rockythegoat wrote:QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugateI'd like to see some postings of what evaluation criteria people would like to see that weren't in the MR review. That would give me an idea of how to start making the list. I agree that the details ought to be worked out offline via email, then the "draft" posted here for comment and review.3. Difference in decoder models / capabilities.4. What decoders are available as "drop ins / plug ins" and for which models.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugateI'd like to see some postings of what evaluation criteria people would like to see that weren't in the MR review. That would give me an idea of how to start making the list. I agree that the details ought to be worked out offline via email, then the "draft" posted here for comment and review.
Remember that decoders are system independent. This could be a whole seperate subject matter as there are so many drop-in/plug-in models available and so many decoder models and capabilities.
Tom
Modeling the Pittsburgh Division of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad from Glenwood Yard to New Castle Yard following the old P&W Mainline.
Visit my website at: http://www.baltimoreandohiorr.com
tschwarz wrote: jfugate wrote:Greg:EasyDCC remains firm that command-station consists offer a lot, so they keep enhancing command station consisting with new features with each system upgrade. My only criticism is EasyDCC also considers decoder-based consisting to be fraught with problems so they have hobbled their system's ability to manage decoder-based consists. This mindset once made sense -- but as you say, most decoders on the market now fully support decoder consisting, function mapping to consist addresses, etc. So EasyDCC's bias has become more of an narrow-minded anachronism. They need to wake up and realize decoder-based consists now offer a lot as well -- and quit hobbling their system's support of decoder-based consisting so much.Fortunately, you can circumvent most of this by simply programming CV19 directly yourself, which is quite easy to do via DecoderPro. Since EasyDCC's support of command station consisting is so rich, I'm still a pretty happy camper as to my choice of DCC system. Joe, The latest upgrade to the software for the EasyDCC system says that Advanced Consists are the preferred method for creating multi-unit locomotive consists so I am not sure were you are getting this idea that they don't like doing advanced consists unless you are still using the old software. How are you implying that they have "hobbled" their system support of decoder-based consisting. I would refer you to pages 66-73 in their new system documentation that talks all about the Advanced Consisting that they offer.Just my humble $.02 worth.Tom
jfugate wrote:Greg:EasyDCC remains firm that command-station consists offer a lot, so they keep enhancing command station consisting with new features with each system upgrade. My only criticism is EasyDCC also considers decoder-based consisting to be fraught with problems so they have hobbled their system's ability to manage decoder-based consists. This mindset once made sense -- but as you say, most decoders on the market now fully support decoder consisting, function mapping to consist addresses, etc. So EasyDCC's bias has become more of an narrow-minded anachronism. They need to wake up and realize decoder-based consists now offer a lot as well -- and quit hobbling their system's support of decoder-based consisting so much.Fortunately, you can circumvent most of this by simply programming CV19 directly yourself, which is quite easy to do via DecoderPro. Since EasyDCC's support of command station consisting is so rich, I'm still a pretty happy camper as to my choice of DCC system.
Joe,
The latest upgrade to the software for the EasyDCC system says that Advanced Consists are the preferred method for creating multi-unit locomotive consists so I am not sure were you are getting this idea that they don't like doing advanced consists unless you are still using the old software. How are you implying that they have "hobbled" their system support of decoder-based consisting. I would refer you to pages 66-73 in their new system documentation that talks all about the Advanced Consisting that they offer.
Just my humble $.02 worth.
Bear in mind that the post you quoted was written in November, 2005!
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: tschwarz wrote: jfugate wrote:Greg:EasyDCC remains firm that command-station consists offer a lot, so they keep enhancing command station consisting with new features with each system upgrade. My only criticism is EasyDCC also considers decoder-based consisting to be fraught with problems so they have hobbled their system's ability to manage decoder-based consists. This mindset once made sense -- but as you say, most decoders on the market now fully support decoder consisting, function mapping to consist addresses, etc. So EasyDCC's bias has become more of an narrow-minded anachronism. They need to wake up and realize decoder-based consists now offer a lot as well -- and quit hobbling their system's support of decoder-based consisting so much.Fortunately, you can circumvent most of this by simply programming CV19 directly yourself, which is quite easy to do via DecoderPro. Since EasyDCC's support of command station consisting is so rich, I'm still a pretty happy camper as to my choice of DCC system. Joe, The latest upgrade to the software for the EasyDCC system says that Advanced Consists are the preferred method for creating multi-unit locomotive consists so I am not sure were you are getting this idea that they don't like doing advanced consists unless you are still using the old software. How are you implying that they have "hobbled" their system support of decoder-based consisting. I would refer you to pages 66-73 in their new system documentation that talks all about the Advanced Consisting that they offer.Just my humble $.02 worth.TomBear in mind that the post you quoted was written in November, 2005!
