FORUM CLINIC: Picking the best DCC system

[Anonymous]

I thought this thread was about picking the best DCC system, a lot of distractions here.

Down to business

I am 61 (next week), in electronics 43 years, computers 42 years.

Model rr as a kid, lionel then HO, liked to make the trains run. Not a serious operational RR guy, I like to build. Had a 6 X 8 dog leg in 78 and nothing since. Grew up in Norman Oklahoma near the tracks and saw the Texas Chief about every day, rode the Doodlebug in the 40's before I started school. Have a G scale ATSF switcher Christmas train the last 7 years, not out of the box in 5 years. Been running 2 weeks, already.

Came back to the hobby two weeks ago when I saw the BLI ATSF 4-8-4, not true, when I "heard" the Northern, I got a woodie! Have a Proto 2000 e6a&B war bonnet too. Building the atlas Midland Central layout, framed and 1/2 the planking down. ETA to run trains on the table by Thanksgiving? perhaps too optimistic.

I purchased a Lenz due to LHS influence.

Wanted to go directly to Computer so I bought Set-LI and LH100 separately

Throttles

LH100

Pro
-Does practically everything

Con
-Should have put the LH90 knob on it. (Must have been a techie that designed it.)
-Has a cord which is tangled at the moment
-Klutzy complicated, not intuitive
-Ergonomic -- NOT
-Clumbsy to move from train A to B
-EXPENSIVE, wow, way too expensive! ! ! ! I have buyers remorse on that one.
-No obvious single "stop the *** before it runs off the desk!" button (only the operating train I mean)
-Panic stop kills the layout and resumes as things were
-Rating, no better than a C from my perspective and I am being generous
-Buttons not always responsive

KAM Engine Commander (Personal Computer/CE handheld)

Pro
- allows multiple cabs, one for each operating engine on the screen, easy to switch from 12 to 3753
- intuitive operation (more so than the LH100 anyway)
- networked, can run from any TCPIP capable workstation
- Web capable so I can run my train(s) when I am in Cleveland next week on business.
- can be wireless, I run from a tablet PC or my laptop
- says it will integrate with the panel software, we'll see
- Less expensive than LH-90 or LH-100 if you don't have to buy the PC hardware

Con
-Complicated to set up if you are not familiar with Serial Ports
-If you have no PC that cost is quite high, but then I got ALL that stuff already!

Rating "B+" (By the way, I just found out while writing this that I have a DOWN level version of the KAM product, the newer version has improvements!)

Lets keep this focused on topic, not interested in pictures of your sound system or your guitar.

Diligentman

Colorado, USA, home of the braves, yankees and the dodgers,

[jfugate]

TOPIC THIS POST: Continuing to rank the systems - Ease of use - NCE

Next we take a look at ease-of-use. Rather than just tell you what I think, I'm going give you a chance to judge for yourself. I'm going to take each system and pick a common, yet less-than-trivial task and we'll see how each system has you do it. Along the way, I will post my comments so you can see my thoughts based on 12+ years of using several DCC systems, as well as my professional opinion as a web software designer (since I spend a lot of time trying to make web sites easy to use).

We'll take the systems one at a time. I'm going to focus on the "big four" systems, and ignore Bachmann, Atlas, and MRC systems because they lack some key long term expansion features (namely no computer interface) which limits their expansion of things like easier decoder programming using the free software DecoderPro. I'm also ignoring Zimo since even the basic system is around $1000 which prices it out of range for many modelers.

The big four are:

- NCE
- EasyDCC
- Digitrax
- Lenz

This post, we'll look at the NCE Procab system. Here's the NCE command station, which is presented as a handheld that is mobile, and is available either as a tethered plug in or wireless:


(Click for a larger image: http://mymemoirs.net/model-trains/images/post_photos/DCC-compare/NCE/Procab.gif )

THE EASE-OF-USE TEST: MAKING A LOCO CONSIST
A common task you will do on your layout, especially if you run diesels, is create sets of units that run together, which called "making a consist" in DCC terms. This task works well as a test task to check out a DCC system's ease of use.

There are two basic kinds of consists in DCC: decoder-based consists and command station-based consists.

Command station based consists were the original kind of consist and the onus is on the command station to remember what locos are in the consist, what direction they are facing, and to send each loco in the consist the same commands so the locos run together as a unit.

