How would you make DCC easier?

[rrinker]

That works, but from what I gather from the demonstration, the decoder actually respondes to command changes while it's ont he supposedly insulated section (paper towel or something laid across the rails). Not just waits until it gets back in communication before responding,. but actually stopping ont he 'dead' section and reversing on command.

[DigitalGriffin]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

What I don;t get is how those decoders can actually respond to command when isolated fromthe track. The track power IS the command signal, yet the demo they run shows a loco responding to commands after being run on to the isulating section.

They have been working on two way communication. Maybe the command station just keeps transmitting teh command until it gets an acknolegement from the train? But then again I'm just guessing.

[rrinker]

I'm pretty sure it's a cap. Just limit charging current with a resistor. A simple fix that would resolve that problem in the QSI sound decoders, as well.
What I don;t get is how those decoders can actually respond to command when isolated fromthe track. The track power IS the command signal, yet the demo they run shows a loco responding to commands after being run on tot he isulating section. Short of some sort of proximity coils to 'read' the DCC signal (as long as the insulating material wasn't THAT insulating), I do not understand how this could be done. Somehow that track signal has to get to the decoder, either directly or through induced current, for it to be able to respond. Just keeping running, at the last known command, is not that big of a deal.

--Randy

[DigitalGriffin]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker
to run without constant power on the rails, an RF control system would make sense. That would be kind of neat - bring your loco to the service area to refuel - and it really is 'refuelling'
--Randy

That future may not be too far away. Lenz's gold series supported uninterrupted power supply. Basically the decoder connects to a ?battery? and uses it as a backup when the power drops. And when the power is good on the track it recharges the ?battery?. (It could be a very large cap and not a battery, but I doubt that, as the cap would have to be enormous and that would create all kinds of problems with current pull on startup.)

http://www.lenz.com/products/decoders/currentdecoders/gold.htm

I think putting sound and a 14V battery in the tender is really pushing things for space. man you thought things were cramped now.

I guess time will tell when they actually release the product..

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Don Gibson

The 'weakness of DCC is the track carrying the comparatively weak coded pulses, and transmitting them through the wheels to the motor.

What i'd like to see is:

The track is used just to steer and supply basic DC voltage to the motor, with RF (radio frequecy), or I.R., providing the instructions to the motor. We do this similarly with model airplane's.

2. Manufacturer's offering SOUND 'DUMMY UNIT'S that use the whole body for a baffle.
Better, more reaistic sound, and one only need's 1 per train.
Dummy Pusher's with sound can be employed mid-train without derailment problems

Guess I'm confused, because with DCC the entire pulse amplitude of the carrier IS the signal. It's not like older system like CTC16 where a small amplitude control signal was superimposed on flat DC carrier. That's one of the main advantages of DCC over the older systems, the signal is much much stronger.
A lot of people bring up a pure RF control system - but other than outdoor Large Scale, I don't see much point. You'd still need a multiplexed digital signal, as there aren't enough radio frequency to handle the potential number of operating units. And the loco still needs to draw power from somewhere, so why not send the signal at the same time? Maybe when we have some future ability (perhaps with super capacitors) to run without constant power on the rails, an RF control system would make sense. That would be kind of neat - bring your loco to the service area to refuel - and it really is 'refuelling'. If one of the recharge contacts was done as a slider in the center of the frame ala Marklin, the two rails would not have to be insulated and you could make simple occupancy detectors as well.
But that's getting well away from DCC.

--Randy

[jwr_1986]

As I can see many of these have been addressed to my satisfaction but I would really like to see the kind of Bidirectional communication possible with DCS brought to DCC. Before I get flamed I can't stand DCS but that is one good point of it. This is especially true of Digitrax Radio throttles. I don't mind plugging in but I burns me that what is shown on the screen is not neccesarily true on track. As for programming there was the advent of JMRI that for the most part tool care of that. My [2c].

Jesse

[AntonioFP45]

Digital Griffin,

This thread that you started is full of excellent ideas that have potential.

Since its your thread, e-mail this topic to the major DCC vendors since they do value customer input. Digitrax, TCS, NCE, Lenz, Soundtraxx, QSI,

Let us know when you do it!

Cheers and High Greens!

[Anonymous]

Write decoder instruction notes in REALLY simple plain language, not Computerese(Geek jargon!).
Use lots of clear pictures/diagrams of EVERY step (this is the 21st Century after all!).
Demand that all "DCC-ready " manufacturers use standardised plugs on their locos with coloured coding to show which way round the #%*@ decoders should go!
Make decoders capable of handling higher amperage - there are a lot old 'clunkers' still out there which owners would love to revitalise . . .

