simon1966 wrote: Look at all the grief that folks have had over the years with NCE radio systems.
simon1966 wrote:So does it matter next week that it took a PowerCab user 10 more minutes to set the thing up compared to a Zephyr?
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Brunton wrote: simon1966 wrote: Look at all the grief that folks have had over the years with NCE radio systems. Radio issues? What radio issues? My NCE system has been wireless from the start. I have never had any radio issues. I can do every single function wireless that I can with the throttle plugged into the system. Is that an issue? Having to "plug in" to acquire a loco is just stupid (to me). But I guess that comes from a uni-directional wireless, right? NCE's wireless has been duplex from the start, and finally other vendors are starting to catch up. Care to explain some of the "grief" NCE wireless users have gone through (I'm not being snide. I'd like to know, since I've never heard much about it)? simon1966 wrote:So does it matter next week that it took a PowerCab user 10 more minutes to set the thing up compared to a Zephyr?It took me only fifteen minutes to hook up my PH Pro system, and that was mostly spent reading the installation instructions. Is NCE's entry-level system more difficult to install than their full-up system? I plugged in a couple of cables, hooked two wires to the track power cables, and plugged into the wall. I was off and running! A bit later I popped batteries into the throttle, screwed on the antenna, and plugged in the receiver. Again, off I went! The most time-consuming thing, again, was reading the manual to find out how to turn the throttle on and off. Is the PowerCab more difficult than this?
Thank you Mark, you illustrate my point perfectly. This is exactly how I feel when I see issues that have no impact on most users raised regarding a small feature of the Digitrax system. On threads like this these issues get drilled down as if they are incredibly significant to all. When in reality they are not an issue to the vast majority of users.
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
andrechapelon wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Joe, My first car was an Austin Healy Bug-eyed Sprite. When it ran, it ran so fine..., but most of the time it didn't. I think this Digitrax system meets my needs. That's because the Austin Healy had a Lucas electrical system. Well, it was supposed to be an electrical system. IIRC, the AH also used twin Skinner-Union sidedraft carburetors which were oh, so easy to keep synched up. Good luck with the Digitrax. Me, I'm going with something else.Andre
SpaceMouse wrote: Joe, My first car was an Austin Healy Bug-eyed Sprite. When it ran, it ran so fine..., but most of the time it didn't. I think this Digitrax system meets my needs.
Joe,
My first car was an Austin Healy Bug-eyed Sprite. When it ran, it ran so fine..., but most of the time it didn't.
I think this Digitrax system meets my needs.
That's because the Austin Healy had a Lucas electrical system. Well, it was supposed to be an electrical system. IIRC, the AH also used twin Skinner-Union sidedraft carburetors which were oh, so easy to keep synched up.
Good luck with the Digitrax. Me, I'm going with something else.
Andre
please , no discussion of Lucas electrics in a DCC topic , the thought of a Lucas designed DCC system makes me scream in horror
Brunton wrote: Radio issues? What radio issues?
Take a look at the NCE Yahoo! group. There is a discussion there about isolating an NCE layout in a Faraday Cage to reduce interference, the cost involved, and whether foil or copper mesh is the better choice.
And search on "repeater", "rb02", or "radio fix" in that same group and see how many hits you get.
Steve
The radio discussion on the NCE list actually has to do with multiple DCC layouts at shows and how to reduce wireless interference.
And it runs from the sublime to the ridiculous.
If the truth be known, as wireless DCC usage increases, this is going to become a real issue for all DCC-based clubs who display in public places because the unlicensed band DCC operates in is for short range wireless devices only and a lot of wireless DCC systems in close proximity will cause no end of havock. All wireless DCC systems are going to face this. Not only will multiple systems in close proximity from the same vendor, but systems from different vendors will probably cause interference as well.
The more sane voices in this discussion listed what I think is the solution in this case: get yourself a 12-20 ft chord and plug in. Now you can run trains with a decent amount of mobility, have NO interference from other wireless systems, and interact with the public as well.
