ndbprr wrote:Just came into this thread and what I am looking for may be outside the scope but some postings of unique situations in regard to power and reversing sections, signaling, computer interface, etc. would be helpful also.
Yes, this is kind of off topic for this specific thread around chosing a new DCC system. But I do have another thread that's about issues around *using* DCC. I will resurrect that thread and I invite you to post the details of your questions there and let's discuss it.
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
Joe,
Thanks for sharing so much of your knowledge with all of us.
I am working on my layout, and thinking about changing over from an Atlas DCC system to one of those you use.
I also have a Bachmann Easy Command I used to check out my first mainline in HO.
Anyway, I also recently downloaded one of your videos from Kalmbach online catalog , about laying flex track. I also used grey latex caulk like you recommended, and it came out great!!
After laying several sections as you described, my confidence level was quickly boosted, and the rest of my first mainline went in easily!
A quick check by running a BLI J1 steamer around it, showed no defects or derailments!
My second mainline will go in soon, using the same methods.
Thanks again for sharing with all of us!
Ed DeBolt
Grabill, Indiana
aka TheK4Kid
Working on the Pennsy
Stevert,
The majority of the responses to the ranter was "so what, they want the old one back, what am I going to do with it." As I said, mine are just gathering dust in the drawer, I think I'll send them back. It's a matter of perspective. I have a friend with a Digitrax system. Right out of the box his radio system wouldn't work. Nothing, absolutely dead. The problem - a bad solder joint on the circuit board. He had to wait until Monday to call since it was Saturday. He had to pay postage to send it back they sent him a replacement UR91. Did they prvide good customer service - Yes. Did he carry on about poor quality and defective parts from them - No. Sometimes bad parts get through the inspection process. As long as its handled promptly thats whats important.
jktrains
jktrains wrote:I have a friend with a Digitrax system. Right out of the box his radio system wouldn't work. Nothing, absolutely dead. The problem - a bad solder joint on the circuit board. He had to wait until Monday to call since it was Saturday. He had to pay postage to send it back they sent him a replacement UR91. Did they prvide good customer service - Yes. Did he carry on about poor quality and defective parts from them - No. Sometimes bad parts get through the inspection process. As long as its handled promptly thats whats important.jktrains
I have a friend with a Digitrax system. Right out of the box his radio system wouldn't work. Nothing, absolutely dead. The problem - a bad solder joint on the circuit board. He had to wait until Monday to call since it was Saturday. He had to pay postage to send it back they sent him a replacement UR91. Did they prvide good customer service - Yes. Did he carry on about poor quality and defective parts from them - No. Sometimes bad parts get through the inspection process. As long as its handled promptly thats whats important.
jk:
Yes, that's a good example. Permit me to get on my soapbox for a moment ...
***soapbox***
Our culture admires the skeptic, and poo-poos the non-skeptic as "gullible". A skeptic is honored as being a "critical thinker", "tough negotiator", or as one who "stands up for their rights".
I think making the skeptic a hero in our culture has gone to seed to the point that we now encourage whining, complaining, litigation, and just-plain-bad-attitudes under the guise of being an honored skeptic. In my book, people who make a career of such a nasty, negative perspective are not heroes at all but simply chronic complainers whose viewpoint loses all its power because they cry wolf so much.
And worse yet, such complaining leads some people to fight back, triggering conflicts -- and nobody likes conflict. In management studies that have been done with problem solving teams and different team member types, when the team is given the option to eject their least valuable member -- it's always the chronic complainer that gets the axe first.
There's a lesson in there somewhere.
***end of soapbox***
I promised I would rate the DCC system considerations that I have posted earlier in this thread, so here it is.I'm using these priorities: High, medium, and low. Please note, these are my subjective priorties for these considerations, and your priorities may be quite different! I will then explain how my rating of these priorities affected my choice of DCC system. It might be helpful to have others post their ratings of these priorities and then explain how that affected their choice of DCC system.
From highest to lowest, my priorities are:
In case you haven't figured it out by now, Ease-of-use ranks at the top of my list. Even though I am a computer professional and thus deal with highly technical computer issues all the time, I also manage a team of internet developers and we spend a lot of time thinking about ease-of-use. As a result my "ease-of-use" radar is on full all the time and when I see a less-than-stellar user interface it really annoys me. The way I rate the big four systems on ease of use: NCE (very good), EasyDCC (good), Lenz (fair), Digitrax (fair). Digitrax used to be poor, but they've done a lot to improve their user interface in recent years with the DT400 and the UT4 throttles. But NCE rates tops in this category, IMO.