Yes, EasyDCC has realized their stance on decoder consisting was dated and have reversed their position in their manual and latest firmware upgrade (released in the spring of 2007) to now "bless" decoder consisting as the recommended approach.
However, EasyDCC uses 1-99 for decoder consist numbers, unlike NCE which uses the loco number for referencing consists -- much nicer. The latest firmware for NCE creates an internal 1-99 decoder consist number, but lets you reference the consist by a 4 digit loco number. If that isn't more user friendly, I don't know what is.
EasyDCC's improvements are moving in the right direction, but are still behind NCE when it comes to ease-of-use. On top of that, EasyDCC's throttle prices ($220 for a wireless display throttle) are much more than the street prices for NCE wireless display throttles ($190). So NCE is also cheaper than EasyDCC when it comes to throttles.
Finally, EasyDCC's stationary powerpack form factor for the command station programming keypad is becoming quite dated (a problem it shares with the Digitrax Zephyr). With programming on the main widely available now in even cheap fleet-level decoders, having a mobile command station keypad like NCE, Lenz, and the Digitrax DT400 leverages the power of DCC and gives you more options for speed matching locos, running helpers, changing sound settings on-the-fly and so on.
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
Crandell,
What is SEB?
And, do you really just flip a switch and have power to your track? For that matter, with the exception of Digitrax, what has to be done with the other systems to get power to the locomotive in order to run it?
In the case of Digitrax, I have to press the power button, then press the "Y+" button which applies power. If the loco number displayed on the throttle is the one I want to run, I just crank it up & off it goes. If not, then press the "Sel Loco" button, enter the number of the locomotive, press the "Sel Loco" button again and I'm done. If the headlights aren't on, I press the light button, if the sound isn't on, I just press F8. To MU two or more locos, I just select the first one in the right throttle, select the second one in the left throttle, hit the MU button & "+", and it's done. If I want to add another loco, just select it in the left throttle, hit MU & "+", and it's added. To break up a consist, select the loco you want to remove in the left throttle, hit MU & "-". Nice a simple, and once you do it a couple of times, it becomes second nature. How does one MU locos in NCE or EZ DCC? To turn off power, press the power button, the "-" button and power is off. One of the nice things I've found is I can check for shorts at power on and turn the power off just by hitting the "-" button. Don't have to wait for the light bulbs to light up
As to why I bought Digitrax, I was at the 2000 NMRA convention in San Jose and ran into Loy Spurlock, whom I knew from Train Mountain. and he convinced me to buy a Chief system which has been up graded to Super Chief with the addition of a DT400, which made programming locos much easier(never did get the hang of it with the DT100). Also, interfacing with JMRI is a snap.
Bob Hayes
Bob,
With a NCE system there is no power on/off step necessary. Plug the unit in and its on and ready to go. When wiring your layout room and an outlet that is controlled by a light switch. Simply turn on the switch and your good to go.
Consisting on a NCE is much easier than on a Digitrax. On a ProCab there is a section with 4 buttons marked "Consist". The buttons are 'setup' 'clear' 'add' 'delete'.
To make a consist simply press 'setup' The display will know prompt you and walk you through making a consist. The preferred consisting method with NCE is Advanced consisting, not universal like Digitrax. Select a consist # or let the command station assign one. Enter the address of the lead loco, enter its direction, it will now prompt you for the rear loco address and its direction. Continue adding loco addresses and directions until you're done. After entering the last loco press 'enter' and you exiting the consist sub-routine.
To add a loco to an existing consist simply press the 'add' button. Select the consist and add the loco address by following the screen prompts. It is a similar process to delete a loco from a consist.
