Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Yet another "what were they thinking" from someone who wants to be a DCC alternative Locked

5635 views
155 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 28,720 posts
Posted by rrinker on Tuesday, August 4, 2020 9:58 PM

 There really aren't that many DC controllers using PWM - if you use a more common DC power pack or power supply for DC, then the motor only decoders work perfectly fine on DC, as intended. Sound is another story, but that has everything do do with basic physics and the compromise needed to get sounds on DC before the loco is baralling down the tracks. Non-sound decoders don't have this limitation.

 You can;t please 100% of the people 100% of the time. It's unfortunate the a full voltage DC PWM signal looks enough like the DCC signal to confuse many decoders, but the sheer number of DC modelers affected is very small. But when it's you - it seems like a huge 'mistake' on the part of manufacturers. Not all DCC decoders are confused by this - but even the ones that aren't, I suspect if you put a decoder-equipped loco on the rails with the throttle at a very specific non-zero speed setting, it could still confuse them.(if the pulse width were just so)

                                    --Randy


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    July 2007
  • From: Yorkton, Sk, Cnd
  • 399 posts
Posted by wvg_ca on Tuesday, August 4, 2020 9:58 PM

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

I understand. And if my layout goals were different, I might pick DCC.

Sheldon

 

 

agreed, to each their own ...

  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: Canada, eh?
  • 10,933 posts
Posted by doctorwayne on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 1:02 AM

rrinker
There really aren't that many DC controllers using PWM - if you use a more common DC power pack or power supply for DC, then the motor only decoders work perfectly fine on DC, as intended. Sound is another story....

The only DCC loco I've run on my layout was a BLI Mikado that I detailed and painted for a friend.  While it ran not too badly, the sound feature would cut-in and out, as if it were re-setting itself.  Perhaps that had some influence on my disinterest in sound, but after almost 40 years in a steel mill, sound isn't an attractive feature.
The throttle upon which I finally settled, (mentioned in my previous post) is a DC throttle with an adjustable PWM output.  I power it from the AC terminals of a MRC Controlmaster 20.  I haven't bothered adjusting the throttle because the trains already run the way I want them to run, as-is.  The manufacturer is located about 20 minutes away, and stands behind his product, so if service is required, easily done.
The throttle offers very precise control, and easily handles multiple locomotives pulling heavy trains on rather steep grades.  Fits my requirements completely.

Wayne

  • Member since
    October 2005
  • 862 posts
Posted by betamax on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 8:08 AM

Lastspikemike

In computing terms DCC is already seriously outdated. The NMRA standard has proved to be a double edged thing, as these standards often turn out to be.

Using Function keys isn't even convenient for actual computer work. DCC still requires some understanding of the concept of programming at the level of the bit.

It isn't necessary now to run power as an AC mimic and the control signal as DC piggybacked on the same wires. 

Each locomotive only needs a variable DC voltage throttle and wireless link. The rest of the DCC control software isn't necessary at all. 

The iPhone throttle is just the thin edge of this technology wedge. The problem is the heavy financial investment made when NMRA governed DCC got started in the 90's which, unfortunately, could not look far enough down the road at that time.  Changing over to bluetooth or Wifi LAN software now would be very expensive but ideal. Recall that the Windows 95 era is contemporaneous with the currently valid NMRA DCC....

 
The myths somehow thrive...
 
We should just scrap the internet, after all, its technology started 50+ years ago and runs on Unix, developed in the 1970s.  You can't use Unix unless you type in all those arcane commands, so it is not "user friendly".
 
Function keys are usless? Faster than taking your hand off the keyboard.
 
DCC programming difficult?  A basic decoder had to be easy to setup 20 years ago. Today we have software to do that, because an ESU decoder could have up to 10,000 CVs. Simple things like setting a Primary or Extended address are often handled by the command station, which sets the appropriate bits without any user intervention.
 
