QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 [snip] Dave, what you don't realize is that Bill (Darth) and Karl (Kbfcsme) are in the same train club, and are probably talking on the phone with each other. Good one guys.[swg] [snip]
Bill Carl (modeling Chessie and predecessors from 1973-1983) Member of Four County Society of Model Engineers NCE DCC Master Visit the FCSME at www.FCSME.org Modular railroading at its best! If it has an X in it, it sucks! And yes, I just had my modeler's license renewed last week!
QUOTE: Originally posted by M. DONALDSON Seems like the intent of MTH is to become the Marklin of HO and cater to the guys with the deep pockets. You know their prices will be sky high, even more than Athearn Genesis. The complaints about the OGR forum are valid. Too much censorship and whining with a lot of know it alls controlling the forum. They are very hostile to people who are not in the clique.
I'm back!
Follow the progress:
http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1
QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan. Stupid Question though......... What is the differnce between DCC & DC anyway?
QUOTE: Originally posted by roxin2002 According to the o gauge board and rich melvin, Jerry C is the new ceo of Lionel. They fired the pres, vice pres and a number of other people just recently. I have not seen it in a press release but doubt that the editor of a forum would lie. dave.
QUOTE: 2. M.T.H. is already working with the DCC community to ensure that our HO locomotives will function with DCC controllers. This means that if you have a DCC controller from any manufacturer, you will be able to control our locomotives in command mode and have access to certain features. These features were listed in an earlier post. 3. As indicated above, our locomotives will be compatible with DCC controllers. Our DCS system is NOT DCC. We use a different, more efficient and robust method of communicating with our engines. This allows our system to control many more functions than a DCC system is capable of. Think of DCS as a fire hose and DCC as a sink faucet. Much more water or data can flow through the fire hose than the sink faucet thus allowing a Proto-Sound 3.0 locomotive to do many more things. We toyed with the concept of building into DCS a parallel DCC communication protocol so that users who desire to control DCC engines with DCS could do so. However, because DCC controllers are already available, we've elected for the time being to leave out the dual protocol which means that today DCS cannot control a DCC engine in command mode. Because the two systems are completely different, there is no way that a DCC controller can control a Proto-Sound 3.0 engine's DCS features. Andy Edleman Vice President - Marketing M.T.H. Electric Trains
QUOTE: Originally posted by roxin2002 You guys break me up. The joking is great when done in taste and does not intidmadate in member. Keep it up. When are you going to issue stock shares in this development. In HO could you really see much diffence in 5 scale miles per hour. I know my 3rd rail engines with TA's cruise control take between 6 and 7 seconds per driver revolution,(steam) depending on driver diameter. That is slow in O gauge and would be quite slow in HO also. dave/
QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 QUOTE: Originally posted by darth9x9 Hey KBFCSME, I would say go for it! I truly doubt any of could tell the difference between 1mph and 2mph increments with the naked eye. BC Actually, to be prototypical, don't we just need 8 notches?[;)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by darth9x9 Hey KBFCSME, I would say go for it! I truly doubt any of could tell the difference between 1mph and 2mph increments with the naked eye. BC
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker And now MY question to MTH. You have written in this thread the Back EMF is not under contention, ONLY the use of Back-EMF to offer 1smph speed increments. Therefore if QSI for example used Back-EMF but did not offer the ability to control at exactly 1smph increments, am I to assume that MTH would have no issue with this?
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
QUOTE: Originally posted by amedleman William, Thank you for your forum post regarding your specific concerns about M.T.H.'s DCC/Patent intentions. Hopefully you will find the below responses satisfactory. 1. No, M.T.H. is not interested in patenting features currently in use by the DCC community. Because that technology is already in use, it would qualify as prior use and wouldn't be available for patent protection by our or any other firm. Our patent claims extend solely to the technology we developed. Our notification to the DCC community was meant to inform that community what we had patented so that they could guide their own future technology development appropriately and avoid any infringement issues.
QUOTE: 2. M.T.H. is already working with the DCC community to ensure that our HO locomotives will function with DCC controllers. This means that if you have a DCC controller from any manufacturer, you will be able to control our locomotives in command mode and have access to certain features. These features were listed in an earlier post.
QUOTE: 3. As indicated above, our locomotives will be compatible with DCC controllers. Our DCS system is NOT DCC. We use a different, more efficient and robust method of communicating with our engines.