The clear the entire consist simply press 'clear' and enter the consist #. All loco assign to that consist will now be released and will operate independently.
IMO NCE is much easier to consist on than Digitrax. I don't need to remember to have the consist on the right throttle and the loco to consist on the left. I don't have to try see if the little direction triangle is point forward or reverse, NCE's screen says "DIR OF THIS LOCO: F or R" If it says FWD and I want REV I simply press the direction button to change it.
One other thing, I'll take exception to your statement about hooking up your Super Chief to a JMRI is a snap. To do that don;t you need an additional piece of hardware between the command station of the PC? NCE PHP come with a RS232 port built-in. Simple connect with a serial cable and your done.
jktrains
Bob Hayes wrote: Crandell,What is SEB?And, do you really just flip a switch and have power to your track? For that matter, with the exception of Digitrax, what has to be done with the other systems to get power to the locomotive in order to run it?...Bob Hayes
And, do you really just flip a switch and have power to your track? For that matter, with the exception of Digitrax, what has to be done with the other systems to get power to the locomotive in order to run it?...
Hi, Bob. The SEB is the old Super Empire Builder from Digitrax. It uses the DB 150 as the base station. When I flick the tiny power toggle up to "on", the system powers up and the locomotives previously engaged on the throttles (it comes with one DT 400, and I purchased a second so that my brothers and nephew could join the fun now and then) are there to get moving if I choose. To change any acquisition, simple depress the encoder for two seconds, the loco address in the display flashes, and I can turn the encoder to scroll down the stack for a new loco. Click the encoder, and I have the new loco running.
When I power up with the toggle, there is no Y+ because I do not shut down the power to the track when I leave the layout...I just flip the same toggle, or nowadays press the power switch on a surge protector to save wear and tear on the toggle.
-Crandell
I have to admit that even to me this is just plain wierd: My only complaint about Digitrax is not operational! It is the blankety-blank battery covers on the DT400 and UT4 throttles, I dont know about others. I have lost the cover on the UT4 and the one on the DT400 just recently broke off one side of the little clip, so it can be bumped off. So far I haven't lost it, but based on the other one I don't think it will be long, eh? Yes there is a learning curveto any DCC system, and I was unfortunate enough to get in a situation at a public meet where I didn't know how to undo a consist that we made up on the fly. I didn't realize that the loco on the right throttle was the lead unit when I tried to consist two others with the left throttle on the 400, and when we tried to move them my switcher moved too! In reverse, yet! How embarrassing, then I couldn't undo it. Well, nothing damaged, and another lesson learned, which sounds just like real life! jc5729 John Colley, Port Townsend, WA
One of the more significant issues I have with Digitrax is the way it handles consisting.
Digitrax defaults to command station consists, and the only way you can change this is to go into the command station settings and change how consisting is done to decoder-based consists.
If you do this, you will lose the ability to do nested consists, which is a real bummer. NCE's consisting is by far the most flexible and user-friendly, allowing you to do either decoder-based or command-station based consists that you reference by the 4-digit loco number. You can freely nest consists inside each other. All-in-all, very easy and powerful.
EasyDCC, on the other hand, will complain if you try to nest consists, although it also lets you freely make either decoder-based or command station-based consists.
Lenz puts limits on command-station based consists, only allowing two such locos in a consist. Lenz mainly does decoder-based consisting (which is the only kind of consisting allowed in their Set 90).
And then we have Digitrax, which won't allow you to mix consisting types together, defaults to command-station consisting (which causes more command traffic to the rails, and slows down throttle response if you have very many consists). You can't change to decoder-based consisting (which gives much better throttle response when you have lots of consists) without altering a command station setting -- and when you go to decoder-based consisting, Digitrax loses the ability to nest consists.
I have found that with EasyDCC, Lenz, and Digitrax I can circumvent the consisting limitations by learning how to program CV19 directly myself. But now I have to become an expert on CV19 programming (not an onerous task, but still, I have to get under the hood because of the artifical limits of these systems) -- and now I have to work with addressing loco lashups using consist numbers from 1-99.
