Hi everyone,
Has anyone used MRC's new computer program. Looking for a DCC system and was thinking digitrax and the jrmi program, but thought I'd ask about MRC's new program. Just looking for advise. Thanks
I have not seen it or used it. Is it even available yet? From the posts in the MRC user group, it appears that it will not work with JMRI. It only works with it's own software. It is supposed to have a 'wireless' connection to the PC. I am not sure if that is good or bad - I cannot see 'speed matching' a set of DCC locomotives from the upstairs bedroom! Per the MRC Yahoo Group, it appears that you will need to upgrade to the 'wireless' option to use this product(and sone PE units may need to be upgraded as well). I understand that it was 'demo'ed' at Trainfest last November.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Just to be clear, it's all driven from the JMRI side. Peopel contributing code to the project create the bits needed to make it work with various DCC systems. Of course, this requires the manufacturer to open up their interface system so that the programmers can actually write said code - and MRC has pretty much told Bob Jacobsen "no thanks". Their loss. The tinfoil hat side of me wonders what they are hiding...
--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 Just to be clear, it's all driven from the JMRI side. Peopel contributing code to the project create the bits needed to make it work with various DCC systems. Of course, this requires the manufacturer to open up their interface system so that the programmers can actually write said code - and MRC has pretty much told Bob Jacobsen "no thanks". Their loss. The tinfoil hat side of me wonders what they are hiding... --Randy
I don't know that their closed interface is so much that they're hiding anything, as it is another example of their arrogance:
"You don't need CV readback. You don't need any software except ours. If you want a computer interface, you need to convert to wireless (and pay dearly for it!)"
Read their advertising copy. They seem to be very caught up in their own viewpoint of how DCC should work, and seem to think that all the practices and conventions established well before they entered the market are nothing more than so much drivel.
To directly answer the OP's question, no, I haven't tried any of MRC's DCC products, and unless/until they change their attitude, it's not very likely that I will.
Steve
MRC's attitude on working with JMRI reminds me of Steve Job's of Apple attitude and computer software openess. It seems MRC is cutting off there own nose. Being open to JMRI would expand there market by a lot even with thier high cost unit.
Maybe the whole idea is so that MRC ties the customer to their product----everything is in house hence the customer has no choice but to jump ship----I've heard people talk about 'defecting(?sp?) from them a lot. How convenient to the bottom line---hook them in with low prices----
I've heard some up here try the pkg but again---issues---and lots of them----that was why my wife got me my NCE pkg
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Honestly I don;t even see that they are luring people in with low prices, not since they've done away witht he really bad early systems they sold. Prodigy series components aren't inexpensive compared to other brands - heck their fascia panels are twice the cost of what NCE and Digitrax charge. Th eonly difference is MRC uses an 8 pin RJ45 jacka nd the others uses a 6 pin RJ12. That certainly doesn;t double the cost.
The other thing that disturbs me is the absolute lack of any technical information on the system and how it works. There are plenty of things that would be good to know after you master the basics to help you get more out of the system. Of course that might conflict with their marketing plan that it's so simple you don't need a manual.
Have ot admit, they seem to know their customer base - small layout operators who probably have MRC DC power packs and want to convert. I haven't heard of anyone with a full basement layout with a dozen operators using MRC to run it. Those layouts are almost always without fail NCE or Digitrax.
Well RRRinker, you may be correct on the price point in some ways but in terms of their so-called simplicity? If you bring customers in through that avenue then---
Beta vs VHS? Blue-Ray vs HD? All the same problem---the market tends to favour more open platforms---if MRC refuses to deal with this in a more open manner then it will be attempt # 4---or is it #5?---for them.
Stevert If you want a computer interface, you need to convert to wireless (and pay dearly for it!)"
If you want a computer interface, you need to convert to wireless (and pay dearly for it!)"
Hmm, when I look at the computer interface options on the MRC site it seems that you don't need to convert to wireless. Seems like a wired connection is around $50, for people who already have wireless that option is $20 more, and if you want wireless but don't already have the wireless "dongle" it's $25 more.
