Simon, I will only add to what you just wrote that all Digitrax DT throttles are two complete throttles in one handheld. Therefore it is possible to control two trains simultaneously, something I can't do with my Power Cab or with a PH Pro system. The recall button on NCE will let you control more than one train but one at a time not simultaneously.
I am a Digitrax Super Chief user at my local club, a NCE user on a huge PH Pro powered system. I also own a Digitrax Zephyr for my home modules and I own a NCE Power Cab that I use as a Pro Cab on the PH Pro layout.
For my home needs I prefer the Zephyr because it is much more powerful then the Power Cab, more cabs are supported right out of the box, 2.5 amp. versus 1.7 for the power cab etc.
Jack W.
For what it is worth, I have a Zephyr as my command station, a DT400 and a UT4 throttle, so one of each of the current production model Digitrax throttles. Indeed there are some subtle differences between them, however the basic method of operation is very very similar as one would expect. Myself, and my 8 and 10 year old boys have no problem operating these throttles and swapping back and forth between them. We also periodically run trains on a large layout with a selection of older DT100's thrown in for good measure and again, not an issue. I can not see how these minor issues could seriously detract from anyone's enjoyment of running a Digitrax system? We are talking about a learning curve here of less than 1 minute. So I grant you the point that there are differences, but you are really splitting hairs here on a minor issue.
Joe, I also take slight issue with the statement that the PowerCab has the best upgrade path. You have even mentioned yourself that if you take the logical upgrade path of PowerCab-PowerCab + Smartbooster then to Powerhouse Pro that you end up with a boat anchor for a Smartbooster. In addition you end up with useless ancillary parts, and for that matter the 1.7amp booster circuit that came with the PowerCab in the first place. I know that you were driving at the point about duplex v simplex radio, but I don't think it is a fair sweeping statement to cover all aspects of the upgrade path.
The Zephyr on the other hand has a very nice upgrade path where you are not left with a lot of redundant parts. I have added a 5A booster to my layout and still have the 2.5A booster of the Z powering a second power district. With the ability to add radio, detection and signalling one could make an argument that Digitrax actually has the better upgrade path.
In my opinion each company has taken a different approach to this. It is a matter of personal opinion which offers the best solution for any given user. I would respectfully suggest that anyone that likes the NCE product and seriously expects to end up with a Powerhouse would be better off just getting the full system in the first place.
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
jfugate wrote:Steve:You always keep me honest, don't you?
Steve:You always keep me honest, don't you?
Well Joe, somebody has to!
jfugate wrote: It's true that the NCE PowerCab and ProCab have a few minor command differences, but you'll have to study the manual really closely to find them. It's probably two or three commands out of a hundred or more, so it's maybe a 2-3% difference, and those minor differences are not common comands you use very much.On NCE to address a loco with your throttle:PowerCab: Press "Select Loco", type in the loco's digits and press enter.ProCab: Press "Select Loco", type in the loco's digits and press enter. Cab 04: Press "Select Loco", type in the loco's digits and press enter.Cab 05: Press "Select Loco", type in the loco's digits and press enter. For Digitrax systems, the differences are more significant, even for common commands like selecting a loco. The differences used to be really very different, but Digitrax is getting better with their newer products -- a point which I often make when discussing the user interface of the various DCC system. Here's a specific example.Zephyr: Press the LOCO key. Type in the loco address on the keypad. Press LOCO again.UT4: Dial up the loco number on the thumbwheels, then press the SEL key.UT2 (discontinued): Dial up the loco number on the thumbwheels, then press ACQ/DISP key.DT300 (discountinued): Click the throttle knob you want to use to activate it. Press the SEL key. Turn the left and right throttle knobs to select the loco address you want. Press SEL again once you have the address showing in the display.DT400: Click the throttle knob you want to use to activate it. Press the LOCO key. Type in the loco address on the keypad. Press LOCO again.If you move to other common DCC operations like consisting, the Zephyr and the DT400 command sequences differ, so Digitrax is more consistent than they used to be, but is still more inconsistent than NCE, and that was my point. If you want mimimal commands to relearn between throttles, NCE does a better job than Digitrax.
