carl425 ROBERT PETRICK C'mon DCC manufacturers . . . step up your game. I like this one.
ROBERT PETRICK C'mon DCC manufacturers . . . step up your game.
I like this one.
Hey Carl-
That looks interesting. Thanks for the info. I did some minimal searching and found preliminary details about that model and manufacturer.
But that brings up another issue: all I know is all I know, and most of my knowledge comes from forums and groups such as this. I came into this hobby fairly late in life. I learned the ropes from two DCC clubs, and both clubs used 100% Digitrax equipment. So, so do I. So does almost everyone I know in this hobby in the 3D world. I did not let limited knowledge keep me from jumping in with both feet. I was never one to fiddle fart around and dither on decisions until paralysis by analysis set in.
I'm aware there are other options, and I'm amenable to change if change makes sense. As the days go by I am learning more and more and my horizons are expanding, and if the stars line up and something better comes along, then one day I might scrap my entire Digitrax system (including all the peripherals and add-ons) and go with ESU or NCE or XYZ or whatever. But in the meanwhile I'll continue to play with my Digitrax toys, as I have done these past ten years or so.
Only my opinion, of course.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
ATLANTIC CENTRALAnd so how do I tell apart my 8 ATLANTIC CENTRAL GP7's looking at little pictures
You would have to repaint them all in different colors. Anybody else would just key in the loco's address.
ATLANTIC CENTRALI doubt this would work for me.
It's not for you. It is for DCC users.
ATLANTIC CENTRALI have no motivation to change.
But you seem sufficiently motivated to complain.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
ROBERT PETRICKI'm aware there are other options, and I'm amenable to change if change makes sense.
I haven't tried it yet, or even fully researched it, but the Engine Driver app has been updated to support this throttle (it's an android) so you can use it on your layout with the Digitrax LnWi or JMRI.
carl425 ATLANTIC CENTRAL And so how do I tell apart my 8 ATLANTIC CENTRAL GP7's looking at little pictures You would have to repaint them all in different colors. Anybody else would just key in the loco's address. ATLANTIC CENTRAL I doubt this would work for me. It's not for you. It is for DCC users. ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have no motivation to change. But you seem sufficiently motivated to complain.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL And so how do I tell apart my 8 ATLANTIC CENTRAL GP7's looking at little pictures
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I doubt this would work for me.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have no motivation to change.
Karl,
I'm not really complaining, other than to say that if a DCC throttle that good existed 10 or 15 years ago, I might have switched to DCC. While it still might not be "perfect" to me, I agree it looks much better than the rest.
Some people like constantly replacing things with new things, some people are happy with things that still work fine and meet their needs.
DCC could not add anything messurable to my desired goals 15 years ago, it is only slightly better now.
What I complain about is not DCC, but rather those who have no real experiance with DC telling people what is wrong with DC.
The only thing wrong with DCC is that the throttles could be better, seems some people are working on that.
The one other thing that makes DCC not for me is cost vs features gained, as I explained earlier in this thread. I will not "down size" my other modeling goals so I can have DCC, especially considering my lack of interest in onboard sound and the few additional features/capabilities it would add to my operation.
So once again it comes down to different solutions for different goals.
Sheldon
ROBERT PETRICKMy laptop, which cost about the same as my Digitrax Evolution, has literally ten thousand times the computing power compared to what Digitrax puts in that little clunky NEMA box, and even my wrist watch has more computing power and has a much higher resolution display than that DCC dot matrix display. I won't get into the little mini-marshmallow push buttons.
Robert, I agree completely. I started my first layout a little over a year ago.
I am happy with my NCE system.
However, I was surprised by the digital display being so primitive. I am surprised that certain controls and functions were so difficult to get access to and to learn.
York1 John
York1 ROBERT PETRICK My laptop, which cost about the same as my Digitrax Evolution, has literally ten thousand times the computing power compared to what Digitrax puts in that little clunky NEMA box, and even my wrist watch has more computing power and has a much higher resolution display than that DCC dot matrix display. I won't get into the little mini-marshmallow push buttons. Robert, I agree completely. I started my first layout a little over a year ago. I am happy with my NCE system. However, I was surprised by the digital display being so primitive. I am surprised that certain controls and functions were so difficult to get access to and to learn.
