Well, if they ever ship it, maybe someone can look at it. But the debate isn;t really if their software is going to be worse, as good as, or better than JMRI. I never siad their software was going to be bad. The real debate is that with MRC, you won't have a choice. You're stuck with their software because they don't want to give their specs to people writing other software. It's a BAD decision and yet another limitation of the MRC system, and there's not much to debate about that. They proudly proclaim that their system will have proprietary software in their full page back cover ad, so I don't think this is speculation on my part.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker No, I haven't actually touched it yet - I doubt anyone has because as far as I know it's still not shipping to dealers.
No, I haven't actually touched it yet - I doubt anyone has because as far as I know it's still not shipping to dealers.
How can you comment on and evaluate something you have not even seen, let alone tried ?
When people like me ask for objective and informative comments and evaluations on new products/techniques, it is far more helpful to get answers from people who have actual persona real experience with the product in question. Evaluations and comments from people who have no actual real experience with the product in question are of little use.
While you do have some valid concerns, since you have no experience with MRC's software, how can you be so certain that they have not been addressed ? How can you be so certain that MRC's software is inferior to JMRI ?
I think it would be wise for use to wait until weve actually tried it before we pass judgement. And this should apply to everything -- not just MRC products.
And as chateauricher has pointed out, the overall MRC system lacks a critical component for automation, mainly detection and feedback.
Sorry, that wasn't me. That was CSX Robert.
No, I haven't actually touched it yet - I doubt anyone has because as far as I know it's still not shipping to dealers. Their ad doesn't promise much at all, at least, certainly nothing new that hasn't been possible with JMRI for years already with every major brand of DCC system. Yet their ad boldly proclaims this to be new and exciting and available only from MRC - well, I suppose if you have an MRC DCC system it is only available from MRC. All the other major players, Digitrax, NCE, Lenz, and CVP are all supported by multiple programs, both commercial and freeware, that do all those things and more.
And as chateauricher has pointed out, the overall MRC system lacks a critical component for automation, mainly detection and feedback. No dount they will probably come up with something eventually. If, however, they chose to provide interface specs to JMRI so their system could be included, you could do what others have done even with DCC systems that have detection and feedback, and that is combien the DCC system with a different detection and signalling system like Bruce Chubb's C/MRI. This system is also supported by JMRI, and you can combine it with any of the supported DCC systems to achieve the overall resultof train operation, detection, signalling, and turnout feedback.
WHo knows, perhaps MRC's customer base doesn't really care. But now they're going to be deeper invested in the system when they go see someone else's layout and what you can do when ALL the peices are there. This is far from the only thing that turns me off to the MRC DCC systems. It appears they finally have broken out of the incompatible upgrade cycle since you can start with a PE and upgrade without throwing out the old system. But the differing button layouts between the PA throttle and PE throttle would be maddening to me so in all likelyhood the PE throttle would be relegated to the shelf. Plus I have to wonder, since you can upgrade a PE to PA just by adding the throttle, are the 'brains' in the throttle or did they just cripple the PE command station somehow? You see, if their documentation woudl actually tell you somethign about the system, these issues could be resolved.. Since their cab bus is a polled system I have to doubt that there's any command station functionality in the handheld - therefore the PE command station must be capable of passing the PA commands. Again, if they were a little more forthcoming we wouldn;t be having these discussions. And again, I;'m sure most of the custoemrs could care less, as long as they plug it in and it works. But I think that's true of most other DCC systems as well. It's jus tthat the other guys DO give out this information. MRC has finally built a system that should be able to play with the big boys, and certainly proclaims loudly in their ads that it does, but they are still misisng key ingredients that the true big boys have.
chateauricher rrinker Plus you wouldn't be able to do much 'automation' with the MRC as their computer interface is only going to work with their proprietary software. Randy, A couple questions for you... Have you actually seen the MRC's proprietary computer interface software ? Have you actually seen it in use ? Have you actually used it yourself ? If not, how do you know that it cannot do what other software does ?Personally, I don't have any DCC system yet, so I am not in any position to offer an evaluation. But I am curious to know if you have any personal experience with MRC's software upon which to base your claims. Please, let us know what experience (if any) you have.
rrinker Plus you wouldn't be able to do much 'automation' with the MRC as their computer interface is only going to work with their proprietary software.
