DCS versus TMCC

[spankybird]

Great news Jim. Isn’t nice to act like a kid again.

Do your self a bid favor, build a circuit breaker box.

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13672

Have fun,

tom

[Big_Boy_4005]

Watch out Jim, pretty soon everyone will be asking you the questions.[swg]

[Jim Duda]

Well I did it! I just added DCS to my TMCC Command Base and Powermaster. So far, I'm having a ball just running my two PS-2 locos, but now I can control the smoke level (low, med, high, off) the sound level, a whole bunch of other neat stuff, and I don't have to worry about the pesky timing of the whistle/horn - bell sequence when operating those in conventional.

My next step is seing how my non-TMCC stuff behaves, and the final and proof of the pudding test will be how the DCS handheld controls the TMCC steamer. If all goes well, I will use the DCS handheld from now on. This gets into personal preferences, but for me, the DCS unit is more ergonomic, I can do everything with one hand, and I personally prefer the detented thumbwheel to the big red dial on the CAB-1. Having the LCD readouts "reminding" you of where you are is VERY intuitive.

Bottom line: If you can wire a Powermaster into your Command Base, you can certainly wire the DCS system into your TMCC system. Just be sure and get the TIU to TMCC interface cable, which plugs into your computer port on the TMCC Command Base. You'll also need at least 4 sets of banana jacks. I got the solderless type from Radio Shack, part no. 274-721 @ $2.99 each. You'll also need a type M adaptaplug, 273-1716, and an 18VAC wall mounted txfrmr to power the TIU, part no. 273-1690. That's it!
For now I'm havin' fun, relaxin' with the remote unit in my hand, and sippin' some Texas lemonage...(wink)

DCS'n it in Austin,
Jim Duda

(This one's for you, RAK, Tom, Neil, and all the others that convinced me to try DCS...)

[spankybird]

Hi Jim.

I was just thinking about a Lemonade when I had to do the 12" of snow on Tuesdays storm that hit NE Ohio.

tom

[Jim Duda]

Greetings Tom -

Nope! I'll just tape some outriggers on the train and pull some multiple (like they do on golf courses) G-Scale lawnmowers with the train to keep the grass cut.

Professor Elliot - I could build a helix up to the top of my trees and hook some chain saws and pruning shears to it to keep the trees well manicured...

Man, this "lemonade" sure helps conjure up some wild ideas!...(wink)

Relaxin' in Austin,
Jim Duda

[spankybird]

But Jim,

You might have to cut the grass and prune the yard more often.

tom

[Jim Duda]

I agree...bigger layout! I keep looking at the backyard, the swing, and thinking how nice it would be to sit outside, drink some lemonade, swing in the swing, and watch a train run through the flowers and trees and...

But alas, no snow in the wintertime, so I guess I'd be out there all year...(sigh)

Since I like Rock Island, look at this...

http://gallery.bcentral.com/Gallery/ProductDetails.aspx?GID=3725153&PID=1770884&page=1&sortOrder=0

Yup...expansion! But wait! What will we do with the dining room table once I move outside???

Perplexed in Austin,
Jim Duda

[Big_Boy_4005]

Jim, did I ever tell you that YOU NEED A BIGGER LAYOUT!!!!

I'm beginning to think this is a test track for your real hobby, collecting train control systems. [(-D][(-D][(-D][swg][swg]

I don't think there is any more stuff to buy, the next step is expansion. I suggest devoting some of those funds to a gift for your wife, and hope for a "land grant". [#oops]There goes the dining room.[dinner][swg]

I think you have every right to be nervous.[;)]

You do crack me up sometimes.[:D][:D][bow][(-D][(-D]

Sincerely, The Professor

950

[spankybird]

HI JIm, I know you will do fine. [tup] I had to move my smoke alarm into the other room. I run alot of steam. And yes MTH does smoke. The diesel isn't too bad. remember that you can set the smoke level with DCS.
tom

[Jim Duda]

Smile RAK...smile! The DCS system came today...TIU, handheld, DCS/TMCC interface cable, DVD video - and a FREE UP caboose. I guess there's a special going on now and the whole deal was $250 from Rocky at Dixie Union Station.