ROBERT PETRICK My laptop, which cost about the same as my Digitrax Evolution, has literally ten thousand times the computing power compared to what Digitrax puts in that little clunky NEMA box, and even my wrist watch has more computing power and has a much higher resolution display than that DCC dot matrix display. I won't get into the little mini-marshmallow push buttons.
John,
I'm a NCE Power Cab user and have gotten used to the older display. Yea, some of the commands are nested but you learn where they are the more you use them. And the manual covers the others that you don't frequent quite as often.
I think the use of the older technology is because outfits like NCE are small cottage businesses and they have to find a way to create a viable product yet minimize costs. Electronics nowadays is often a very fast-paced and volatile environment. Unless you are purchasing or churning out product in the 100s of 1000s then you have to identify enclosures and components that aren't going to be discontinued in the near future.
Eventually NCE will have to update their interface. In the meantime, they still make a terrific product and I'd choose them again if I were starting out in DCC.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
tstageEventually NCE will have to update their interface. In the meantime, they still make a terrific product and I'd choose them again if I were starting out in DCC.
Tom, I agree with that statement! I'd have no qualms about recommending NCE to anyone changing to DCC or anyone new to model railroading.
I'm a Roco z21 fan.
You can do it small (on a phone-sized handheld):
... Or you can do it big (dual controls running on a Samsung s2 tablet):
Touch screens - no thank you, especially not for the speed control itself. I would crash trains for sure.
tstageEventually NCE will have to update their interface.
why?
i assume the components at the time they designed their products weren' cutting edge but not very expensive. At the time, there was high demand justifying the cost and price. Today, i assume, demand is less, but the cost of components is less and they can still make money.
a new product from a different manufacturer would have to have significantly better features if they expect to get market share for new installations and even better features if they expect people to replace existing installations of NCE or Digitrax.
NCE or Digitrax's may need to change if some component cost increases significantly or is no longer available. (I've heard NCE is considering replacing the RJ-12 with the more common RF-45 connector).
an attage in product development is that
you should always be trying to obsolete your product ... because that's what the competition is doing.
But in this case, i don't see any competitors products obsoleting what's current available. Model railroad electronics economics are not the same as other electronics sold by the 10Ms.
in many ways the arguments for DC are the same now for DCC, DCC can do whatever ____ can do.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
I can only speak for the NCE PH-Pro. I bought it 15 years ago, and I have loved it every day since then. I can think of no shortcomings, and I have no complaints.
Rich
Alton Junction
Ok, after all this, I am sure we have sufficiently confused the newbie.
Even after reading it all, I would still say that if someone is starting new (for anything but an oval around the Christmas Tree), invest in DCC and forget DC.
Instead of researching differences between DC and DCC, spend that time in understanding how to select, set up and wire your DCC system. I agree that if someone already has 70 DC engines, and a 24'x70' DC layout with block control and CTC, that is a different consideration.
But the original question was from someone who wants to know the difference between DC and DCC. He surely doesn't have a 24'x70' DC layout with block control and CTC.
swisstrain I agree that if someone already has 70 DC engines, and a 24'x70' DC layout with block control and CTC, that is a different consideration. But the original question was from someone who wants to know the difference between DC and DCC. He surely doesn't have a 24'x70' DC layout with block control and CTC.
I agree that if someone already has 70 DC engines, and a 24'x70' DC layout with block control and CTC, that is a different consideration.
One thing I constantly take away from these DC vs DCC discussions is that the difference between operating systems is not the deciding factor as to whether operating a layout is simple or complex. Its the design of the layout and its operating scheme that matters, IMO.
A complex layout with numerous trains, locos, different consists makes for complex operations. Complex operations are not really made simpler by DCC, IMO. To me, its still complex, but in a different way.
My three loco shortline an one loco at a time movement is simple either in DC or DCC. The operating scheme makes it simple, not the operating system.
I choose DCC for onboard sound. I run silent using DC with AristoCraft wireless throttles because so many "silent" DCC decoders actually put off an annoying BEMF buzz in order to get them to move as smoothly and slowly as the Aristo throttle does.