Where does this myth of an AC signal riding on a DC voltage come from, and why does it continue?  DCC uses a Digital pulse train to supply both power and data. This myth belongs in the era of analog command control. Why won't it stay there?
 
The mulitfunction decoder in a locomotive needs more than "a variable DC voltage throttle and wireless link". The software on board provides precise control of the motor using PWM. Beyond what any analog throttle could do. Not by a variable voltage. For the wireless link to work you need more than a throttle, as a minimum amount of power is required to operate the "wireless link".
 
What does Bluetooth and WiFi have to do with DCC being obsolete?  They can carry DCC data just as easily as they carry TCP/IP data.
 
Just look at what the European DCC suppliers are doing. GUIs, automation and other features beyond what was considered when the DCC Standard was proposed.
 
 
 
 
 
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: west coast
  • 5,366 posts
Posted by rrebell on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 8:37 AM

Well from someone on the fence still about DCC, I can tell you this. Pro's about DCC, sound (love that feature), two or more trains on same track and no turning off a side track just so the main engine can be used. Con's, much more fussy and prone to damage from operator error. Also DCC can be way more expencive than DC but has powered frog options that are much better and better automatic y controls for those that have that type of trackwork, These things have to be done manually in DC but can be done.

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 28,720 posts
Posted by rrinker on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 8:48 AM

 Whereever did you get the idea that DCC uses an AC power source with a DC control signal superimposed? That's actually opposite what most pre-DCC command control systems used - steady DC power with an AC pulse superimposed. 

 The DCC power IS the signal - full amplitude, there is no little tiny signal to pick out from the noise of brushed DC motors operating. 

Wayne - as I said, sound on DC is just a non-starter,. I think it was a silly idea to even bother - and I'm sure I'll get plenty of responses that "I do it allt he time, it works fine". The only people I can imagine are actually satisfied witht he way sound locos work on DC are those who don't know any better. It's pretty simple - the electronics need around 5 volts to operate. The only way to get 5V or more to the loco on DC is to turn up the throttle. Unless a loco is relatively poor quality, by 5-7 volts, it should eb moving. However, if a sound loco behaved like that, it would be moving, with no sound since the voltage is high enough to turn the motor but not run the sound electronics. So they are set up not to move until a relatively high track voltage, leaving enopugh for the electronics plus some dead band because not all (more like most common) DC throttles aren;t particualrly precise, so a dead band is necessary to allow you to actually stop the thing but keep the sound going. Only once the voltage gets above that point does it start moving - but at 7-8 volts, you're already 2/3 of the way to full throttle. So you have a limited range of control for the sound loco to go from stopped but making noise to running full speed. And any other locos, without sound, at 2/3 throttle are probably already going faster than is realistic. If you want sound, go DCC, period. There are workarounds, like the MRC Tech 6, but when running that sound loco, it's using DCC, and when running a DC loco, you're now using the MRC pack and not that nice PWM DC throttle. 

                                             --Randy


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    June 2020
  • 563 posts
Posted by Lastspikemike on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 9:37 AM

I'm not advocating replacement of DCC. I point out that it is in fact a very primitive software system not readily accessible to current computer users with very little interest in "coding". 

I have a two BLI, a paragon 2 mikado and a paragon 3 pacific. I note that the pacific is very sensitive to the slightest voltage drop out while the Mike is not.

My understanding of DCC, limited as it is, is that the main power is not a true AC but it does differ from the control signal and that both sets of power are transmitted down the rails concurrently. The decoder picks out the control signal and also converts the pseudo AC into DC (I guess "rectifies" is the term) with the variations in voltage required to control motor rpm. The power is phased and the alternating aspect  is alternating the voltage in tiny amounts but not the polarity.

So, the technical problem solved economically by DCC in the 1990's was standardizing the technology required to deliver power and the control signal down the same two conductors,  which effectively froze development of the supporting software.

Alyth Yard

Canada

  • Member since
    February 2018
  • From: Great Plains
  • 2,156 posts
Posted by York1 on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 9:46 AM

Lastspikemike
I point out that it is in fact a very primitive software system not readily accessible to current computer users with very little interest in "coding". 

