I thought this thread was about picking the best DCC system, a lot of distractions here.
Down to business
I am 61 (next week), in electronics 43 years, computers 42 years.
Model rr as a kid, lionel then HO, liked to make the trains run. Not a serious operational RR guy, I like to build. Had a 6 X 8 dog leg in 78 and nothing since. Grew up in Norman Oklahoma near the tracks and saw the Texas Chief about every day, rode the Doodlebug in the 40’s before I started school. Have a G scale ATSF switcher Christmas train the last 7 years, not out of the box in 5 years. Been running 2 weeks, already.
Came back to the hobby two weeks ago when I saw the BLI ATSF 4-8-4, not true, when I “heard” the Northern, I got a woodie! Have a Proto 2000 e6a&B war bonnet too. Building the atlas Midland Central layout, framed and 1/2 the planking down. ETA to run trains on the table by Thanksgiving? perhaps too optimistic.
I purchased a Lenz due to LHS influence.
Wanted to go directly to Computer so I bought Set-LI and LH100 separately
Throttles
LH100
Pro
-Does practically everything
Con
-Should have put the LH90 knob on it. (Must have been a techie that designed it.)
-Has a cord which is tangled at the moment
-Klutzy complicated, not intuitive
-Ergonomic – NOT
-Clumbsy to move from train A to B
-EXPENSIVE, wow, way too expensive! ! ! ! I have buyers remorse on that one.
-No obvious single “stop the *** before it runs off the desk!” button (only the operating train I mean)
-Panic stop kills the layout and resumes as things were
-Rating, no better than a C from my perspective and I am being generous
-Buttons not always responsive
KAM Engine Commander (Personal Computer/CE handheld)
Pro
allows multiple cabs, one for each operating engine on the screen, easy to switch from 12 to 3753
TOPIC THIS POST: Continuing to rank the systems - Ease of use - NCE
Next we take a look at ease-of-use. Rather than just tell you what I think, I’m going give you a chance to judge for yourself. I’m going to take each system and pick a common, yet less-than-trivial task and we’ll see how each system has you do it. Along the way, I will post my comments so you can see my thoughts based on 12+ years of using several DCC systems, as well as my professional opinion as a web software designer (since I spend a lot of time trying to make web sites easy to use).
We’ll take the systems one at a time. I’m going to focus on the “big four” systems, and ignore Bachmann, Atlas, and MRC systems because they lack some key long term expansion features (namely no computer interface) which limits their expansion of things like easier decoder programming using the free software DecoderPro. I’m also ignoring Zimo since even the basic system is around $1000 which prices it out of range for many modelers.
The big four are:
NCE
EasyDCC
Digitrax
Lenz
This post, we’ll look at the NCE Procab system. Here’s the NCE command station, which is presented as a handheld that is mobile, and is available either as a tethered plug in or wireless:
THE EASE-OF-USE TEST: MAKING A LOCO CONSIST
A common task you will do on your layout, especially if you run diesels, is create sets of units that run together, which called “making a consist” in DCC terms. This task works well as a test task to check out a DCC system’s ease of use.
There are two basic kinds of consists in DCC: decoder-based consists and command station-based consists.
Command station based consists were the original kind of con
You’re on the right track Joe - keep em coming!! This is what MR should have done in their recent evaluation. It was so wishy washy no-one could conclude anything after reading it
TOPIC THIS POST: Continuing to rank the systems - Ease of use - EasyDCC
Now let’s consider the EasyDCC system and its ease of use.
The EasyDCC command station is a stationary panel rather than a mobile handset. Originally, before the notion of programming on the main became popular, programming on a stationary programming track was how you did decoder setup, so a stationary panel made sense. These days as programming on the main becomes ever more popular, having a stationary command panel as part of a DCC system is becoming a bit dated unless your layout is very small (under 50 square feet).
Here’s the EasyDCC command panel, which includes two throttles.