It's true that the NCE PowerCab and ProCab have a few minor command differences, but you'll have to study the manual really closely to find them. It's probably two or three commands out of a hundred or more, so it's maybe a 2-3% difference, and those minor differences are not common comands you use very much.On NCE to address a loco with your throttle:
For Digitrax systems, the differences are more significant, even for common commands like selecting a loco. The differences used to be really very different, but Digitrax is getting better with their newer products -- a point which I often make when discussing the user interface of the various DCC system. Here's a specific example.
If you move to other common DCC operations like consisting, the Zephyr and the DT400 command sequences differ, so Digitrax is more consistent than they used to be, but is still more inconsistent than NCE, and that was my point. If you want mimimal commands to relearn between throttles, NCE does a better job than Digitrax.
First, we need to throw out your mention of the UT2 and DT300. Those are not produced any more, haven't been for years, so anyone buying one would presumably know what they're getting into. In other words, not the target audience for this thread. You even mention they're discontinued, so why even bother to list them other than to cloud the issue?
Considering current production throttles, we have the Zephyr, the DT400, and the UT4. Well, the Zephyr and the DT400 are essentially the same. You mention having to click the knob on the side of the DT400 you want to use, but that is merely to set the focus to that throttle. You don't need to do it unless your're running two locos at once. So unless you choose not to use the default (right-hand) throttle, there is no difference between the Zephyr and the DT400.
That leaves us with the UT4. Are you aware that it was designed based on LOTS of input from the Digitrax user community? Digitrax asked it's users what they wanted in a utility throttle, and those users spoke. All you have to do is check the Digitrax Yahoo! group archives since much of the discussion took place there. So yes, the UT4 is different, but the differences are the result of the UT4 being designed how the users wanted it to be!
Again, we're talking about three different throttles with three different primary usage patterns, so it's not unreasonable to have some format differences between them as well. That's especially true given that the throttle with the most differences, was designed with those differences in response to user preference.
Steve
Steve:You always keep me honest, don't you? It's true that the NCE PowerCab and ProCab have a few minor command differences, but you'll have to study the manual really closely to find them. It's probably two or three commands out of a hundred or more, so it's maybe a 2-3% difference, and those minor differences are not common comands you use very much.On NCE to address a loco with your throttle:
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
jfugate wrote:The NCE system has the advantage that it uses the same user interface *exactly* as its big brother the Procab system, so once you learn the commands, you've learned the system for all-time. Digitrax uses a lot of somewhat different key labels and different command sequences in all their throttles, so you will have to learn the differences. NCE also uses true duplex wireless, so if you want to eventually move to total wireless DCC with no need to ever plug in, NCE currently has the best upgrade path.
The NCE system has the advantage that it uses the same user interface *exactly* as its big brother the Procab system, so once you learn the commands, you've learned the system for all-time. Digitrax uses a lot of somewhat different key labels and different command sequences in all their throttles, so you will have to learn the differences. NCE also uses true duplex wireless, so if you want to eventually move to total wireless DCC with no need to ever plug in, NCE currently has the best upgrade path.
Joe, that's misleading.
In both cases, the manufacturer makes both "full-featured" and "engineer" cabs with different layouts.
The PowerCab/Pro Cab may be the same, but the Cab04 and Cab05 aren't laid out the same as each other or as the PowerCab/Pro Cab.
How is that different from Digitrax's DT400 and UT4 ("all their throttles") not having the same layout?
And speaking of having to "learn the differences", don't some of the PowerCab's abilities (like the ammeter) go away when it's used as a Pro Cab? Aren't those "differences" you'd have to "learn"?
If you're talking about the Zephyr having a different layout, well sure, as a stationary system it has a completely different design philosophy. So of course it's different! After all, if NCE ever came out with a system designed for stationary use, I'd really hope it wouldn't be a(n even bigger) hammerhead with rubber feet.
But you know what? If you plug a DT400 or UT4 into that Zephyr, both the DT400/UT4 and the Zephyr will continue to work exactly the same as they did before they were plugged together. None of the abilities of either one changes or goes away, and there aren't different key labels or different command sequences, so there are no differences (as you describe them) to learn.
Kent,
Well, it looks like Joe has already answered all your questions. I'll just add a couple of additional points.
1. The Power Cab is a throttle/command station/booster all rolled-up-into-one:
2. The Power Cab plugs into the left (powered) connector port of the PCP panel. An additional throttle can be connected to the right connector port. The wall transformer connects to the back of the PCP panel.