Reliability has to be a high priority as well, or ease-of-use just doesn't matter. If it's easy to use but you can't trust it to perform, who cares if it's easy to use? Here, all the systems are more or less neck-in-neck. In other words, they're all well built and will last for many years, so this area's somewhat of a wash when comparing the systems. They're the big 4 systems for a reason. I suspect Zimo also will stand up well, but I'm dubious about MRC -- their flakey decoders have shown they are willing to cut corners on reliability in order to lower their price. The jury's still out on their latest wireless DCC entry. NCE did have reliability problems with their rev 1 wireless, but a couple years ago they released their rev 2 wireless, solving this problem for them.
I watch the evolution of DCC Features closely and prefer to stay early on the curve of new features with my DCC system, with features that might appeal to a 1980s diesel era modeler highest on my list. This is why the features around consisting matter very much to me, and I've always wanted DCC systems that give me the most power when it comes to what I can do with consists. The leader of the pack in consisting features is clearly NCE, with their built-in double-ended consists and their ability to freely nest decoder and command station consists. EasyDCC is next, but their system over time has introduced some annoying limitations to nested consists. Lenz consisting is okay, but their "double headed" command station consists are limited to just two locos. Digitrax's insistance on picking only command station or decoder consists and not automatically allowing you to freely mix both types of consists is limiting unless you want to become an expert at CV19 programming. The need to learn CV19 ins and outs just furthers Digitrax's technogeek reputation.
Support is important, but not the be-all, end-all for me. Since I have been in the computer field for almost 35 years, I can read and write hex and binary in my sleep, and I know how to debug digital computer issues very well. I also am not concerned about having all my railroad buddies have the same system as me -- if I can post a question somewhere online that's good enough for me. All the big four systems rank neck-in-neck as to support as far as I can tell. They all bend over backwards to solve issues, and the fact Digitrax has the best market penetration of any system gives them the edge here. Chances are you can find someone local who can help if you have a Digitrax system and are really stuck.
I'm willing to pay a higher Price for a system if it has the ease-of-use and features I want. NCE and Digitrax have the edge here (with very affordable starter systems), followed closely by Lenz with reasonably good prices, but EasyDCC becoming the most expensive of the four since they are a sole-source supplier. Competition among distributors of the other three systems have made for some really sweet discounts on the list price. By far the most expensive system is Zimo, with its prices 1.5 to 2 times that of the other systems.
As to Availability, as long as I can order the system online, that's good enough for me. In today's world, I do most of my shopping online ... so if I can get it online somewhere, I'm happy. All the systems are available online, so this consideration is at the bottom of my list. For some people, being able to buy the system at their LHS could be their highest consideration. If that's the case, then Digitrax should be high on your list -- they have the greatest penetration into local hobby shops. Likewise, EasyDCC would be at the bottom of your list, since they are only available from one source: directly from the vendor.
In Summary, my latest system of choice is NCE, since it ranks high on the items that are a priority for me. I invite others to post how they would rank these consisterations and how that ranking affected their choice of DCC system.
jfugate wrote:I invite others to post how they would rank these consisterations and how that ranking affected their choice of DCC system.
...and, might I add, without making personal attacks on how others came to their conclusions.
Thanks for the thread, Joe. It will be interesting to see how and why these priorities fluctuate between forum members who use DCC on their layouts.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
jfugate wrote: I invite others to post how they would rank these consisterations and how that ranking affected their choice of DCC system.
I invite others to post how they would rank these consisterations and how that ranking affected their choice of DCC system.
My priorities would be identical to yours. However, for ease of use, I would have to rate the Lenz Set 100 as very good. For a solo operator like myself, my ideal setup would be the Lenz Set 100 with the LH100 throttle, plus an LH90 engineer's throttle (the new 3.5 version of course) and a cordless phone thottle.
My reasoning is as follows:
I pretty much agree with eveything else you have said.
Now it's true that I've never run trains with NCE, Digitrax or EasyDCC, and I have great respect for each of them. I especially like the NCE engineer's throttles, the Digitrax DT400 and the CVP wireless T9000E. I can see how tough it would be for a beginner to pick one of the "big four". I think I could be very happy with any one of them. But at this point I'm very pleased with my Lenz decision.
Jerry
Rio Grande vs. Santa Fe.....the battle is over but the glory remains!