Decoder based consists are newer and they rely on the decoder to know it's part of a consist and to run in unison with another decoder that's also in the consist.

Each type of consist has its advantages and disadvantages and our purpose here is not to spend a lot of time discussing the pros and cons of various kinds of consisting. Instead, we will simply look at how you make a command station-based consist with each system, and rank them as to ease of use.

NCE: Setting up a consist
The first thing I look for in a system's ease of use is to see how far I can get without refering to the manual, and to see if the system steps me through the process. So I want to set up a consist with an NCE system -- where do I start? If I look at the command handheld, I notice the consist section down near the bottom:



Not bad, looks like exactly where I start. Turns out this section does *exactly* what you would expect it does. From the NCE manual:

CONSIST SETUP GROUP
Supports not only advanced decoders that respond to the Extended Packet Format but also the older entry-level decoders. For complete operating instructions on consist makeup read the section on SETTING UP A CONSIST in the Power Pro Reference Manual.

SETUP
Starts the procedure for either creating an advanced or old style (some call it Universal) consist.

CLEAR
Disbands (breaks up) a consist.

ADD LOCO
Adds a locomotive to a consist.

DELETE LOCO
Drops a locomotive from a consist.

NCE prefers advanced (decoder-based) consists, as opposed to an "old style" (command station-based) consist. However, you can set up either type of consist. We'll take a look at the old style consist.


STEPS FOR CREATING A CONSIST WITH NCE
So let's look at the steps to create an old-style consist.

1. Press the Consist - Setup button. The following text displays on the LCD.



2. Press 1 to setup an old style consist. You can have a maximum of 4 locos in an old style consist. The system asks for a lead loco number.

3. Enter the lead loco number, then press ENTER. This number becomes the consist number.

4. The entered loco defaults to forward (F). The system displays the loco's direction and says that to change the loco's direction, press the DIRECTION key.

5. Press ADD for each loco you want to ADD, up to a maximum of 4 locos.

NOTE: You can also include a decoder-consist as any one of the four locos. This allows you to do lots of powerful nested consisting tricks.

CONCLUSIONS:
NCE gets a solid A for ease-of-use. The buttons are well labeled, their function is obvious, and the system steps you through the setup process nicely. No surprises and little need to refer back to the manual once you understand the basics of DCC consisting.


TOPIC NEXT POST: Continuing to rank the systems - Ease of use - EasyDCC

[tstage]

Good stuff, Joe! [tup] Keep it up...

Tom

[robengland]

You're on the right track Joe - keep em coming!! This is what MR should have done in their recent evaluation. It was so wishy washy no-one could conclude anything after reading it

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate


Next we take a look at ease-of-use.

.....

A very thorough but "user-friendly" approach, Joe!
YOU get two gold stars - one for clarity and one for usefulness. [:o)]

Seriously, thanks for taking the time to do this for all of us.[:)]

[jxtrrx]

Joe, Thanks for the clinic. You used a phrase I don't know the meaning of. What is "Extended Packet Format ?"

[jfugate]

TOPIC THIS POST: Continuing to rank the systems - Ease of use - EasyDCC

Now let's consider the EasyDCC system and its ease of use.

The EasyDCC command station is a stationary panel rather than a mobile handset. Originally, before the notion of programming on the main became popular, programming on a stationary programming track was how you did decoder setup, so a stationary panel made sense. These days as programming on the main becomes ever more popular, having a stationary command panel as part of a DCC system is becoming a bit dated unless your layout is very small (under 50 square feet).

Here's the EasyDCC command panel, which includes two throttles.


(click to enlarge)

The EasyDCC system makes the buttons do double duty, so until you see how the buttons work, you may not "get it". The first label is for the first press of a button. The second label below the first is for any follow-on press of a button.

For example, to show the speed steps setting for a loco, you press the SHOW button (just to the left of the "1" button), then you press the "6" button, because the second label on the button - #STEPS - is now in effect. It takes just a bit to get the hang of it, but once you do get it, using the two step button labels becomes fairly natural.


THE EASE-OF-USE TEST: MAKING A LOCO CONSIST
EasyDCC considers command station consists to be the preferred kind of consist, so they call this type of consist a "Standard Consist" in their manual. EasyDCC frowns on decoder-based consists, and calls them something you "might want to experiment with" in their documentation.

