MTH DCS. . .Next evolution of DCC?

[MisterBeasley]

Nobody in the HO world is going to take DCS seriously until there are more engines supported. At this point, I think MTH is very, very far behind the curve and probably has no realistic opportunity to close the gap. It may be that DCS will continue to be a real option in O and G, but DCC has too strong a lock on the HO and N world.

Which leaves S....

[Anonymous]

The folks who have used DCS in O gauge know how great it is. It's far superior to DCC in every way. It will take a while to convince people of the advantages over DCC, but once they try it, they'll be hooked.[tup]
www.mthhotrains.com

[simon1966]

After the Nurenburg show a few months ago, there was a lot of buzz about the new generations of DCC command station coming out of Germany from ESU and others. Everything that I read then suggests that these next generation systems have looked long and hard at user interface and have improved them significantly.

[jnichols]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector


Is there anything else that places DCS on a higher rung?

Selector,

As I can't remember everyone I've responded to in the past when this topic has come up, have you used the DCS system in conjunction with a Proto2 locomotive? I don't think that saying the DCS system as a whole is on a higher rung would be correct, but I would say that the user interface in regards to programming and controlling a locomotive and accessories on the DCS system is superior to anything I've seen from a DCC manufacturer. Even if you take the two way communication to the decoder in the locomotive out of the equation as DCC doesn't currently support this across the board, there are still numerous advantages to the way the system works. From simple things like changing parameters in the locomtives using easy to read menu driven commands (I've never picked up a DCS manual when programming a locomotive and there are no CV's to remember), to more complex things like recording sequences of often used events and then replaying them as desired during an operating session.

As I've often suggested to members interested in the DCS system, find a dealer who has one installed on an operational layout and go play. Based on the fact my wife can pick up my DCS remote and run a train without any help from me is a testament to the systems powerful yet simple architecture and straight forward user interface. Keep in mind I'm also a loyal Digitrax man and love the crazy world of DCC, but I still think the DCC manufacturers should take a look at what MTH has come up with when designing their next system... [;)]

PS> I'm not the only one who feels this way. Take a look at the review of the DCS system in Model Railroad News a couple of months back. The author of that article stated he also thought the DCC crowd should look at MTH's offering for new ideas.

Jeff

[selector]

So you prefer an analog approach to managing a digital system, if I read you correctly, brothaslide. You want to turn a knob to input to a digital interface, not unlike the tuning dial of your automobile radio...is that correct? Digital display, but analog function.

I see no problem with that. It might be more "user friendly" to many people. However, I have learned to adjust the numerous CV's using my DT 400, and all I need to know is the CV that corresponds to the function that I wi***o manage. Once that is known, I simply press "program", dial in the CV on the left encoder, and then dial in the value on the right encoder. After pressing "enter", the job is done. A few more steps, yes, but every bit as effective. And, not unlike the PC keyboard on which I type. I still have to click a mouse, press enter, type inputs, etc, something that even a Mac can't seem to get away from, unless using voice recognition software, and that is available for the PC, too.

Is there anything else that places DCS on a higher rung?

[jnichols]

As many of you already know from previous posts, I'm a huge fan of DCS and use it everyday with my large scale equipment. As for it's viability in the smaller scales, I really have no idea what to think. I've pointed out many times that most current DCC users would be blown away by the ease of use and setup with the DCS command system, but there are quirks with the system (especially with 2-rail setups) and without proper DCC support I can't imagine it surviving very long as a mainstream product.

Jeff

[brothaslide]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

I would like the originator to tell us how the DCS is more user-friendly, since he introduced the notion.

Since you asked. Instead of adjusting CV variables, you adjust the horn volume, etc. As an end user, I don't care about CVs, I just want to adjust volume, speed, etc.

It seems as if DCC is where the PC was back in the late 80s (early 90s) still running DOS. Then comes along the Apple MAC and everything about he personal computer changed (for the better - BTW, I own a business which is all PC based). I would like to see a Apple computer of the DCC world.

[Nataraj]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher

QUOTE: Originally posted by brothaslide
Anybody have any thoughts on this system

My first thought is that it has a lot of "toy train" unprototypical features. Show me any real train that the engineer selects a "speed" and the train will automatically go that speed. Another great number of "controls" for the sound, are again a major step backwards. Why should one have to control the sound of chuff rate and labor? This is what one has to do with PFM sound systems built in the late 1970's. How can anyone think this is "advanced". These should be controlled by the load on the locomotive, setting of the throttle, reverse lever, and other engine controls.

They don't give any indication of the technology behind it. That is what would make something better than DCC. It almost seems like they just listed every silly software controlable thing they could think of as a "feature" whether it makes sense or not.

QUOTE: It seems to be a more user friendly DCC system.

What makes it seem like that to you? I don't see anything that indicates it would be more user friendly. In fact, looking at the controller and considering all the functions they are talking about it looks more "video gamish" than the current DCC stuff.

To be fair, one would have to compare it head to head with the most current DCC equipment like the Zimo.

P.S. After all the legal garbage MTH has been dealing out the last few years, I don't think I would consider their product anyway.

You want to know a real train where the operator selects a speed and the train goes to that speed.....?

BART -- in SF. The control center sends a signal to the train that tells it what spped to accelarate to or decelarate to. Kind of like DCC. I was in the cab myself ( no, I was not the engineer )

[selector]

I would like the originator to tell us how the DCS is more user-friendly, since he introduced the notion.

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by brothaslide
Anybody have any thoughts on this system

My first thought is that it has a lot of "toy train" unprototypical features. Show me any real train that the engineer selects a "speed" and the train will automatically go that speed. Another great number of "controls" for the sound, are again a major step backwards. Why should one have to control the sound of chuff rate and labor? This is what one has to do with PFM sound systems built in the late 1970's. How can anyone think this is "advanced". These should be controlled by the load on the locomotive, setting of the throttle, reverse lever, and other engine controls.

They don't give any indication of the technology behind it. That is what would make something better than DCC. It almost seems like they just listed every silly software controlable thing they could think of as a "feature" whether it makes sense or not.

QUOTE: It seems to be a more user friendly DCC system.

What makes it seem like that to you? I don't see anything that indicates it would be more user friendly. In fact, looking at the controller and considering all the functions they are talking about it looks more "video gamish" than the current DCC stuff.

To be fair, one would have to compare it head to head with the most current DCC equipment like the Zimo.

P.S. After all the legal garbage MTH has been dealing out the last few years, I don't think I would consider their product anyway.

[MisterBeasley]

Once upon a time, there was VHS and there was Sony Betamax. VHS allowed licensing by other manufacturers, but Sony held on to Beta all for itself. Beta cost more than VHS, too. After a while, Beta disappeared almost completely.

Of course, now VHS is also going the way of the dodo, but it had a good long run.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[simon1966]

Since it does not apparently run a DCC equipped loco. And, since they do not sell any DCS decoders and sound systems suitable for retrofit into HO scale locos (let alone N) you are limited to running the sole MTH HO scale loco a good old PRR K4.

So while it may offer some nice features, it really is a non starter as far as a good solution for HO scale command control.

A control system that can only run the locomotives from one manufacturer is doomed from the start.

[Nataraj]

seems very good, but I will stick to my digitrax system.

I think if they come out with more locos, they will be noticed.

[brothaslide]

I was reviewing the MTH site regarding their DCS system.

http://www.mthhotrains.com/command.asp

Anybody have any thoughts on this system or experience. It seems to be a more user friendly DCC system.