QUOTE: This allows our system to control many more functions than a DCC system is capable of. Think of DCS as a fire hose and DCC as a sink faucet. Much more water or data can flow through the fire hose than the sink faucet thus allowing a Proto-Sound 3.0 locomotive to do many more things.
QUOTE: We toyed with the concept of building into DCS a parallel DCC communication protocol so that users who desire to control DCC engines with DCS could do so. However, because DCC controllers are already available, we've elected for the time being to leave out the dual protocol which means that today DCS cannot control a DCC engine in command mode. Because the two systems are completely different, there is no way that a DCC controller can control a Proto-Sound 3.0 engine's DCS features.
QUOTE: 4. M.T.H. is not strong arming anyone and we certainly aren't forcing consumers to use our equipment. M.T.H. cannot patent what came before us which means that features found in DCC today are available for any and all to use.
QUOTE: "Secondly, M.T.H. is not claiming any patents on the concept of Back EMF as has been reported recently. Back EMF has been in existence for years and is not applicable to our technology. It was simply referenced as an existing form of speed control in our patents and some folks misread these patents and assumed we are claiming it as our own invention. Third, M.T.H. did recently send out letters to DCC manufacturers in the model railroading community who are developing or utilizing technology that may violate our U.S. Patents. These letters were meant to advise them of possible conflicts with our patents that cover 2-way communications and speed control in 1 scale mile per hour increments. These are the only issues we have alerted the DCC community about."
QUOTE: What we are doing, however, is introducing locomotives that do far more than other engines currently available on the marketplace. If you wi***o utilize the advanced features found in a Proto-Sound 3.0 HO locomotive you must use a DCS controller. The best analogy to this can be found in the many brands of television sets sold today. Each manufacturer's set uses a remote control to access certain features of the TV. While "universal" remote controls can be purchased from an electronics store to turn on those TVs, change channels, etc. they may not activate the picture-in-picture, screen settings, favorite channel settings or any of the other unique features found in a particular TV set model. For those features, you need the manufacturer's specific remote control.
QUOTE: 5. One of the false beliefs about DCC is that other manufacturers are sharing their features with one another for the good of the consumer. This is flat out false.
QUOTE: What these manufacturers are doing is following a general set of rules established by the DCC community as the basis for locomotive command control. Each DCC manufacturer then proceeds to add additional features to their DCC controllers to help differentiate their product from those of their competitors. Those manufacturers developed those features to earn them more market share and presumably more profits.
QUOTE: Sharing all these features with one another makes for a bad return on their investment. At the end of the day, each of these companies need to stay in business. Spending money to develop features that are then shared with competitors is a recipe to shutter your doors not keep them open.
QUOTE: By incorporating DCC functions in our Proto-Sound 3.0 equipped locomotives, we ensure that the user can operate our engines with existing DCC equipment. Nothing is different here from what other HO locomotive manufactuers do. Yet, if the consumer desires to access the unique features in our engines, then he can do so with a DCS system. If he or she doesn't wi***o purchase a DCS system, he still gets access to features and functions that are accessible from any DCC controller.
QUOTE: As a bonus, he will gain access to some features that other manufacturers don't include in their engines. In short, you get more fun out of your Proto-Sound 3.0 engine when you use DCC to control it. You get a lot more fun out of a Proto-Sound 3.0 engine when you use choose DCS.
QUOTE: 6. Yes, we do plan on releasing HO diesels. More product announcements will be made in early 2005.
QUOTE: Big Boy 4005, Your points are well taken and M.T.H. has obviously placed the fly in the punch in an effort to protect our patents. However, we offered to work with each manufacturer. We offered to license our technology - something we have not done in O. No calls, no letters, not a peep heard from them. We can be blamed for their delays if you wish and prosecuted for protecting our investment but once you've been ripped off by unscrupulous competitors you tend to look at your backside a lot more closely.
QUOTE: Originally posted by johnblair The OGR forum -- real objective place -- Yeah, righ!!!