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
Stevert wrote: Brunton wrote: Radio issues? What radio issues? Take a look at the NCE Yahoo! group. There is a discussion there about isolating an NCE layout in a Faraday Cage to reduce interference, the cost involved, and whether foil or copper mesh is the better choice. And search on "repeater", "rb02", or "radio fix" in that same group and see how many hits you get.Steve
I've heard that a few people have had interference problems with their NCE wireless systems, but I've heard far louder complaints about some other systems' wireless offerings. I read the Faraday Cage discussion you mentioned. Talking about a Cage doesn't mean anyone is seriously considering it - just talking about what it would take, more in a theoretical vein than anything. Besides, if you read the entire thread, you know that the real problem is apparently a Digitrax wireless that's spilling junk signals way over into NCE's bandwidth (1 1/2 MHz away). Why didn't you mention that? But then I guess it's probably NCE's fault for having a sensitive receiver, isn't it?
With relatively complex systems, a few of them will almost always have problems. Know anybody who ever owned a lemon auto, while someone else with exact same make and model swears by it?
If you want to seriously discuss issues with various systems, I'm game - I'm sure I'll learn a lot. But I'm certainly not up for a bunch of insubstantial rhetoric.
ereimer wrote: andrechapelon wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Joe, My first car was an Austin Healy Bug-eyed Sprite. When it ran, it ran so fine..., but most of the time it didn't. I think this Digitrax system meets my needs. That's because the Austin Healy had a Lucas electrical system. Well, it was supposed to be an electrical system. IIRC, the AH also used twin Skinner-Union sidedraft carburetors which were oh, so easy to keep synched up. Good luck with the Digitrax. Me, I'm going with something else.Andre please , no discussion of Lucas electrics in a DCC topic , the thought of a Lucas designed DCC system makes me scream in horror
To be fair, there was nothing wrong with Lucas' design. It was the manufacturing that was awful!! Since these systems only had to last as long as it took for the British car to rust away they did not have to have a long life expectancy. The only problem with this idea was that once removed from the damp British climate the cars rotted more slowly and out-lived the electrical system. Since I currently own an Austin Healey and have previously enjoyed the challenge of living with various MG's and Minis I have some experience here.
Guys,
LOL!
Other than being thoroughly entertaining, is there a point to this discussion? There are Ford people and there are Chevy people (and a few Yugo people), and usually they are not going to flip loyalties. So lets get to a discussion that can be resolved.
Do you think the Baptist's view of making a mountain out of a molehill holds up in light of Joseph Smith's revelations while he was still in Illinois?
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
We are heading into a the vain discussion "My system is better than yours because.......".
I am a DCC user since 2000 and latelay I came to the conclusion that all systems are very good at doing what they were built to do, that is running trains and nowadays all are very easy to use. Every systems have their strong points and not so strong ones. Digitrax used to have a steep learning curve, not so anymore. NCE used to have poor radio reception, not so anymore. I can't comment on Easy DCC and Lenz because no one is using these in my region.
I am a Digitrax user Super Chief at the club Zephyr home, I also run train occasionnally on 3 other NCE club's layouts, I like both systems and to me they are equal as to ease of running trains. I have to say that I never program or set consist with the NCE cab just run trains and have lots of fun.
Jack W.
Well, if the point is to convince everyone to all move to one system, then yes, we will never agree and the exercise is pointless.
But if the point is to discuss pros and cons of systems and why the given poster likes or dislikes a given system, then that's very useful. People can be made aware of each system's strengths and weaknesses that way.
As long as people don't take the discussion of system shortcomings personally, talking about weaknesses in the various DCC systems is very helpful -- especially if it's based on personal experience. There's nothing like picking a given system with both eyes open, knowing exactly what the good, bad, and ugly is for your system choice.
