interesting points on signaling. When I have a big layout, I will probably do signaling, just because I can, I mean just because my prototype does it (guess I will have to pick a prototype that does signaling , I want to do something present-day, so that shouldn't be too hard.). It does require a lot of gapping and wiring, however. And a lot of cost. But it is cool, and eliminated the need for radios and such, and allows the dispatcher to easily route trains around the layout in a prototypical fashion.Yes, Digitrax was made by geeks. What's documentation? Oh, that stuff that sits at the bottom of the box. Actually, I had to use it for the Digitrax stuff, and the documentation is great. Step by step, and really easy. The geeks made a system like ethernet, and that is why their system is the biggest and best system, and the most expandable. They were smart in setting up an architecture. Yeah, the AR-1 is pretty bad. I wonder if the PM-42 is any better? It can report the data back to Loconet, although I am not sure what the point of that is. The Tony's ones are MUCH better, and easier to install as well. No 44 pin board edge connector. Who has brass steamers anyways? Anything but plastic is pretty rare from what I see. And brass is a pain to get decoders in, as the whole locomotive is a conductor! But Digitrax is a better system. And it is cheaper. I mentioned the TV analogy. I just learn to use whatever I get. Digitrax was my choice because it was affordable, expandable, and the inner geek in me can't tolerate RS-485 polling. With a DVR, you do a LOT, like FF commercials. I love the Peanut (TiVo's remote), but if I were to get another DVR, I would use a low-power, no-noise computer for it, even though they have pretty bad remotes. A PC is technically better, and you can add software to it, even though the remote is the part I touch all the time. Thats a sort of negative look at DCC. My way of looking is that Digitrax is the closest to perfect, no system is perfect, and good is good enough. DCC is better than DC any way you look at it. Having wireless in the loco is impractical. The receivers are too big. See above about the "ultimate throttle". And about RR&Co and the SmartHand. I think you can already monitor your consumption, you would just have to "know" and refill, and the computer could stop you if you ran out. You would have to reduce the capacity in relation to the prototype, just like a fast clock, otherwise the locos would have like 45,000 gallon diesel tanks in them! You would need transponding or RFID for the approved water stop. You could also use RFID for car-forwarding. A few people have used bar codes, and also used them for automated hump yard routing, but RFID would be better, and the computer could keep track of the cars without cards, and if you were randomly doing stuff, the computer would still know about it. How about 4th generation DCC? Having a wireless camera would require a LOT of bandwidth, current systems can only handle a couple of cameras, and they are not the most compact systems, and have big, tethered receivers. They are fun for displays, though, as people see their shirts on the TV as the trains goes by, and visitors have to figure out which train has the camera (if it doesn't have an antenna sticking out!!!). Thats all for now. Sorry for the long post, but you know, so much interesting info. I think this thread is VERY sidetracked. I keep forgetting the initial subject was about MRC, until I see it in my browser bar. wow. BTW, I added some semi-arbitrary paragraph breaks, in case you were wondering. I tried to make it less painful to read, I ofen don't put enough paragraphs in, as my writing can go from on thought to the next to the next to the next, and never have a break. I don't have an paragraphs that are longer than the Reply To Thread box. I typed most of this in notepad and textedit, because it is so long! I think this is the longest forum post I have ever made! BTW, I am NOT getting paid by Digitrax to push their system, I just have their system and LOVE it! | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| joef |
| ||
| Registered Member #3 Joined: Wed Dec 08 2004, 09:01PM: posts: 2112 | Wow, tons of great first hand experience and research knowledge about Digitrax, EasyDCC, and NCE. Not much about Lenz or MRC, unfortunately. Glad to see Charlie chime in. Being an EE sort, he knows the under-the-hood electronic realm really well and he can see how the DCC designers could have made their systems really cool ... but haven't. I guess when you know what's possible technically, you get a bit jadded.  NY -- I and my crew also prefer just enough momentum to smooth out loco performance, just as you said you prefer. What a thread! Lots of meat and not much fluff here. [ Edited Mon Jan 08 2007, 08:52PM ] Joe Fugate http://siskiyou-railfan.net - 200,000 hits and counting! In video ... | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| jwils1 |
| ||
| Registered Member #524 Joined: Fri Oct 13 2006, 08:35AM: posts: 83 | NYNH&H said ... Unfortunately, the Lenz throttles have the same problem that the DC Aristos have, in that they use a pushbutton style throttle, and have no indication of what speed step you are on. Maybe I'm misunderstanding but the Lenz LH100 throttle does show the speed steps you're on. Everytime you adjust the speed the speed notch is shown in the display. Or you can toggle back and forth between the loco data and speed notch by hitting the "Enter" key. If you want to check the speed step mode that you're in, hitting the + key will display it while the loco is running. Also, the LZV Command Station supports a loco roster of 256 locos. Well, I feel like I'm attending DCC System University on this thread. Thsi is powerful and very usefull stuff. Thanks. Jerry | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| 1 [2] 3 ... 52 53 54 | |
Powered by e107 Forum System