To me, paying $25 for a wireless dongle that I imagine would also allow the use of more wireless throttles than I can afford, doesn't qualfy as "paying dearly".
As for paying $20 more fore wireless than a cable - that doesn't seem horiffic either. A wirless Xbox 360 controller costs about $10 more than a wired one. When I compared with Digitrax, it seemed that there was no wireless option. The wired interface was about $5 less up front - but their site suggests a "not extensively tested" adapter from a 3rd party, that brings the net cost about $13 higher than the Prodigy computer interface.
I know Steve's post was old and may have been before this information was available, but it should be noted that in hindsight, it seems that the fears that MRC was forcing people to go wireless at great expense were inaccurate - and in fact those who choose to be wired are saving money over the competition.
Another poster mentioned concerns with fine tuning locomotives from a desktop machine upstairs. I'm not sure the MRC wireless system would reach that far - but I'd imagine that the majority of people would use wireless with a computer that is still fairly close to the layout. I intend to use it with a laptop - and tiny netbooks are getting to be in the $200 price range.
So what to some might be technology that interfaces with a clunky old desktop in the bedroom might enable me to have a state of the art wireless touch-screen controller (Forecasts seem to indicate that ASUS netbooks will have touch-screen Tablet PC functionality this fall). And all for maybe $100 more than a Digitrax DT402R.
Seems like some healthy competition to me.
The software can be downloaded from MRC web site. It can be tested without the hardware interface.
I did test it and found it does not come close to JMRI. The software lacks seriously in functionalities, I found it useless and would rather use Digitrax PR3/JMRI combo.
That topic was previously discussed : http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/151271.aspx?PageIndex=1
Jack W.
NSColsMP6Stevert If you want a computer interface, you need to convert to wireless (and pay dearly for it!)" I know Steve's post was old and may have been before this information was available, but it should be noted that in hindsight, it seems that the fears that MRC was forcing people to go wireless at great expense were inaccurate - and in fact those who choose to be wired are saving money over the competition.
Yes, it was an old post - January 18th, to be exact.
But in hindsight, foresight, and whatever other sight, my statement was accurate at the time it was made.
As a matter of fact, if you check the Wayback Machine, you'll find that at least as of February 14th, MRC had only two very expensive, wireless computer interfaces listed.
One for users without wireless that would convert them. It's listed price was $269.98. The other one was for users who already had wireless, and was priced at $179.98. That, my friend, is paying dearly!
That the prices have dropped so much in the past seven months makes me even more wary of MRC as a DCC vendor. Did they misjudge their production costs so badly? Or are the trying to compensate for the outcries from the DCC community about how expensive their computer adapters were as compared to everyone else? I have to think there's more to their price drops than simply "healthy competition"
jalajoie I did test it and found it does not come close to JMRI. The software lacks seriously in functionalities, I found it useless and would rather use Digitrax PR3/JMRI combo. That topic was previously discussed : http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/151271.aspx?PageIndex=1
Thanks for the topic referral - I look forward to reading it in detail later.
As for the "not close to JMRI". You're comparing the abilities of a little baby (v1.1 software) to an adolescent (v2.6 software) at least.
The point of my post was NOT to assert whose software is *better* for all users and all types of layouts. I intend to check out the MRC software soon - but if anyone knows of someone using JMRI in Columbus, OH I'd like to get in touch so I can see how they're using it for comparison.
The point WAS to illustrate that this was the first thread that I found when I searched for the subject and while the information may have been the latest and greatest *at the time*, it ultimately turned out to be incorrect and fairly biased.
Stevert That the prices have dropped so much in the past seven months makes me even more wary of MRC as a DCC vendor. Did they misjudge their production costs so badly? Or are the trying to compensate for the outcries from the DCC community about how expensive their computer adapters were as compared to everyone else? I have to think there's more to their price drops than simply "healthy competition"
So if people complain that a competitor offers a better product for a lesser price, and a company adjusts it's prices to compensate (perhaps by offering a less mature product at a lesser price?) then wouldn't that indicate that the competition is *working*?