Anyway, I also got a Rock Island BL-2 Premier PS-2 that has smoke...always heard about how well MTH does in that regard, and I don't have a diesel that smokes...so...
maybe tomorrow I can set the smoke alarm off! I also got the wall wart charger since this loco has a built in charge jack and I'm letting it charge overnight before I put it on the tracks.

Tomorrow morning I will stop at Radio Shack and get the 273-1690 wall transformer to power the TIU, the 273-1716 "M" adaptaplug, and 4 of the 274-717 banana plugs. I'm a little worried but...piece o' pie...right? Fingers crossed!

Nervous in Texas,
Jim Duda

[Big_Boy_4005]

Don't worry RAK, I'm still pretty firmly in Will's camp on this one, but I am always willing to listen to different ideas, and if they make sense I do use them.

This one has me interested enough to investigate further, which is a lot more than I was willing to do last week, but with my budget the way that it is, it may take years before I could take any action, IF I decided to try it. [swg]

Here's another topic on the MR forum that you might find interesting.
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13443
It has nothing to do with TMCC or DCS, but everything to do with persuasion.[:D]

[Anonymous]

Hi Will!

Your point is well taken-you should run and operate what you are happy with. TMCC is a very good product/control system so I would be surprised if you were not happy with it (can you tell l am mellowing in my old age?).

I am not trying to convince Elliot that he should or should not do anything regarding DCS, we are just comparing notes and opinions. So far, it has been a very enlightening discussion. He has raised my curiosity about the computer interface both from a TMCC standpoint and a DCS standpoint. I have seen his work on one of the Great Toy Train layout videos so I know what he is capable of-very, very impressive!

[Anonymous]

I have TMCC and am very happy with it. I don't see the need to add a second control system at three times the price so I can buy MTH engines. If there is an MTH engine I really need to have, I will run it in conventional and get almost all the features.

[Big_Boy_4005]

The truth is that I haven't put voltage to a track in over TEN YEARS!!! No conventional, no DCS, and no TMCC, even though I have bough ten engines in the last 5 years. I haven't even run anybody else's trains in that time. My little confession. Check this out.

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13652

My new layout is progerssing slowly, and I hope to get enough of the permenant track completed and a temporary cutoff installed fairly soon so that I can begin testing.

From what you two have said about the computer and DCS, there may be hope, but it is still going to take a back seat to TMCC. However, you have me very curious now.[bow][:)]

[Anonymous]

Elliot,

I believe that the MTH reps were actually controlling the trains via the computer on a real time basis (i.e starting and stopping them, blowing the whistle, etc). By the way, there is, on the AIU, a "data port for future use" but I have no idea what the future use is.

As far as the law suit goes, I don't know anything other than what I read, but I would think that, in the areas of two-way communication and scale mile an hour speed increments, MTH is probably on pretty firm footing. Again, it will be up to the legal types to determine this. I do not know and I do not wi***o get into that debate.

As far as purchasing things, I rarely buy anything that is not MTH (although I did pick-up three Lionel locomitves last year: The Tunnel Motor, the NYC S-1, the Standard Gauge Commodore Vanderbilt). I have, as many of us have, limited resources with which to purchase hobby items, so I like to purchase those things which will make me the happiest and give me the most "bang for the buck"-in my case those things are made by MTH. Again, you and I have very different goals.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever operated PS-2's under DCS? I realize that it does not fit in with your project. Just curious.

[spankybird]

Hi Big boy and RAK 402,

I do read almost everything you two write. There is so much to learn for both of you.

I believe the demo in point was pre-release of DCS and before the remote was complete, thus the need for the lap top.

DCS remotes can record a scrip by just running the trains and then asking it to repeat it.