- Douglas
gregc tstage Eventually NCE will have to update their interface. why? i assume the components at the time they designed their products weren' cutting edge but not very expensive. At the time, there was high demand justifying the cost and price. Today, i assume, demand is less, but the cost of components is less and they can still make money. a new product from a different manufacturer would have to have significantly better features if they expect to get market share for new installations and even better features if they expect people to replace existing installations of NCE or Digitrax. NCE or Digitrax's may need to change if some component cost increases significantly or is no longer available. (I've heard NCE is considering replacing the RJ-12 with the more common RF-45 connector). an attage in product development is that you should always be trying to obsolete your product ... because that's what the competition is doing. But in this case, i don't see any competitors products obsoleting what's current available. Model railroad electronics economics are not the same as other electronics sold by the 10Ms. in many ways the arguments for DC are the same now for DCC, DCC can do whatever ____ can do.
tstage Eventually NCE will have to update their interface.
Sorry, Greg. Poor choice of wording on my part so I will try to elaborate. Once certain parts (e.g. LCD display or enclosure for the Power Cab/ProCab) dry up, NCE will need to look into alternatives for those parts in order to stay competitive.
Some components stay on the market for while because of their demand and the parts reliability. However, some become obsolete because a better or a less expensive way of making a similar part comes to market. Sometimes "trends" dictate what parts remain viable and which ones will fall to the wayside.
Sometimes when demand is less and parts get fewer; prices go up and continual use of a component (or components) become price prohibitive and difficult to maintain in order to stay competitive. Since NCE isn't a mega-corporation, they have to be mindful of and somewhat clairyoyant to foresee how long a part will remain viable. That can be a pretty tricky proposition to get right all the time in the ever-changing world of electronics.
Maybe NCE invested heavily (bought up parts) on certain components because they were inexpensive at the time but they knew it would eventually dry up. And they can continue to build their product as long as those components are in stock. But, eventually, parts do dry up and then you have to reconsider how you are going to adjust your current circumstances to your current product line...or go out of business. That's the point I was trying to make.
Okay, now back to the OPs question - i.e. if we haven't beaten the proverbial dead horse yet...
gregc you should always be trying to obsolete your product ... because that's what the competition is doing.
Well, with some types of product that might be true.
But I can think of several products/companies who designed really good products, produced them to a high quality standard, only made minor improvements and maintained backwards compatiblity and parts interchangeablity, and had 25 to 30 years runs (or much longer) making the same basic design.
A few examples:
The Checker Motors A8 thru A12 automobile - 1956 thru 1983
The GRAVELY two wheel tractor - 1936 thru 2003
The GRAVELY four wheel rear engine 800/8000/G series tractors - 1971 thru 2003
The small block Chevrolet V-8 - 1955 thru 2003
The Square D "QO" circuit breaker - 1955 thru present
The Kadee HO coupler - 1947 thru present
The point being that very serious change is usually required to "obsolete" the best products.
And model railroaders are notorious for not changing easily.
It has taken over 20 years for DCC to reach a status of "majority" and that is still only true in HO and N scale.
We can only hope some truely better throttles appear, but if I went DCC, I would still buy this:
http://www.cvpusa.com/easydcc_system.php
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The point being that very serious change is usually required to "obsolete" the best products. And model railroaders are notorious for not changing easily. It has taken over 20 years for DCC to reach a status of "majority" and that is still only true in HO and N scale. We can only hope some truely better throttles appear, but if I went DCC, I would still buy this: http://www.cvpusa.com/easydcc_system.php Sheldon
I'm going to refer to my previous post where complexity of the layout makes DCC or DC more complex than a simple layout. I think that also applies to throttles.
With so many features, so much "power" to do so many things, its hard not to have a bunch of buttons on a throttle. Where is the line between the amount of features we want and comfortable/convenient ergonomics?
The Aristo throttle is simpler because its designed to do less than a DCC throttle (which also has to account for onboard sound).