I'm not clear on what you mean.

I know absolutely nothing about coding or computer languages.

Yet referring to a one page sheet containing commands (since I don't remember them), with two or three buttons pushed on my handheld control, I can change virtually hundreds of different commands to my locomotives.

What am I missing by using this primitive software?  What am I missing by using a handheld control rather than a laptop or phone?  Why should I worry how easy or difficult it is to access?

York1 John       

  • Member since
    October 2005
  • 862 posts
Posted by betamax on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 10:27 AM

Lastspikemike

I'm not advocating replacement of DCC. I point out that it is in fact a very primitive software system not readily accessible to current computer users with very little interest in "coding". 

I have a two BLI, a paragon 2 mikado and a paragon 3 pacific. I note that the pacific is very sensitive to the slightest voltage drop out while the Mike is not.

My understanding of DCC, limited as it is, is that the main power is not a true AC but it does differ from the control signal and that both sets of power are transmitted down the rails concurrently. The decoder picks out the control signal and also converts the pseudo AC into DC (I guess "rectifies" is the term) with the variations in voltage required to control motor rpm. The power is phased and the alternating aspect  is alternating the voltage in tiny amounts but not the polarity.

So, the technical problem solved economically by DCC in the 1990's was standardizing the technology required to deliver power and the control signal down the same two conductors,  which effectively froze development of the supporting software.

 

You must stop thinking in terms of Analog DC.

The DCC signal is not AC.  Never was.  It looks like this: DCC Power.  The waveform is the data and the power are combined.

The decoder picks off the pulses from one rail, at full voltage, so there is no mistake which logical state the rail is in at that point in time.  It takes the pulses and routes them through a rectifier to provide power for the microcontroller and the motor.

The motor is driven using full voltage PWM. There is no phasing or polarity needed, the motor's drivers determine speed and direction by their switching sequence.

How did the standardisation of the control/power signal on the track lead to stagnation in the software?

Decoders and throttles have advanced enormously since the mid 90s as the microcontrollers became more powerful and the components got cheaper.

Television wasn't frozen in the 1950s.  If it was, we would still have monochrome sets with a small CRT. Many engineers of the day would consider today's 4k televisions witchcraft. They considered the bandwidth needed for video to be excessive.

 

 

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: somerset, nj
  • 3,240 posts
Posted by gregc on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 10:34 AM

Lastspikemike
I'm not advocating replacement of DCC. I point out that it is in fact a very primitive software system not readily accessible to current computer users with very little interest in "coding". 

curious what type of modern software system you might be suggesting?   (is your background in software)

DCC users don't need to know how to code, they need to understand configuration options described in CVs.

and DCC only describes the electrical signals on the track, not the user interface which you may be referring to

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 11,660 posts
Posted by wjstix on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 11:06 AM

doctorwayne
The only DCC loco I've run on my layout was a BLI Mikado that I detailed and painted for a friend. While it ran not too badly, the sound feature would cut-in and out, as if it were re-setting itself. Perhaps that had some influence on my disinterest in sound, but after almost 40 years in a steel mill, sound isn't an attractive feature.

If you were running it on DC, most likely you were running it right on the edge of where it was just getting enough power for the sound to be on and the engine would move. If you ran it on DCC, the sound would be constant - unless you have really dirty track.

 

Stix
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 11,660 posts
Posted by wjstix on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 11:13 AM

rrebell
Con's, much more fussy and prone to damage from operator error.

Only problem I've had came with trying to solder connections to a 'lightboard replacement' decoder, too much heat can hurt the decoder. Other than that, there's not much you can do to damage a decoder unless say the engine derails and you allow the resulting short circuit to continue long enough to burn something out. If you mess up the decoder programming, you can always do a re-set to the factory defaults and start over. BTW, since decoders come with pre-set defaults built in, the only thing you really need to 'program' is to change the ID number to the engine number. The engine then will run basically the same as it had on DC - unless the decoder has a "keep alive" function built in it; then the engine will go over dead frogs and dirty track that would stop it on DC.