It’s good to see both sides without any hair raising on the neck

Thanks
tom

[Big_Boy_4005]

Thanks RAK, the part about the MTH reps using a computer has me curious too. What I think may be happening there is, that they may have some pre recorded events that they are playing back through the TIU. These events would have been created using the handheld remote. The problem is that it is speaking an unknown bit pattern, and without the codes it would take a lot of work to decipher.

This is only my best guess, and I will have to do some research, but there aren't too many people around to ask about such technical things. There is only one dealer locally that really handles DCS, and he is by no means a "techno wizard". One of these days I'll have to make the schlep to his store, and ask to see all of the paper he can muster.

Because TMCC has been around longer, and has the broad based acceptance in the marketplace, combined with all of the information available, for my purposes it is the clear choice. Adding DCS to my mix would only complicate matters, and at this stage that is the last thing that I need.

With regard to the lawsuit, the problem is that some of the technology used to create DCS had been deliberately left unpatented, so that it could be used by anyone and everyone. But MTH came along and created DCS and scooped up the rights and claimed the patents. The sad fact in all of this is that the HO community is being adversely affected, and MTH does no buisness in HO. Mr Edelman's comments, only go to reinforce my opinion that MTH doesn't "play nice with others". There may be no untruth in his statements, but they do little or nothing to calm the sense of outrage among the HO community. Keep in mind that most people in one scale don't care one bit what happens in another scale. I'm strange, I do.

All of this is rather unfortunate, because MTH really makes some nice looking engines, but until all of this stuff gets sorted out, I can't see buying any. Another unfortunate fact is that we are having this wonderful discussion at the tail end of a topic, which usually means that few members are seeing it.

[Anonymous]

Elliot,

Thank you for the information regarding what you are doing computer-wise with your railroad. Very, very interesting! I am resonably certain that MTH used Lionel's published codes in the same manner as the computer software to control the Command Base as you suspected. As to whether the TIU will listen? Again, I did see MTH reps with a computer connected directly to the TIU operating as Cal-Stewart, prior to DCS's release, so, at least at that time it could be done. Whether the codes will ever be available to the public, I do not know.

I did look at the link and found it pretty interesting. My feeling is that if MTH does have the patent on this technology, they have the right to defend it. I thought Andy Edelman's letter was quite clear. I met him once-he is a pretty straight forward guy-definitly not a "marketing spin" type.

At any rate, the courts will sort it out. I remember back when Lionel was Lionel LTI, they threatened legal action to many businesses who were reproducing things using the Lionel name (I can't remember if MTH was one of them, but it may have been). They stopped several too, acccording to my Lionel Dealer.

On an entirely different note: I kept wondering where I knew you from. I kept thinking I knew Elliot Feinberg, but could not figure it out. I went back and read one of the "Welcome" posts and saw your discussion with Neil. I have seen you many, many, times on the video. It is nice to actually meet you, if not in person, via the internet!

[Big_Boy_4005]

RAK 402, you are right when you say that it isn't about better and worse, because the two systems are quite different. I'm not sure how the computer interfaces with DCS, but I suspect that it uses Lionel's published codes to address the command base which sends the TMCC signal to to any TMCC equiped engines. The real question is, does the TIU ever "listen", and if so can consumers get the codes? Getting the codes may be the problem. Lionel publishes theirs, and that's how MTH designed DCS to "work with" TMCC. If DCS has the capacity to listen to a computer, it most likely uses different codes to do so.

I plan to use TMCC and CMRI (Computer Model Railroad Interface) together to create what I call a "virtual operator". I have designed my layout to operate just like a real railroad, and want the computer to have complete control over some trains, while humans operate others in the mix.

I call CMRI "smart track" because I will be using it to detect trains over the automated portion of the layout, and run all of the signals and turnouts along the mainline. TMCC will give me "smart trains" that the computer can talk to. Put the two together, and the computer has all of the information and control it needs to start, stop, and slow the trains as necessary. The computer will generate traffic, and the human operators will join in, as the computer plays dispatcher sorting out traffic on the main.