3. The Power Cab comes with a 7' (RJ-12) 6-connector cable. That makes it a tethered walk around system. If you want true walk-around capability, you'll need to add the Smart Booster (SB3) or upgrade to the PH Pro. For my small 4 x 8, the SB3 works just fine.
4. Before I purchased the SB3, I had the PCP panel connected to an Atlas slide switch so that I could switch between my programming track and the layout. (An SPDT - single pole, double throw - switch will do the same thing.) Now that I have the SB3, I have no need for the slide switch.
To run my layout, I merely plug into a UTP panel. And I can have as many UTP panels situated around my layout as I want because they are all daisy-chained together. The PCP panel is still needed for programming locomotives but is completely isolated from the rest of the layout.
Kent, if you'd like to read additional information on the Power Cab, click on my web site link at the bottom of this post and go to my Review page. You'll find an initial review of the Power Cab, as well as a review of the CAB-04 throttle and the Smart Booster. It's primarily my initial thoughts and impressions but does discuss some of the capabilities of each.
Hope that helps...
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Burbank Bill wrote: You got that right. I have had my Digitrax Chief for a little over a year and have never been able to get the setting up of routes to work. Sent the whole works in twice and they tell me nothing is wrong. I use there DS64 stationary decoders and I believe that is the problem so I have to set up my routes through the DS64s instead of the DT400. If anyone has been able to work this feature I would like to hear from them. Got no help from the Digitrax forum. Bill
You got that right. I have had my Digitrax Chief for a little over a year and have never been able to get the setting up of routes to work. Sent the whole works in twice and they tell me nothing is wrong. I use there DS64 stationary decoders and I believe that is the problem so I have to set up my routes through the DS64s instead of the DT400. If anyone has been able to work this feature I would like to hear from them. Got no help from the Digitrax forum.
Bill
I have 5 DS64s and a Super Chief and I've programmed all of my routes in the DS64s. I prefer that as opposed to using the routes supported in the DCS100. I've got some routes that cascade across 3 DS64s and have up to 17 commands being executed. I'd save DCS100 routes them for stationary decoders like the DS44s etc, where routes aren't supported. With DS64s there is no reall reason to use DCS100 routes. For routes on your Super Chief system did you check Option Switch 26 on the DCS100 ? The default is thrown, which allows routes but it would be good to check. If it is closed routes won't work.
Maybe you can describe what happens when you try to enter routes in the DCS100 ?
Engineer Jeff NS Nut Visit my layout at: http://www.thebinks.com/trains/
HOW MANY LOCOS CAN I RUN?
To determine how many HO locos you can run, here's a simple guideline:
Non-sound loco: 0.25 amps
Sound loco: 0.50 amps
So the Powercab can run about 6 non-sound locos, or about 3 sound locos.
WHAT ABOUT DC LOCOS (WITH NO DECODER)?
Sorry, the Powercab doesn't do DC locos, period.
Once you see how poorly DC locos perform on a DCC system (any DCC system) using this feature, you will realize running DC locos this way is a stop-gap feature at best. You get much better performance by running a loco with DCC and and decoder.
WHAT ABOUT A SEPARATE PROGRAMMING TRACK CONNECTION OR ACCESSORY POWER?
Sorry, the Powercab doesn't have a separate programming track connection. For that you need to upgrade to an SB3.
The Powercab also doesn't have a separate accessory connection for turnouts, etc. Any accessories you power with your system will cut into the system's loco running capacity, so it's not recommended that you power turnouts/accessories off your DCC system that provides the track power. Doing so is a stop-gap measure, and you should not plan on doing this long-term.
CONCLUSIONS
The Zephyr gives you a lot for the money, including the ability to run DC locos and the ability to use a normal DC power pack as a throttle. If you already have a big investment in DC equipment, then the Zephyr's abilities will be handy as a stop-gap. But longer-term you will want to move to straight DCC because loco performance is better. The power pack form factor is a bit less useful than a true walkaround form factor would be.
Thanks Tom! Its great to hear from someone who has personal experience with one of the systems I'm considering. I did finish reading the PowerCab online manual... and it left me with a few questions. Hopefully you won't mind answering some for me.
1) At 2 amps, how many locos can you run? and with how many accessory items? I'm hoping to hear 4 locos. Plans are for a least 1 frieght and 1 passenger, both will probably have 2 locos.
2) Can the PowerCab control a DC loco or a DCC ready loco without a decoder installed?
