At the risk of starting an “MTH is evil incarnate” thread with my first post…
Is anyone out there using/used the DCS Commander in HO, either on its own or in-line with another DCC system?
I understand that there are very strong feelings concerning the MTH foray into HO, but I’m curious to know how well the system works.
I’m contemplating moving into HO after watching my small amount of O gear gather dust due to lack of space and funding. Command control is where I’m headed and I’m a little intrigued by the DCS system, although its propreitary aspects are a significant turn-off. On the other hand, while the DCC standard is well supported, the bit of reading and research I’ve done leaves me with this sense that its 70s/80s technology that might benefit from a 21st century overhaul.
I’m not wanting to start a DCS vs. DCC thread…I’m just curious as to the experiences of any DCS users out there (if there are any).
I would like to see some techncial specs on DCS to make a truly fair comparison, although I suspect their power and signalling (meaning getting the commands to the loco, not trackside signals) is at least somewhat similar to NMRA DCC otherwise it would be a lot more difficult to make a loco run on both like the MTH ones do.
That said, I’m not sure what would give the impression of DCC as being 70’s/80’s technology badly in need of an overhaul, other than MTH marketing literature. 70’s/80’s style command control would eb fixed DC on the rails with a tiny (and easily lost) AC signal superimposed for sending commands to the locos.Using the entire amplitude of the power source as the signal as well solves a lot of the problems inherent in older systems. And today’s DCC is far advanced form the limited early Lenz system it’s based on. I doubt we’ll see much different with pwoer supplied via the track - the next step I think will be direct radio control with onboard power - the track being powered only to charge up the batteries, and complicated things like reverse loops could be completely dead track so there’d never be an issue.
Actually, there is a somewhat technical discussion of the old Hornby Zero 1 system in an old article in MR where they sent Andy S over to England to get the scoop - and you know, THAT system even used a rather DCC like system of control - whereas DCC constantly broadcasts the data as the track power, the Hornby system broadcast a square wave power signal that was occasionally supressed to broadcast a square wave command pulse. I was rather surprised to see this, well before Lenz developed their system.
Can the DCS Commander run a non-MTH DCC equipped loco on its own, or is its DCC capability limited to the DCC command pass through from another DCC command station?
Exactly. This is the primary issue. Is it worth while spending you money on a system that will only run MTH locos?
For 99.9% of digital users in this hobby, DCC is more than adequate to do what is needed; independant control, lighting features and sound. DCC is hardly a 70s/80s technology, it has grown up.
Back in the 70’s I used control system that sent radio signals through the rails to receivers in the locos. It could control direction and speed but not much else. In it’s similarity to DCC they are miles apart!
This should give any potential purchaser serious pause for thought. After a bit more research it became apparent that the DCC pass-through is an either/or proposition. In other words you either have DCS commands on the track, or DCC commands via the pass-through, not both at the same time. This means that if you want to run DCC equipped locos and the MTH locos at the same time then they will have to be under DCC control, since DCS can not run other DCC decoder locos If you only have the DCS system then you are limited to the 5 HO scale locos that MTH currently offers. If you have any interest in a prototype railroad then this severely limits your options. It will be very interesting to see if anyone chimes in that actually uses DCS in HO?
The inability of the DCS commander to directly control DCC locos is probably the killer. To say the least, this is a curious design decision by MTH. If they wanted to make serious inroads into the HO market with their command system (even to try and convert users over the DCS), a single controller that could manage DCS and DCC would be an excellent selling point…especially for those just getting into the hobby or just transitioning to DCC. Such a comprehensive system would also seem to really open up the market for their locos and provide a better opportunity to put their “superior” sound and control systems on display.
As for my 70s/80s technology comment…let me clarify a bit what I mean…
First off, I wasn’t comparing DCC technology today to model railroading technology of days gone by…but to the technology of the past in general. Certainly, DCC technology is leaps and bounds above model railroad technology of the 70s/80s. But I wouldn’t say its heads and shoulder above the cutting edge technology of the 80s/early 90s (70s might be pushing it).
Secondly, I don’t think the underlying principles of DCC are out-of-date…I’m more referring to the interfaces that are used to implement the technology and run trains.
Looking at the various systems, what I see are remote controls with a large keypads full of “fixed function” buttons with a small lcd screen limited to a certain number of characters and 1 or 2 lines. It seems you often have to burrow down through a lot of levels to get to functions you want. In my mind, this paradigm in and of itself slows down the progression of the DCC standard. A significant upgrade to the standard means that controllers have to be replaced with new ones that are able to access the new functionality…mainly through the use of b
The criticism of some of these devices is that they require 2 hands to operate. Many of the US designs are based on throttles intended for single hand control, leaving the other hand for throwing switches etc.