With NCE, I can do all I want to do with consisting and never think once about CV19. I just grab the consist very naturally by using the 4-digit loco number. And to top it off, with NCE whichever end of the loco lashup I address, that becomes the front of the lashup! All very user-friendly and natural.
cwclark wrote:that's what i meant..i can take throttles over to my friends house to run on their DCC systems. One of my RR buds has more tracks and trains than he has throttles for...
And this is one very good reason to go with a specific system over any other -- if all your train buddies have a specific system.
Not only does this make it easy to share throttles, but it also means there's probably local help on a problem when you need it.
jfugate wrote: cwclark wrote:that's what i meant..i can take throttles over to my friends house to run on their DCC systems. One of my RR buds has more tracks and trains than he has throttles for...And this is one very good reason to go with a specific system over any other -- if all your train buddies have a specific system. Not only does this make it easy to share throttles, but it also means there's probably local help on a problem when you need it.
The main reason why I selected Digitrax also, as the LHS sells only Digitrax and all the guys here are using the same DCC system. So the theory of strength in numbers rings true with my learning curve.
I just installed my DCC system a few months back, and Kim at Train Buddy is only a short phone call or a 10 minute drive away when I need quick hands on assistance or have a quick question.
Ryan BoudreauxThe Piedmont Division Modeling The Southern Railway, Norfolk & Western & Norfolk Southern in HO during the merger eraCajun Chef Ryan
cwclark wrote: For example: Just to run a locomotive, I have to first turn on the power button, then enter the +Y command
For example: Just to run a locomotive, I have to first turn on the power button, then enter the +Y command
Yup, default behavior for the DCS100 is to come up with track power turned off.
Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. There are times I power up the CS to do some decoder programming, and I don't need or even particularly want the whole layout powered up.
But if you don't like that behavior, you can change it by setting either OPSW 33 or 34. There's nothing stopping you from making it work the way you want it to.
HTH,Steve
I'll respectfully disagree with you on this one Joe. I wouldn't sacrifice my preferences in a system just because other's in the area choose a different system or my LHS only sells one system. It sounds like cwclark did this and is suffering from a mild case of buyers remorse. Sure the system works and serves the purpose, but was it really his first choice?
The fundamentals of DCC apply regardless of the manufacturer's system you use. The need for a proper sized power bus, turnout wiring and control, power districts, reversing sections etc. are all handled the same whether you use D, NCE, MRC, Lenz et.al.
I was in a group with people who presented themselves as D system knowledgeable. I realized that wasn't the case when it took us 6 hours to figure out how to hook everything up and that no one had a clue as to why it didn't work. Everyone looked to me to fix the problem, yet it wasn't my system. I finally had to ask for a manual and tried to figure out what the solution was. Not a fun way to spend a morning, afternoon and into the evening. Moral of the story - don't rely on someone else to solve your problems by thinking that everyone else owns the same system then one of them can help me out. Problem with that is what happens when its 11PM when the problem needs solved. Get the system you want, you're investing a lot of money in it, get what you want, not what everyone else wants you to get.
jktrains wrote: Moral of the story - don't rely on someone else to solve your problems by thinking that everyone else owns the same system then one of them can help me out. Problem with that is what happens when its 11PM when the problem needs solved. Get the system you want, you're investing a lot of money in it, get what you want, not what everyone else wants you to get.jktrains
Moral of the story - don't rely on someone else to solve your problems by thinking that everyone else owns the same system then one of them can help me out. Problem with that is what happens when its 11PM when the problem needs solved. Get the system you want, you're investing a lot of money in it, get what you want, not what everyone else wants you to get.
Ain't that the truth. And just because a bunch of locals use and tout a given system doesn't necessarily mean that it will be good for you.
The manuals are included for a reason, and they solve the majority of problems for users. I still get into mine a couple of times a month it seems.
True, just because everyone else uses a given system, that's not the ONLY consideration, but it is a SIGNIFICANT consideration. With each consideration, you have to personally weigh its importance to you and then after considering all the factors, make your decision. That's why there is no *best* system, only the *best* system for you.
To many people, what everyone else nearby is using will be the main consideration, and that's my point.
I do have to admit that for me, what everyone else nearby is using IS NOT all that important TO ME. As a web developer who thinks about easy-to-use web page interfaces all day long, coming home to a geeky less-than-friendly DCC interface just rubs me the wrong way. Every time I use such a system I think how I would send one of my web developers back to the drawing board if they came to me with a web page that works like that.