So let's look at setting up a command station based consist in EasyDCC.

EasyDCC: Setting up a consist
Again, the first thing I look for is for some obvious way to make a consist without referring to the manual. EasyDCC has a button down in the lower left part of the key pad labeled "SETUP/ASSIGN - CONSIST", so that's where I assume I need to start.



In fact, this is correct. By pressing this button EasyDCC prompts me to setup a consist.

STEPS FOR CREATING A CONSIST WITH EASYDCC
Here are the steps to create a standard consist.

1. Press the SETUP/ASSIGN button. EasyDCC displays: Setup / Assign what?

2. Press the CONSIST second action button (happens to be the same button as the SETUP / ASSIGN button). EasyDCC displays: Setup Consist - Consist #____?

3. Type in the number of the lead loco (say 4408), which also becomes the consist number. EasyDCC displays: Cons# 4408: 1=Add 2=Remove 3=Kill

4. To add another loco, type 1, then type the loco address (like 4333). EasyDCC displays: Add loco 4333, Press R or N

(EasyDCC is asking which way the loco is facing, so you press the R or N accessory button to indicate which way the loco is facing. If Forward, press N for normal -- if backwards press R for reversed.)

NOTE: To make an decoder-based consist, EasyDCC has you press SETUP - Y, which is not at all obvious and requires studying the manual to find this out. EasyDCC clearly does not prefer decoder-based consisting, and goes out of its way to make it hard to even figure out how to do it.

CONCLUSIONS
EasyDCC gets a B for ease-of-use. Once you get the hang of the two-step double duty nature of the buttons, which button you need to press is fairly obvious. The system steps you through what to type clearly and in a helpful manner, with no use of the manual necessary.

EasyDCC's disdain of decoder-based consisting made sense in the early days of DCC but is now somewhat dated. Their deliberate attempt to make the command sequence less than obvious was a heavy-handed move on the part of the system developers and should be rethought. If EasyDCC had not burried the decoder based consisting command, they would have gotten a B+ for ease of use.

TOPIC NEXT POST: Continuing to rank the systems - Ease of use - Digitrax

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jxtrrx

Joe, Thanks for the clinic. You used a phrase I don't know the meaning of. What is "Extended Packet Format ?"

jx:

This is DCC technojargon for advanced decoder features like consisting and 4 digit addressing. It was a big deal in the early days of DCC but now almost all decoders do extended packet format, so it's practically meaningless today as a decoder distinction. It only applies to older decoders (1990's models).

[CrazyDiamond]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate



I don't have the actual sales numbers, but I can get a sense from talking with modelers and from looking at the size of the Yahoo support forums gives us some idea of who owns what systems. Here's the size of the various support forums:
[code]
Digitrax 5676
NCE 2176
Lenz 1687
MRC 519
EasyDCC 455
Zimo 308[/code]
This does not necessarily mean Digitrax is the best system, or that Zimo is the worst system ... but at least you can see Digitrax does a very good job marketing and hence is well known, and to a certain degree it also shows how long the various manufacturer's systems have been on the market. For instance, the first DCC systems to market in 1993 were Digitrax and Lenz, and MRC is the most recent entry into the DCC market.

And if I want to be cynical, the membership numbers on a support forum *could* be construed to give some indication of how much support a system needs. I don't think that's necessarily true, but it could be a factor in driving at least some of the membership numbers you see on the support forums.


Does the LHS carry it?
Again based on the size of the support forums, if your local hobby shop carries a system, it will most likely be Digitrax or NCE. I also suspect the low-end systems from MRC and Bachmann will also likely be something you find at your LHS because the entry price is so low.

EasyDCC is only available via mailorder direct from the manufacturer, so it's one system you will never find at your LHS. Zimo is also primarily available overseas, so you won't see it much in the US.

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

[I'm also ignoring Zimo since even the basic system is around $1000 which prices it out of range for many modelers.

I have seen many posts in this forum that Zimo is more expensive, some seem to indicate that it is significantly more expensive. Zimo could be a way better system than any of the rest, but due to 'sticker shock' the majority of the market ends up buying something else. Are you not dealing Zimo a bad card by not reviewing them? You're topic is "Picking the best DCC system", and while "best" means different things to different people. the "best" is often the more expensive gear, and many of us as a result settle for second best because of budget and other priorities. I think you should cover Zimo....I for one would be very interested in reading your review of it.