I pretty much agree with your ranking of priorities, but then again maybe that's why we've both selected a system from the same manufacturer. I have used Digitrax systems. I would rank them as low for user friendliness. I have 2 friends whose home layouts use Digitrax. Each time I've operated on them there is a 'orientation' session at the start to explain how to use the throttle. Usually the trains, and consists, ahve already been made up so it is just a matter of selecting you assigned train. The layout owner always had to tell you what the consist number was to select the train.
I would rank support for NCE as medium-high to high. In the 8 years I have my PHP I've never had to send it or a throttle back to NCE for service. That would speak to reliability. My support experience has been with the software upgrades. I received that last upgrade within 10 days of send in my response card and a check. That's one check in the plus column for support. I also consider part of support the manufacturers ability to make new technology and standards available to users, especially existing users. That's the area that, based on your posts, EasyDCC has fallen down in. How does the manufacturer support older systems, and can they brought up to date without a considerable cash outlay. That's where I give NCE high marks. Two upgrades since I've owned the system and its as good as one purchased today. It has all the same features and options. Total cost of upgrades - about $40.
In selecting a system I would and did rank as low having fellow MRRs in the area using the same system. Like you, with the availability to discussion forums like YahooGroups, the ability to have others in the area to ask questions of ranks at the bottom of the decision criteria.
Cost also ranked low. I knew at the outset that this decision was more like and investment than an expense. I realized that whatever system I picked would be one I would use for a long, long time. When spending $400 - $500 dollars on a system, the fact that one is maybe $50 cheaper is not worth sacrificing things like ease of use. One other factor that came out in my research years ago, which also consisted of read each mfgs manuals and joining their YahooGroup, was there seemed to be more people who were switching from Digitrax to NCE than vice versa. The most common reason was ease of use - my highest priority consideration.
Joe - Thanks for putting together a good comprehensive list. Hopefully people will refer to this thread rather than constantly starting a new thread about which system to choose.
CSX Robert wrote:I would like to point out that Digitrax does allow you to mix command station and decoder assisted consisting. If you have command station consisting set as the default, then you can not do decoder assited consisting without manually programming CV 19; however, If you have decoder assisted consisting set as the default, when you acquire an engine, you can tell the command station whether or not it supports decoder assisted consisting and if it does not, when you add that engine to a consist, it will use command station consisting. You can also do command station consisting when you have decoder assisted consisting as the default by using a consist number greater than 127.The Digitrax Zephyr is the only system I've used, other than the MRC Command 2000, so I can not compare it's use to other systems, but from my experience, I would rate it good in ease-of-use.
Robert:
Thanks for your insight on Digitrax and consists. I know that Digitrax comes from the factory defaulting to command station consisting, and that you can change it via a configuration setting to decoder-based. It's nice to know you can get some command-station consists even when set to decoder-based in the system configuration. However, I do believe when set to command station consisting, you can nest consists, but if you go to decoder based, you lose the nesting capability. EasyDCC's not much better in this regard, but NCE allows lots of freedom nesting the two kinds of consists, which I find useful.
When it comes to ease-of-use, I look for things like plain english functions and good prompting on the display as you work through the steps. Unfortunately, Digitrax uses keys labeled with things like "MU", "T+", or "Y+" to add locos to a consist, while NCE uses "add loco" in a section of the keypad labeled "Consist". As a web interface designer, inventing a "secret code" for things like Digitrax often does is poor design. Simple and obvious, as NCE does, is a much friendlier design.
I know when I go to my friends' Digitrax layouts, I'm always having to get a refresher on how to select a loco, since I can't tell just by looking at the throttle. On the NCE throttles, there's a button labeled "Select loco" -- how much more obvious can you get?
One other comment on Digitrax's user interface versus the other three systems. Digitrax is object - action, but the other three systems are action - object.
With Digitrax's object - action, you have to select something first, then do an action to it. But you have to just know that -- there's nothing on the throttle to let you know that. If you start pressing buttons without having something to act on, you just get yourself in a mess. To do a consist on Digitrax, you have to start with a loco selected, then press "MU". If you press "MU" first you get no helpful prompts to guide you.
With the other systems' action - object approach, you start by pressing the action button (and the action buttons are well labeled on NCE and fairly well labeled on EasyDCC) like "Setup Consist". Then the system says something helpful like "What loco number?" and off you go, with the system leading you by the hand through the process. Much more friendly.
Sure you can learn how to use Digitrax and once you get used to using it you can be proficient at it. But for visiting guest engineers who don't routinely use Digitrax, you'll have to coach them every single time because the system's just not intuitive to use. At least with NCE your guest operators have a fighting chance if they start with the "Select Loco" button ...