So as long as modelers demand a bunch of capabilities and features, I don't know how the throttle is going to ever be very simple or convenient. Whether DCC throttles are in the form of a dedicated device or an iphone is just a matter of preference, IMO
Doughless ATLANTIC CENTRAL The point being that very serious change is usually required to "obsolete" the best products. And model railroaders are notorious for not changing easily. It has taken over 20 years for DCC to reach a status of "majority" and that is still only true in HO and N scale. We can only hope some truely better throttles appear, but if I went DCC, I would still buy this: http://www.cvpusa.com/easydcc_system.php Sheldon I'm going to refer to my previous post where complexity of the layout makes DCC or DC more complex than a simple layout. I think that also applies to throttles. With so many features, so much "power" to do so many things, its hard not to have a bunch of buttons on a throttle. Where is the line between the amount of features we want and comfortable/convenient ergonomics? The Aristo throttle is simpler because its designed to do less than a DCC throttle (which also has to account for onboard sound). So as long as modelers demand a bunch of capabilities and features, I don't know how the throttle is going to ever be very simple or convenient. Whether DCC throttles are in the form of a dedicated device or an iphone is just a matter of preference, IMO
I agree.
Controling lights, consisting, and controling sounds adds a lot of complexity to a throttle, all features I don't need or want.
This whole idea that everythign has to be touch screen and graphical - NO NO NO
WHy? I can see it in Europe where loco numbers are consistently 5 and 6 digits, so you can;t simply say "use the cab number" In the US and Canada, 4 digits is plenty. What do I need on the display? The loco I am operating, some indication of direction, maybe my speed. I don;t need a photo of my loco, it's right there in front of me. I'd rather press a maximum of 6 buttons than scroll through pictures, or even recall stacks for that matter. It's less effort and easier.
There's ONE thign wrong with the ESU throttle - that's carried over from their older systems as well - typical German overengineering. The knob is a potentiometer. Great until you switch from one loco to another, that's going a different speed. Other systems simply adjust the loco speed to the throttle position, not always desirable. ESU has a MOTOR under that knob that moves the knob! Me, I prefer encoders, no physical stops, no marks on the knob. No need for anythign to adjust when switching from one runnign train to another. Finer control because your 128 speed steps aren;t confined to 270 degrees of motion. Which is why I don;t have any Digitrax utility throttles, the only one they make is a potentiometer. If I used NCE, I'd run my trains with the Cab06e and not carry around the big hammerhead. Digitrax USED to have an encoder utility throttle.
But really - even with sound, a knob for speed, some sort of direction switch, and a button to blow the horn. No need to repurpose a device not made for it (using a phone as a throttle - or worse, a tablet - if an NCE or Digitrax throttle is too big, what do you call a tablet? If you want realistic, there's the Proto Throttle.
DCC manufactures need to step up their game? Why, because we the people using these things need a whoel lot of completely unecessary bells and whistles to control our trains? My phone is great as a phone, handy to look stuff up when away from a computer, but it doesn't replace my computer, nor does it replace a 'model railroad controller. I don't need a graphical LCD to operate trains. It provides complexity for the sake of complexity, not any real tangible benefit. I like to build electronics - you'd think I'd go right in for one of the several DIY DCC systems, or at least something like the Pi-SPROG. But I don't want touch screen or computer throttles. So no.
Even some of the other stuff coming. There's a REASON I'm doign my signalling and detection with my own DIY CMRI tyoe of system - the protocol is easy, the whole thing is easy to udnerstand. DCC, Loconet, and even new LCC are all complex protocols for the sake of adding exactly WHAT to my operation? Speed is not important, even for far larger layouts than the one I have planned. Compatibility? It's not like I'm pulling my signal components and want to use them at a friend's house. It's just complex for the sake of being complex. Same hardware, different stream of bits on the wire and I have DMX, for lighting control. It's insanely simple to understand - yet is used in theater and show lighting up to the professional level. It's simple, robust, and easy to understand. No crazy complications in the protocol to build up various packet types or stuff like that. You can use everything from free PC software all the way up to multi thousands of dollars controls to run it.
I've stopped myself on some projects - instead of putting a graphical LCD or OLED display on things, a simpel text LCD was plenty, the 2x20 or 4x20 type. No need to create some sort of graphical interface in a microcontroller just because "GUIs are cool". The cool looking fancy graphical product soon becomes a pain when you want to modify it.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Randy, I agree with a whole bunch you said, except encoder wheels.....but I have become very accustomed to the push buttons, not sure I would go back to a knob.....