QUOTE: Originally posted by roxin2002 ..............but the fact is HO people do not want their DCC messed with just like I did not want the qsi 3 rail stuff messed with.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
QUOTE: Originally posted by amedleman William, Thank you for your forum post regarding your specific concerns about M.T.H.'s DCC/Patent intentions. Hopefully you will find the below responses satisfactory. 1. No, M.T.H. is not interested in patenting features currently in use by the DCC community. Because that technology is already in use, it would qualify as prior use and wouldn't be available for patent protection by our or any other firm. Our patent claims extend solely to the technology we developed. Our notification to the DCC community was meant to inform that community what we had patented so that they could guide their own future technology development appropriately and avoid any infringement issues. 2. M.T.H. is already working with the DCC community to ensure that our HO locomotives will function with DCC controllers. This means that if you have a DCC controller from any manufacturer, you will be able to control our locomotives in command mode and have access to certain features. These features were listed in an earlier post. 3. As indicated above, our locomotives will be compatible with DCC controllers. Our DCS system is NOT DCC. We use a different, more efficient and robust method of communicating with our engines. This allows our system to control many more functions than a DCC system is capable of. Think of DCS as a fire hose and DCC as a sink faucet. Much more water or data can flow through the fire hose than the sink faucet thus allowing a Proto-Sound 3.0 locomotive to do many more things. We toyed with the concept of building into DCS a parallel DCC communication protocol so that users who desire to control DCC engines with DCS could do so. However, because DCC controllers are already available, we've elected for the time being to leave out the dual protocol which means that today DCS cannot control a DCC engine in command mode. Because the two systems are completely different, there is no way that a DCC controller can control a Proto-Sound 3.0 engine's DCS features. 4. M.T.H. is not strong arming anyone and we certainly aren't forcing consumers to use our equipment. M.T.H. cannot patent what came before us which means that features found in DCC today are available for any and all to use. What we are doing, however, is introducing locomotives that do far more than other engines currently available on the marketplace. If you wi***o utilize the advanced features found in a Proto-Sound 3.0 HO locomotive you must use a DCS controller. The best analogy to this can be found in the many brands of television sets sold today. Each manufacturer's set uses a remote control to access certain features of the TV. While "universal" remote controls can be purchased from an electronics store to turn on those TVs, change channels, etc. they may not activate the picture-in-picture, screen settings, favorite channel settings or any of the other unique features found in a particular TV set model. For those features, you need the manufacturer's specific remote control. 5. One of the false beliefs about DCC is that other manufacturers are sharing their features with one another for the good of the consumer. This is flat out false. What these manufacturers are doing is following a general set of rules established by the DCC community as the basis for locomotive command control. Each DCC manufacturer then proceeds to add additional features to their DCC controllers to help differentiate their product from those of their competitors. Those manufacturers developed those features to earn them more market share and presumably more profits. Sharing all these features with one another makes for a bad return on their investment. At the end of the day, each of these companies need to stay in business. Spending money to develop features that are then shared with competitors is a recipe to shutter your doors not keep them open. By incorporating DCC functions in our Proto-Sound 3.0 equipped locomotives, we ensure that the user can operate our engines with existing DCC equipment. Nothing is different here from what other HO locomotive manufactuers do. Yet, if the consumer desires to access the unique features in our engines, then he can do so with a DCS system. If he or she doesn't wi***o purchase a DCS system, he still gets access to features and functions that are accessible from any DCC controller. As a bonus, he will gain access to some features that other manufacturers don't include in their engines. In short, you get more fun out of your Proto-Sound 3.0 engine when you use DCC to control it. You get a lot more fun out of a Proto-Sound 3.0 engine when you use choose DCS. 6. Yes, we do plan on releasing HO diesels. More product announcements will be made in early 2005. Big Boy 4005, Your points are well taken and M.T.H. has obviously placed the fly in the punch in an effort to protect our patents. However, we offered to work with each manufacturer. We offered to license our technology - something we have not done in O. No calls, no letters, not a peep heard from them. We can be blamed for their delays if you wish and prosecuted for protecting our investment but once you've been ripped off by unscrupulous competitors you tend to look at your backside a lot more closely. Dave Roxin, Lionel had cancelled our subcontracting relationship prior to our promoting our own product line. Without the Lionel business, we had mouths to feed so we began promoting our own products which obviously led to our becoming a new competitor to Lionel. When they realized that we were going to compete with them, they cancelled our distributor status (we were their second largest account at the time). Certainly Lionel had the right to change their business direction. They underestimated that M.T.H. would respond to their actions by becoming a competitor and they then acted in a bullish manner by pulling our distributor relationship in response. Keep in mind that they did this despite the fact that their largest distributor (still today) was also a competitor to them in G Gauge at the time. By failing to include the fact that they cancelled our subcontracting relationship, you imply that we deserved to have our distributor status cancelled and that we relied on legal tactics to subsequently get our way. You paint M.T.H. as the bad guy in that scenario and that isn't fair. We relied on legal tactics because Lionel harmed us with their actions.