Note: I'm not gonna post in this thread anymore, cause I do not own a DCC yet, but I did want to 'highlight' that point. BTW, I am really really enjoying this thread....thank you.

[Tom Bryant_MR]

Great! Back on-line. Thanks Joe.

[tstage]

Joe,

I'm really liking this thread. Just a suggestion and to keep in line with the previous thread: How would you rank gold and silver star ratings? A and B? I like the new designation but the subtleties of old A, A-, B+, B, etc. rating system we were using allowed for better definition. I guess I just want to be consistent so that comparing each of the individual threads is easier.

Maybe a 1 through 10 rating might work, as well.

Tom

[jfugate]

Okay, the letter grade is noted and I will change the posting so far to conform to that approach, with plus and minus also an option.

[jfugate]

To Crazy:

I may circle back around and take a look at Zimo later. Those who own the system call it the "cadillac" system, so it might be interesting to look at it closer and see if we agree. But it is both spendy and a mostly foreign only system (there is a Canadian distributor, however), so it looks destined to be a runner -up "dark horse" system for a long, long time.

[tstage]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate
I may circle back around and take a look at Zimo later. Those who own the system call it the "cadillac" system, so it might be interesting to look at it closer and see if we agree. But it is both spendy and a mostly foreign only system (there is a Canadian distributor, however), so it looks destined to be a runner -up "dark horse" system for a long, long time.

Joe,

Even so, I would enjoy hearing about the Zimo system anyway - i.e. if it's feasible for you. I still can't rationize the several hundred $$$ more on the price of the "Cadillac", when all I can afford to drive is a Corolla - figuratively AND literally!

Tom

[jfugate]

TOPIC THIS POST: Continuing to rank the systems - Ease of use - Digitrax

In this post we consider the Digitrax system and its ease of use.

We'll use the Zephyr because it's an aggresively priced starter system that many people will consider as their first entry into DCC. The Zephyr is a stationary panel rather than a mobile handset. Since programming on the main is becoming ever more popular, having a stationary command panel as part of a DCC system is becoming a bit dated unless your layout is very small (under 50 square feet). Fortunately, Digitrax expansion options for the Zephyr include adding mobile command station units later.

Here's the Digitrax Zephyr, which has a single throttle, not unlike a standard trainset powerpack.


(click to enlarge)

Digitrax uses what we call in the computer software interface design business an "object - action" paradigm for it's interface. The other two systems reviewed so far (NCE and EasyDCC) use an action - object paradigm.

In action - object, you first select your action (press a button), then you indicate what object (what loco) you want to do that action on. With Digitrax's object - action approach, you first pick the object (what loco), then you indicate the action.

When I'm staring at a controller with buttons on it, I find the action - object paradigm a little easier to do and more obvious. With object - action, I have to remember to pick one or more locos first. If I just press a button first, the system may complain that I can't do that action to that object because I haven't properly selected something first. This means I *have* to read the manual first since it isn't exactly obvious when you first look at the system.


THE EASE-OF-USE TEST: MAKING A LOCO CONSIST
Digitrax considers command station consists to be the *only* kind of consist you can make with the Zephyr. They call this type of consist a "Universal Consist" in their manual. You're on your own if you want to make a decoder based consist. You'll have to look up the CV19 rules in the decoder documentation if you want to make a decoder consist because the Zephyr manual doesn't even go into decoder consists at all.

So let's look at setting up a command station based consist in the Digitrax Zephyr.

Digitrax: Setting up a consist
I first look for some obvious way to make a consist without referring to the manual. Nothing immediately jumps out at me on the Zephyr panel that says consist ... oh, wait! Here's a button labeled MU -- I wonder if they mean "multiple unit" since that's what the prototype calls diesel lashups? Hmmm ...



After checking the Digitrax Zephyr manual, I find out that's exactly what MU means. It's what is normally called in DCC parlance a "consist."

STEPS FOR CREATING A CONSIST WITH DIGITRAX
Here are the steps to create a universal consist.

1. Make sure you already have the first loco in the consist selected.

2. Select the second loco you want to add to the consist and run it the proper direction you want it to go in the consist so both locomotives are running the same direction.