Stix
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 28,720 posts
Posted by rrinker on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 1:15 PM

 All this from mentioning that the suggested replacement system of direct wireless to the loco uses ironically the more primitive common negative connection for the function outputs. Open collector common positive current sinks in general tend to be more efficient.

 At least Sheldon and some others understand DCC, and have their own reasons for not using 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.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 13,008 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 4:21 PM

rrinker
rrinker wrote the following post 3 hours ago:  All this from mentioning that the suggested replacement system of direct wireless to the loco uses ironically the more primitive common negative connection for the function outputs.

Well, not precisely, the original issue was that LocoFi wired that, in a standard plug mind you, backward from the way DCC does it.

I'm delighted to see reasons why DCC's convention is more efficient, but the original point of why LocoFi reversed it remains a WTF moment... now, in fact, even more of one.

  • Member since
    June 2020
  • 563 posts
Posted by Lastspikemike on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 5:28 PM

gregc

 

 
Lastspikemike
I'm not advocating replacement of DCC. I point out that it is in fact a very primitive software system not readily accessible to current computer users with very little interest in "coding". 

 

curious what type of modern software system you might be suggesting?   (is your background in software)

DCC users don't need to know how to code, they need to understand configuration options described in CVs.

and DCC only describes the electrical signals on the track, not the user interface which you may be referring to

 

My background is definitely not in computing, that would be my brother with his PhD in artificial intelligence.

I am completely self taught, I know my way around a motherboard enough to have "upgrade" them. I can install software most times. I know a little bit about networks but much of that is from the days when you had to do all the network programming yourself. Now it's pretty much plug and play even for network stuff.

I repeat, I am not advocating abandoning DCC. I point out that it is VERY primitive and not at all plug and play user friendly. It should be but it isn't.

The description of how it works is useful for me. It brings to mind my Spectrum DCC Santa Fe which wil only run in one direction when powered by the MRC Tech 6 used in DC mode.The reversing switch has no effect. It works correctly in DCC ("dual") mode and when run in DC only with MRC Tech 7 which is very interesting to me. 

Alyth Yard

Canada

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 28,720 posts
Posted by rrinker on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 5:46 PM

Overmod

 

 
rrinker
rrinker wrote the following post 3 hours ago:  All this from mentioning that the suggested replacement system of direct wireless to the loco uses ironically the more primitive common negative connection for the function outputs.

 

Well, not precisely, the original issue was that LocoFi wired that, in a standard plug mind you, backward from the way DCC does it.

 

I'm delighted to see reasons why DCC's convention is more efficient, but the original point of why LocoFi reversed it remains a WTF moment... now, in fact, even more of one.

 

 I think that's what I said - the LocoFi makes the blue common the negative, the individual function wires are positive, which is backwards from DCC, yet they designed their controller to plug in to a standard DCC format socket. At least one responder mentioned that this sort of direct wifi is how things ought to be done, a lot less "primitive" than DCC, yet the irony here is the "advanced" device is using a more "primitive" circuit design. 

 I did start this thread, after all. Big Smile

                          --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: somerset, nj
  • 3,240 posts
Posted by gregc on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 5:52 PM

Lastspikemike
I point out that it is VERY primitive and not at all plug and play user friendly. It should be but it isn't.

plug and play certainy by itself won't make it less primitive.   can you be more specific about it's shortcoming?  provide some examples?

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 13,008 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 6:02 PM

rrinker
 I think that's what I said -

That was, in fact, just what you said; what you did not say then was 'why' one way was better -- which, as I said, is what you just added.  (Anyone remember the 'Who's on First?' patter?)

Both your comments stand, despite any discussions with different 'interpretations'.

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 28,720 posts
Posted by rrinker on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 6:14 PM

Lastspikemike

 

 
gregc

 

 
Lastspikemike
I'm not advocating replacement of DCC. I point out that it is in fact a very primitive software system not readily accessible to current computer users with very little interest in "coding". 