For me, a user-friendly interface is at the top of the list, which is why I recommend NCE as a first choice, with EasyDCC a second choice. But Digitrax is used by the most people, so if having others nearby with the same system is more important, you'll probably go with it.
jfugate wrote: I have found that with EasyDCC, Lenz, and Digitrax I can circumvent the consisting limitations by learning how to program CV19 directly myself.
I have found that with EasyDCC, Lenz, and Digitrax I can circumvent the consisting limitations by learning how to program CV19 directly myself.
Joe:
I was just wondering if there is a way to do nested consists with my Lenz Set 100 using CV19? I think I read something about using CV 19 on one of your posts, either here or on your site, so if it is possible maybe you could refer me to that post rather than having to repeat it here. Thanks.
Jerry
Rio Grande vs. Santa Fe.....the battle is over but the glory remains!
Actually, one of the things I have found I really like about Digitrax, is the way they do consisting. For me, making up new consists is quick and easy. On a future layout, I plan to set limits to how many cars a loco can pull; let's say 10 cars each. So, if I want to move a train of 40 cars, I can make up a loco consist of four engines, say SD40-2, AC4400, and maybe a couple of GP38-2's. With pre-assembled nested consists of 2's & 3's, I'd end up with either 5 or 6 units on the head end. My experience with having helper engines on the rear of a train, controlled by another person, has not been all that great, and I'd prefer to have all the engines on the head end with any needed DPU's, controlled by one person.
Now, I have to admit that remembering the top loco has to be in the right throttle and all the added ones on the left is sometimes a little confusing, but having to enter the top loco & calling it the top loco, and then entering the last loco, and calling it the last, and then remembering to put all the others in the middle seems a lot more confusing to me. I guess one could assemble the loco consist first and then create the consist in their system, but that seems a lot more time consuming.
Just an update on what's happening on my HO Siskiyou Line and DCC.
My aging EasyDCC system is now going on 8 years of heavy op session use and some of the wireless throttles are starting to misbehave. EasyDCC released a major firmware upgrade this spring that more or less rendered my existing EasyDCC hardware obsolete. So decision time.
I priced a complete upgrade of my existing EasyDCC system to all new throttles and the expanded 16-dedicated-frequency-throttle capability (my current system does 8 throttles on dedicated frequencies). Then I looked carefully at the latest feature set available from Digitrax, Lenz, and NCE -- and priced moving to NCE because I like their latest feature set very much.
The end result is I could save nearly $800 by moving to NCE. Plus I would get mobile handset programming on the main, powerful consisting features (like automatic double-ended consists), and up to 48 wireless throttles possible.
So I've made the switch. I sold my EasyDCC equipment and am now running the layout on NCE. Once we begin having op sessions again in the fall, I will report on how well the NCE wireless system is doing. If you want to follow the blow-by-blow account of this change, then you can read this thread on my web site.
Since this thread here on the MR forum is about picking a DCC system, let me state that I've used Lenz, EasyDCC, and now NCE -- so I can tell you the strengths and weaknesses of these from experience -- and my latest system of choice is NCE. As our op sessions put the NCE system through it's paces, I will be able to speak to its weakness as well. As to Digitrax, I use it a lot at op sessions on friends' layouts around here, and I've read and reread the Digitrax manuals over and over, so I'm pretty familiar with that system -- and I've helped friends with DCC issues on their Digitrax-based layouts.
No single DCC system is perfect, and they all have various strengths, depending on what priorities matter most to you. I'll try to reiterate the priorities you should consider in a future post on this thread, and also list out for you the priorities that matter to me. From this hopefully you can make your own list.
It sounds like you've thought everything out. I think you'll find the switch the NCE will be nothing but smooth and enjoyable. Your comments and reasons why you chose the system you did should be a guide for others who post here asking ‘What system should they pick?" It provides a well thought out line of reasoning regarding what features you were looking for and what compromises you made.
Two of the reasons given are ones that I've stressed in other threads - Ease of use, not just for you, but for visitors and other operators, and the ability to upgrade the system without starting over from scratch. In both of these points I think that NCE is head and shoulders above the others.