Furthermore I would contend the that there are 2 distinct times that a throttle is used. During actual locomotive running, the number of controls needed is few and the complexity of the operations is simple. There is very little if any drilling down to lower layers of menus.
During programming there tends to be much more complex operations. However, virtually all DCC users can benefit from a wonderful PC application called Decoder Pro www.decoderpro.com This provides an easy to use graphical interface that makes programming decoders a snap.
Does MTH make after-market DCS decoders? If someone wanted to take a DC engine and put one into it, is that even possible? There are plenty of DCC options to do this, and many are drop-in replacements for the “light boards” in today’s DC engines, so installation is an easy job.
My whole thought on the video-game style controllers with big LCD screens: WHY?
Locos already have an identifier right on them - the road number. There seems to be a school of thought that thinks punching in 2-4 numbers whch are printed right on the side of the loco is a complicated way of controlling things. Why? Heck if I had a system where you could key in text descriptions I suppose one would say “Reading GP-7 #628” I suppose that’s easier than keying in 628 when I want to run it, or is it? Honestly I think such systems appeal more to the toy collectors than serious operators - then you can have things like “Big blue steam engine” “orange and green diesel”
The thing about the displays is, you don’t really need one. It’s handy to verify that you punched in the numbers correctly - just read my posts to see how many typos I make. Other than that, you turn the knob to control speed just like old DC systems. Sure beats pushing one button for faster and another for slower, although most all systems actually have that as well - so you can do both. Neither is prototypical, but neither is a touch screen LCD. Modern diesels may have display screens, but the throttle is still a lever or knob - taken to the extreme you could physically encase a knob controller in a replica control stand and run the loco with a throttle lever shaped just like the real thing - it’s been done, going way way back. And JMRI supports using the Rail Driver mock up of a modern diesel contol console as the throttle for any DCC system they support.
The only thing that is potentially complex is programming. Especially with sound decoders, because there are just so many things that can be changed to alter the sound and performance of the decoder. This certainly gets cumbersome on a small screen handheld controller - but there are already solutions to this issue. JMRI software is free and works with all the top DCC systems to give a full
As far as I know, no. In fact, a professional installer posted on the Digitrax Yahoo group that he has taken plenty of MTH locos and stripped out the MTH elecronics an installed standard DCC sound decoders. Absolute truth of this, and what he means by ‘plenty’ remains to be seen, but it’s a rather interesting bit of information.
For a more proto DCC operation, at least British proto, ZTC controls in the UK made a DCC control panel with levers etc. The only snag was that they went out of business at the end of last year. It does appear though that the brand has been resurrected and will go back into production.
wxsouth,
The large keyboard of “fixed function” buttons is rather at odds with menus (aka nested commands). Either you have a lot of buttons with singular functions, or you have nested commands. You don’t generally have both.
With older Digitrax throttles like the DT100 & DT300, they only had 8 buttons. Each button did various things depending on the number of times the button was pressed and in what order. Some functions even needed two buttons pressed at the same time. These throttles haven’t been made for several years now (7 years ago for the DT300, 9 years ago for the DT100).
The latest Digitrax throttles are the DT400 and the UT4 (that is without a display…an inexpensive engineer’s throttle). The DT400 has 32 buttons, and only a few buttons have more than one function (OPTN and CLOC are also “c” and “t” for clearing or throwing switches in switch mode, and + and - are also “Y” and “N” for programming). Judging by how easy folks learn the DT400, I think more buttons are the way to go.
On to the “I-Train”:
How would this work on a large layout with 30 or more engines (like my layout)? Or how about at clubs where 60-75 locos on the layout is not unreasonable, and may peak at over 100+? Scrolling through a heckuva lot of locos doesn’t sound very quick or easy. I watched my nephews scrolling around with their I-Tune player with hundreds of songs on them…I don’t get the appeal for a model railroad.
Doesn’t sound bad at all. But there is something to be said for the tactile feel of buttons, and the ability to push a button by feel without having to look to see what you’re pressing.
This would be a little tricky as each decoder is so different. It’s not impossible by any means, but it does mean that the system would have to be able to read the decoder and report to the t
The first DCC systems showed up in the early 90’s if I remember correctly.
