DCC a hobby inside a hobby?

[farrellaa]

i just turned 70 last week and have been in and out of MRR for 60 of those years. I started into DCC less than a year ago and I like the KISS method whenever possible. WELL, I now have Decoder Pro, a PR3 and keep my laptop in the  train room. I never, never in all my years thought I would use a computer to do ANYTHING with my trains, let alone own a laptop. (I now have 5 computers?). Decoder Pro fits the KISS system to a T. How easy is it to look at the screen on the PC and select how to operate the lights, sounds, motor speeds or ??? and then just click the 'Write changes to decoder' button; DONE. The hobby is what you make it and there are a lot of aspects of it that can get complex if you let it. I too built a 'programming, coupler height gage, car weight measuring' track and it works great for all of the purposes. I also love to build and detail/weather structures but hate to install and 'adjust' trackwork turnouts. Somebody out there loves the stuff I don't and they may make it a Hobby within the Hobby, but that is what makes each of us unique and keeps us in the Hobby. Just do what makes you happy whether it is complex or KISS.

Just my thoughts,

    -Bob

[richg1998]

Yes. Remember the DC electronic throttles back in the 1970's and 1980's

Signaling?

Oh boy, scenery for the layout is much more than DCC for another hobby.

I could go on, but you know what I mean.

Just another subject for discussion.

Rich

 

[Lateral-G]

The 'hobby' is what you make of it.

There are so many facets to MRR that some folks end up really liking one particular one and start to become more engrossed with those particular aspects.

It's their choice because that's what they enjoy. I wouldn't worry about it. Just enjoy what you do and try to have as much fun as you can.

that's all.....

 

-G-

 

 

 

[tstage]

Pete,

Yes, it is and can be a hobby within a hobby.  The beauty of it?  You can keep it as simple or explore its complexities as much as you want.

I've heard it likened to owning a car: Some folks just want to get in and drive while others enjoy "getting under the hood" and seeing what it can do.  I think the same argument can be said about computers, cell phones, and cameras.

Tom

[richhotrain]

Pete, I couldn't agree with you more.  Like you, I keep it simple. I program my decoders with the basics.  I don't use computers or sophisticated signal systems on my layout.

I wouldn't say that DCC is a hobby within a hobby though.  If you break down DCC to its simplest terms, DCC is simply the ability to use your power supply to control locomotives as opposed to DC which uses your power supply to control the track.  The principal advantage of DCC is to simplify the running of multiple trains on a layout.

The hobby witihin a hobby, if you ask me, is the use of computerization on a layout.  That adds a whole new dimension of complexity, specialized knowledge, and a level of dedication not required with basic DCC applications.

Rich

[jwmurrayjr]

I don't even use DCC, but for me the electronics is a hobby within the hobby - BECAUSE I want detection, signaling - with correct interlocking signals, CTC operation, simple user interface, and more.

A Bruce Chubb fan.  

"The World's Greatest hobby."  It's got a lot going for it.

Something for everybody.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Pete,

I don't even use DCC, but for me the electronics is a hobby within the hobby - BECAUSE I want detection, signaling - with correct interlocking signals, CTC operation, simple user interface, and more.

For me, these things are important. I have been in this hobby for over 40 years, and long ago mastered all the basics and want a more "advanced" version of the hobby - electricly and other wise. But DCC was not really in line with my goal list.

Simple is fine if that's all you want - but some of us want more.

Sheldon

[simon1966]

For some folks it is, just like structure builing, super detailing locos, collecting brass etc etc  all of which could be considered hobbies inside the hobby.

[rrinker]

 It all depends on what you're doing and what you're trying to do. I have the whole works, a PR3, I built a porgrma track (which also has coupler height gauges and car weights marked off - so even without DCC I'd still have this track on a board). But I RARELY program with JMRI - my era and railroad has only a basic headlight on each locomotive, no fancy beacons, no flashign lights. ANd I use all TCS decoders, so when it comes to BEMF settings and soo forth, I've pretty much memorized the settings I use on all my locos. So it takes me less time to just key in the few changes (address, turn off DC mode) than it does to fire up the computer and use JMRI.

Now, change that to a mix of various brand decoders. With a railroad like the SP with rooftop beacons and what seems like a dozen different flashing lights on the front of the locos. That's a lot of settings to memorize.

Sound is a whole new ballgame. If you just used the canned sounds and are happy with them, great. But even more than actually trying to edit down your own sound files (NOT an easy task, I assure you), just being able to swap predefined sound sets makes it easier to manage your supplies and fleet. I have a drawer full of TCS T1 decoders, because they fit nearly anything. Non sound, no big deal, a decoder is a decoder. But what if I was goign to put sound in them, instead of motor only decoders? I'm not sure what locos they will go in (I have a pretty good idea because I know what I own and which have deocders, but stick with the thought). With a sound set replacement liek QSI uses (not editable, you can only swp factory sound sets) you don't have to buy decoder aprt number 1234 for the EMD first gen, part #2314 for the Alco 251, part #4321 for the EMD 2nd gen Turbo, etc. All the deocders are identical - it;s just a different sound set. So you coudl have 4 of part #5678 on hand and as you install them load the approriate sound files for the loco type. This sort of thing is easy, not at all liek editing your own sound files. It's easier for the manufacturer, too, producing one SKU for the decoder, and just supplying multiple sound sets to be loaded in.

                             --Randy

 

[jwmurrayjr]

Even though I have been into DCC for over a decade I sometimes feel I am still in the stone age sometimes.

I hear ya buddy!

I'm sure that DCC doesn't have to be complicated.  DCC is what "pulled" me into MRR a decade ago.  I wanted a layout but just couldn't "get into" cab control. Then DCC came along.

But, that being said, DCC does give lots of folks an outlet for their "techie" side.  Almost unlimited, I guess.

But I like it simple.  Or, at least, simple for me. And that's pretty simple!

So I like simple answers if possible.

Have fun,

 

[locoi1sa]

 Hi.

 Is DCC turning a hobby into another hobby? It seems when someone asks a question about a decoder they get responses with JMRI decoder pro, sound file, function control, consisting, advanced consisting, PR3, RTC, BEMF, P&P, FFN, RFN, 28SS 128SS, and other acronyms thinkable in the answers. What happened to the KISS (Keep It Simple & Stupid) methods?

  Even though I have been into DCC for over a decade I sometimes feel I am still in the stone age sometimes. With 72 decoder equipped locos and over 100 decoder instals I have never found a reason to change a sound file or hook my laptop to my modules. I have decoder pro but never hooked it to a track. I rarely use more than 4 functions and really don't need my locomotive to talk to the scale cattle on the miniature farm in their native tongue. I also don't need to have my decoder tell me what address it is. I can read that right on the side of the loco. I feel that I should not need an engineering degree to set up ditch lights. Why does it take 4 pages in a manual that is 120 pages long to do so?

 Do we make it harder than it has to be? Do we spend more time fooling with decoders instead of running them? Do have a $160 programer for your $100 decoder?  Is it a hobby in a hobby?

          Pete