The documentation for the PowerCAb didn't show a complete diagram (or photo) of track/accessory connections. The Zepher has mulitple connection points: Track Power : Programming Track DCC signal only : and seperate power for turnouts, and other accessories.
3) Does the PowerCab also have multiple power connections for these different uses?
Thanks again Tom for your comments. I do appreciate the education I'm getting here by reading this (and other topics) on the forums.
Kent
Simon has given you a well-rounded answer for both Zephyr and Power Cab systems. Either one will work very well for you and each one has it's pluses for going with it.
I bought my Bachmann E-Z Command in early 2005 and had it for a year. I then migrated to the Power Cab in February 2006 when it first came out because of it's greater capabilities. I later added the Smart Booster (SB3) to the Power Cab in November 2006 and have been very happy with that set up ever since.
With the SB3 installed, I now have total freedom to plug and unplug the Power Cab around my layout. If I want, I can also use the Power Cab at my bench for progamming, then take it over to the layout to run trains. I like the Power Cab because the throttle button configuration and programming menu is very intuitive...for me.
One big advantage Digitrax has over NCE is in the upgrade path. With Digitrax, you can pretty much incorporate everything from your Zephyr and use it with the Super Empire Builder (SEB) without losing anything. While the Power Cab can be used with the Powerhouse Pro (PH Pro) as an extra throttle, the SB3 can't. So, you are out the $$$ that you paid for SB3 if you upgade.
Bottom line: Either system will be very reliable and make your DCC experience an enjoyable one. You just need to determine which one is going to best meet your needs - both current and future.
I have the Digitrax Chief. I love it, and the manual is clear, comprehensive and easy to understand.
I have never used the other brand, or the Zephyr.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Thanks for the comments Simon .... I do appreciate you taking the time to give me your 2c worth. It is good to hear that both systems are solid performers with few problems. Being a newbie reliablility is a MUST HAVE. I will have enough of a learning curve .... I don't need a system that is unreliable and will give me fits by not functioning properly.
I haven't completed reading the PowerCab manual yet, but it does seem to have more features than the Zepher. I'm hoping others will also leave comments ... good and bad experiences.
Thanks
Kent S
kent s wrote: So the question then becomes ..... From the experienced users on the Forum, which system has given the better results, least problems, better support, and of course the most fun!
So the question then becomes ..... From the experienced users on the Forum, which system has given the better results, least problems, better support, and of course the most fun!
Kent, both NCE and Digitrax support their products well. You will get glowing accounts from both sets of users, so I don't think that there is much to choose between them in that regards. The Zephyr has been on the market a lot longer than the PowerCab so there are a lot more Z users out there, as one would expect given the extra years of sales. The oldest PowerCabs are around 2 years old, the oldest Zephyrs are close to 8 years I believe.
The PowerCab supports more functions than the Z and as you have noted is a walk around form factor compared to the console of the Z. You can of course add walk around throttles to the Z very easily, by simply plugging them into the Loconet port. Both of the systems are fun to use. I really don't think you can separate them on the basis of your criteria "better results, least problems, better support, and of course the most fun!"
Thank you for the topc .. the timing is excellent for myself (and I'm sure for others too). I am a complete noobe; I don't have anything yet, but that will quickly change! I've been reading everything I can get my hands on about model RR.
I will be purchasing a DCC starter system and am leaning towards the Digitrax Zepher or the NCE PowerCab. I have eliminated the Bachmann EZ-command because of lack of functions, such as programming CV's. I have read the complete manual for the Digitrax Zepher and most of the manual for the NCE PowerCab. The writers for Digitraxx did a wonderful job. That is one of the best technical/user manuals I have ever read. The writers at NCE are engineers, the writing was more technical and less user manual.
Both of the systems had their pluses and minuses. The Zepher had a little more power (2.5 amps vs 2.0 amps with the PowerCab). The emg stop on the Zepher also shuts down everything on the system when press vs only shutting down the selected loco on the PowerCab. Hey, if it is an emergancy ... I want it all to STOP!!
The CAB on the PowerCab allows you to move around the layout, while the Zepher is stationary. The controls on the PowerCab also seem to be more user friendly than the Zepher. Over all both sound like they are decent systems at about the same price point.
Enjoy!
You're welcome!
I will be presenting a DCC clinic at the NMRA National this summer in Anaheim, and I plan to include lots of updated info. The clinic will be in the NMRA clincs book, and I will be running a video camera ...
