Well, not exactly, but yes, I’m a MRC wireless user and now have a computer interface. It’s called a Digitrax Zephyr/MS100!
I just couldn’t wait for MRC’s interface so I bought a Zephyr and their MS100 interface and they work great. As many have said, a computer interface is a must for a serious DCC system.
I’m set up to use either the MRC Wireless or the Zephyr to run both my HO and N scale layouts. With the throw of a switch I can switch back and forth between the systems.
Here are some of my options for the future:
If I like the sound of MRC’s interface when it is released, I will either sell the Zephyr/MS100 or maybe just use it to run only my N scale layout.
If I don’t like what MRC offers, I will continue as is mainly using the Zephyr/MS100 for working with Decoder Pro.
If Digitrax’s duplex radio offering turns out to be a really great system, I might consider selling the MRC and upgrade the Zephyr to radio.
In the meantime I’m using Decoder Pro and am happy again!
Oh yes they did. But for my situation right now I went with the minimum investment with the $35 MS100, which is really all I need now. Who knows what the future my dictate.
Just surprised you went with the MS-100, it is known to be dated and not completely reliable and flattly refuses to function in certain cases. I’ve read several sources and found people had issues setting it up and encountered communication issues (buffer, baud rate issues) and so on. It will not work with Vista. Requiries a 25 pin serial port (rare on many computers lately).
These issues are ( I’m told by beta testers…) corrected in the PR-3.
You are probably right in that I probably should have gone with the PR3. It would have been a better investment even if I ever had to sell it. I was not clear on the MS100 as for some reason I thought it was a newer product. Anyway, it’s working well. I’ve programmed all my N scale locos with it and will start to re-program some HOs.
The 25 pin serial connection could be a problem for some. My train room computer is a Windows 98 with a 9 pin serial. Radio Shack no longer carries an adaptor for 25 to 9 but I was able to find one in a used computer store. Worst case is I’m only out 35 bucks if I ever want to make a change.
I have used an MS100 for several years and it works great with my Digitrax Chief and Decoder Pro. My MS100 is currently connected to my old Pentium 3 running Windows 98.
When I upgrade my home office computer (Windows XP) it will go to the layout. This computer does not have a serial port for the MS100 so I will upgrade to the new Digitrax PR3 at that time. Prior to the release of the PR3 I was considering an adapter cable for the MS100 or purchasing a USB Locobuffer, however the PR3 is the way to go now.
My job takes me “on the road” for extended periods of time and I like to take model railroad projects with me. I am considering puchasing a Digitrax PR3 to use with my laptop on the road.
Here is an intesting newsletter from Litchfield Station comparing the PR3 and LocoBuffer.
From Litchfield Station email 6/12/08:
First a bit of house keeping: We seem to have lost a LOT of folks from the newsletter list. This was not intentional on our part and we cannot believe that than many folks got off the list. We can only assume that something was misplaced on our server. Please let your friends know that you are getting these newsletters and, if they are not, please apologize to them for us and ask that the sign up again. We don’t know what else to do!
Now for the business at hand: Digitrax announced the PR3 a bit ago. The question is, what is the best interface for your Digitrax system, a LocoBuffer-USB or a PR3?
RR CirKits, the manufacturer of the LocoBuffer-USB has sent an analysis to its dealers, which I paraphrase below.
The bottom line is, yes, the PR3, when operated in its MS100 mode, is competitive with the LocoBuffer-USB. The PR3 will also control a programming track and upload sound files to Digitrax sound decoders, which the LocoBuffer-USB will not.
The LocoBuffer-USB is optically isolated, which the PR3 is not. This is a major issue, as computers are usually grounded to the power mains and layouts are frequently not. Ground currents can melt LocoNet® cables in some situations. An (expensive) optically isolated interface assures that the grounds remain isolated for the health and safety of people and electronics. Optical isolation keeps your system safe in spite of ground loops, spikes, and surges. Rogue currents and ground loops can wreak havoc with data and even damage the PC or connected devices. The LocoBuffer-USB provides 2,500 VAC of optical isolation between the LocoNet® and your USB port.
Only down-side so far has been sending the Prodigy Advance² (PA2) base unit back to MRC for a firmware update (to V3). Mailed it to them on 12/21 and got it back sometime last week.
Pressing SYS twice should bring up the firmware version number according to the manual. For some reason it didn’t work on my PA2 wired throttle but it worked with the wireless one.
I guess V3 came out last summer so you might want to be sure yours is upgraded before ordering the PC interface.
Bulk CV writing seems very fast so it’s easy to fiddle around with settings while programming on the main
Cons:
Stop button has a hexagon instead of an octagon (the DCC controllers have the right shape - why not the software?)
Had to send the base station away for a firmware update
Dragging throttle curves with the mouse is glitchy
Saving CV settings seems to require use of the “Save As…” button - I’m not sure what “Save” does (aside from pop-up a message that says “Use Save As to save”).
Wireless PC interface is just a bare circuit board with some heat-shrink plastic around it. It’d be nice if its product design were up to the standards of the rest of the PA2 product line.
Wishes:
I’d like some hot-keys and keyboard shortcuts - especially for the button that cuts the track power in an emergency (I’d rather push a button on the keyboard than grab the mouse or touch-pad and click on an on-screen button).
Could be the fact that all of my decoders are MRC at the moment, but I haven’t been able to get CV read-back to work
Hope that helps.