I have come in late on this thread (I read the last full page of posts). One thing that I am looking at is throttles. I want wireless and I would really like a feature that is hard to explain. MY present system, when you change the throttle to control a different loco, uses the setting of reverse/forward and amount-of-throttle that the throttle control unit used for the previous loco at EXCEPT, it continues to run at the new locos old setting until you change some setting. So it can happen that when you change locos, as soon as you touch the throttle setting, the train goes into REVERSE!!! (This will happen if the forward/reverse setting for the PREVIOUS loco is REVERSE for this loco). Whew! Hope that is clear.
I am not sure what all the options are to solve this. I KNOW I want radio throttle. I envision a throttle that uses the current settings of the loco as it's setting regardless of where the throttle and forward/reverse is positioned. In other words these settings are RELATIVE, not ABSOLUTE.
Any help here?
pilot wrote: I have come in late on this thread (I read the last full page of posts). One thing that I am looking at is throttles. I want wireless and I would really like a feature that is hard to explain. MY present system, when you change the throttle to control a different loco, uses the setting of reverse/forward and amount-of-throttle that the throttle control unit used for the previous loco at EXCEPT, it continues to run at the new locos old setting until you change some setting. So it can happen that when you change locos, as soon as you touch the throttle setting, the train goes into REVERSE!!! (This will happen if the forward/reverse setting for the PREVIOUS loco is REVERSE for this loco). Whew! Hope that is clear.I am not sure what all the options are to solve this. I KNOW I want radio throttle. I envision a throttle that uses the current settings of the loco as it's setting regardless of where the throttle and forward/reverse is positioned. In other words these settings are RELATIVE, not ABSOLUTE. Any help here?
Indeed. On the DT400 the select loco button is just Loco and if you don't have a loco selected the screen says "Sel Loco". That sounds more difficult than a Select Loco button. As for consists, just set the consist address to the first locomotive. Then select the first locomotive.
Now one thing missing from most of the evaluation criteria here is scalability. I chose Digitrax for scalability and expandability. Usability isn't quite as high because I figure I'll be using it all of the time so I'll learn any nuiances and quirks but I don't want to tear it all out and thrown it away when I outgrow it or nead to expand. I'll rate that above some slight perceived usability issue. To me usability is using DS64s with local cascaded routes in my yard. Being able to select a route address and guide a switcher through 7-8 turnouts from a single button click instead of throwng 7-8 manual switches or wiring up a diode matrix. Or if I want to change a route it is just a few keystrokes to reprogram a route instead of resoldering wires. Equally good is the ability to set an entire yard or portion of the layout back to default so that all turnouts are in their normal position.
Engineer Jeff NS Nut Visit my layout at: http://www.thebinks.com/trains/
From the loan wolf operator on an 8 1/2 x 11 or shelf , to the large layout running operating sessions with multiple users there are a vast array of needs. I run a modest layout with my 2 young sons and have the occasional visitor come and run a train or two.
My criteria were:
1. Entry level system that had good expansion capability
2. 3 or 4 operators at the same time
3. Very easy operation since the boys are young.
4. Walk around capability with true un-plug memory type throttles, where you can unplug, the train keeps running and you can plug back in again and have control. A single tether just does not work in my layout room.
5. PC interface for programming of decoders with Decoder pro.
At the time, there was only one clear choice and that was the Digitrax Zephyr. Here we are 5 years later and there have been several newer additions to the entry level DCC market, and yet the Zephyr is still the only clear choice that meets my criteria. This speaks volumes about the innovative approach that Digitrax takes. I fulfilled my criteria by adding a pair of throttles to my Zephyr and 3 plug in panels. This is just a simple daisy chain of the loconet. I also use the jump throttle capability for an old DC powerpack. This gets used by the very little kids 2-3 yrs! and also as a yard controller in my loco servicing facility. For a PC interface I use the aftermarket Locobuffer 2. I like the idea that there are 3rd party vendors and manufacturers making products that are compatible with the Digitrax loconet backbone. This gives me more choice. The Zephyr is trivial to setup and operate and has provided none of the operation headache that is implied by others for either myself or my boys.
I am planning to further expand my system in the next few months. Digitrax is coming out with a new duplex wireless system. From what I have been told, it operates in a different frequency band than current systems and should have excellent range and response time. It is not ready for prime time yet, but Digitrax was openly speaking about it at the NMRA. It will be compatible with existing loconet systems, so as always we can take advantage of the excellent expansion capability of the loconet.