 

curious what type of modern software system you might be suggesting?   (is your background in software)

DCC users don't need to know how to code, they need to understand configuration options described in CVs.

and DCC only describes the electrical signals on the track, not the user interface which you may be referring to

 

 

 

My background is definitely not in computing, that would be my brother with his PhD in artificial intelligence.

I am completely self taught, I know my way around a motherboard enough to have "upgrade" them. I can install software most times. I know a little bit about networks but much of that is from the days when you had to do all the network programming yourself. Now it's pretty much plug and play even for network stuff.

I repeat, I am not advocating abandoning DCC. I point out that it is VERY primitive and not at all plug and play user friendly. It should be but it isn't.

The description of how it works is useful for me. It brings to mind my Spectrum DCC Santa Fe which wil only run in one direction when powered by the MRC Tech 6 used in DC mode.The reversing switch has no effect. It works correctly in DCC ("dual") mode and when run in DC only with MRC Tech 7 which is very interesting to me. 

 

 I'd possibly take that up with MRC, no idea why that should be, the decoder appears fine, working on DC if it works with the Tech 7. Possibly a difference in the way the two systems do their pulse output in DC. Not a DCC issue.

 I've found DCC to be pretty much plug and play - not sure what you see that makes it not. I bought my original system, then I added a walkaround throttle which also added support for more functions, and all I did was plug it in. No configuration, no setup. OK, I soldered my track feeders - but I did that for DC layouts before DCC was available too. I've run locos with decoders from all sorts of manufacturers, they all just work. 

 Installation of decoders can vary, but there are plenty of locos where it is as simple as plugging it in. Using a different control method such as direct radio to a board in the loco isn't going to change that installation issue for older locos. You have to do the same sort of work to install a DCC decoder as you do a WiFiTrax board as a Railpro board. Sometimes more - the direct radio boards are almost universally larger than a DCC decoder, simply because they need everythign the DCC decoder has PLUS a radio module. That may change and they will make the radios smaller, but the antenna trace on the PCB needs to be a specific length to work, so it's not going to get that much smaller. ANd the same improvements that make the radio boards smaller will also make DCC decoders smaller, so the direct radio system will always be at a disadvantage where space matters. There's already been major improvements over the years - the first sound decoders were more suitable for S scale than HO and N, and were ONLY sound - the motor control had to come from a second decoder. Now N scale has sound and motor combined decoders, and there are ones barely larger than a dime. 

 I'm not sure what you see that is so primitive about DCC. If DCC is primitive, then DC must be prehistoric. DCC is a very robust system that works from small switching layouts to things the size of small aircraft hangers. It's also quite reliable. Not once piece of my equipment has failed in nearly 20 years of use, nor have I EVER blown a decoder in the time since I got my first system.

 How else do you propose activating functions? Seems pretty user friendly to me that the button with the light bulb symbol turns the lights on and off, the one with the picture of the bell makes the bell ring, and the one with the whistle on is sounds the whistle. Turn the knob clockwise, the loco goes faster, turn it counter-clockwise, it slows down, just like most every DC throttle. Sliding my finger up and down a touch screen has zero appeal to me. But if you like that, it works with DCC. Yes, that primitive system can easily use a modern smartphone for a controller, if that floats your boat. 

                                   --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    June 2020
  • 563 posts
Posted by Lastspikemike on Thursday, August 6, 2020 8:12 AM

gregc
 
Lastspikemike
I point out that it is VERY primitive and not at all plug and play user friendly. It should be but it isn't.

 

plug and play certainy by itself won't make it less primitive.   can you be more specific about it's shortcoming?  provide some examples?

 

 

The one example that came to mind was changing cv29. 

My direct experience at the moment is with MRC Tech 6 which is not a complete DCC system.

My interest in this thread arises from my plan to move up to a dedicated DCC system, or stick with dual mode Tech 6. 