If you "think there's more to their price drops" than that, I'm all ears. I find conspiracy theories entertaining if nothing else.
Seems that the "healthy competition" of pricing their product where it will actually sell when compared with existing competitors is the simplest explanation for what has happened.
Without Digitrax, and NCE and JMRI competing in the market space - who knows what we'd be paying for computer interfaces or if we'd have retail versions available at all. :)
NSColsMP6 ...When I compared with Digitrax, it seemed that there was no wireless option. The wired interface was about $5 less up front - but their site suggests a "not extensively tested" adapter from a 3rd party, that brings the net cost about $13 higher than the Prodigy computer interface...
NSColsMP6As for the "not close to JMRI". You're comparing the abilities of a little baby (v1.1 software) to an adolescent (v2.6 software) at least.
But isn't better, well, just better, regardless of the age/version? Simply stating that one piece of software may have a reason for not being close ("baby" vs "adolescent") doesn't do anything to close the gap between the two.
Not to mention that MRC themselves are inviting the comparison. From their Web site: "If any of you are using JMRI please let us know if you agree that ours is easier to use."
NSColsMP6 but if anyone knows of someone using JMRI in Columbus, OH I'd like to get in touch so I can see how they're using it for comparison.
but if anyone knows of someone using JMRI in Columbus, OH I'd like to get in touch so I can see how they're using it for comparison.
Ask on the JMRI group. They're usually very helpful: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jmriusers/
There's also a Frappr site for JMRI users, although it seems to be having problems right now: http://www.frappr.com/jmriusers
NSColsMP6 The point WAS to illustrate that this was the first thread that I found when I searched for the subject and while the information may have been the latest and greatest *at the time*, it ultimately turned out to be incorrect and fairly biased.
No, it didn't turn out to be incorrect. The facts changed since it was posted. It's 100% accurate in the context of the time at which it was originally written, and I provided a link to back that up.
NSColsMP6 Stevert That the prices have dropped so much in the past seven months makes me even more wary of MRC as a DCC vendor. Did they misjudge their production costs so badly? Or are the trying to compensate for the outcries from the DCC community about how expensive their computer adapters were as compared to everyone else? I have to think there's more to their price drops than simply "healthy competition" So if people complain that a competitor offers a better product for a lesser price, and a company adjusts it's prices to compensate (perhaps by offering a less mature product at a lesser price?) then wouldn't that indicate that the competition is *working*? If you "think there's more to their price drops" than that, I'm all ears. I find conspiracy theories entertaining if nothing else. Seems that the "healthy competition" of pricing their product where it will actually sell when compared with existing competitors is the simplest explanation for what has happened.
Nobody said anything about a conspiracy. I was simply speculating on why the prices dropped by roughly 66% over six or seven months. I still think that's more than normal competition would dictate, unless, like I said, they misjudged either their production costs or what the market would bear. And yes, I'd be wary of a company that has that much trouble estimating their market. They seem to have a history of that, just do some searches (here and elsewhere) on their decoders that don't support CV readback "because nobody needs it".
NSColsMP6 Without Digitrax, and NCE and JMRI competing in the market space - who knows what we'd be paying for computer interfaces or if we'd have retail versions available at all. :)
Sorry, but JMRI is not "competing in the market space". It's hardware-agnostic freeware that compliments model railroads (including non-DCC layouts), and tries very hard to avoid stepping on the toes of other MRR software packages.
davidmbedard Lets be clear here on 2 fronts... 1. JMRI is the standard to which all other programming software is compared to. QSI CV manager and MRC -whatever- fall way short in their ability to program comparred to JMRI. Not to mention that QSI only has QSI decoders in their database and MRC only has MRC decoders in their database....JMRI has every single decoder ever produced covered. Note that the MRC computer connection is NOT compatable with JMRI and the QSI programmer is. 2. MRC has a history of mis-leading, mis-guided products and advertisements. They are exagerative and underhanded. The fact that they never live up to what they promise is why they still are way behind when it comes to decoder and system technology. Their latest ad featured 3 clubs (only 3) that are using MRC products exclusively......yay for MRC! I still cannot recommend MRC products based on #2 and cannot recommend the programmer because of #1. David B
Lets be clear here on 2 fronts...