3. Go back and select the first (or lead) loco of the consist.

4. Press the MU key. The MU dot at the top of the display starts to blink, indicating you are MU'ing locos.

5. Enter in the other loco number you want to add to the consist (the second loco you previously ran) . Press the t + key to add the loco to the consist.

Digitrax gets its consist direction info from the direction info you last gave it when you ran that locomotive. So you *need* to select and run any locos you want to consist first *before* you start trying to consist them together with the command station if you want some say over the direction they run when consisted, so they all run the same direction no matter which way they are facing.

NOTE: The Digitrax Zephyr manual makes no mention of how to create a decoder-based consist so you're on your own -- good luck!

CONCLUSIONS
Digitrax gets a C for ease-of-use. Once you realize they use the object - action paradigm (which you learn by reading the manual), doing the commands are mostly straighforward. However, the command display does little to step you through the process ... you are just supposed to "know" what you need to do next. Add to the lack of prompting the fact Digitrax tends to throw in a cryptic key stroke now and then -- like the t + key to add a loco. Using the + key makes sense once you read the instructions, but I would not know that for complete certainty without the manual.

With Digitrax, you'll need to keep the manual handy, or write up a set of shorthand notes for yourself on what key sequences you'll need for things. This is especially true for any tasks you don't do all the time. Digitrax used to be far more cryptic in their use of buttons to do commands, but in recent years their newer systems like the Zephyr have improved their ease-of-use quite a bit.

However, ease-of-use is one of Digitrax's weaker points and continues to be less-than-stellar, though clearly improved over their earlier product offerings. The lack of any provision for decoder based consists in the interface or manual is a real oversight, and cost them a C+ rating.

TOPIC NEXT POST: Continuing to rank the systems - Ease of use - Lenz

[chateauricher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate
We'll take the systems one at a time. I'm going to focus on the "big four" systems, and ignore Bachmann, Atlas, and MRC systems because they lack some key long term expansion features (namely no computer interface) which limits their expansion of things like easier decoder programming using the free software DecoderPro.

I am really disappointed you are going to ignore Bachmann, Atlas and MRC systems.[V]

While comupter interface may be what some people look for, some of us don't care to have such an option. Not all of us want a system with all of the frills.

Also, many of us who are about to dive into DCC for the first time on a limited budget would love to know more about the more basic and affordable systems such as Bachmann and Atlas.

If you're going to compare and contrast DCC systems, do so for all of them; not just a select few chosen arbitrarily.

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
I am really disappointed you are going to ignore Bachmann, Atlas and MRC systems.[V]

While comupter interface may be what some people look for, some of us don't care to have such an option. Not all of us want a system with all of the frills.

If you're going to compare and contrast DCC systems, do so for all of them; not just a select few chosen arbitrarily.

The choice is not exactly arbitrary ... there's the lack of computer interface issue, and then there's the size of the support forums, if you recall, from an earlier post:[code]
Digitrax 5676
NCE 2176
Lenz 1687
MRC 519
EasyDCC 455
Zimo 308
Bachmann 200
Atlas [none][/code]

NOTE: Atlas has no support forum on Yahoo groups, presumably because they provide direct support on the Atlas forum.

These in-depth reviews are time consuming to do so I elected to focus on the more popular systems. The popular systems are such because they are generally the more robust models.

With the low end systems, Bachmann is very limited, and MRC and Atlas are basically a wash. Atlas has the slight advantage it also uses the Lenz x-bus, so at least your layout will be wired for Lenz if you were to decide to upgrade.

Otherwise, for the low end systems, go with the cheapest you can find between the MRC Prodigy Advance or the Atlas Commander. If you ever expand to a layout much beyond 100 square feet and running more than two trains, you'll want to consider scrapping your low-end system and replacing it with one of the big four, or if you are really loaded, with Zimo.

The low end systems do fill a niche in the market, making DCC more affordable for more people. But remember you tend to get what you pay for. These cheaper really low end systems can be less robust in their construction, feeling more like a train set component than like a piece of fine electronic equipment.