[Anonymous]

Posts: 1564
Joined: 29 Mar 2002
Other:

1) make all DCC connectors standardized on ONE configuration. Stop with the 12 different types of connectors based on engine manufacturer.

2) Give intro sets the ability to handle more than 2-2.5 amps. I neither want nor need a Digitrax radio Super Chief, but I've got a large layout that will require 5-10 operators. Right now, there's no SIMPLE system that will handle my layout at max load.

3) reduce the price of handheld throttles, especially ones without LCD displays. I work for an eOEM, and I know for a FACT that the Digitrax and Atlas handhelds cost them no more than $5-$10 to make. (decoders without wire harnesses cost in the $1-$1.50 range, TOPS)
--------------------
Modeling the NKP in Peoria, circa 1950
"Steam: the only choice!"

Wow - those manufacturing costs are a real eye-opener!
So why do decoders in Australia START at $50.00???
Somebody is sure ripping us off, folks . . .

[Don Gibson]

The 'weakness of DCC is the track carrying the comparatively weak coded pulses, and transmitting them through the wheels to the motor.

What i'd like to see is:

The track is used just to steer and supply basic DC voltage to the motor, with RF (radio frequecy), or I.R., providing the instructions to the motor. We do this similarly with model airplane's.

2. Manufacturer's offering SOUND 'DUMMY UNIT'S that use the whole body for a baffle.
Better, more reaistic sound, and one only need's 1 per train.
Dummy Pusher's with sound can be employed mid-train without derailment problems

[Bikerdad]

Another other here.

1) Human factors - hire a human factor engineer to design the throttles. They need to be comfortable to hold for long periods of time, the most used controls need to fall naturally at hand, the displays need to be readable under various lighting conditions. Make it a "universal throttle" and booyah!!

2) Installation of Command Units - design the command units and boosters so that they are easy to "strap down." Removable feet on the units allowing Velcro equipped bottoms to sit flush against the other half of the Velcro. Audio style jacks for plugging wiring into the units. These features will allow modular railroaders to feel more secure about moving their equipment around.

3) "last loco" toggle (just like last channel on your remote) on throttles.

4) Button programmable "accessories" controller, basically like the designated turnout buttons idea above. Essentially a dedicated control pad with a bunch of buttons that has a default configuration that can easily be changed. Make it UNIVERSAL.

[IRONROOSTER]

Needs to be plug 'n' play. I plug it in and it plays. Sytem should auto detect all locomotives and other devices and automatically do all the programming. Only thing I should have to do is turn the throttle, blow the whistle, and ring the bell.
Enjoy
Paul

[Anonymous]

Since I don't use DCC and probably won't bother to even try for my HO scale modules, I don't care what they do. Make it easier? - Don't use it! [:D]

Bob Boudreau

[Anonymous]

Let me clarify what I mean when it comes to wireless throttles for all systems. What I mean is a system that has a remote just like the universal remotes for TVs that you can buy any kind for any type of tv (Sony, Samsung, Toshiba, Etc) and the remote works for all of them. So they could have a maker that the ( din or Phone jack wire is as easy as plugging it in and Programming it to your system. Like is you have Digitrax the program number could be 1001 and if you have Lenz 1002, etc, etc. Now that would be real cool

[fmilhaupt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul3

Fritz, CVP is cutting their nose off to spite their face. Digitrax is, correct me if I'm wrong, the number 1 USA DCC manufacturer. Why wouldn't CVP go for it? And the LocoNet license can't be all that bad considering the 3rd party LocoNet manufacturers already out there... What is CVP's reasoning?

I tend to agree. At one time, CVP had a statement on their web site that (and I'm doing this from memory here) they wouldn't develop a Digitrax version since it required a license and therefore they considered LocoNet an insufficiently "open" standard for them to pursue. There may have been more to it, but I can't locate it on the current version of their web site. The strong impression in my mind was that it was similar in tone to the argument that Open Source Software proponents make when talking about Microsoft-centric systems--it is largely a matter of principle.

I'm a proponent of open standards myself (I've wasted hundreds of hours re-coding web sites that run fine on W3C-standard browsers but don't render well under Internet Explorer), and can therefore sympathize with that stance. But as I would be doing if I chose to design sites to work with strictly W3C-compliant web browsers and not care how they did under IE, I think that he's choosing to stay out of a part of the market that has an enormous market share and sales potential. There can be other reasons for that, as well, such as maintaining his business at a size that he is comfortable managing ('second time today I've mentioned that on this forum). When CVP started, Keith already had a day job.

My brother, who as it happens is an electrical engineer working for a different division of the same company Keith G works (worked?) for, has looked at the licensing agreement that Digitrax requires. He is working on developing a LocoNet-compatible device we want for our layouts and we think might have potential as a commerical product. My brother's comment was that he saw nothing unreasonable in the terms contained within the licensing agreement itself. Granted, he is likely to have different standards than Keith does.