This clinic thread is going on 4 years old now ... sheesh how time flies!
Just a slight Bump for those of you with cash flowage...and the rest of us...we continue our never ending quest for that all elusive free posted schematic of a complete DCC system, so we can etch some PC board and build one from our huge inventory of spare parts, and join yous guys in the 21st century... but in the meantime we read this AWSOME THREAD and dream on......
THANK YOU MR.FUGATE!!!!
Just posting to get this on the "My Forums" list.
I have been pleasantly surprised at both the tone of the postings and the value of the information posted. Keep it up.
I've been using DC for my 12 years (4 of them in the '70s) in the hobby. I had been ignoring DCC as an expensive luxury that I could easily get by without. Then, 3 weeks ago, I spoke with the MRC and Digitrax reps at the Amhearst Railway Society Railroad Hobby Show in Springfield MA (5.5 ACRES of dealers, demos and layouts) and realized how far out in left field I was. Now very interested, and planning to buy later in the year.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
fkrall wrote:jwils1: You said " I now have my new MRC wireless up and running."You've been such a strong Lenz supporter and have piqued my interest in Lenz, so I have to ask: Why did you switch?Rick Krall
That's a good question. I'll try to answer.
Lenz is an excellent system. I have all three throttles, including the cordless phone, plus I used an Atlas Commander as an extra throttle. For awhile, I even used a CVP radio throttle designed for the Lenz system. All have performed flawlessly.
I have a 6' x 18' table-top layout, so to run things, I need to walk all the way around the table. I have reasons for going table-top instead of around the wall, but that's another story.
I found myself using the LH100 throttle for programming, consisting, speed matching, etc. I preferred the LH90 for just running trains. But, to move quickly to another part of the layout to do some switching, clear a short or a derail, I usually grabbed the cordless phone throttle. I tried the CVP radio throttle to use in lieu of the cordless phone, but it really didn't work any better, or do any more than the phone (although it has some nice features like a display and a speed knob), and the CVP is very expensive.
So, for a long time, I've been wishing that Lenz would develop a full featured wireless throttle that would do everything (programming, consisting, system changes, etc.). This is apparently not going to happen any time soon. So, for me, a solo operator, who often runs 3 or more trains at one time, and who would like to do consisting and some programming on the fly, I've been looking for a full featured duplex radio throttle.
MRC and NCE appeared to be my only possible choices at this time. MRC advertisements sounded good, performance reports from users sounded good, the price sounded good, so, I decided to take a gamble and make the switch. Actually, I haven't completely switched, because with a flip of a switch and can still run on Lenz. But, as good as Lenz is, I've found that the MRC wireless is working so well for me, I've had no desire to go back to running Lenz. I can now do anything, anywhere, with just one throttle. For me and my setup, that's just perfect.
Now, time will tell how well the MRC holds up. Lenz has been excellent and has a 10 year warranty. That's reassuring. We'll just see about MRC, but I will probably sell the Lenz as I don't think I'll need to go back to it. As good as it is, it wasn't the ideal for me.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Jerry
Rio Grande vs. Santa Fe.....the battle is over but the glory remains!
Here is a correction to my previous MRC wireless review:
Cab operation and train control:
And any loco can be quickly deleted with a double press of the delete key.
That should read....... with a 2 second press of the delete key.
I also apologize for the typos and misspellings in the review. I'm afraid I rushed it a bit.
I previously posted this product review on another forum but have now added some additional info and editing.
I now have my new MRC wireless up and running. I would like to give you all some info about it. I've had experience with Atlas DCC, Lenz, CVP wireless on the Lenz system, and NCE Power Cab. But what I've been wanting is a duplex radio system with one full featured cab that woud do everything from anywhere on the layout. So my choices were only between MRC and NCE. Here is what I've found regarding MRC so far:
Basic specs:
3.5 amp system with approx. 14.5 track voltage.
2 or 4 digit addresses
14/28/128 speed steps
Advanced and Universal consisting
Main and Program Track programming (read back on Programming Track)
433 MHz frequency
Maximum number of cabs is 32
Items included:
Full featured wireless cab
Base unit
Power supply
(4) AAA rechargeable batteries
Cord for recharging the handheld cab
User's Manual
My cost was $329.95 + shipping
Ease of use:
Very easy to use. I would rate it a notch or two above Power Cab for intuitive operation and ease of use. The manual is fairly small, well written and easy to follow. It is often directed to beginning DCC users but everthing is there for the more sophisticated user without cluttering it up with uneccesary verbage.