I would contend that for a moderate size layout, the Digitrax Zephyr is one of the best value systems on the market.
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
So what does ease-of-use mean? This is mentioned frequently in DCC system discussions. I think that ease-of-use means different things depending upon who you are. This can get complicated, but to use simple examples I will list the following DCC operator types:
1. Solo operator who always operates alone and is a "manual reader":
This is the guy who reads his DCC, VCR and new car manuals from cover to cover (by the way, I tend to be this type). So, ease-of-use for this person means that he easily understands the manual and can then operate his device without difficulty, and enjoys doing it because it becomes so clear to him.
2. Solo operator who always operates alone and is not a "manual reader":
This is the guy who just wants to pick up, operate or drive the device without reading anything, or at least as little as possible.
3. An operator who invites friends or family to operate with him:
This person provides throttles for his guests to use, unless one happens to operate the same system and brings his throttle with him.
4. An operator who operates at a club:
This person probably also runs the same system at home.
Now, again, keeping it simple, lets' consider which system each of the above might think is easy to use. In reality, just as no two sets of fingerprints are alike, there are probably no two modelers that are exactly alike, so obviously this is a generalization. The systems listed below are the ones that each type would probably think are easy to use (systems listed alphabetically):
Group 1: Digitrax, EasyDCC, Lenz, MRC, NCE
Group 2: MRC, NCE
Group 3: MRC, NCE
Group 4: Digitrax, EasyDCC, Lenz, MRC, NCE
But, the above assumes that all operators and guests are going to be using the primary programming throttle that comes with the DCC set. So, what if the guests in Group 3 are only going to use an "engineer's throttle", and will simply be running one loco for speed, direction, bell and horn (whistle)? Now, I would say that all groups become equal and it wouldn't matter which system was being used.
But, what if the guests in Group 3 are going to switch back and forth between two or more locos? Then, the list of "easy systems" will probably change. We could go on and on with different scenerios but I guess the point I'm tring to make is:
To choose a DCC system one needs to carefully consider exactly how, and with whom, one intends to operate. When we give advice as to what system a person should choose, we need to be careful not to just blindly say....."I use such and such system and really think it's best". Best? For whom?
But here is another problem for the newcomer. They often don't even know how they are going ot eventually operate and therefore don't really know what features are going to be important to them. We need to keep that in mind in our discussions, and this is where only a system with a good uprade path should be suggested and chosen. Actually, it seems that most of the "big five" (I'm including MRC here) seem to have good ugrade paths, although with Lenz, at least for now, you kind of have to start with a more advanced system. And, pretty soon we will probably have Bachmann Dynamis in U.S. stores. What then? "The "big six".
I'm not sure why I'm posting this other than to say what we already know......that picking a DCC system can be as complicated or as simple as we want to make it, but with good study, research and questioning one can have a better chance of finding the system that will truly work best for him.
I can't remember why I picked the SEB from Digitrax. I didn't know squat, and not much has changed. (Uhhh...let me rephrase that....) What I can say is that I had no choice but to get into the manual and make things work 'cuz otherwise I was out CDN$400.
Is Digitrax perfect? Ha, ha.
Would I part with my SEB now? Nope.
Point- you find the way. Joe is telling us that "finding the way" could mean learning how to do that in a methodical approach.
jwils, I am much like you. I have no choice but to get into the VCR manual because She wants her soaps taped, and I am the designated programmer. Eventually, the manual gets committed to memory, and the machine does what it is engineered to do.
jbinkley60 wrote:Now one thing missing from most of the evaluation criteria here is scalability. I chose Digitrax for scalability and expandability. Usability isn't quite as high because I figure I'll be using it all of the time so I'll learn any nuiances and quirks but I don't want to tear it all out and thrown it away when I outgrow it or nead to expand.
jb:
I consider scalability to be a system feature, as can be derived from the list I posted for features:
Features Many different throttle options Full spectrum of options for your first system System includes robust bus networking technology Many options for working with accessory decoders (beyond just loco decoders) Computer interface capability Vendor sells separate boosters that allow using “light bulb” short management Wireless system supports a dozen or more throttles on unique frequencies
Features
Many different throttle options
Full spectrum of options for your first system
System includes robust bus networking technology
Many options for working with accessory decoders (beyond just loco decoders)
Computer interface capability
Vendor sells separate boosters that allow using “light bulb” short management
Wireless system supports a dozen or more throttles on unique frequencies
All of the things listed above deal with how well the system can be "expanded" and are scaleability-related. If features, especially the upsizing capabilities, rate higher than ease-of-use, then Digitrax is a good choice. LocoNet and its device daisy-chaining features does make expansion pretty easy.