Your comments on the differences in how various systems handle consisting are also spot on. I like the recent software upgrade that allow you to select either the front or rear loco in the consist by loco address and gain control of the consist without having to remember the consist number assigned to it. I think you'll also like the feature to issue broadcast commands to all locos on the layout at once. The ability to clear all cabs and turn all speed settings to 0 will be a nice feature when setting up ops sessions.
I look forward to following your progress as the change is made and your comments on how the system performs.
jk:
Appreciate the vote of confidence. So far in my use of the NCE system on my HO Siskiyou Line, I'm pleased with the results. The wireless works well and the double-ended consists are absolutely marvelous. Amazingly simple to set up and they work just as advertised -- finally, consisting heaven!
I promised in a recent post that I would list the things you need to consider when evaluating DCC systems. These are not listed in any priority order -- you have to look at the list and decide what matters to you the most and set your own priorities. In a later post I will list my own priorities from this list and why.
Price
Comments: If the vendor offers an inexpensive starter system that can grow and not need to be replaced as you expand the system, then that shows the vendor is trying to price their system well. Vendor patches/upgrades should be free if they involve mostly bug fixes, or inexpensive if they add new features.
The cost of throttles, wireless, and accessory decoders show how concerned the vendor is with making system expansion affordable, or if they are taking advantage of the fact they have you "commited" to their system and now will make you pay a premium to expand.
Availablity
Comments: If you can purchase the system in all three of the above listed sources, then you have the best availability, especially if your local hobby shop carries the system. If the system is only available from one source (direct from the vendor), then lack of supply competition could make prices higher or limit availability when you need something fast.
Comments: The more obvious the command labels are on a system and the more it prompts you through the steps, the easier it will be to use. After you read through the manual, if you can put the manual up and rarely ever need to refer to it again, or if visiting operators rarely have to ask how to select a loco or do loco functions, the system rates high on ease-of-use.
If the system allows creating consists within consists, mixing decoder-based and command station-based consists together or allows referring to consists using 4-digit loco numbers, this can make consisting quite powerful and easy to do. If the system allows you to go to where the trains are to do programming on the main, then it's possible to do speed matching tweaks or the like right on the spot instead of having to always drag your locos back to a stationary command station (the less you have to handle your locos the better).
If the system allows using a computer interface, it will be possible to use powerful programs like DecoderPro (which is free!) to rapidly do sophisticated decoder programming using your mouse to point and click intuitive controls on your PC screen. If the system's wireless capability doesn't require you to ever plug in, that can make the system less annoying to use. And finally, if the system makes it simple to control more than one loco from a single throttle, that can be a plus.
There are more considerations ... like system features, reliability, and support. I'll discuss those in another post soon.
I think your list of items to consider are excellent. An interesting approach would be to rank each of the considerations under each area as High, Medium and Low or to put it in other terms, Gotta Have, Wanna Have, Niceto Have.
Interesting that under ease of use is the recommendation to read the manuals. So many times people want to skip this all important step. I like to recommend that someone actually read the manuals online when evaluating a system. If you can read and understand the manual without even having the system in front of you, to me, that's a good sign.
Looking forward to part II
Okay, here’s the rest of the considerations – again these are in no particular priority order.
Features
Comments: The more options the vendor’s system gives you the better. Features and options allow tailoring the system to fit your needs better. The more options the vendor gives you for throttles or ways to put together a system, the better you can tailor things to fit your budget and your layout requirements. The more robust the bus networking approach used by the vendor (e.g., LocoNet, XpressNet), the more powerful things you can do with layout signaling, advanced CTC dispatching, layout automation, and the like.
As mentioned earlier, a computer interface dramatically improves the ease with which you can manipulate today’s decoders that are loaded with hundreds of complex configuration options. And a computer interface is fundamental to using a DCC system as the core of a more advanced layout signaling or layout automation project.
It’s a plus if the system can run both DC and DCC locomotives, although the “zero-stretching” technique used to run a DC locomotive is limited (only one DC loco at a time on the layout) and it’s only recommended the DC loco be run for brief periods to avoid problems with overheating.
Programming on the main (POM) is becoming popular, so if the system can support POM, then it’s keeping up with the times – same with 4-digit addressing and supporting 12 or more functions.