1. JMRI is the standard to which all other programming software is compared to. QSI CV manager and MRC -whatever- fall way short in their ability to program comparred to JMRI. Not to mention that QSI only has QSI decoders in their database and MRC only has MRC decoders in their database....JMRI has every single decoder ever produced covered. Note that the MRC computer connection is NOT compatable with JMRI and the QSI programmer is.
2. MRC has a history of mis-leading, mis-guided products and advertisements. They are exagerative and underhanded. The fact that they never live up to what they promise is why they still are way behind when it comes to decoder and system technology. Their latest ad featured 3 clubs (only 3) that are using MRC products exclusively......yay for MRC!
I still cannot recommend MRC products based on #2 and cannot recommend the programmer because of #1.
David B
On the other hand if someone is bound and determined to buy an MRC DCC system or decoder, maybe the best lesson is to do so. At some point hammering away on something which is already well known but not always accepted may be a futile effort that is best resolved via folks finding out the hard way.
Engineer Jeff NS Nut Visit my layout at: http://www.thebinks.com/trains/
davidmbedard Lets be clear here on 2 fronts... 2. MRC has a history of mis-leading, mis-guided products and advertisements. They are exagerative and underhanded. The fact that they never live up to what they promise is why they still are way behind when it comes to decoder and system technology. Their latest ad featured 3 clubs (only 3) that are using MRC products exclusively......yay for MRC! I still cannot recommend MRC products based on #2. David B
I still cannot recommend MRC products based on #2.
On page 77 of the 09/09 MR I was reading an ad for the Digitrax DT402D throttle.
They seem to have come up with a new term when they site "300 ft diameter range".
Range is a radius, not a diameter - so it seems that their advertisement is attempting to double the actual range of 150 ft (though some sources say 200 ft - the manual didn't seem to list a range).
Does that meet your criteria of "exagerative" or "mis-leading advertisements"? ;)
If we look to buy or products from a company that has never made an exaggerated statement in an advertisement we're probably going to be looking for a long time.
NSColsMP6davidmbedard Lets be clear here on 2 fronts... 2. MRC has a history of mis-leading, mis-guided products and advertisements. They are exagerative and underhanded. The fact that they never live up to what they promise is why they still are way behind when it comes to decoder and system technology. Their latest ad featured 3 clubs (only 3) that are using MRC products exclusively......yay for MRC! I still cannot recommend MRC products based on #2. David B On page 77 of the 09/09 MR I was reading an ad for the Digitrax DT402D throttle. They seem to have come up with a new term when they site "300 ft diameter range". Range is a radius, not a diameter - so it seems that their advertisement is attempting to double the actual range of 150 ft (though some sources say 200 ft - the manual didn't seem to list a range). Does that meet your criteria of "exagerative" or "mis-leading advertisements"? ;) If we look to buy or products from a company that has never made an exaggerated statement in an advertisement we're probably going to be looking for a long time.
Well, looking at the definition here of the word "range", I don't see any mention that "range is a radius". As a matter of fact, the word "radius" does not even appear in any of the common English definitions for "range" that are listed on that page.
On the other hand, it does say,
"3.
Stevert Well, looking at the definition here of the word "range", I don't see any mention that "range is a radius". As a matter of fact, the word "radius" does not even appear in any of the common English definitions for "range" that are listed on that page. On the other hand, it does say, "3. a. The maximum extent or distance limiting operation, action, or effectiveness, as of a projectile, aircraft, radio signal, or sound." (emphasis added) While I can't speak for David, I can say that the ad's not "exagerative" or "mis-leading" to me at all. Steve
Ok, so if you have a throttle with a "300 ft diameter range" then how far can you walk away from the transmitter and expect it to function?