Keys are well marked in clear english as well as clear and understandable on-screen read-outs and instructions.
The trouble shooting section is written is a very clear and logical progression.
I definitely prefer the speed control knob to NCE's thumb wheel. MRC also provides push button speed control via one step per push. This can come in handy at times if you need one-handed cab control for uncoupling, etc. . Normally, the MRC cab wil require two handed operation for most efficient use.
The encoder speed knob has nice feel to it with a very, very slight feel to the individual speed steps.
I really like the 25 cab loco stack. This is an exciting feature that really works well. With just one push of the recall key you can scroll thru all the locos. When you reach one you want, you just start running it. No further key presses necessary to accept the loco. And any loco can be quickly deleted with a double press of the delete key. This allows you to quickly tailor the stack to just those locos needed and you can cycle thru them very quickly.
The display screen is large with sharp, easy to read lettering but is not back-lit.
There are keys for Accessories, Routes, Consists, Programming, Speed Steps, Time (fast lock), Battery voltage check, but no Macro key like NCE. There is also a cab power switch to turn it off when not in use to conserve battery life.
With just two key presses you can pop in and out of Yard Mode.
Engineer's throttle:
MRC does not have one. They only have the full size cabs. Tethered and wireless can work at the same time.
Consisting:
MRC doesn't compare with NCE here as their's is kind of a bare-bones offering. No double ended consists and advanced consists can only be run from the consist number. If running sound you must play with CV's to get them to operate from the consist number. You also have to remember the consist number as there is no way to reference it in the system. One 4-loco universal consist is allowed per system. MRC consisting will certainly work just fine for many users. I'll have to use it for awhile to make a better judgement.
Computer Interface:
MRC doesn't yet have one but it is listed on their website and should be out this year. It's apparently wireless. Certainly Decoder Pro is a must for many of us. For the time being I'm running a dual system. With the flip of a switch I can run on Lenz and use Decoder Pro. But you can also use Decoder Pro on your home computer to determine CV values needed and then program them into the MRC system. To do this see: http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1281624/ShowPost.aspx
Radio performance:
This is what I was especially interested in and I'm not disappointed. A duplex system that really works well. No plugging in to acquire or dispatch locos. Response to throttle commands is immediate with no noticeable lag. I'm in a fairly large basement room and it works everywhere. I can go upstairs and still hear the horn blow.
The rechargeable batteries are nice. They're supposed to last about 5 hours. You can run while plugged in if necessary but the charging then takes longer.
The cab has no exterior antenna's to worry about and no dangling wires like Digitrax. Just a nice clean looking cab that's easy to hold and use.
Things it won't do:
Okay, I haven't put it thru all of it's paces yet but here are some things to consider:
1. This display is not backlit.
2. Binary programming is not available (I hope I'm using the correct term). You can't set individual bits but must calculate the decimal value in insert in the CV that will set all of the bits correctly. This isn't too big a deal as there are handy charts that allow you to do this easily.
3. If you want to control turnouts via DCC (as I do), you cannot control loco speed and direction while the turnout controls are on the screen. But as soon as you hit "Enter" you're back in control. My Lenz system allowed this and it is very convenient when doing a lot of switching (if you control turnouts by DCC).
4. There is no way to set Function keys to momentary. However the F2 key (horn/whistle) is alreadu factory set to momentary, which is want most people want.
5. MRC does not have an engineer's throttle, just the one size, full featured cab. This is not a problem for me as I only want the one cab that does everything. If you do want extra cabs for additional operators you don't have to worry about them messing up things by programming as you can lock out any cabs from doing this.
6. No double ended consists like NCE and only one Universal consist allowed per system.
7. Will let you know if I run across anything else for this list.
Final comments:
For the price, this is really a fine system. Approximately $200 or so less than NCE radio so it's a good deal. You give up some features but for a typical solo operating home user like myself it does everything needed. People should not confuse MRC decoder quality with their train control system quality. Their train control seems to be excellent There may be some shortcoming that I haven't yet discovered but for now it appears to be a good system for many of us. Now, we'll just have to wait and see what Digitrax comes up with when they develop there duplex system, and that may make for an interesting competitive situation. NCE has already announced their upgraded radio that offers great operational improvement.