Reality is, there is no flawless system that's the clear *best* for everyone. There's only the best system for you.
Brunton wrote: Stevert wrote: Brunton wrote: Radio issues? What radio issues? Take a look at the NCE Yahoo! group. There is a discussion there about isolating an NCE layout in a Faraday Cage to reduce interference, the cost involved, and whether foil or copper mesh is the better choice. And search on "repeater", "rb02", or "radio fix" in that same group and see how many hits you get.SteveSteve, Besides, if you read the entire thread, you know that the real problem is apparently a Digitrax wireless that's spilling junk signals way over into NCE's bandwidth (1 1/2 MHz away). Why didn't you mention that? But then I guess it's probably NCE's fault for having a sensitive receiver, isn't it?
Besides, if you read the entire thread, you know that the real problem is apparently a Digitrax wireless that's spilling junk signals way over into NCE's bandwidth (1 1/2 MHz away). Why didn't you mention that? But then I guess it's probably NCE's fault for having a sensitive receiver, isn't it?
Is it really that the Digitrax is spilling junk signals? Don't FCC regulations prevent you from marketing something that does that? Maybe the problem is that the NCE receiver, besides being sensitive, lacks selectivity.
By the way, did you search on those keywords and look at those threads? How much is Digitrax involved in "causing" those NCE radio issues?
Anyway, the point of my post was that just because you don't have problems with your NCE wireless, doesn't mean that it can't or doesn't happen.
I think the wireless interference between vendors' systems can be spun if you want to make it sound bad ... Digitrax's bad boy wireless hosed our NCE wireless.
Or, NCE's lousey wireless system toasted our Digitrax wireless!
I think multiple systems from the same vendor will also get interference issues if you get enough layouts all together. How about two dozen layouts at the National Train Show, all using Digitrax wireless? Now who's system you going to blame?
It's like two guys trying to get through the door at the same time and both got there at the same time. Who's the bad guy in that situation? Neither ... it's just the laws of physics. The unlicensed band used by DCC devices means you will get interference by similar devices in close proximity to each other. It's not a bug, it's a feature -- you don't need an FCC license to use your DCC wireless. But also don't operate within 100 yards of another DCC wireless system or you could have problems.
No need to place blame, we just need to be aware of the issue and come up with creative solutions.
We don't want to get into a P***** match here as I have been downloading some of the so called NON problems of NCE for a while. I have over 450 K worth of files of these non problems.
And all of them are surrounding the so called NON radio problem ( and that is not the latest problem of swamping the Digitrax system) that NCE supposedly doesn't have so don't get carried away as this would swamp the system if I uploaded them all at once.
While every system works, some may be easier than others. What the real problem is that so few modelers don't get the right information about correcting a problem and then when they ask on the forums they get so many different (conflicting) answers they usually don't know what to believe.
I just have to shake my head at times due to the wild answers to a simple problem that are given out but as with most things they are worth just what you pay for them!!!
It is really strange how I can show someone in less than a minute how to run a Digitrax system that everyone states is so hard to use.
And as for controlling the slots issue just use the OP switch 36 to clear out the engines left in the system before you get into the Operating session for the night. BUT what would really keep this issue from happening is that the operator of the engine would just dispatch the unit out and the problem goes away. Couldn't be simpler!
BOB H – Clarion, PA
cmrproducts wrote: BUT what would really keep this issue from happening is that the operator of the engine would just dispatch the unit out and the problem goes away. Couldn't be simpler!BOB H – Clarion, PA
BUT what would really keep this issue from happening is that the operator of the engine would just dispatch the unit out and the problem goes away. Couldn't be simpler!
That's easy for you to say. I notice the members of our club have not been invited back since the last time we came. I sure do miss those op sessions.
Now that I have had some surgery done (couldn't stand for long periods of time) I may be able to host an OPs session.
Seems like everywhere I go everyone is asking when the next OPTUD is going to happen!
Soon!