Remember, Diameter (d) is a line across the center of a pizza. Radius (r) is a line from the center to the edge.
Interestingly, the MRC site lists the Prodigy Wireless range as "up to 80 ft" which they say is "the best range in the industry". If the Digitrax ad claims are true, 150 ft is a lot better range than 80 ft (even without exaggerating the figure by doubling it with the invented "diameter range" unit of measure).
Now I want to test the various wireless throttles side-by side under identical circumstances.
Of course, I own some Motorola GMRS radios that claim a 5-mile range. They only work until I get a tree or house between me and the wife.
Interestingly, MRC Prodigy Wireless seems to support 32 Wireless Throttles while Digitrax apparently suggests using no more than 10 wireless throttles with a single reciever. Apparently the new Duplex system will accomodate "dozens" of wireless throttles.
32 is two and a half dozen so MRC can already claim support for "dozens", so I wonder what the new limit of the Duplex system is... Could just be 24 (that'd still be "dozens"). Seems like the Digitrax DT402D is about $50 more than the Prodigy Wireless throttle.
Well then, I'd like to see someone use 32 at a time with MRC. They CLAIM that, but hasit been tested? Is there anyoen with a layout large enough to handle 32 or more operators even USING MRC? There are PLENTY that big using Digitrax. One or two is even a HOME layout, others are nly occasionally that big, such as the huge NTRAK layouts that get set up at major conventions. The NTRAK standard for DCC is Digitrax, and they have tested this and proven it works at least as well as described by actually putting together layouts bigger than any of us could hope to have as a personal layout and had it in operation for the duration of a show. I would consider the experiences published by these groups as more than satisfactory evidence that the Digitrax ads are NOT exaggerating the capabilities of their system.
Actually, I think I'd like to see 32 WIRED throttles at the same time with MRC. I'd love to see how their polled system handles response time with 32 throttles connected.
As to range...
As applied to radio frequency signals, stating a 300 foot diameter is misleading.
The RF signal radiates out from the antenna, usually in a circle. Thus, 150 feet FROM the antenna would be the range. After that, operation may be unreliable. Stating 300 feet is just doubling the number, but it still remains at 150 feet from the antenna.
In fact, to get a 300 foot range would require a lot more power than 150 feet needs. So they are making it sound like their product has more power, and hence more range, than others.
How many uses will actually have their antenna at the dead center of the room/layout anyway?
betamaxHow many uses will actually have their antenna at the dead center of the room/layout anyway?
How many users actually have a room where you can be 100 feet away from the antenna, no matter where it might be located?
Even if you do consider the statement misleading, at least it is factually correct(if the transceivers actually do have a range of 150 feet), because a point to point range of 150 feet would give the throttle a 300 foot diameter range. Contrast this to some of the statements made by MRC, such as "the world’s most advanced line of model railroad decoders" that are "world renowned for their highest quality, brilliant design and most importantly, their dependability"(dependability!?!?). I don't know anyone who would agree with these statements, and many would consider them outright lies.
maxman betamaxHow many uses will actually have their antenna at the dead center of the room/layout anyway? How many users actually have a room where you can be 100 feet away from the antenna, no matter where it might be located?
My 02/08 issue of MR fell open this morning to reveal a product review of the Prodigy Wireless. The MR staff tested it to 100ft - by walking around the corner and down the hall of a steel-framed building.
I could see long range being helpful on a garden railrway. Could be enough extra power to bring trains on an interior staging track outside - or allow you to control trains from inside on a cold winter's day.