(click to enlarge)
The EasyDCC system makes the buttons do double duty, so until you see how the buttons work, you may not “get it”. The first label is for the first press of a button. The second label below the first is for any follow-on press of a button.
For example, to show the speed steps setting for a loco, you press the SHOW button (just to the left of the “1” button), then you press the “6” button, because the second label on the button - #STEPS - is now in effect. It takes just a bit to get the hang of it, but once you do get it, using the two step button labels becomes fairly natural.
THE EASE-OF-USE TEST: MAKING A LOCO CONSIST
EasyDCC considers command station consists to be the preferred kind of consist, so they call this type of consist a “Standard Consist” in their manual. EasyDCC frowns on decoder-based consists, and calls them something you “might want to experiment with” in their documentation.
So let’s look at setting up a command station based consist in EasyDCC.
EasyDCC: Setting up a consist
Again, the first thing I look for is for some obvious way to make a consist without referri
This is DCC technojargon for advanced decoder features like consisting and 4 digit addressing. It was a big deal in the early days of DCC but now almost all decoders do extended packet format, so it’s practically meaningless today as a decoder distinction. It only applies to older decoders (1990’s models).
I’m really liking this thread. Just a suggestion and to keep in line with the previous thread: How would you rank gold and silver star ratings? A and B? I like the new designation but the subtleties of old A, A-, B+, B, etc. rating system we were using allowed for better definition. I guess I just want to be consistent so that comparing each of the individual threads is easier.
I may circle back around and take a look at Zimo later. Those who own the system call it the “cadillac” system, so it might be interesting to look at it closer and see if we agree. But it is both spendy and a mostly foreign only system (there is a Canadian distributor, however), so it looks destined to be a runner -up “dark horse” system for a long, long time.
Even so, I would enjoy hearing about the Zimo system anyway - i.e. if it’s feasible for you. I still can’t rationize the several hundred $$$ more on the price of the “Cadillac”, when all I can afford to drive is a Corolla - figuratively AND literally!
TOPIC THIS POST: Continuing to rank the systems - Ease of use - Digitrax
In this post we consider the Digitrax system and its ease of use.
We’ll use the Zephyr because it’s an aggresively priced starter system that many people will consider as their first entry into DCC. The Zephyr is a stationary panel rather than a mobile handset. Since programming on the main is becoming ever more popular, having a stationary command panel as part of a DCC system is becoming a bit dated unless your layout is very small (under 50 square feet). Fortunately, Digitrax expansion options for the Zephyr include adding mobile command station units later.
Here’s the Digitrax Zephyr, which has a single throttle, not unlike a standard trainset powerpack.
(click to enlarge)
Digitrax uses what we call in the computer software interface design business an “object - action” paradigm for it’s interface. The other two systems reviewed so far (NCE and EasyDCC) use an action - object paradigm.
In action - object, you first select your action (press a button), then you indicate what object (what loco) you want to do that action on. With Digitrax’s object - action approach, you first pick the object (what loco), then you indicate the action.
When I’m staring at a controller with buttons on it, I find the action - object paradigm a little easier to do and more obvious. With object - action, I have to remember to pick one or more locos first. If I just press a button first, the system may complain that I can’t do that action to that object because I haven’t properly selected something first. This means I have to read the manual first since it isn’t exactly obvious when you first look at the system.
THE EASE-OF-USE TEST: MAKING A LOCO CONSIST
Digitrax considers command station consists to be the only kind of consist y
I am really disappointed you are going to ignore Bachmann, Atlas and MRC systems.[V]
While comupter interface may be what some people look for, some of us don’t care to have such an option. Not all of us want a system with all of the frills.
Also, many of us who are about to dive into DCC for the first time on a limited budget would love to know more about the more basic and affordable systems such as Bachmann and Atlas.
If you’re going to compare and contrast DCC systems, do so for all of them; not just a select few chosen arbitrarily.