The one thing you will never catch me doing is switching from one moving train to another........
A light on a track diagram indicates train location or turnout position just fine for me.
When I first assign a throttle to a train, it works like this - look at the train, associate its location on the local tower panel, align route to that track (one button) assign throttle to related primary block (one button) off you go.
OR
Dispatcher has list of trains in staging, he assigns throttle and route desired throttle - off you go.
Yardmaster aligns yard tracks and Dispatcher gives Engineer authority to leave yard and enter main by assigning throttle and clearing route.....again typically two or three buttons max, and lot of lights to indicate route is set, and train location on "map".
rrinker This whole idea that everythign has to be touch screen and graphical - NO NO NO
Ok. I don't want to open a worm can. The reason there is a push to make things with graphics is because global manufacturers can make one product that is Language agnostic. Its cheaper than producing a bunch of different words near the knobs, depending upon what country the product is being sold too. On the other side, the push to eliminate boundaries helps buyers all meld together into one big homogenous market, which is cheaper to make products for than a bunch of individual markets. Both pushes are driven by the notion that maximizing the bottom line or minimizing costs to the nth degree is the number one priority for everybody. I'll leave it at that.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless ATLANTIC CENTRAL The point being that very serious change is usually required to "obsolete" the best products. And model railroaders are notorious for not changing easily. It has taken over 20 years for DCC to reach a status of "majority" and that is still only true in HO and N scale. We can only hope some truely better throttles appear, but if I went DCC, I would still buy this: http://www.cvpusa.com/easydcc_system.php Sheldon I'm going to refer to my previous post where complexity of the layout makes DCC or DC more complex than a simple layout. I think that also applies to throttles. With so many features, so much "power" to do so many things, its hard not to have a bunch of buttons on a throttle. Where is the line between the amount of features we want and comfortable/convenient ergonomics? The Aristo throttle is simpler because its designed to do less than a DCC throttle (which also has to account for onboard sound). So as long as modelers demand a bunch of capabilities and features, I don't know how the throttle is going to ever be very simple or convenient. Whether DCC throttles are in the form of a dedicated device or an iphone is just a matter of preference, IMO I agree. Controling lights, consisting, and controling sounds adds a lot of complexity to a throttle, all features I don't need or want. Sheldon
To be fair, I use NCC and the throttle doubles as the command station, so their design sort of requires the user to carry the computer around with him. I don't really have a problem with it, not a deal killer for me. They do have smaller scaled down throttles for multiple users or other needs wihich are much smaller and easier to use, but they don't come with the standard DCC package and are a separate item.
DoughlessThe reason there is a push to make things with graphics is because global manufacturers can make one product that is Language agnostic.
i thought the "glass" interface gets rid of the keyboard and increases the display size.
gregc Doughless The reason there is a push to make things with graphics is because global manufacturers can make one product that is Language agnostic. i thought the "glass" interface gets rid of the keyboard and increases the display size.
Doughless The reason there is a push to make things with graphics is because global manufacturers can make one product that is Language agnostic.
Personally, I can't even effectively use a smart phone, they make me crazy with all the sliding screens, scrolling, buttons too small for my fingers, "touchy" touch screens, etc. I can barely use my much larger S4 tablet for texting and internet on the job site.
In my "narrow" view, icons, pictographs, etc, are a dumbing down of society. It is simply another language, that is less precise in identifying things.
There is no way I could accurately control the speed of a model train with a sliding bar on a touch screen.
Newer is not always better, in fact, in my profession of building and restoring houses, I will put most 1901 houses, or my "new to me" 1964 house, against any new house in terms of the quality of the tactile finishes.
I feel the same way about electronics, knobs and buttons feel better. Touch screens are simply a necessary compromise to make the complex small and portable.
I was pretty deep in the camp of those who did not want to use their cell phone as a throttle ... until I recently bought a Pi-Sprog system, and used EngineDriver for the first time.