As you can tell from my explanation, sound is a total after thought, since the computer can't hear. If there are enough trains running, sound will become a bother to the humans in the room, and may have to be turned down or off.

This concept goes way beyond what most people will ever want to try, but there are a few of around. The technology is here now, the trick is to understand all of the elements and combine them into one operating system.

As for the MTH's impact on people outside the O gauge community, there is a very interesting discussion over on the MR forum that I got involved in that people here may find interesting. Here is the link:

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12207

[Anonymous]

Elliot,

I am not sure that the point of this whole thread should be a "one system is better than the other thread" type of thing.


I think that the statement of Macdannyk1 that you quoted is accurate for many of us:

"QUOTE: Originally posted by macdannyk1
Exactly. It isn't a versus thing. It's a complimentary thing."

I am not sure how many are working on operating their layouts from a computer. I think probably a lot of us just like running trains and do not like to be limited to one brand or the other, or one control system or the other. For those running command from a handheld device, both DCS and TMCC are excellent and both work very well together.

You obviously have very specific goals for the operation of you trains (i.e. operation controlled by the computer). Goals which, for the moment, seem to be better suited to TMCC operation than DCS. That is why it is nice to have choices in the market place. You can do what you need to do, and that is a good thing.

You stated:

"Yes both DCS and TMCC can be made to work together on the same layout, but DCS does this by turning the TMCC command base into a SLAVE by translating and repeating the commands. A clever trick exploited the DCS design."

I believe that this is a pretty accurate statement. This is the same "clever trick" that the software manufacturer's have used to allow a computer to controll the TMCC Command Base in the manner that you are using it. This is a very intelligent and logical approach. Aside from the proprietary issues, it would probably not have made financial sense for MTH to develop its own version of the TMCC Command Base, when the Lionel version works so well and is so inexpensive (I think my last one was only $50.00).

MTH wanted to make sure that their system was not "closed" and could run anything (conventional, TMCC, and PS-2). By setting it up so that it could control the TMCC Command Base, they did a very good job of this in a very economical way.

"Sound is not important to me, control is."

This I found to be a very interesting statement! At first glance it seems to fly in the face of the current conventional wisdom. Although I realize that by "control" you are referring to the ability to control things by computer, until recently, "sound" was considered the forte of TMCC (Railsounds), and control (again, from the remote) the forte of DCS. The sound thing is now pretty much blurred now (since the release of the MTH H-9).


I wish I could answer you question regarding whether or not DCS will be able to accept commands from a computer. I am pretty sure that, for the moment, you are correct in your assumption that the answer is no. Please understand that I have no inside information on this. The system is software driven so who knows what the future will bring. As a side note, I do remember the first time I saw DCS in operation at one of the local train meets (well before its release), the MTH reps were using a laptop computer connected to the TIU to control the trains, so anything may be possible. It would be interesting to see what a computer could do with the two way communication coming back from the locomotive through the TIU.

I doubt that Mike Wolf has, in any way damaged the hobby. He has pushed the envelope, increased competition, driven other manufacturers to improve their level of detail, and provided excellent products. It seems to me that he has helped it far more than hurt it.

I do not think that liking one manufacturer's products or control system, is, or should be, mutually exclusive from liking anyone else's product. MTH, Lionel, K-Line, 3rd Rail, etc. all make excellent products-something for everybody.

Will you keep us posted on the computer interface with TMCC issue? I am truly curious about that.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by macdannyk1

Exactly. It isn't a versus thing. It's a complimentary thing.

I don't get that feeling every time I read comments from Mike Wolf.

Yes both DCS and TMCC can be made to work together on the same layout, but DCS does this by turning the TMCC command base into a SLAVE by translating and repeating the commands. A clever trick exploited the DCS design.

Can DCS accept commands from a regular computer, ie can a user write software to directly control trains with a computer using DCS??? My understanding is NO, and if that is the case, for my purposes DCS is useless. Sound is not important to me, control is.