[chateauricher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate
The choice is not exactly arbitrary ... there's the lack of computer interface issue, and then there's the size of the support forums, if you recall, from an earlier post:
Digitrax 5676
NCE 2176
Lenz 1687
MRC 519
EasyDCC 455
Zimo 308
Bachmann 200
Atlas [none]
NOTE: Atlas has no support forum on Yahoo groups, presumably because they provide direct support on the Atlas forum.

I don't see what a forum on Yahoo groups has to to with the quality of anything. Hence my claim of arbitrary selection of your "big four."

QUOTE: These in-depth reviews are time consuming to do so I elected to focus on the more popular systems. The popular systems are such because they are generally the more robust models.

Yes, I do realise that these reviews take time. And for that I, and the rest of the forum members reading this topic, am grateful that you are taking the time to do them.

However, as in the case with Yahoo groups, what does popularity have to do with quality ? VHS won out over Beta, not because it was a better quality, but because it had better marketing (ie: was more popular).

QUOTE: With the low end systems, Bachmann is very limited, and MRC and Atlas are basically a wash. Atlas has the slight advantage it also uses the Lenz x-bus, so at least your layout will be wired for Lenz if you were to decide to upgrade.

Can you offer evidence to support your assertions so we may come to our own conclusions regarding Bachman, MRC and Atlas ? That's all I'm asking for.

I'm told by DCC "experts" on this forum one thing about Atlas. Then I'm told contradicting information when I seek advice from my LHS. I've been told that some of the "big four" force you to buy a new system whenever they issue a newer version of their software (to correct bugs and glitches); but that Atlas and Bachman will install new versions free of charge (all you need to do is mail it in). While it is true that Atlas's basic system has limited power, additonal power boosters are available.

So, I am very confused. Who do I believe ? The owners of my LHS (a couple) not only sell trains and accessories; they also design and build custom layouts. They are both very friendly and have been an invaluable font of information and suggestions. The service they offer, both pre- and post-sale is unequaled. They have shown me the owner's manuals for different DCC systems; but have never pushed me in any direction. Owner's manuals for some of the "big four" are nearly encyclopedic !!!

So, Joe, please include these lower end systems in your analysis. You just may well convince people to avoid them like the plague. But don't just dismiss them out of hand as a "wash" without giving them the same analysis you give to the "big four."

[jfugate]

Timothy:

I can go back and evaluate the really low end systems too if people insist, but it is going to drag out this clinic a lot longer because it will take me two-three days to prepare each system evaluation. If anyone's in a hurry, it's going to take more time if I review more systems. I plan to review the Zimo system, since it's the cadillac according to its marketing materials, and it would be interesting to see if there's anything to that claim.

Also with the big four, I've actually *used* those systems -- and heck, I've *owned* two of them in 12 years of using DCC. With the low end systems, I've never used them (too new or too wimpy for the crowd I run with) -- so my evaluation will be more conjecture from studying manuals and less experience based. Just so you know.

[jfugate]

BONUS POST: System updates
I can only speak for the Lenz and EasyDCC systems regarding system updates, since I have owned both systems. I owned Lenz for 7 years and then got an EasyDCC system 5 years ago because I wanted the best wireless throttles and at the time EasyDCC was it.

Lenz did two system upgrades in the time I owned the system. The first one was essentially "free", I only had to pay $35 for shipping and handling both ways since Lenz did the upgrade for me. I considered it a bargain. The second upgrade was more costly and I elected to not do it. Instead I changed systems to get one with up-to-date wireless capabilities.

EasyDCC has done 3 upgrades in the time I've owned the system, one of which was free for the asking. The other two charged a nominal fee, again, like $25 - $35 per upgrade. EasyDCC gives you detailed instructions so you can open up the system and replace the chips yourself (they are in sockets, so they're easy to replace). EasyDCC says on the instructions that following the instructions and opening up the system to do your own upgrade *does not* void the system warranty.

The system upgrades have all been very appreciated, adding lots of new and interesting capabilities to each system. I felt like I had invested wisely in a system that would stay up-to-date, thanks to the vendor offering me these great upgrades at nominal prices.

At no time did I ever get the idea I was being "gouged" or "fleeced" for more money by either of these vendors. I felt the upgrades were very affordable and a great way to keep my system up-to-date.

I encourage others (owners of NCE, Digitrax, etc) who have received system updates to share their experiences on here.

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

I encourage others (owners of NCE, Digitrax, etc) who have received system updates to share their experiences on here.