[NZRMac]

I'm happy with mine so far Lenz set 100. Beats DC anyday.


Ken.

[orsonroy]

Other:

1) make all DCC connectors standardized on ONE configuration. Stop with the 12 different types of connectors based on engine manufacturer.

2) Give intro sets the ability to handle more than 2-2.5 amps. I neither want nor need a Digitrax radio Super Chief, but I've got a large layout that will require 5-10 operators. Right now, there's no SIMPLE system that will handle my layout at max load.

3) reduce the price of handheld throttles, especially ones without LCD displays. I work for an eOEM, and I know for a FACT that the Digitrax and Atlas handhelds cost them no more than $5-$10 to make. (decoders without wire harnesses cost in the $1-$1.50 range, TOPS)

[RMax1]

End the confusion. Even the manufactures of the DCC products are some what clueless. DCC needs to be more straight forwad. Even plug in play is confusing at times. It is getting better but figuring out which decoder for this and do you need to do that to it to makes it's a pain. Of course converting older locos that were not designed for DCC will be a little harder. Everyone is screaming cost. When I can buy a Proto 1000 F3 for $20 and it cost me $20+ to get it setup with a decoder that doesn't seem right. Then you have to relate to supply and demand. Look at Railroad books and why are they so expensive? Well it's because the number of people interested in them is real small and the amount of research can be a huge task.. So if you have only 1000 buyers it's going to cost more than if you have 100,000 buyers.

RMax1

[Anonymous]

I'd like to see "DCC ready" mean what it says - if there's a socket factory fitted why do I have to warm up the soldering iron, clip some strategic connections, and fit resistors to stop my headlights either blowing up or melting their way through the shell. To be fair, I've only had to do this once (Bachmann Doodlebug), but I do wonder what would happen to a newbie in the same situation - would they realise there was a problem and seek help before or after melting the shell?

[Paul3]

I picked "Other" because, IMHO, DCC should be made more "bullet proof" WRT dependability. I should never loose control of an engine, I should never experience "erratic" opration, I should never have an engine "lobotomize" itself, etc. This is the kind of stuff that drives people nuts.

WRT "DCC Ready", remember that Athearn blue box, et al, is not "DCC Ready" as you have to isolate the motor from the frame. Things like Proto 1000 are DCC Ready because you don't have to do that. Sure, you have to scratch out some circuit boards and solder some leads, but you don't actually have to take the whole frame apart to get at the motor. That says "DCC Ready" to me...

Fritz, CVP is cutting their nose off to spite their face. Digitrax is, correct me if I'm wrong, the number 1 USA DCC manufacturer. Why wouldn't CVP go for it? And the LocoNet license can't be all that bad considering the 3rd party LocoNet manufacturers already out there... What is CVP's reasoning?

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[selector]

I voted other. DCC should be intuitively simple, ESPECIALLY for the first time user. to my way of thinking, it should be:

plug and play -whether plugging in the decoder or hooking up the controller.

push and watch -easier function control and programming. The manuals rival Windows for Dummies in their heft, fer cryin' out loud!

One only has to look at the comments on the recent topic dealing with growing the hobby to see that DCC is a real setback for the beginner. It's too complicated, but everyone here is touting its virtues. When the newbies 'feel' the delta between their own misgivings and lack of understanding, and the ravings and extolling of DCC's virtues by those who have 'cracked the code', I am sure many get cold feet and look for something else. Guys like Randy appear like gods in an established kingdom, and the rest of us poor neophytes have a long uphill struggle ahead of us.

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TrevorG

As soon as I read the question the first answer that popped into my head was, "Make it cheaper." I thought that was being a bit of a smart a$$ answer, but I see as I read the replies that I would not be alone in this.

I'm not a poor man by any stretch, nor am I heir to a fortune, so cost management are a large constraint on my hobby. DCC is on the wish list instead of connected to my layout solely because of cost. Let's hope that like most electronics, as it develops and ages, its cost comes down.

Trevor

You're right Trevor. One good thing that has been happening is that a number of DCC
products have been slowly coming down in price. Some decoders sell for $15 now. The Digitrax Zephyr, which usually lists for $199 is being sold for $159 on some internet dealers.

I'm on a budget myself so I'm getting in "slowly".

Sound is still incredibly expensive, but hopefully it will come down. There are toys and models of cars, ships, etc., that are equipped and sound absolutely incredible, yet costs are relatively cheaper compared to sound in model railroading.

I realize of course that precise train sounds require more research and time to produce, but I'm honestly thinking that if QSI and Soundtraxx were suddenly introduced to a new competitor selling quality sound for model railroading, at lower prices.............you'll suddenly see an increase in "Specials" and "Holiday Sale Prices".