If the boosters supplied by the vendor work with “1156 auto taillight bulb” short management, that can be extremely useful. Many boosters have a short trip circuit that is too fast for the bulbs, rendering them ineffective. Light bulb short management is both effective and economical if the vendor’s boosters allow using it – it’s nice to have the option in any event.
If the system supports “blast mode” programming, then it will allow easy programming of modern locos with power-hungry sound decoders. If the system supports more than 10 throttles each with their own unique wireless frequency, then wireless throttle response will remain snappy, making things like “playing the whistle” on a sound-equipped loco possible.
Reliability
Comments: If the system install is easy, then it’s more likely the system will work reliably and trouble-free for many years to come. If the system exhibits many quirks or intermittent oddities, then its reliability is lower. A system that can run for over 1000+ hours without failure will last for nearly a decade if only used on average for a few hours a week.
How frequently the vendor needs to issue firmware bug fixes or upgrades tells you how reliable the system is. If the vendor bug patch/upgrade itself introduces new bugs, the system reliability is compromised.
However, no system is perfect. If the issues are well known and have a straightforward workaround or a well-articulated solution, that is a plus on the reliability score.
Support
Comments: If a lot of your local model railroading buddies also use this DCC system, that can be helpful when you have a problem with your system and need support. Similarly, if the vendor’s manual has a good trouble-shooting section, that can save you a lot of hair pulling or making an expensive support call to the vendor. Also if your local model railroading buddies use the system, you can share components like throttles easily.
If the system has an active and responsive online support community, you can often get good answers to your support questions in that way.
If the vendor is not issuing regular firmware updates, then your system feature set may be falling behind and the system may have long-standing bugs that continue to annoy you. If the vendor does issue firmware upgrades every year or two, that’s a solid indication they are committed to giving good support to their system.
If the hobby press and online hobby sources have written up improvements to the system, then even though the vendor may not provide this support, this is an indication the hobby population is eager to provide support for the system.
And finally, if the vendor has a good reputation with hobbyists, and they report the vendor gives prompt and useful answers to their support queries, then the system is well supported.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I will next take this list and tell you my personal priorities and how that influences my choice of system. Everyone will have to rank what matters to them the most, which will help them decide which system is best for them.
jfugate wrote:If the vendor is not issuing regular firmware updates, then your system feature set may be falling behind and the system may have long-standing bugs that continue to annoy you. If the vendor does issue firmware upgrades every year or two, that’s a good indication they are committed to giving good support to their system.
If the vendor is not issuing regular firmware updates, then your system feature set may be falling behind and the system may have long-standing bugs that continue to annoy you. If the vendor does issue firmware upgrades every year or two, that’s a good indication they are committed to giving good support to their system.
Wow, is that ever a subjective statement!!!
Did it ever occur to you that the opposite could instead be true: That the system could be lacking features and/or be buggy right from the start, and that the firmware upgrades are an attempt to add those features or fix those bugs? Or possibly even an attempt to force an upgrade (at great expense)? After all:
jfugate wrote: EasyDCC released a major firmware upgrade this spring that more or less rendered my existing EasyDCC hardware obsolete.
EasyDCC released a major firmware upgrade this spring that more or less rendered my existing EasyDCC hardware obsolete.
How is that "giving good support to their system"? Sounds more like planned obsolescence to me.
So let's see. Needs firmware updates for:
Doesn't need firmware updates for:
Okay, Digitrax doesn't have more than 12 functions yet. I'll keep that in mind the next time I want to hit f(>12) and hear the conductor belch....
Steve
Steve:
These are considerations, not the laws of the universe, so by definition they are subjective. In other words, as a consideration they may be of no importance at all to you. But to someone else, they may be a top concern.
Several of these considerations play against each other too, as in:
---against---
Vendor bug fixes or upgrades are infrequent and when issued don’t cause more new bugs than they fix
As you very appropriately point out, the need to patch or issue updates can be a significant negative. Again, that's why you need to weigh these considerations and apply your own personal subjective assessment as to which one matters more to you.
However, I do stand on the assertion that eventually, every system will become obsolete *without* upgrades. But there's nothing preventing anyone from using an obsolete system.
