Well, not exactly, but yes, I'm a MRC wireless user and now have a computer interface. It's called a Digitrax Zephyr/MS100!
I just couldn't wait for MRC's interface so I bought a Zephyr and their MS100 interface and they work great. As many have said, a computer interface is a must for a serious DCC system.
I'm set up to use either the MRC Wireless or the Zephyr to run both my HO and N scale layouts. With the throw of a switch I can switch back and forth between the systems.
Here are some of my options for the future:
1. If I like the sound of MRC's interface when it is released, I will either sell the Zephyr/MS100 or maybe just use it to run only my N scale layout.
2. If I don't like what MRC offers, I will continue as is mainly using the Zephyr/MS100 for working with Decoder Pro.
3. If Digitrax's duplex radio offering turns out to be a really great system, I might consider selling the MRC and upgrade the Zephyr to radio.
In the meantime I'm using Decoder Pro and am happy again!
Jerry
Rio Grande vs. Santa Fe.....the battle is over but the glory remains!
UpNorth wrote:Nice... But no one told you about the new Digitrax PR3 ?...
Oh yes they did. But for my situation right now I went with the minimum investment with the $35 MS100, which is really all I need now. Who knows what the future my dictate.
Just surprised you went with the MS-100, it is known to be dated and not completely reliable and flattly refuses to function in certain cases. I've read several sources and found people had issues setting it up and encountered communication issues (buffer, baud rate issues) and so on. It will not work with Vista. Requiries a 25 pin serial port (rare on many computers lately).
These issues are ( I'm told by beta testers...) corrected in the PR-3.
Hope your Xperience is different.
I went to Locobuffer serial then Locobuffer-USB.
UpNorth wrote: Just surprised you went with the MS-100, it is known to be dated and not completely reliable and flattly refuses to function in certain cases. I've read several sources and found people had issues setting it up and encountered communication issues (buffer, baud rate issues) and so on. It will not work with Vista. Requiries a 25 pin serial port (rare on many computers lately). These issues are ( I'm told by beta testers...) corrected in the PR-3. Hope your Xperience is different. I went to Locobuffer serial then Locobuffer-USB.
You are probably right in that I probably should have gone with the PR3. It would have been a better investment even if I ever had to sell it. I was not clear on the MS100 as for some reason I thought it was a newer product. Anyway, it's working well. I've programmed all my N scale locos with it and will start to re-program some HOs.
The 25 pin serial connection could be a problem for some. My train room computer is a Windows 98 with a 9 pin serial. Radio Shack no longer carries an adaptor for 25 to 9 but I was able to find one in a used computer store. Worst case is I'm only out 35 bucks if I ever want to make a change.
I have used an MS100 for several years and it works great with my Digitrax Chief and Decoder Pro. My MS100 is currently connected to my old Pentium 3 running Windows 98.
When I upgrade my home office computer (Windows XP) it will go to the layout. This computer does not have a serial port for the MS100 so I will upgrade to the new Digitrax PR3 at that time. Prior to the release of the PR3 I was considering an adapter cable for the MS100 or purchasing a USB Locobuffer, however the PR3 is the way to go now.
My job takes me "on the road" for extended periods of time and I like to take model railroad projects with me. I am considering puchasing a Digitrax PR3 to use with my laptop on the road.
Jim, Modeling the Kansas City Southern Lines in HO scale.
Here is an intesting newsletter from Litchfield Station comparing the PR3 and LocoBuffer.
From Litchfield Station email 6/12/08:
First a bit of house keeping: We seem to have lost a LOT of folks from the newsletter list. This was not intentional on our part and we cannot believe that than many folks got off the list. We can only assume that something was misplaced on our server. Please let your friends know that you are getting these newsletters and, if they are not, please apologize to them for us and ask that the sign up again. We don't know what else to do!
Now for the business at hand: Digitrax announced the PR3 a bit ago. The question is, what is the best interface for your Digitrax system, a LocoBuffer-USB or a PR3?
RR CirKits, the manufacturer of the LocoBuffer-USB has sent an analysis to its dealers, which I paraphrase below.
The bottom line is, yes, the PR3, when operated in its MS100 mode, is competitive with the LocoBuffer-USB. The PR3 will also control a programming track and upload sound files to Digitrax sound decoders, which the LocoBuffer-USB will not.
The LocoBuffer-USB is optically isolated, which the PR3 is not. This is a major issue, as computers are usually grounded to the power mains and layouts are frequently not. Ground currents can melt LocoNet® cables in some situations. An (expensive) optically isolated interface assures that the grounds remain isolated for the health and safety of people and electronics. Optical isolation keeps your system safe in spite of ground loops, spikes, and surges. Rogue currents and ground loops can wreak havoc with data and even damage the PC or connected devices. The LocoBuffer-USB provides 2,500 VAC of optical isolation between the LocoNet® and your USB port.