I really like running the many used DC locomotive models I recently acquired. Apart from one new Athearn roundhouse GP 35 I am buying only new DCC equipped with sound. I'm pretty sure I will not bother  buying another DCC "ready" locomotive new.

Although the OP was a criticism of a technology intended to depart from existing DCC, the morphing of this discussion into what is good and what is not so good about DCC, with or without sound, has been very helpful in my research into what to choose.

Our 22x10 ft layout will have maximum 3 operators most of the time. It has two continuous loops, both with reversing loops, and a connecting mainline running through a double ended yard. Most often we would run maximum 3-4 trains including yard switching and operating an engine yard (roundhouse and servicing)  with a three locomotive capacity pusher track serving the larger of the two continuous running loops. We run a mountain line with two long grades 2-3% to generate the need for the pusher service.

Our conventional multi block three cab DC control system works for three trains operating concurrently. Our principal challenge is speed matching in DC which is surprisingly difficult. Even locomotives from the same manufacturer made within the same time frame are often  geared differently. DCC could fix that. 

Alyth Yard

Canada

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: somerset, nj
  • 3,240 posts
Posted by gregc on Thursday, August 6, 2020 8:38 AM

Lastspikemike
The one example that came to mind was changing cv29.

what about it?    what's so primitive?   what are the shortcoming?

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    May 2002
  • From: Massachusetts
  • 2,735 posts
Posted by Paul3 on Thursday, August 6, 2020 10:34 AM

Lastspikemike,
CV29 programming is a simple as can be.  They made a chart; it's in every manual.  Don't worry about what bit equals what value, just follow the chart.  And even then, you're only going to be using two values in the vast majority of locos.

CV29 controls 2 or 4 digit addresses, Normal Direction of Travel (NDOT), Speed Steps/Speed Table, and Analog/Digital mode.

99 times out of 100, you're going to use one value for CV29 and one value only.  For me, that value is 34.  That means a 4-digit address, NDOT = Forward, 128 Speed Steps, and Digital-only mode.  CV29=34 is such a basic number to know that at my club we have signs on the programming track telling people to use it.

The only real exceptions at my club are for locos set up to run long hood forward instead of the standard short hood.  In that case, add 1 to the CV29 value and make it 35.  Now the engine will run in the other direction compared to what it did from the factory.

Only a handfull of the 2000 engines at our club use a speedtable and only by our DCC experts who like to play around with it.  Two digit DCC addresses are reserved for club use only, so the two digit number values for CV29 are never used by members.  And it is highly recommended that all DCC decoders used at the club have analog mode turned off (DCC-only) because analog mode can lead to runaways with a short circuit.

Out of the 2000 engines on the roster, probably less than 20 of them use a CV29 value that isn't 34 or 35.  That's how rare it is to use any other value for CV29.

  • Member since
    June 2020
  • 563 posts
Posted by Lastspikemike on Thursday, August 6, 2020 2:44 PM

Thanks for this information. 

DCC is new to me and puzzling even though modern computing is no mystery. I've been tinkering with hardware and software for 30 years now and my introduction to DCC has not been transparent, shall we say.

I will give it a try. 

One thing I have learned is that the Tech 6 will reset the locomotive to factory defaults very easily. 

With software I learned early on that most errors can be "fixed" by starting the install again.

Alyth Yard

Canada

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 28,720 posts
Posted by rrinker on Thursday, August 6, 2020 3:24 PM

 You don't even need a chart. All the popular DCC systems take care of it automatically, based on how you answer a question or two on the display. 

 There are other CVs used in a similar manner. From an engineering point of view - why would you use a full 8 bits to represent ONE item being turned on or off? One CV can control 8 individual on/off options. Otherwise, you would use 64 bytes to represnet what can be contained in 1 byte. That's just good design, not primitive. Unless by primitive you mean conserving system resources. Who cares, my computer has 32GB RAM, no need to make the program small and efficient. That seems the attitude of most modern programmers, and frankly, I hate it. I'm no fan of the super expert who rolls a whole routine into one line which is unreadable, either. Big and bloated just because it's there - just no.