Interesting that competitors seem to be bringing full-duplex throttles to market only now - and those throttles are more expensive. Maybe it's the built-in flashlight. ;)
NSColsMP6maxman betamaxHow many uses will actually have their antenna at the dead center of the room/layout anyway? How many users actually have a room where you can be 100 feet away from the antenna, no matter where it might be located? My 02/08 issue of MR fell open this morning to reveal a product review of the Prodigy Wireless. The MR staff tested it to 100ft - by walking around the corner and down the hall of a steel-framed building. I could see long range being helpful on a garden railrway. Could be enough extra power to bring trains on an interior staging track outside - or allow you to control trains from inside on a cold winter's day. Interesting that competitors seem to be bringing full-duplex throttles to market only now - and those throttles are more expensive. Maybe it's the built-in flashlight. ;)
I've been over 100 feet away with my DT400R and had no problem controlling trains. That was 7 or 8 years ago.
We did a little NTRAK layout last year in Louisville. Digitrax Radio was required. On Sunday there were 91 radio throttles going on the 200 x 250 foot main layout. Some loops and a couple of independent layouts also had Digitrax radio going on different ID's.
Remember Digitrax had radio first. It was Simplex but loconet doesn't need duplex to work. Still doesn't. Duplex is required by some of the other systems so they had to have it. Not sure if it's required with MRC as they like to keep things secret. Guess that's one way to force you to only buy their stuff.
Martin Myers
CSX RobertBy stating the diameter of the range, he is clearly stating the range of the throttle around the base station.
Clearly stating it would mean removing the superfluous word "diameter" that senselessly doubles the published figure.
CSX RobertContrast this to some of the statements made by MRC, such as "the world’s most advanced line of model railroad decoders" that are "world renowned for their highest quality, brilliant design and most importantly, their dependability"(dependability!?!?). I don't know anyone who would agree with these statements, and many would consider them outright lies.
Most of the complaints I've read have been vague or completely unsubstantiated. There are a few guys that seem to be really vocal on the issue. I was probably going to pick my decoders based on a combination of features, price, and ease of installation. I'd also probably check to see what the manufacturer of the locomtoves includes in it's sound-equipped locomotives.
As for the statements attribted to MRC above, sounds like advertising bluster like "Try our world famous hot dogs!" at a restauraunt. Maybe we can convince JD Power to study reliability of DCC systems. I think I know who'd win "#1 in Owner Loyalty" but I've usually sought more tangible metrics.
davidmbedard 1. JMRI is the standard to which all other programming software is compared to.
1. JMRI is the standard to which all other programming software is compared to.
I think the NMRA defines the standards in this area - last I checked there is no standard. JMRI may be the de-facto standard though. Maybe the NMRA should define a standard DCC <-> PC interface.
It should also be noted that standard doesn't always mean "best possible". Good standards (including DCC) seek to incorporate the best of a variety of non-standard attempts to solve a problem. They also adapt to changes.
mfm37 Remember Digitrax had radio first. It was Simplex but loconet doesn't need duplex to work. Still doesn't. Duplex is required by some of the other systems so they had to have it. Not sure if it's required with MRC as they like to keep things secret. Guess that's one way to force you to only buy their stuff. Martin Myers
So if I had a Digitrax system I could use throttles from other manufacturers that support LocoNet or would I "be forced to only buy their stuff"?
NSColsMP6...Interesting that competitors seem to be bringing full-duplex throttles to market only now...
NSColsMP6...- and those throttles are more expensive. Maybe it's the built-in flashlight. ;)...
NSColsMP6CSX RobertContrast this to some of the statements made by MRC, such as "the world’s most advanced line of model railroad decoders" that are "world renowned for their highest quality, brilliant design and most importantly, their dependability"(dependability!?!?). I don't know anyone who would agree with these statements, and many would consider them outright lies. Most of the complaints I've read have been vague or completely unsubstantiated.
Most of the complaints I've read have been vague or completely unsubstantiated.
NSColsMP6I'd also probably check to see what the manufacturer of the locomtoves includes in it's sound-equipped locomotives.
NSColsMP6 So if I had a Digitrax system I could use throttles from other manufacturers that support LocoNet or would I "be forced to only buy their stuff"?
If such a third party throttles existed, I am positive one could use it on a LocoNet network.
In fact I use a third party computer interface to link my computer to LocoNet and JMRI. That is Loco Buffer.
Something impossible to do with MRC.