CSX Robert wrote:Joe,When Digitrax is set to decoder based consisting, you can still nest consists. When you are setting up consists with a DT300 or DT400, You do have to press "+" or -" to add or remove the engine, but the throttle prompts you with "+ = add" and "- remove", and using "MU" to mean a multiple unit consist is pretty common terminology.I am not trying to say that Digitrax is as easy to use as NCE, and that's why I rated it "good" and not "very good", I just don't think it is far behind NCE as long as you have a DT400.
Yep, Digitrax has worked to improve their user interface, and it's clear the DT400 "TV Remote" sized throttle helps a lot. The one thing to watch out for is command-station programming throttles that only have a minimal set of buttons. That minimal set of buttons is to make you think it's simpler. But you may find that in order to do anything significant, you need all kinds of less-than-intuitive combinations of button presses to get anything done.
One of the very worst in this regard is the Lenz Set 90 throttles. They didn't even include a complete numeric keypad on this throttle. To get all the numbers, you have to press shift and a button. Very annoying if ease of use is most important to you.
As the DT400 illustrates, ease-of-use is actually better if you have a larger number of well labeled buttons.
jfugate wrote: One of the very worst in this regard is the Lenz Set 90 throttles. They didn't even include a complete numeric keypad on this throttle. To get all the numbers, you have to press shift and a button. Very annoying if ease of use is most important to you.
I can't let this pass without a comment. The new, updated Version 3.5 of the Lenz LH90 is a terrific engineer's throttle. I use it and love it. I now even prefer using it over the CVP T9000E wireless, even though I have to plug it in!
For speed control, direction, loco selection, functions and turnout control, it's very easy to use. Many of us mostly use just Functions F0-F4 while running a train and these require no shift key. Now, while you can consist and program with it, these operations are not nearly as easy to remember how to do, nor as fast and easy as on the LH100 throttle. But, how many people use their engineer's throttles for these operations?
I really like the LH90 and don't wan't others to get the wrong impression about it. Of course this all goes back to how you interpret "ease-of-use" as discussed in my previous post.
Thanks for all of your extremely valuable info on this thread, but remember, all of us solo operating, manual readers have absolutely no problem with the likes of an LH90.
And speaking of ease-of-use, I rely on my training and experience as an internet software designer to define ease-of-use. When designing a web page user interface, you can't expect people to read a manual in order to use your web page, so I rely on user interface industry wisdom to help me define ease-of-use for DCC systems.
1. Simple, DCC-standard labels on buttons
You would think this is obvious, but it's amazing how often this concept is violated by interface designers. Take consisting as an example. The DCC term for joining locos together into multi-unit lashups is a "consist". The system interface should use that term: consist, not MU, not double-header -- consist! Two systems follow this concept well: NCE and EasyDCC. Lenz and Digitrax, on the other hand, invent their own system-unique terms for more than a few things.
Take a close look at all the buttons of each DCC system you are thinking of buying. Can you guess at the function of the buttons without ever looking at the manual? Here's some good examples from actual DCC systems: "Select Loco, Setup consist, Pgm Trk, Enter". Or some less-than-helpful examples: "0M, Y+, MU, Av"
2. Simple and obvious command sequences
By using the action-object approach and buttons with obvious labels, a DCC system can make it pretty easy to get common tasks done when using a DCC system. Pressing "Select loco" or "Assign loco" and then typing in the 4-digit loco number on a numeric keypad is an example of making it really easy to connect your throttle to a loco so you can run your train.
Your best bet is to download the manuals for the various DCC systems that interest you and compare the command sequences for doing things like assigning locos to a throttle or setting up a consist. If the system vendor doesn't make their manual available to you online, then shame on them! What are they trying to hide, uhmmmm?
3. Helpful command prompts
If the user interface is well designed, you should know where to start by looking at the well labled and obvious buttons, and the system prompts should guide you step-by-step along the way. The only way you can get some idea of the prompts you'll get without playing with the system for a while is to again, download and read the manual.
4. Can you "throw away the manual"?
If a system's user interface is well designed, one in-depth trip through the manual ought to just about do it. From there, the well labeled buttons and the helpful command prompts should get you through nicely. If you find you have to put together button-sequence "cheat sheets" or that visiting operators who don't have your system keep needing help to do things with your system, then the system user interface hasn't met the "throw away the manual" guideline very well.