The PR3 can not function as a computer interface and control a programming track at the same time.
The choice of products will depend on your requirements:
1. If your you need a USB computer interface for a Chief or Zephyr command station, but uploading custom sound files to Digitrax decoders is not important, the LocoBuffer-USB is the best option.
2. If you want to operate a computer interface at the same time that you are uploading sound files to Digitrax decoders and/or are using the programming track you will need a PR3 and a LocoBuffer-USB. The PR3 will not do both operations at the same time.
3. If you need to upload custom sound files to Digitrax decoders, you will need the PR3 for a USB interface or the PR2 for a serial interface. We have one PR2, used in the shop for demonstration, available for $69.89. Call or eMail for this price - please don't order it on the web.
4. If you need to add a read-back programming track to your DB150 (Empire Builder) system the PR3 is a good choice.
To make things better for you, our customers, Bruce worked with RR-CirKits and we have new pricing for the LocoBuffer-USB: $59.89, with our normal quantity discounts. Also, ask for a FREE copy of DecoderPro with your order of any system or computer interface and we'll add the CD we burn!
Thanks for your loyal support of our growing enterprise.
Bruce
jwils1 Well, not exactly, but yes, I'm a MRC wireless user and now have a computer interface. It's called a Digitrax Zephyr/MS100!
Me too, but I waited and spent less.
Only down-side so far has been sending the Prodigy Advance² (PA2) base unit back to MRC for a firmware update (to V3). Mailed it to them on 12/21 and got it back sometime last week.
Pressing SYS twice should bring up the firmware version number according to the manual. For some reason it didn't work on my PA2 wired throttle but it worked with the wireless one.
I guess V3 came out last summer so you might want to be sure yours is upgraded before ordering the PC interface.
NSColsMP6 jwils1 Well, not exactly, but yes, I'm a MRC wireless user and now have a computer interface. It's called a Digitrax Zephyr/MS100! Me too, but I waited and spent less. Only down-side so far has been sending the Prodigy Advance² (PA2) base unit back to MRC for a firmware update (to V3). Mailed it to them on 12/21 and got it back sometime last week. Pressing SYS twice should bring up the firmware version number according to the manual. For some reason it didn't work on my PA2 wired throttle but it worked with the wireless one. I guess V3 came out last summer so you might want to be sure yours is upgraded before ordering the PC interface.
jwils1 How do you like the MRC interface? Does it do everything you hoped it would? Is there anything you would like for it to do that it doesn't do?
How do you like the MRC interface? Does it do everything you hoped it would? Is there anything you would like for it to do that it doesn't do?
Pros:
Cons:
Wishes:
Hope that helps.
One added tip. I was buying a wireless throttle upgrade at the same time. There was quite a bit of a price difference depending on if you obtained the wirless dongle (plugs into the base station) with the throttle or with the PC Interface - so check that price difference before you buy. I don't believe the dongle is sold separately. Probably pointless to have two wireless dongles.
NSColsMP6Cons:...
You forgot one:
Stevert You forgot one: Only works with MRC's clunky, limited software (ie, no JMRI support).
I'm sure if MRC announced JMRI support tomorrow you'd buy a wheelbarrow full of MRC DCC equipment.
I really don't understand MRC's attitude towards JMRI. It's not liek they are selling their software for profit, so that if they also supported JMRI they'd have a competitor who was just giving the stuff away. So it wouldn't hurt their sales. It's not just JMRI, either - they also don't support RR&Co or any of the other commercial programs.
If I had a tinfoil hat handy I'd say it was because if they allowed JMRI to support their system it would expose the underlying weaknesses of the design.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
And thats the shame to, MRC had a chance to sell good sound decoders and control systems and totaly blew it! For all my years growing up, MRC was usualy the go to source for DC analog throttles that were off good quality. I used a mixture of MRC and Troller Autopulse throttles on my past layouts. Guess profit over quality won out, but now its gonna cost them profit as modelers buy other brands over thiers. Good luck with your twin operating system. Just shows, whats dated and not a good choice for many, works great for others. Mike
LHS mechanic and geniune train and antique garden tractor nut case!
I'm no longer a user of a MRC DCC system. But, I sincerely hope that their interface and software will be improved to a point where it's as useful as JMRI. This is not likely I know, but for the sake of many MRC users, who may not have understood the value of JMRI, and can't now afford a change, I hope that their investment will result in a product that they can be happy with.