What you are complaining about is the ergronomics of the controller. Not the technical details of the DCC format. As already pointed out, there are multiple substitutes out there with BIG LCD screens. Or you can use JMRI and control is simply from the computer. I myself walk about with a wireless joystick controller that I made myself. (One throttle, and 8 buttons)
And why so many buttons? Todays, railroad engines make a lot of sounds. And I mean a lot.
BTW: Slapping DCS on top of DCC is just an aweful idea.
I think the marketing strategy here was “Offer a novel addition to DCC, and get them to buy the DCS controller” If they have the DCS controller they are more likely to buy more MTH locos. As market penetration grows to “the tipping point” more and more manufacturers would pay for DCS licensing.
Mike Wolf made a serious miscalculation there. DCS only offers ONE feature I’m aware of that isn’t already available in DCC: Talking into a mic and getting that sound to come out the loco. If you wish to pretend to be a conductor and yell “All aboard,” knock yourself out.
Smoke can be turned on and off via DCC decoder and seuthe units. And playable whistle is available now on SoundTraxx’s Tsunami and Digitrax’s sound bug using ?NCE? and Digitrax throttles
And DCC now offers a serious feature that isn’t in DCS (far as I know) That is transponding. If you need to know where your train is on the layout, transponding can relay this information. This is useful for automated train running, yard block track occupancy, automated block control (stopping a train when it reaches a station…then later getting it to start), dispatcher info during a club night, and full CTC control (ie: Throw switch A for a passing siding if passenger train coming up behind deisel)
DCC offers one REALLY HUGE advantage that’s not in DCS and likely won;t EVER be - compatibility across multiple brands! You can use whatever DCC system you prefer, and then purchase decoders based on brand, fit, or cost, your choice, and they all work together. I don’t see DCS being freely offered to other companies to make compatible decoders, ever.
I own a DCS Commander that I bought for evaluation purposes. I wound up using it for the trains under my Christmas tree this year. Most of what was said earlier is correct. The Commander is strictly a pass through for DCC. You cannot run an MTH engine with DCS at the same time you are running a DCC engine on DCC. You can, of course, run the MTH engine on DCC at the same time as all other DCC engines.
After playing with it for a while I really don’t think the DCS Commander is aimed at people who already have DCC. I think the DCC pass through was added to make it easier to wire it into DCC layout in case someone wanted to, but it was more of an after thought.
I think the real target market for the DCS Commader is conventional DC operators who want to gain access to the sound features. The Commander is much more akin to a Quantum Engineer box that lets the DC operator access the bell, whistle, etc. while still operating in conventional. The one big feature the DCS commander has that is different from the Quantum Engineer is a built in DC throttle for conventional DC operations. It’s actually a very good quality throttle. If you have any old AC or DC transformer lying around the Commander makes it a good quality useful conventional power supply with a fast acting circuit breaker.
The Commander is definitly an entry level product for DCS. If you get into DCS you’ll soon find you need a full DCS set (TIU + cab) to handle programming. However, the Commander can still be wired in “passive mode” and used as a stationary cab.
Regarding the perception that DCC is older technology I think there is a lot of truth to it. There’s been plenty of effort to keep DCC current, but people are running up against techincal limitations imposed by the way DCC communicates with track power. Transponding is actually a really good exapmle of this problem. Since DCC track communications are one
You mention the DCS signal is a spread spectrum signal independent of the track power - do you knwo what the amplitude of this signal is? This was the failing of most command control systems prior to DCC - the signal was superimposed on top of the power voltage and in almost every case was relatively small compared to the actual track power - maybe a 2V P-P signal on top of 10-11 volts DC to the track. Granted modern descriminating receivers can probably do a far better job of picking the background signal out of the noise inherent in running motors and other devices attached to the track, but this is where the old systems fell down - in a simpel layout they always worked great, but get large and complex and the signal got ‘lost’ in the background noise. DCC fixed that by makign the signal and the power one and the same, no superimposing here.
Transponding isn’t dependent on a seperate infrastructure. The signal passes back via the track. And unlike the Lenz Railcomm solution does not require cutting off track power when the decders send their information back. Since Transponding is a Digitrax thign, naturally once the signal is received fromt he track it gets send out on Loconet, since that is already the bus used by the rest of the Digitrax system. Once you get behind the track, there is no one NMRA standard for the system infrastructure, so naturally whatever system you use will determine what that will be, but there is definitely no technical reason why Transponding has to use Loconet. There’s no real technical reason why Railcomm has to use XpressNet - in fact if it is to become an NMRA standard it’s goign to have to be done in a way that it can be used by any manufacturer no matter what their bus topology is.