5. Is the system interface completely consistent across all models of the system
If you use different models of the DCC system, are all the button labels, prompts and command sequences identical for the same functions? Or does the system change button labels, move buttons around, or use completely different interfaces on their various system models?
Rating the systems as to Ease-of-Use
Based on these guidelines, my rating of the systems as to ease-of-use (from best to worst) is:
NCE, EasyDCC, MRC, Digitrax, Lenz
MRC, Digitrax, and Lenz all have inconsistent user interfaces across the various system models. If you move to a different model of system, you have to essentially start over and relearn a completely new system interface. Very annoying.
Digitrax and Lenz use their own system-unique vocabulary (rather than DCC-standard terminology) to label buttons. Lenz's set 90 throttles even make typing in ordinary numbers a chore, requiring you to press a shift key and digit keys for 1, 2, 3, 4, or 0 to get the digits 5-9.
On the other hand, the NCE PowerCab starter system uses a system interface that's identical to the full-blown ProCab system. Once you learn the command sequences with the PowerCab, graduating to a ProCab is a piece-of-cake because everything's the same!
EasyDCC has only one command panel for all versions of their system so they do this by default. Their throttles, however, exhibit some variations. Not enough to be annoying, but it does increase the learning curve somewhat between throttles.
It is also important to state that everyone has their own personal preferences with regard to user interfaces, and that you can get used to just about anything. If you love mastering technical things -- then Lenz's less-than-obvious set 90 throttles may not be a problem for you and could even be rather fun to use. Once you become intimately familiar with a given system, it can seem easier to use than any other system that you don't know.
I have had a Digitrax Radio Chief since the system was first introduced. The system works great, but I would agree that programing takes some learning. Over the years I have migrated from DT-100 to DT-300 and now DT-400. I use them for throttles only. Joe Fugate's video introduced me to Decoder Pro and I use my old (Windows 98) computer with Decoder Pro for programming. In the future all of my throttles will be UT-4R as they are very easy to use, however all of the old throttles still work great.
One nice thing about Digitrax is that my old DCS-100 command station and DB-150 boosters are still up to date. I had some old UT-1 throttles which were easy to use, but sold them as they could not be upgraded to wireless. I have one Digitrax UP-91 radio reciever in an 1800 sq ft basement with no reception problems.
I consider my Digitrax system to be a great investment.
Jim, Modeling the Kansas City Southern Lines in HO scale.
jfugate wrote: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.
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.
No, that next post in the NCE Yahoo! group doesn't "ruin" anything. If you re-read my post, I merely said someone wasn't about to return his old eprom. Nowhere did I say anyone was required to do so. And read on. Sending the old eprom back may not help everybody.
jfugate wrote: 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 ...
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 ...
Well, since you chided me for not referencing another post in that thread, I'll take the time to do so now. From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NCE-DCC/message/34303 :
His complaint is that he paid money for a product which is defective. Instead of replacing the defective part with a good part, the seller asked Bill to pay for a new, better part. AND they are asking for the old part, which is *Bill's property*, back for free. I agree with Bill. NCE goofed here. NCE should, as a matter of good business practice, do one of two things: 1) replace the defective part at NO cost to the custom 2) offer the improved part at a price AND offer to buy back the customers EPROM at a fair market price that represents the value of a salvaged EPROM to NCE. Also, the statement " What are going to do with the old one? " has a snide tone to it. Maybe Bill is an electronics experimentor and could make good use of HIS EPROM. Characterizing a valid consumer complaint as "bellyaching" is beneath discussion.
jfugate wrote: 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.
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.
So if I miskey something (I'm also in IT) and cause one of my customers (not all, just some) to lose millions of dollars, I can handle it "nicely" and they'll tell me "that's good" because "nobody's perfect"? I hardly think so.
You keep talking about how important things like "Vendor support reputation is good", and how "Reliability has to be a high priority as well, or ease-of-use just doesn't matter." But I simply don't see how this whole NCE eprom "experience" is better than having non-buggy code right from the start.
Steve
Stevert wrote:You keep talking about how important things like "Vendor support reputation is good", and how "Reliability has to be a high priority as well, or ease-of-use just doesn't matter." But I simply don't see how this whole NCE eprom "experience" is better than having non-buggy code right from the start.Steve
Steve:
Yes it's bad to sell defective parts, and I agree, that's a reliability hit. NCE gets a black eye out of this event.