Hey, I come onto the new DCC forum and what do I see but my DCC clinics ... nice job Bergie!
It's hard to believe these forum clinics are now 3-4 years old already ... as a bit of news I will be doing a DCC clinic this summer at the NMRA National and plan to include new updated info in the clinic. Maybe we can even put the clinic on video -- we'll see.
Things have changed in new system area with MRCs new wireless system ... the PowerCab now has a computer interface ... NCE's new Rev 3 wireless is super reliable ... EasyDCC's had isolated reports of more loco runaways with their latest firmware upgrade ... Digitrax has a new wireless pending release ... the decoder price-performance ratio just keeps getting better and better -- and in the meantime new DCC features keep coming out.
So lots to talk about!
Brunton wrote:This is off the topic of DCC, but is in reply to an earlier post, so skip this unless you're curiousQUOTE: Originally posted by jfugateI would also argue that the reason the airplane and the automobile user interfaces behave differently is because they both appeared at roughly the same time and each evolved their own convention. Had the automobile been well entrenched for 30 years before the airplane, the wheel on an airplane would steer the airplane as expected when on the ground.Without trying to raise any hackles, your argument is incorrect, Joe. I've been designing aircraft for nearly two decades, and a pilot about as long, so let me explain.The reason the airplane and the automobile user interfaces behave differently is because the vehicles are fundamentally different. An automobile navigates in two dimensions, while the airplane navigates in three. Rudder pedals steer the airplane on the ground because rudder pedals control the yaw, or left-right pointing of the aircraft, in the air. So they also control that on the ground. The steering wheel ("yoke" on an airplane) controls roll, or tilt, of the aircraft wings via the ailerons. There is no corresponding control on an automobile. A combination of rudder pedal and yoke input controls turns in an aircraft in the air (the ailerons are the primary turning agent, with the rudder assisting - different even than a submarine, another three-dimension navigator).I could go on a lot more, but probably most folks don't care anyway, so I'll stop. Suffice it to say, though two different systems may get you to the same ultimate goal, the methods employed to do so may dictate very different interfaces. It depends on what is required in of the control system.By the way - the auto and airplane controls developed over ten years apart, not at roughly the same time. Autpmobile controls developed basically in the very late 1890s and early 1900s, with some refinements to the basic concepts at slightly later dates. The airplane, meanwhile, developed it's "modern" control interfaces in the mid-1910s, with WWI being the main standardizing driver. It had refinements come much later.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugateI would also argue that the reason the airplane and the automobile user interfaces behave differently is because they both appeared at roughly the same time and each evolved their own convention. Had the automobile been well entrenched for 30 years before the airplane, the wheel on an airplane would steer the airplane as expected when on the ground.
You have a point my friend! Don't tell em about the INS,FMC (Flight Management Computer),Fuel Management systems,Etc,ETC, and more ETC.
Kinda reminds me of my DCC system. But I love my Super Chief!!!
Greg:
There are a couple of popular techniques for enhancing loco performance with a DCC decoder. They are:
DITHERING/TORQUE COMPENSATION
Dithering or Torque Compensation (D/TC) is something like DC pulse power in effect, although that's not technically what's happening. TCS decoders call it Dithering, NCE decoders call it Torque Compensation. In both cases, the effect is strongest when the loco is first starting, and it tapers off as the loco comes up to speed. You set the amount of extra kick voltage and the frequency of the kick.
D/TC is a fixed amount you set, and it's only altered by loco speed. When starting up the loco, D/TC is at its strongest, and it fades away as the loco speed increases.
BACK EMF
Back EMF (BEMF) uses the natural electricity generated by a spinning motor to determine when the loco is lugging down and needs a voltage boost. Decoders with BEMF allow setting the amount of BEMF compensation to apply, and also allow turning BEMF off in consists, since locos can fight each other on a consist if BEMF is set high.
BEMF depends on constant feedback as to how hard the motor is working, and a BEMF decoder will compensate dynamically. This creates a loco that can "float" through complex trackwork like silk at slow speeds, for example. But BEMF has its downsides as well. If you crank up the BEMF settings, you can get a loco that will act like it's on "cruise control" -- it will pull a train around curves, up a grade, and down a grade at a constant speed -- you never have to touch the throttle.
Getting a loco to behave in "cruise control" fashion is a neat stunt, but it's not at all realistic -- and it takes all the fun out of running a train.