BOB H - Clarion, PA
cmrproducts wrote: ChipNow that I have had some surgery done (couldn't stand for long periods of time) I may be able to host an OPs session.Seems like everywhere I go everyone is asking when the next OPTUD is going to happen!Soon!BOB H - Clarion, PA
Glad to hear it. And I'm glad to hear you're better, althoug I didn't know you were having a problem.
cmrproducts wrote: BUT what would really keep this issue from happening is that the operator of the engine would just dispatch the unit out and the problem goes away. Couldn't be simpler! BOB H - Clarion, PA
Digitrax has a good product line. I just don't like the sometimes arcane (to me) user interface. That's one reason why I finally chose NCE over Digitrax. I won't go into the other main reason - it would start another discussion I'd rather not start.
I wasn't intending to get into a head-butting contest of some sort. I like to hear about genuine issues if someone has them, because that may help me avoid them at some point in the future. If my earlier reply to Stevert was a little strong, I'm sorry - just a little bit. Defense through attack and misrepresentation (which is the way his comment to me read to me - see my earlier reply to him as to why) don't sit well, and I tend to come back strong when it's pointed at me.
What really gets me is when some modelers speak of being so prototypical (sound has to match the exact engine, cars detailed exact, etc.) but when you have a system that replicates the real thing WELL THAT IS DIFFERENT - Do you just jump out of the real engine and jump into another with out setting the brakes and tieing it down, releasing control, etc (dispatching - Digitracks word - not mine but still doing the releasing of the engine).
OH! wait a minute that isn't the way it works in the models just jump from engine to engine. Why try and be prototypical! Pick up the engine on the fly it don't matter if it isn't prototypical unless the one doing it says so!
Yep, sure is one sided isn't it!
Most of you have no idea how a real engine is run! Now I said most not all!!!!
Interesting thoughts, Bob! Which system replicates the real thing? It can't be NCE - my throttles have no Johnson Bar, brake, reverse OR throttle levers! It's certainly missing the plethora of valves in a real steamer! No diesel controller levers as well! If you know of a system that is realistic (not just pushing buttons or turning knobs / thumbwheels), I'd sure like to know!!!
Actually, I wrote a conceptual article (essay, really) about a system that WOULD replicate the real thing with a high degree of fidelity. It was published in Model Railroader in March 1992. It was based on a combination of virtual reality and in-loco cameras, using a computer to composite the two together to immerse the operator in the cab (visually and aurally, and someday maybe even olfactorally). With what's been done with VR and the increasing power of the PC, the first such systems may only be fifteen years or so off.
Here is a company that has had a stab at a DCC system that is more realistic.
https://secure.ztccontrols.co.uk/core/ShowImage.asp?id=50
I don't think ZTC was even mentioned in the thread, but they are a real DCC manufacturer with a different approach.
Mark
While replicating the real engine would be fun (OH for about 10 min) operations is why most probably build a layout.
Now by operations I mean watching the train run between towns. Switching out the cars, etc.
Duplicating all of the functions of an engine (steam or diesel) would be more believable if it would let you experience the actual operation of the engine. Right now there only 3 ways of doing that:
1. The real thing – which I can relate to and has no comparison to any model, ever!
2. A model control system – which for the most part is static (the operator never moves – goes back to the old days of DC control from the control tower.
3. Computer simulators – both home and railroad use for engineers. And again they are static you just set and watch the screen, you really don’t go anywhere.
But with all of them you are alone in the process of operating.
While some modelers enjoy the actual movement of the train (effectively watching from the air) and walking along with the train. Doing switching (which the engineer does not do in real life – the brakeman/conductor do).
So which would one prefer just sitting around working the Johnson bar, turning valves, blowing the horn – or – actually working all of the jobs of a railroad – engineer – brakeman – conductor.
Which model railroading does! – The real thing doesn’t nor does any simulator – You can only do one thing at a time!
I would prefer the model aspect!