The MRC DCC systems, at least the PA2 and Wireless, really do work well, offer a lot, and are enjoyable to use. It's just so disappointing that they can't use JMRI. And yes, there are users who just don't care or feel the need for JMRI and I guess that's where MRC may just be the perfect system for them.
It's baffling as to why MRC chose the course they did. Wouldn't it be refreshing if they could honestly explain their actions, but, maybe Randy's correct.....would it reveal something they don't want revealed?? Who knows and it's beyond me to speculate but their attitude is really a shame and it just turns a lot of us off and makes trusting them very difficult.
Long story short....I had to get out of the hobby for a short while....but am now back in on a smaller scale with a small N scale layout. I briefly considered a PA2 but the lack of JMRI and a bit of distrust of MRC quickly ruled out that idea.
With such fine companies like NCE and Digitrax available it's hard to justify going with anyone else, especially for newcomers who really aren't sure of what they need. Certainly, every system out there is probably the "perfect" system for someone, but of course not for everyone.
NSColsMP6Stevert You forgot one: Only works with MRC's clunky, limited software (ie, no JMRI support). I'm sure if MRC announced JMRI support tomorrow you'd buy a wheelbarrow full of MRC DCC equipment.
No, because I already have a substantial investment in a DCC system that meets my needs, and in my opinion is more capable and expandable than anything MRC offers.
I just posted that tidbit for the folks who may be considering an MRC system, or who already have one and are considering adding the computer interface.
If they read all kinds of good stuff about JMRI, RR&Co, etc, and see that MRC has a computer interface, they might figure, "Hey that software and MRC are just right for me!"
Knowing that software can't be used with the MRC interface might be an important consideration for them. I know it would be for me, if I were in the market for a new system.
Then again, maybe for some folks it doesn't matter. But at least they have the option to make an informed decision.
Stevert Then again, maybe for some folks it doesn't matter. But at least they have the option to make an informed decision.
Is it really an informed decision if it's based on assertions that it's "clunky" and "limited" contrasted with the system you use that "in (your) opinion is more capable".
If I were posting my opinion of a product to help inform others I wouldn't be so vague. Why do you think it's "clunky"? Seemed pretty intuitive to me - and I can't imagine an easier install than firing up the software and plugging a USB dongle into my laptop.
As for being limited it seems to suit my present needs of configuring decoders. I'm kind of curious about the sorts of whiz-bang awesomeness you're doing with JMRI right now.
From what I've read about JMRI it sounds like it'd be a good idea to propose an NMRA DCC-PC Interface standard to ensure that the widest variety of hardware can be controlled by the widest variety of software - has anyone made progress on that?
Until we see such a standard I'm glad that there are some alternatives out there. Innovation thrives on competition and if the vague negative comments about MRC's DCC systems in general turn out not to be baseless then they'll either improve or get pushed out of the market.
Mark,
I appreciate your comments and hope that they will be of help to other MRC users. I really like MRC DCC systems and know that there are many happy users. The negative attitude towards MRC on this and other forums stems from their poor decoder performance, and now the lack of JMRI. I'm afraid that many don't realize just how good their DCC systems really are because of all the negativism.
The thing that really irked many was that MRC specifically requested input on the design of their interface and the overwhelming response that I read was for JMRI compatibility. Yet they seemed to ingore this input and never explained why. This bothered me and has caused me some pause regarding their company.
The ideal solution would have been to offer both their own design and JMRI access.. But they didn't.
I'm no expert on JMRI but one great thing about it is that regardless of what brand decoder you might have you can access screens that directly relate to that decoder and no longer even need to refer to the decoder manual. I'm sure that there are many, many other features that make JMRI superior and others would be more qualified than I to elaborate on them.
There is one other plus for JMRI that I recently discovered and that's the WiThrottle. Since I already have an iPod Touch, a wireless computer setup, and JMRI, I can use my iPod as a wireless throttle. Just another neat bonus with JMRI.
The bottom line is that MRC users don't deserve being left out in the cold and should continue to press MRC for real substantial improvements to their interface. Good luck with yours.
NSColsMP6 From what I've read about JMRI it sounds like it'd be a good idea to propose an NMRA DCC-PC Interface standard to ensure that the widest variety of hardware can be controlled by the widest variety of software - has anyone made progress on that? Until we see such a standard I'm glad that there are some alternatives out there. Innovation thrives on competition and if the vague negative comments about MRC's DCC systems in general turn out not to be baseless then they'll either improve or get pushed out of the market.