 In addition to easily setting bitmapped CVs like CV29 right in the system, there's walways JMRI. Now you have a whole screen of check boxes with full explanations to set CV29 (and pretty much every other CV in a decoder). All settings clearly defined and explained, and the displays change based on the specific decoder you are working with, so you only see options for features supported in the specific decoder. Definitely not primitive.

                              --Randy


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: somerset, nj
  • 3,240 posts
Posted by gregc on Thursday, August 6, 2020 4:36 PM

Lastspikemike
DCC is new to me and puzzling even though modern computing is no mystery.

do you realize that DCC is a communication protocol across the tracks.    not a human interface provided by the command station vender such as NCE or DigiTrax

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 19,508 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Thursday, August 6, 2020 6:42 PM

Lastspikemike

I'm not advocating replacement of DCC. I point out that it is in fact a very primitive software system not readily accessible to current computer users with very little interest in "coding". 

Your terminology is flawed. Something doesn't become primitive until something more advanced comes along in the evolution of things. So, enlighten us. What is more advanced than DCC in your view to run locomotives on a model railroad layout?

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    April 2012
  • From: Huron, SD
  • 881 posts
Posted by Bayfield Transfer Railway on Thursday, August 6, 2020 6:48 PM

"You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

Disclaimer:  This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.

Michael Mornard

Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!

Moderator
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: Northeast OH
  • 15,396 posts
Posted by tstage on Thursday, August 6, 2020 8:20 PM

Lastspikemike
I repeat, I am not advocating abandoning DCC. I point out that it is VERY primitive and not at all plug and play user friendly. It should be but it isn't.

Lastspikemike
DCC is new to me and puzzling even though modern computing is no mystery. I've been tinkering with hardware and software for 30 years now and my introduction to DCC has not been transparent, shall we say.

Mike,

With that being the case, why not spend more time studying and learning about DCC and less time drawing and stating erroreous conclusions about a technology you admittedly have limited experience with.  We all have 2 ears and one mouth for a reason.  This might be a good opportunity to take advantage of that truism in order to learn so that you can make a wise and informed decision should you choose a DCC system down the road at some point.

And feel free to ask questions along the way.  Most folks here are more than happy to pass along their wealth of knowledge and experiences; as much as you have about your own.

Tom

http://www.newyorkcentralmodeling.com

Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.

  • Member since
    June 2020
  • 563 posts
Posted by Lastspikemike on Friday, August 7, 2020 11:10 AM

gregc

  

Lastspikemike
DCC is new to me and puzzling even though modern computing is no mystery.

 

do you realize that DCC is a communication protocol across the tracks.    not a human interface provided by the command station vender such as NCE or DigiTrax

 

 

Huh? As you Americans say.

Alyth Yard

Canada

  • Member since
    June 2020
  • 563 posts
Posted by Lastspikemike on Friday, August 7, 2020 11:18 AM

Compared to what?

DCC is very primitive compared to wireless LAN or Bluetooth.

As another poster tried to point out, somewhat inaccurately, DCC is a communication system. The power system is just another variation of DC power. Perhaps an unfortunate choice of acronym implying that DCC was a related concept to DC power. I like TCS as a better acronym as some smart DCC manufacturer quickly realized.

Of course DCC cannot be primitive compared to a more recently developed TCS (um, because there isn't one and I explained why that is so) but I mean really, how can anyone have misunderstood the context in which I was using the word?

I predict DCC will develop into a more effective and user friendly TCS in the not too distant future unless the current generation of new entrants dries up.

It would be ideal if the new TCS was backwards compatible with both DCC and DC and I think it will be.

I expressly but unnecessarily acknowledge that TCS is a proprietary trade name, and a darned clever one at that, plus they seem to have very good DCC stuff.

 

 

Alyth Yard

Canada

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!