I have been and done the other!
Now using a keypad to control all of the engine functions goes back to – Am I running the engine or am I model railroading (as in doing all of the various things that a railroad does)
If I am running the engine then that is all I do, not all of the others. If you try and do the others then you are going to spend a lot of time pretending you are one or the other. I don’t need to be all that accurate – because I only have a model that will never replicate the real thing as it is a scaled down thing.
The only way to try and duplicate the real thing is to work the real thing. Which is what most modelers wish they could do. So either you are an engineer or you are a conductor because as you try to get more accurate your focus gets narrower and narrower and you soon lose site of the overall fun of the modeling.
This is what I see with those that get into the super accurate cars or engines – the other parts of the layout begin to suffer and are lacking. While I never will get into the super accurate stuff (as I have way too much to build) I am going to have fun doing what I do.
If I have to be accurate I just go out and hop up on the real thing and run it!
I fail to see how this is not the case with Digitrax as well. ALL the manuals start off with a very simple explanation that says connect these two wires to your track, cinnect the throttle to this socket, and press the following keys to start running a train. Other than system-specific names for the terminals and buttons on the throttle, it reads exactly like the first pages of the NCE manual. Where it diverges is AFTER the basic getting started part, the Digitrax manuals, well, the Super EMpire Builder and Super Chief manuals anyway, diverge into a detailed button by button explanation of what every button on the DT400 does. Useful and required information if you want to do more than just run trains, but perhaps overwhelming. A better organization would be by function rather than just list every button - ie, these are the buttons you press to program a CV value, these are the buttons you press to create and break up consists. This would eliminate paging back and forth through that section.
Yes, the Digitrax manuals could stand some improvement, but the basic "I've never used one of these before" section is pretty much identical to the others.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Brunton wrote: Interesting thoughts, Bob! Which system replicates the real thing? It can't be NCE - my throttles have no Johnson Bar, brake, reverse OR throttle levers! It's certainly missing the plethora of valves in a real steamer! No diesel controller levers as well! If you know of a system that is realistic (not just pushing buttons or turning knobs / thumbwheels), I'd sure like to know!!!Actually, I wrote a conceptual article (essay, really) about a system that WOULD replicate the real thing with a high degree of fidelity. It was published in Model Railroader in March 1992. It was based on a combination of virtual reality and in-loco cameras, using a computer to composite the two together to immerse the operator in the cab (visually and aurally, and someday maybe even olfactorally). With what's been done with VR and the increasing power of the PC, the first such systems may only be fifteen years or so off.
I remember that one - have the issue, actually. i think the visual aspect of it is available now, although perhaps not un HO and smaller unless you have megasbucks for cameras the view through fiber optics. The control side -well if you model modern diesels with the desk-type controls, you can do it. No real reason you couldn't build up a steam loco mockup, but the feedback might be a bit complicated. Oh yeah - you can do first gen diesels too - rememebr the article about the guy who build a mock up F unit cab in his basement?
As for the radio issues at shows - consider that if no one is actively pressing a function button, changing speed, or changing direction, the Digitrax system isn't sending ANY signal, not even a carrier - it is silent.
cmrproducts wrote:Mark ...If I have to be accurate I just go out and hop up on the real thing and run it!BOB H – Clarion, PA
...
The concept of the virtual reality cab / real layout compositing would require a very sophisticated control system and tremendous computing power to work properly. I would think that it would be very easy to run models in the "traditional" sense (using a hand-held throttle) if you can be electronically placed in the virtual cab as the engineer via the VR headset and tactile sensing / input gloves.