Don't believe that will ever happen. That aspect of DCC architecture was deliberately left alone by the NMRA working group. It's what makes a manufacturer's system unique. Setting a standard would be like making Ford parts fit Chevrolets. JMRI is actually the solution that works with a variety of DCC systems, computers, and operating systems.
Martin Myers
mfm37 That aspect of DCC architecture was deliberately left alone by the NMRA working group. It's what makes a manufacturer's system unique.
That aspect of DCC architecture was deliberately left alone by the NMRA working group. It's what makes a manufacturer's system unique.
The DCC system mechanisms could still be black-boxed. I'm only proposing that a standard set of "hooks" be established - this would allow DCC control software like JMRI to be "loosely coupled" to the DCC system in question.
The JMRI site describes the two architecture layers as "Above" and "Below". The standard I propose would expose a standard software interface in place of the "Below" portions - manufacturers seeking to offer PC interfaces would provide these standard "hooks" and anyone writing software would only need to understand those - not how a proprietary DCC system communicates internally.
mfm37 Setting a standard would be like making Ford parts fit Chevrolets. JMRI is actually the solution that works with a variety of DCC systems, computers, and operating systems.
Setting a standard would be like making Ford parts fit Chevrolets. JMRI is actually the solution that works with a variety of DCC systems, computers, and operating systems.
It'd be more like mandates on bumper heights - or in our case, coupler height guages. That's not to say that every coupler must be identical - they must simply meet ceartain standards of compatability. If your coupler is positioned in line with the NMRA standards then you can *expect* the other compliant cars to have couplers mounted in a compatible way.
One of the MRC criticisms I've seen a few times now is that they don't want to open up their proprietary system. The suggestion is that MRC "must have something to hide". That something is called "intellectual property" - they obviously want to keep the mechanism of their system a secret, and I would too. The reason being that it's easier/cheaper to protect intellectual property (IP) with secrecy than with patents.
My proposal would shift development of the standard interface away from the open source JMRI project - and allow MRC to maintain it's secrecy. Is it even an option for MRC to develop their own "Below" interface for JMRI and maintain control of the source?
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." - GPL v2 Terms Sec. 2.b (1991)
I'd imagine there are other portions of the GPL that IP attorneys would shy away from.
"The GPL is a political manifesto as well as a software license... This political dialogue has put some people off." - B. Parens (1999)
It seems that this is fundamentally a discussion over whether or not a company should be shunned because it has the gall to make an IP decision to protect it's past R&D investments into the future.
Are there any other companies in this hobby that protect their intellectual property and profit from it (Hint: The operators of this forum.)? Are they also evil?
I can't fault them for that and nobody else has any business criticizing that decision either. It's literally none of our business. :)
Protect their IP? I guess this means Digitrax, NCE, Lenz, CVP, Uhlenbrock, Lionel and others have all given up their IP rights? (As these are all supported in JMRI). Hardly. That's a cop-out excuse. You are also misrepresenting the GPL, it does not mean you have to give away every detail about what you use GPL-licensed softwre to interface to. There is nothing there that says they can't keep the behind the scenes details of the internal operation of their command station a secret. Also, recent rulings in the JMRI vs KAM lawsuit have upheld the idea that just because you publish software under the GPL, other people can't just copy and use it. This case is actually setting precedents and finally answering many of the questions that made people shy away from open source on the grounds that they were simply giving up any IP rights they may have had - NOT SO.
rrinker You are also misrepresenting the GPL
You are also misrepresenting the GPL
There's "misrepresenting" and then there's "qoting".
NSColsMP6It seems that this is fundamentally a discussion over whether or not a company should be shunned because it has the gall to make an IP decision to protect it's past R&D investments into the future.
NSColsMP6 rrinker You are also misrepresenting the GPL There's "misrepresenting" and then there's "qoting".
One small quote and a WHOLE lot of interpretation in that post.
Anything part of JMRI has to be release with the source coade, as it's JMRI that's licensed under the GPL. Any software/firmware running in an adapter that attaches the computer to the system would NOT have to be released to the public simply because it talks to JMRI. The code in the Locobuffer for Digitrax is public, but that's because the developer decided to do that - it's open source but I don't think under GPL. The code in Digitrax's PR-3 is not public. The entire Loconet specification is not completely public for that mater. There is the Loconet-Personal Edition which is freely downloadable fromt he Digitrax site but that does not cover every single Loconet opcode. To get all of them you need to sign a non-disclosure and buy a license from Digitrax. The firmware inside the Lenz LI-USB is not, to my knowledge, open source in any way. So there is absolutely no problem with MRC making an interface gadget that has inside it proprietary code that they reveal to no one, yet it still could be controlled with JMRI (or RR & Co if you insist on commercial for-profit software).