Perhaps the worst "side effect" of BEMF is consisting locos with BEMF decoders. If the BEMF has been set high enough to get great low speed performance through yard ladders and such, if the loco is consisted with another such loco, the two locos will often "fight" each other, bucking violently. In effect, one BEMF decoder is saying "speed up", while the other BEMF decoder is saying "slow down" and the two locos will fight each other, alternating trying to speed up or slow down to compensate for the other loco's behavior. For this reason, most BEMF decoders allow you to turn off the BEMF when the loco is consisted.
MY OWN PREFERENCE
I have used BEMF decoders and D/TC decoders, and I have found for a loco that has fairly good performance on straight DC, a D/TC decoder will get excellent slow speed performance. BEMF decoders generally cost about twice as much as a D/TC decoder, so I only reserve BEMF decoders for those locos in my fleet that have mechanisms that can be "tight" or that are especially sensitive to trackwork, where they slow noticeably through turnouts or when pulling a train up a grade that has lots of curves.
Back EMF is a decoder function, and not related to the control side at all, other than set-up of CVs.
A little writeup on how stationary decoders are accessed by the various systems might be a good thing. Which throttles can do it, how obvious the keystrokes are, etc. Lots of people don't use these, but as the price of stationary decoders seems to be dropping, and their cleverness increasing, more and more may, over time.
As far as NCE's radio system goes, I visited Joe's layout for this month's operating session. The only issue I ever had with the RF system was in initial acquisition of the loco. Once I had control, I noticed no lag, no dropouts. I never felt like I was not connected to the train. It makes me think that the problem may be in the software side of things rather than the hardware. In which case, a real fix might not be too hard, and might not take too long.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
One thing I keep hearing about is back EMF capability, and I would like to see that and controling things other than loco's covered a bit.
From everything else, it sounds like NEC might be the way to go especialy if they solve the wireless issue - I wonder if a half wave antenna helps, what a full wave antenna or perhaps even heterodyne circut would do ( besides increasing cost ) to help cope with RF trash to the system?
< shrug >
It's not like I need wireless now, but, it is something that I probably need to consider for future expansion.
Greg H. wrote:Joe, It's been 2 years since you started this thread, and as you have said DCC is being improved all the time. How likely is it that we will see an updated version of your original comparisons?
It's been 2 years since you started this thread, and as you have said DCC is being improved all the time. How likely is it that we will see an updated version of your original comparisons?
Darn good question!
Things get obsolete quickly in the field of electronics, and my DCC video I did in 2004 will shortly be 4 years old ... oh, boy. These days I'm hearing an entire generation in the computer industry is 18 months. Fortunately, the DCC world doesn't move *that* fast, but 3-4 years is enough to make some information obsolete.
I am working on a DCC clinic for the Anaheim NMRA Convention, and out of that material will no doubt come more "latest and greatest" comparisons.
One of the things I've been thinking about is developing a list of "Features you WANT in your DCC system" and then comparing the existing systems to this list. For example, one feature you want is the ability to read back CV settings, and the MRC Prodigy Express doesn't provide this.
So while I may not get to this update right away, by the time I've developed my new DCC Clinic, I will have collected the information -- and can make it available. I'm less inclined to post it on this forum, however, because the chronological organization on here kinda sucks for reference material ... so we'll see.
Joe,
Stevert wrote:QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate"How easy is it to just guess how to do something by looking at the command unit, and not using the manual?" I disagree with this one. Have you ever tried to "steer" an airplane on the ground? You don't use the "steering wheel", you use the rudder pedals. But I'd bet that the vast majority of folks, their first time in the cockpit, would try using that "steering wheel" because it looks similar to what they've always seen ground vehicles steered with. Sometimes ya just gotta RTFM!Steve
QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate"How easy is it to just guess how to do something by looking at the command unit, and not using the manual?"
Hi Steve!I do have to agree,but have you ever read an Ercoupe flight manual????You'd have a difficult time steering mine with the rudder pedals, hmmm, what rudder pedals??? LOL!!!! Some later versions did have them, but the original Ercoupes didn't.Great airplane to fly!Flying is my other hobby, but I also love MRR'ing!!!
And Joe Fugate has really made MRR'ing much easier for me with his many forums, and at length detailed explanations, being so kind as to share his wealth of experience with us as have so many others on these forums.
Ed