One added tip. I was buying a wireless throttle upgrade at the same time. There was quite a bit of a price difference depending on if you obtained the wirless dongle (plugs into the base station) with the throttle or with the PC Interface - so check that price difference before you buy. I don’t believe the dongle is sold separately. Probably pointless to have two wireless dongles.
I really don’t understand MRC’s attitude towards JMRI. It’s not liek they are selling their software for profit, so that if they also supported JMRI they’d have a competitor who was just giving the stuff away. So it wouldn’t hurt their sales. It’s not just JMRI, either - they also don’t support RR&Co or any of the other commercial programs.
If I had a tinfoil hat handy I’d say it was because if they allowed JMRI to support their system it would expose the underlying weaknesses of the design. [:D]
And thats the shame to, MRC had a chance to sell good sound decoders and control systems and totaly blew it! For all my years growing up, MRC was usualy the go to source for DC analog throttles that were off good quality. I used a mixture of MRC and Troller Autopulse throttles on my past layouts. Guess profit over quality won out, but now its gonna cost them profit as modelers buy other brands over thiers. Good luck with your twin operating system. Just shows, whats dated and not a good choice for many, works great for others. Mike
I’m no longer a user of a MRC DCC system. But, I sincerely hope that their interface and software will be improved to a point where it’s as useful as JMRI. This is not likely I know, but for the sake of many MRC users, who may not have understood the value of JMRI, and can’t now afford a change, I hope that their investment will result in a product that they can be happy with.
The MRC DCC systems, at least the PA2 and Wireless, really do work well, offer a lot, and are enjoyable to use. It’s just so disappointing that they can’t use JMRI. And yes, there are users who just don’t care or feel the need for JMRI and I guess that’s where MRC may just be the perfect system for them.
It’s baffling as to why MRC chose the course they did. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if they could honestly explain their actions, but, maybe Randy’s correct…would it reveal something they don’t want revealed?? Who knows and it’s beyond me to speculate but their attitude is really a shame and it just turns a lot of us off and makes trusting them very difficult.
Long story short…I had to get out of the hobby for a short while…but am now back in on a smaller scale with a small N scale layout. I briefly considered a PA2 but the lack of JMRI and a bit of distrust of MRC quickly ruled out that idea.
With such fine companies like NCE and Digitrax available it’s hard to justify going with anyone else, especially for newcomers who really aren’t sure of what they need. Certainly, every system out there is probably the “perfect” system for someone, but of course not for everyone.
No, because I already have a substantial investment in a DCC system that meets my needs, and in my opinion is more capable and expandable than anything MRC offers.
I just posted that tidbit for the folks who may be considering an MRC system, or who already have one and are considering adding the computer interface.
If they read all kinds of good stuff about JMRI, RR&Co, etc, and see that MRC has a computer interface, they might figure, “Hey that software and MRC are just right for me!”
Knowing that software can’t be used with the MRC interface might be an important consideration for them. I know it would be for me, if I were in the market for a new system.
Then again, maybe for some folks it doesn’t matter. But at least they have the option to make an informed decision.
Is it really an informed decision if it’s based on assertions that it’s “clunky” and “limited” contrasted with the system you use that “in (your) opinion is more capable”.
If I were posting my opinion of a product to help inform others I wouldn’t be so vague. Why do you think it’s “clunky”? Seemed pretty intuitive to me - and I can’t imagine an easier install than firing up the software and plugging a USB dongle into my laptop.
As for being limited it seems to suit my present needs of configuring decoders. I’m kind of curious about the sorts of whiz-bang awesomeness you’re doing with JMRI right now.
From what I’ve read about JMRI it sounds like it’d be a good idea to propose an NMRA DCC-PC Interface standard to ensure that the widest variety of hardware can be controlled by the widest variety of software - has anyone made progress on that?
Until we see such a standard I’m glad that there are some alternatives out there. Innovation thrives on competition and if the vague negative comments about MRC’s DCC systems in general turn out not to be baseless then they’ll either improve or get pushed out of the market.
I appreciate your comments and hope that they will be of help to other MRC users. I really like MRC DCC systems and know that there are many happy users. The negative attitude towards MRC on this and other forums stems from their poor decoder performance, and now the lack of JMRI. I’m afraid that many don’t realize just how good their DCC systems really are because of all the negativism.
The thing that really irked many was that MRC specifically requested input on the design of their interface and the overwhelming response that I read was for JMRI compatibility. Yet they seemed to ingore this input and never explained why. This bothered me and has caused me some pause regarding their company.
The ideal solution would have been to offer both their own design and JMRI access… But they didn’t.
I’m no expert on JMRI but one great thing about it is that regardless of what brand decoder you might have you can access screens that directly relate to that decoder and no longer even need to refer to the decoder manual. I’m sure that there are many, many other features that make JMRI superior and others would be more qualified than I to elaborate on them.
There is one other plus for JMRI that I recently discovered and that’s the WiThrottle. Since I already have an iPod Touch, a wireless computer setup, and JMRI, I can use my iPod as a wireless throttle. Just another neat bonus with JMRI.
The bottom line is that MRC users don’t deserve being left out in the cold and should continue to press MRC for real substantial improvements to their interface. Good luck with yours.
Don’t believe that will ever happen. That aspect of DCC architecture was deliberately left alone by the NMRA working group. It’s what makes a manufacturer’s system unique. Setting a standard would be like making Ford parts fit Chevrolets. JMRI is actually the solution that works with a variety of DCC systems, computers, and operating systems.