The choice is not exactly arbitrary … there’s the lack of computer interface issue, and then there’s the size of the support forums, if you recall, from an earlier post:
Digitrax 5676
NCE 2176
Lenz 1687
MRC 519
EasyDCC 455
Zimo 308
Bachmann 200
Atlas [none]
NOTE: Atlas has no support forum on Yahoo groups, presumably because they provide direct support on the Atlas forum.
These in-depth reviews are time consuming to do so I elected to focus on the more popular systems. The popular systems are such because they are generally the more robust models.
With the low end systems, Bachmann is very limited, and MRC and Atlas are basically a wash. Atlas has the slight advantage it also uses the Lenz x-bus, so at least your layout will be wired for Lenz if you were to decide to upgrade.
Otherwise, for the low end systems, go with the cheapest you can find between the MRC Prodigy Advance or the Atlas Commander. If you ever expand to a layout much beyond 100 square feet and running more than two trains, you’ll want to consider scrapping your low-end system and replacing it with one of the big four, or if you are really loaded, with Zimo.
The low end systems do fill a niche in the market, making DCC more affordable for more people. But remember you tend to get what you pay for. These cheaper really low end systems can be less robust in their construction, feelin
I don’t see what a forum on Yahoo groups has to to with the quality of anything. Hence my claim of arbitrary selection of your “big four.”
Yes, I do realise that these reviews take time. And for that I, and the rest of the forum members reading this topic, am grateful that you are taking the time to do them.
However, as in the case with Yahoo groups, what does popularity have to do with quality ? VHS won out over Beta, not because it was a better quality, but because it had better marketing (ie: was more popular).
Can you offer evidence to support your assertions so we may come to our own conclusions regarding Bachman, MRC and Atlas ? That’s all I’m asking for.
I’m told by DCC “experts” on this forum one thing about Atlas. Then I’m told contradicting information when I seek advice from my LHS. I’ve been told that some of the “big four” force you to buy a new system whenever they issue a newer version of their software (to correct bugs and glitches); but that Atlas an
I can go back and evaluate the really low end systems too if people insist, but it is going to drag out this clinic a lot longer because it will take me two-three days to prepare each system evaluation. If anyone’s in a hurry, it’s going to take more time if I review more systems. I plan to review the Zimo system, since it’s the cadillac according to its marketing materials, and it would be interesting to see if there’s anything to that claim.
Also with the big four, I’ve actually used those systems – and heck, I’ve owned two of them in 12 years of using DCC. With the low end systems, I’ve never used them (too new or too wimpy for the crowd I run with) – so my evaluation will be more conjecture from studying manuals and less experience based. Just so you know.
BONUS POST: System updates
I can only speak for the Lenz and EasyDCC systems regarding system updates, since I have owned both systems. I owned Lenz for 7 years and then got an EasyDCC system 5 years ago because I wanted the best wireless throttles and at the time EasyDCC was it.
Lenz did two system upgrades in the time I owned the system. The first one was essentially “free”, I only had to pay $35 for shipping and handling both ways since Lenz did the upgrade for me. I considered it a bargain. The second upgrade was more costly and I elected to not do it. Instead I changed systems to get one with up-to-date wireless capabilities.
EasyDCC has done 3 upgrades in the time I’ve owned the system, one of which was free for the asking. The other two charged a nominal fee, again, like $25 - $35 per upgrade. EasyDCC gives you detailed instructions so you can open up the system and replace the chips yourself (they are in sockets, so they’re easy to replace). EasyDCC says on the instructions that following the instructions and opening up the system to do your own upgrade does not void the system warranty.
The system upgrades have all been very appreciated, adding lots of new and interesting capabilities to each system. I felt like I had invested wisely in a system that would stay up-to-date, thanks to the vendor offering me these great upgrades at nominal prices.
At no time did I ever get the idea I was being “gouged” or “fleeced” for more money by either of these vendors. I felt the upgrades were very affordable and a great way to keep my system up-to-date.
I encourage others (owners of NCE, Digitrax, etc) who have received system updates to share their experiences on here.