Shortly after I bought my NCE system they published a software upgrade. They provided a new chip which the system owner installed. Pretty similar to EasyDCC's approach, it sounds like. The cost was in the neighborhood of $20.

An aside:

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher

VHS won out over Beta, not because it was a better quality, but because it had better marketing (ie: was more popular).

VHS won out over the higher-quality Beta because Sony refused to license anyone else to make Beta VCRs for a long time, whereas the developer of VHS (JVC, I believe it was, but I'm not totally sure I remember it right) basically gave away manufacturing licenses for a song from the very beginning.

[Anonymous]

Like the *** Clark "American Bandstand" Rate the records, all these grading systems are subjective to the reviewer. "Doesn't have a good beat, can't dance to it, and I don't like the lyrics, I'll give it a 97" ( on a scale of 100, someone afraid of being politically incorrect, long before it became politic?) Keep it consistent!
The MR article also gives some creedance to your selection of systems to review. The list of manufacturers includes the address of Atlas, but it does not appear in the article, or the comparison chartwhich covers 13 "systems" out of the 21 manufacturers listed.
I for one would like to thank you for taking this task on for those of us who would appreciate your efforts in providing a reasonable yardstick for comparing systems that we like not what the "Jones" have, or the lovely old couple at the LHS have been selling for years and are familiar with and can explain to their custom built layout buyers. I would prefer to make a decision on features, layout and performance than on what everyone in the neighborhood may have "settled" for four or five years ago.
IMHO,Joe, you have assumed a leadership role in taking on this clinic,a tempest in a tea cup, and have given us all an insight into some of the areas omitted in the review that was published. It would be efreshing to see more positive input than "whining" about things not even covered by the original article.
Keep up the excellent work, and again thank you for your efforts in our behalf.
Will

[jfugate]

Will:

You're welcome! Doing this kind of system review takes a lot of time per system, but rather than whine about the MR article (which was fine as far as it went, I thought), I figured I would demonstrate how I think a good DCC system review could be done.

Become a part of the solution, so to speak.

Glad to hear people are finding this info helpful. I know if we get beyond the hype and actually take a peek at how each system does things, the differences become pretty clear. It's also easier to look at an example and when you like what you see, go with that.

[CraigN]

Keep up the great work Joe!

I like how you put in the images so I can see what you're talking about.

Thanks,
Craig

[aluesch]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

BONUS POST: System updates


I encourage others (owners of NCE, Digitrax, etc) who have received system updates to share their experiences on here.

While my comment may be too biased for some of you, I do own and operate ZIMO for over 15 years on my own layout.
ZIMO owners can update their command station, cabs and decoders via Internet themselves, at no charge. No need to open up anything to replace an EPROM. Decoders don't have to be removed from the loco either, it's done right on the track.
Updates are noumerous as you can check out yourself on the ZIMO web site (follow the "Update" link) http://w3.zimo.at/web2003/index2E.htm

Regards,
Art
Zimo Agency of North America
http://www.mrsonline.net/

[CrazyDiamond]

Joe,

Thank you for this topic....I am so new to this hobby and have learned lots in the past week or two....and this thread has also helped me immensly.

Keep it up and looking forward to your Zimo comments.

Cheers!!

[Anonymous]

Joe,

Keep your clinic focused on the big four (maybe with the addition of Zimo). While there is a market for the lower end systems I believe that you are correct in your assertion that it is an apples to oranges comparison. Perhaps the lower end systems should get their own clinic at a later date????

To those looking at lower end systems, look at what the big guys offer and evaluate your intended purchase on those criteria. I.E. when you know what is available at the top off the line, you can choose the lower end system that has the features you prefer or perhaps postpone the purchase until you can afford a system that has more features.

[kansaspacific1]

bump

[jfugate]

I expect to post the Lenz eval today ...

[Anonymous]

Exactly. That's why I haven't posted here again. If you've had it for two years, it's already way obsolete in the world of electronics. I've had my DIGITRAX ZEPHYR right at six months, and have already experienced a LOT of issues AND resolutions including some great customer service that no one will hear about here, because of the limitations put in this thread.

QUOTE: Originally posted by mbvan5

If you have two years experience with the system, it's already old, Whats the best in newer systems is what we are asking