I know of people still using old DCC systems that don't do programming on the main or that only recognize 2-digit decoder addresses. If the need to stay current doesn't matter to you and you're perfectly happy to use said system, then this consideration isn't important to you -- which is *exactly* my point.
Steve,
Your recent post mentions, twice, about having to return an EPROM in reference to NCE. I have had my system for years now, I've gotten two new EPROMs for their updates/upgrades and have NEVER had to return the old EPROM to receive the new one. In fact I still have both of the old EPROMs in a drawer. Can you further explain these comments?
In support of Joe's criteria about upgrades/updates and how they shouldn't be expensive to implement, I like NCE's approach. The cost for the new EPROM is around $15-20. I received the last one within 10 days of mailing in the response card. That's good customer service. Another significant difference has to do with the warranty terms. NCE's warranty is not voided if you open the black box. They actually show you how to do it and what's inside. How to adjust voltage output, replace the EPROM or change the battery that helps keep the memory for various system settings. You refered to Digitrax - well, if you open their box you void the warranty, some thing with their throttles. I guess they're concerned that the 'magic fairies' that make the system work might escape if the box is opened. I don't even want to get into 'planned obsolesence.'
Joe's other selection criteria are valid items to consider. Each individual will need to go about ranking the importance of each item. It's like buying a car, some features appeal to some buyers and not to others. The buyer needs to decide what each items relative importance is to them. Joe's posting at least brings those criteria together in one place.
jktrains wrote:Steve,Your recent post mentions, twice, about having to return an EPROM in reference to NCE. I have had my system for years now, I've gotten two new EPROMs for their updates/upgrades and have NEVER had to return the old EPROM to receive the new one. In fact I still have both of the old EPROMs in a drawer. Can you further explain these comments?
I'll let an NCE user explain instead. See:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NCE-DCC/message/34316
Stevert wrote: jktrains wrote:Steve,Your recent post mentions, twice, about having to return an EPROM in reference to NCE. I have had my system for years now, I've gotten two new EPROMs for their updates/upgrades and have NEVER had to return the old EPROM to receive the new one. In fact I still have both of the old EPROMs in a drawer. Can you further explain these comments?I'll let an NCE user explain instead. See:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NCE-DCC/message/34316 Steve
Just to put the referenced NCE post in context, every DCC list has those with a reputation of being extremely negative, and the poster referenced in the above link is one of those. And there are others who wear rose-colored glasses and to them their system has no defects or shortcomings, and anyone who would suggest such a thing ought to be run out of town on a rail!
I like to think I'm neither a pessimist nor an optimist when it comes to DCC systems -- I prefer to be a realist. I certainly have my likes and dislikes, but none of the systems I've ever owned (Lenz, EasyDCC, NCE) is perfect. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, and it's okay to talk about *both* in mixed company!
P.S. Steve, I'm curious why you didn't reference the very next post in the NCE yahoogroups list:
" I just want to thank the folks at NCE for their fast fix and shipping of the replacement EPROM chip this week. If you consider the price of other electron upgrades the $15.00 is a good deal to have the latest program. My chip was sent with a note saying I could kept the old chip but if they want it I have no problem sending it back if that would keep the costs of future upgrades down."
This kind of ruins the previous poster's rant you referenced doesn't it? This next guy is courteous and appreciative (as are most people -- the ranter you reference is not typical). This next poster notes that NCE themselves say sending back the EPROM is an optional courtesy, a nice gesture for the good of everybody. Nobody says you *have* to send back anything, but if you do, you help everybody.
The referenced ranter making a federal case out of mailing back the defective $5 EPROM sounds to me more like a ten-year old throwing a selfish tantrum, since NCE simply suggested that the EPROM be sent back as a favor to everybody. And if you look at it another way, it's commonly understood that if you buy a product and it's defective, you send it back for a replacement and NCE doesn't even require that. It's all a matter of perspective ...
But to pull this all back into the topic of this thread -- yes, NCE sent out some defective EPROMs to some NCE system owners (not all, just some), and yes, that's a reliability hit, and that's bad. But they handled it nicely, and that's good. Nobody's perfect, and that makes it more or less a wash to me. Neither good nor bad.