Plus you wouldn't be able to do much 'automation' with the MRC as their computer interface is only going to work with their proprietary software.
Randy,
A couple questions for you...
Have you actually seen the MRC's proprietary computer interface software ? Have you actually seen it in use ? Have you actually used it yourself ? If not, how do you know that it cannot do what other software does ?Personally, I don't have any DCC system yet, so I am not in any position to offer an evaluation. But I am curious to know if you have any personal experience with MRC's software upon which to base your claims. Please, let us know what experience (if any) you have.
Since MRC does not have any form of occupancy detection or turnout feedback, a person does not have to have experience with the software to know that you won't be able to much automation with it.
rrinker MRC's own ad, full page on the back of the last MR specifically states 'proprietary software'. Also, Bob Jacobsen of JMRI tried to talk to them about adding their system to JMRI and they wanted nothing to do with it.
MRC's own ad, full page on the back of the last MR specifically states 'proprietary software'. Also, Bob Jacobsen of JMRI tried to talk to them about adding their system to JMRI and they wanted nothing to do with it.
I don't mean to be rude or insulting; but you didn't answer my questions. I asked if you personally had any experience with MRC's software -- have you used it ? or, at the very least, have you seen it being used ? In other words : do you have first-hand knowledge/experience ? Not second-hand (hearsay).
I've read their ads, too, several times. And from what I've read, it seems like the MRC software can do quite a lot of very interesting and useful things.
In the interest of being fair and objective, I'd like to ask that only people who have actually used the software answer these questions, please. (How can you critique wine without first tasting it?)
Just use the NCE for everything and sell me your PA2.
You would have to run two sets of buss wires if you were going to use two separate systems like you want to.Not that big a deal, but carrying around 2 handhelds WOULD be a pain.
If you use the NCE ProCab Radio you don't need plug-in jacks anywhere; everything can be wireless, and you only need one throttle to both run trains and throw turnouts.
Talking about using two different systems and two different control busses is really complicating things and you run the risk of inadvertently plugging the wrong throttle into the bus and blowing magic smoke.
MRC's own ad, full page on the back pof the last MR specificaially states 'proprietary software'. Also, Bob Jacobsen of JMRI tried to talk to them about adding their system to JMRI and they wanted nothing to do with it.
The fact that it's wireless I guess would explain why it's so expensive compared to the interfaces for Digitrax and NCE. Still don't know why the MRC cab jack plug-in panels are twice everyone else's.
Personally, I don't have any DCC system yet, so I am not in any position to offer an evaluation. But I am curious to know if you have any personal experience with MRC's software upon which to base your claims. Please, let us know what experience (if any) you have.
If both systems are used, you'll need an MRC throttle to throw switches and an NCE throttle to run trains. That's a lot of throttles to carry around. Not to mention, you'd need two sets of plug in jacks and I'm not sure that if the wrong throttle was plugged in, there may be some damage.
Any way to set the MRC box up as just a booster connected to the NCE system? Then it could be used to power the accessory decoders as an accessory power district and free up the main booster to just run trains.
Martin Myers
It's feasible, but way too complicated. Plus you wouldn't be able to do much 'automation' with the MRC as their computer interface is only going to work with their proprietary software. With the NCE system you'll be able to apply occupency detection and feedback to the turnout controls and use standard software, either commercial or free like JMRI to create control panels and CTC boards.
I came into a deal a while back an MRC Prodigy Advanced DCC system brand new in the box never used for super cheap price. I sent it up to MRC and had it upgraded. I was told by MRC directly that if I used an Advanced Squared controller I will have all of the features etc. how ever I had my mind made up on an NCE power cab system for my new railroad. It's under construction and is going to be fairly large by HO standards. I originally intended to us DCC stationary decoders for switch machine operation on the "not so up close" switch machines. I have both the flea switch machines and tortoise s/m with the hare decoders I had intended to use. So a thought came to me would it be feasible to use the MRC system for switch machine operation as well as other dcc controlled animation and the NCE strictly for operation or is this just way over complicating things.