I realize it's not for everyone, but there are some advantages to graphical interfaces:
The only thing that bugs me is the ergonomics of the cell as a throttle. Those who haven't, I suggest try using a graphical interface, you may be positively surprised. I also admit it won't be for everyone. But I suggest try it before you dismiss it.
Also, guess in what direction the prototype will ultimately be going ...
i'm curious if those phone interfaces give you options for interfaces? do they have an option for up/down buttons, or possibly a dial that you spin with your finger, instead of just a slide?
One thing about the DC vs. DCC debate is that trying to convince someone DCC is a good thing is kinda like trying to convince someone 25 years ago that personal computers were a good thing. A lot of the early advertising was just like 'you can do spread sheets for your home business, and keep track of names and phone numbers, and your wife can use it to store her recipes'. Once people got PCs and Macs and got online, there turned out to be a lot of uses no one anticipated. Until someone tries DCC, they don't really realize all things you can do that you might not think of up front. Lighting options was one that was mentioned earlier, I would add stationary decoders.
My layout is mostly an "around the walls" basement layout, so I have mainline turnouts (Kato Unitrack, with built in switch motors) that are spread out pretty far from each other. Rather than trying to figure out a way to wire them up electrically to toggle switches to throw them - or multiple toggle switches so I can throw them different places on the layout - I decided to go with connecting them up to decoders. Two wires from the turnout to the decoder, two wires from the decoder to track power. Now I can throw a mainline turnout using the auxilliary control on my wireless throttle from anywhere in my basement.
Oh yes. That too
wjstix One thing about the DC vs. DCC debate is that trying to convince someone DCC is a good thing is kinda like trying to convince someone 25 years ago that personal computers were a good thing. A lot of the early advertising was just like 'you can do spread sheets for your home business, and keep track of names and phone numbers, and your wife can use it to store her recipes'. Once people got PCs and Macs and got online, there turned out to be a lot of uses no one anticipated. Until someone tries DCC, they don't really realize all things you can do that you might not think of up front. Lighting options was one that was mentioned earlier, I would add stationary decoders.
I look at things a bit differently. I don't want to go OT too much, but if the advantage of migrating towards technology and new ways of doing things means I'm elimating steps, efforts, and segmentations, great. If it simply means I'm combining all of my office equipment into one box, where I still have to perform those functions, its not really an advantage. Its just a different way of doing the same thing, and that different way invovles a learning curve. You threw away what you learned over the years, and replaced it with learning something new, and if that merely results in a push, what's the point? Frankly, I think the conversion of things from analog to digital has resulted in more net pushes than is readily apparent, JMO.
wjstix One thing about the DC vs. DCC debate is that trying to convince someone DCC is a good thing is kinda like trying to convince someone 25 years ago that personal computers were a good thing. A lot of the early advertising was just like 'you can do spread sheets for your home business, and keep track of names and phone numbers, and your wife can use it to store her recipes'. Once people got PCs and Macs and got online, there turned out to be a lot of uses no one anticipated. Until someone tries DCC, they don't really realize all things you can do that you might not think of up front. Lighting options was one that was mentioned earlier, I would add stationary decoders. My layout is mostly an "around the walls" basement layout, so I have mainline turnouts (Kato Unitrack, with built in switch motors) that are spread out pretty far from each other. Rather than trying to figure out a way to wire them up electrically to toggle switches to throw them - or multiple toggle switches so I can throw them different places on the layout - I decided to go with connecting them up to decoders. Two wires from the turnout to the decoder, two wires from the decoder to track power. Now I can throw a mainline turnout using the auxilliary control on my wireless throttle from anywhere in my basement.
So how do you explain those who have used DCC a lot and still don't see it as better or necessary for their goals? I have lots of friends with big DCC layouts, I have used DCC plenty, but I'm not buying.
As for throwing turnouts with decoders, you can keep it. It may be easy to wire, but how many buttons do you press on your throttle to throw one turnout, or even set one multi turnout route? Three? Five? I've operated on DCC layouts with decoder controlled turnouts, what a pain.
With my relay based system, yes there is more wiring, but at each interlocking I push one button to set a whole route. And those routes are controlled locally and on the Dispatchers panel. Routes are selected with LED lighted push buttons. So the selected route is always clearly shown on both panels.