Furthermore even if DCS is a better product, because of it's creator's attitude, and all of the controversy that it has caused within the model railroading community (especially with the people in HO, as a result of the patent) I will not consider buying it.

I read Mike's statements in OGR, and felt that he was using the space to advertise his products, and not discuss the issues. Other manufacturer's spokesmen, used that opportunity to talk about the industry in general. A couple even made references to MTH without actually naming names, a fact that I found very interesting.

That is why I think this IS a versus thing. It is Mike versus the rest of the world, and while his business style may be financially successful, it is very damaging to this hobby in general. And, THAT IS HOW I SEE IT!!!

[willpick]

Jim, most Railking deisels do not have smoke[sigh]. The newer (2003/2004) Railking scale units, which are the older Premier shells, some do have smoke units. All MTH steamers(Railking and Premier) of course smoke. The main reason for not having a smoke unit is there really isn't enough space in a Railking engine for the MTH smoke unit.

[Anonymous]

Jim,

I am glad to see that you are moving forward, sir!. I look forward to watching your progress.

And yes, I am smiling (grinning from ear to ear)! Enjoy and keep us posted.

THOR,

I hope that you are doing well. I know that you are not a Command Control kind of guy, but I will get out one of my Marx locomotives and run it in conventional mode from a Variable Channel via DCS in your honor (and attempt to get a picture of it doing so)!

[thor CNJ]

I don't use DCS. I don't use TMCC. I tried them, and don't feel that they enhanced my enjoyment of my trains. If anything, they added steps to an otherwise seamless process.

No DCS or TMCC for me! [8D]

[spankybird]

HI Jim,

Good Luck with DCS. It sounds good what you are planning.

By the way, I received my birthday present today, the MTH F40PH. (see first page of this thread) It runs great. The smoke unit is fan driven and set a medium its not bad. You can tell that it is on thou.

tom

[Jim Duda]

Gentlemen...I bit the bullet and just ordered the DCS system and the cable to connect it to the TMCC command base. I'm going to try and simply replace the Powermaster in my present setup with the TIU and take it from there. I take it the TIU must have a Conventional mode just as the Powermaster does...we'll find out! I know RAK is smiling and if anyone else is - great! Maybe in a few days I'll be smilin' with ya!!!

Just so you know, I come out of the 135 watt LW txformer through a DTK-2 suppression device, through a 15 amp fast blow, and this is where I'll add the TIU. Existing track connections will go right into the TIU outputs. Wish me luck!!!

Jim Duda

[Anonymous]

Jim,

You do not want to see a picture of me. Far too hideous.

Suffice to say that I will be happy to assist you if I can. It is too bad that you are as far away as Texas as we do demos about once a month at the local TCA Meets in Arcadia, California. You could play with the various facets of DCS and see for yourself.

I would like to suggest that you ask these very same questions on the OGR DCS Forum, if you wouldn't mind. I think that you will be very interested in the responses that you get. Hopefully, Barry Broskowitz, Dave, or Ernie will see it and respond.

[Jim Duda]

Neil - have one of your research colleagues snap a pic of you in your lab coat and paste it in your profile so we can associate a face with a name. You too, RAK. Spank already has his in there.

I can't thank you gentlemen enough for your help!

[Anonymous]

Jim,

The DCS Variable channels work very well. I have run Pre-war Ives Standard Gauge, Post-War Lionel, PS-1, conventional. There is no problem with doing using them. I have run TMCC, PS-2, and Lionel Post-War on the same track at the same time on one of the variable channels.

Again, there is no reason to use the Powermaster in the DCS environment. If you use the Powermaster in Passive Mode I am still not sure what the unusual wave form will do.

I would also not run recommend running in passive mode if you don't have to. Your E-Stop (which I believe Neil pointed out) will not work, and and, obvioiusly the variable channels will not work as you are bypassing them.

I was an early advocate of Passive Mode, I still use it occasionally so I am very, very familiar with both.