However, we all make mistakes, including vendors. It's not so much about never ever making mistakes as it is how quickly the vendor owns up to the mistake and tries to make it right. Adding more mistakes on top of previous blunders is really bad, and it helps if the vendor also "gives something" in the process by making the fix available for free, etc.
Not all EPROMs sent out by NCE were defective, only some were defective -- so that's a plus. How NCE handled the replacement of the defective EPROMs was not great according to some -- to others it was handled quite well -- in sum not a stellar performance, but okay. In the final analysis, this is an NCE reliability chuck hole -- not enough to ruin the entire NCE system journey but it does give a black eye that will pass in time as people upgrade and new systems come out with the new EPROM from the start.
But this does mean we need to watch NCE closely and if the next EPROM release is a repeat performance then that's worse. Now we have a compounding issue where NCE doesn't seem to learn from past mistakes -- and that's not good at all.
I will also grant you Digitrax's overall reliability score is probably better than NCE's. Heaven knows NCE's wireless reliability was quite poor in rev 1 and much better in rev 2 although it can still be a tad finicky even in rev 2. However, everything's a matter of degrees. The reliability glitch from this upgrade is not enough to ruin the great ease-of-use aspect of NCE since with a correct EPROM the new system works better than ever.
To say vendors should never make mistakes and if a vendor ever does make a mistake you should tar and feather them seems a bit over the top -- and rather convenient when it's for a competing system to the one you own. What if it was Digitrax that made a mistake -- like producing some system part that had a few of them defective in a batch?
Does the same level of harshness apply to all vendors, regardless of whether or not it's the vendor of the system you own? Or is this level of criticism only reserved for the vendors of competing systems, and we should be more forgiving of the vendor who makes the system you chose?
I'm sure every DCC system vendor has customer horror stories where someone got a defective system -- the real question is what did the vendor do to make it right?
Hi,
thank you for going to the trouble of putting together this thread. I do not have a DCC system but will purchase one in the future. The opinions and experiences that are in this thread mean a lot more to me due to the fact that the information is not sales oriented but instead from fellow modelers.
Again great clinic and thank you.
Frank
"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
WN5L wrote:In the end the hands down winner will be MRC-Model Rectifier. They have the resources and the might to crush all the other DCC makers whenever they choose. The new Prodigy advance Wireless is an example.
I think the jury's still out on this one. MRC's very poor decoder quality* doesn't help matters, since it shows they're willing to cut corners on quality in an attempt to lowball the price and capture market share. This doesn't mean their DCC systems are this bad, but it's enough to make you wonder.
How reliable MRC's new wireless system is will be an important data point in their efforts to capture DCC system market share. Another important point will be the inclusion of a computer interface and how scalable the system is for larger layouts. So far, MRC's systems have been more low-end with out a computer interface and lacking in significant scalability for larger layouts.
*Mean time to failure for an MRC sound decoder seems to be about 12-16 hours of use. I know of one case where a fairly well known model railroader was given 8 MRC sound decoders and he installed them all in locos to run at a weekend show. By the time the weekend was over, ALL 8 MRC DECODERS had failed. His response? "The best thing you can do with an MRC decoder is take a sledge hammer to it." He was NOT impressed.
One big negative for MRC's DCC system offerings is the fact their various system's throttles are not interchangeable. You CANNOT start with a Prodigy Express and then move up to a Prodigy Advanced without changing out both the command station and your throttles.
None of the other big 4 system vendors (Digitrax, NCE, Lenz, EasyDCC) require this. You can use their starter system and move up without replacing virtually everything.
I think MRC logically HAD an opportunity to the the name in DCC, but it seems to me they may have waited too long to jump on the boat, and then put themselves behind with questionable decoder quality, and an initial control station offering that was too limited, and had no growth path. I think it may be too late for them to make up the lost ground. From their position at the top of the DC control ffod chain they could have grabbed DCC from the beginning, and probably stopped most of the cometition before it started, I think it is going to be a lot harder for them to do that from the rear. The good news is that it seems to be that there is still plenty of room for fresh ideas in the area, and hopefully they are providing some.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
WN5L wrote the following post at 08-31-2007 3:55 AM:In the end the hands down winner will be MRC-Model Rectifier. They have the resources and the might to crush all the other DCC makers whenever they choose. The new pProdigy advance Wireless is an example.
WN5L wrote the following post at 08-31-2007 3:55 AM:
In the end the hands down winner will be MRC-Model Rectifier. They have the resources and the might to crush all the other DCC makers whenever they choose. The new pProdigy advance Wireless is an example.