[Anonymous]

As soon as I read the question the first answer that popped into my head was, "Make it cheaper." I thought that was being a bit of a smart a$$ answer, but I see as I read the replies that I would not be alone in this.

I'm not a poor man by any stretch, nor am I heir to a fortune, so cost management are a large constraint on my hobby. DCC is on the wish list instead of connected to my layout solely because of cost. Let's hope that like most electronics, as it develops and ages, its cost comes down.

Trevor

[fmilhaupt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Andy Jones

The one way I would make DCC easier and I am sure everyone here agrees to it is to have the Wireless controllers made universal by one or more companies. You could by one to be used with Bachman Easy DCC, Lenz, Digitrax, NCE, Etc. That would make it all much easier.

CVP USA has gotten close to this with its wireless throttle system. The handsets will work with EasyDCC, Lenz, NCE, System One, Atlas, EasyCab, CTC-80, and RailCommand systems that have his receiver base station. The only gap that I find is that Keith G has stated that he is unwilling to enter into a LocoNet license with Digitrax (and I can understand his reasoning behind that decision), and so chooses not to support that sizeable piece of the market.

I like CVP's RF1300 throttles very much, and use them on one of the layouts I operate on. It is my belief that had CVP brought out a Digitrax-compatible receiver before Digitrax released the UT4R, it could have made a huge splash in that part of the market. 'guess it just wasn't to be, though.

[Anonymous]

The one way I would make DCC easier and I am sure everyone here agrees to it is to have the Wireless controllers made universal by one or more companies. You could by one to be used with Bachman Easy DCC, Lenz, Digitrax, NCE, Etc. That would make it all much easier. Also one other thing would be easier

A set of about 25 buttons numbered T1-T25 to operate a turnout. It would make for non touching switch controls. Not having to scroll thru a menu and call up the # turnout. Just look at the turnout "oh thats #16 turnout" and then hit the T16 button labeled Straight or Turn. So basically there would be 50 total buttons. That would be so cool. The one bad thing is for people who have 26 switches. LOL

[fmilhaupt]

I started to write a long response to this, but after looking it over, think that Randy pretty much nailed my position on this, and in fewer words.

Of course, even if a manufacturer claims to adhere to a standard specification for being able to claim that a locomotive is "DCC Ready", it won't do any good if the manufacturer doesn't actually test that they've done it right (such as MDC's "incredible decoder output-killing Model 40 switcher").

There's not much of a way to deal with this short some sort of a certification program, and presently it doesn't appear that there's any obvious mechanism in place to do this. I'm not sure that there's enough manpower available to handle this sort of thing through the NMRA Conformance Warrants program.

One approach might be to find some volunteers with experience in DCC to put together an independent reviewing group, sort of like the Consumer's Union, to establish criteria and rate new locomotives for their conformance to these criteria, then publi***he results (likely on the web). Spread the load around enough, and it doesn't become as much work as one or two people doing it themselves. 'probably would integrate well with the decoder install information that the Gateway Division NMRA started to put on their web site.

[TurboOne]

Enjoy mine so far. Keep driving the price of systems and decorders down. That way you get more people and more profit by quantity.

Had a blast with mine so far, but still new. I am not sure what I can't do yet.

Tim

[Anonymous]

Amen to Cheaper DCC!
Thats other for me!
The price is insane!
Cheese3 is right!

[rrinker]

The one thing that needs to be done is that there has to be some standard to make a loco "DCC Ready". The stuff now sold as DCC Ready varies from absolutely to "why did the bother wasting the money on the socket"

I don;t believe every loco should be required to be DCC ready - far from it. But, if they are going to advertise such as DCC Ready then I SHOULD be able to simply plug in the decoder of my choice (subject to size limitations, but all the DCC manufacturers offer various size decoders to take care of that issue) and go. No bypassing resistors, bypassing weird inductors, etc. If there is an NMRA plug in the loco and you STILL have to pull out the soldering iron to make it work, something is WRONG.

There is no possible way to make DCC easier for old locos with motors that have grounded brushes and motor frames. The task of isolating the motor still remains. However - everyone seems to look at that as an electrical job, when it's really a mechanical thing. Just because it's an electric motor - remotoring is far more mechanical than electrical.

Assuming the decoders are already programmed - which any good installer should do, should you contract the job out instead of attempt to install decoders yourself - I don;t know how much easier they can make this. On most system you press a button marked "loco" or "select" or something otherwise obvious, key in the number decalled on the cab or tender of the loco, and press an enter key. Then turn a knob and the loco moves. Honestly, how much easier can you make this?

--Randy
[2c]