Some groups operate with two-man crews when they have enough people - engineers and conductors/brakemen I think is how duties are usually apportioned (correct me if I'm wrong). Imagine that you're the engineer part of the team - you basically sit in a chair in the corner, where crude physical loco control mock-ups are mounted in the appropriate locations. You slip on your sensor gloves and drop the VR headset (with stereo headphones and dual retina projectors) onto your head, and suddenly you're in the cab of the loco you're taking out on the layout, with the cab and sounds computer generated (except the conductor's - your crewmates - voice, which also comes over the headphones, electronically matched to the position of your head so that his voice comes from the right direction), and the view out the windows is the view of the layout from the model cab camera. You are now immersed in the composited simulation, and for all intents and purposes are scale size, running the locomotive in a fully prototypical manner (except for the temperature and smells in the cab, maybe).
To me, that possibility is exciting (especially since I'll probably never get the chance to run the real thing)! But maybe I'm just a little weirder than your typical model railroader...
On the other hand, in fifteen or twenty years we may see the first (and probably very expensive) such systems beginning to appear. Maybe DCC will someday be enhanced with what we might call VRC - Virtual Reality Control. If so, I hope I'm still around to see it!
BLUELINE DECODER PROGRAMMING WOES
If you have purchased one of Broadway Limited's new BlueLine series locos and are trying to run it on DCC, then you have learned the loco only comes with a sound decoder and that you need to add a *second* decoder to the loco to control the motor.
BLI took this route to economize on the loco price, saving the cost of a motor decoder. The problem is now you have two decoders in one loco and the CVs overlap just a bit -- so you can't independently set the CV values in one decoder without also setting that same CV in the other decoder -- unless you use some sort of decoder locking technique.
The NMRA came up with a scheme using CV15 and CV16 to implement "decoder locking". First, you need to have only one decoder in the loco to start with (the sound decoder in this case), then you set CV16 to some number like 2 (the recommended standard "unlock" number for a sound decoder). Then you set CV15 to the same value (a 2) and that unlocks the decoder. Once you're done, you set CV15 to some other number, like zero, and that locks the decoder again.
On a locked decoder, the only CVs you can set are CV1 (the short address) and CV15 (the unlock code). All other CVs, including CV8 for decoder reset, are locked and cannot be changed.
Next, you put the motor decoder in, and set CV16 to 1 (the recommended unlock number for a motor decoder). Since the sound decoder is now locked, the 1 you put into CV16 only goes to the motor decoder, so you're good. Finally, you set CV15 to 1. This will set CV15 to 1 in both decoders (remember CV15 is one of the two CVs you can still change in a locked decoder).
Since CV16 is 2 in the sound decoder, CV15 (which is 1) does not match CV16 which is 2, so the sound decoder remains locked. However, CV16 in the motor decoder is 1, so setting CV15 to 1 unlocks the motor decoder and you can program away to your hearts content.
Decoders shipped from the factory have a zero in CV15 and CV16, which means the decoder comes unlocked -- since CV15 and CV16 match (they're both zero).
There is one big problem with this whole scheme, however. You can't program CV19 in a locked decoder, so making your sound decoder part of an advanced decoder consist with your command station doesn't work! The sound decoder is locked, so the sounds won't respond to your consist. Yet if you unlock both decoders, you can quickly have a mess on your hands with the CVs that overlap.
There is a way out of this mess -- and that's to forget using the whole less-than-adequate CV15/CV16 locking scheme and to use a trick that I'll describe in my next post.
jfugate wrote: ...and that's to forget using the whole less-than-adequate CV15/CV16 locking scheme and to use a trick that I'll describe in my next post.
The trick to me is to use different short addresses. Have the motor decoder with an address of 03 and the sound decoder an address of 04 but assign them both the same long address. You need to assign the different addresses before placing the two decoders together in the one loco. When you need to program one decoder or the other (using 'on the main' programming - not programming track) simply program cv29 to use the short address - then each decoder has a seperate address. When you're done simply program cv29 in each decoder back to using the long address. This will work provided that no other locos are also set with 03 / 04 as their current address.
I've used this method with a soundtrax DSX / NCE motor decoder combo in the past with success so it should work for the Bluelines...
Regards
Tim