I would not be critical of DCS until you have tried it. It’s a great system and the best on the market. FYI, two command systems co-exist in O gauge, DCS and TMCC.
I agree with you Dinwitty. The main reason I won’t consider DCS for my O gauge layout is that it can’t accept “live action” commands from computer software like CTI’s. DCS is OK for toy operators, but lacks the “power” for serious operations because of it’s propriatary command set. Lionel’s TMCC is similar to DCC in this regard, and as such, CTI supports it. There are a number of other software manufacturers that support DCC and TMCC. Nobody can write software for DCS.
My understanding is you can record event sequences with DCS, but that is useless for running a railroad with a computer.
As for the HO community trying DCS, my impression is they have grown tired of the hype, and couldn’t care less.
Dinwitty,
I checked out the website on your link! Wow! Impressive! Recently a friend of mine who’s a technology expert were discussing the advantages that something like this offers.
From my understanding this integrates with and complements DCC. Would work especially well with a club layout as well as big home layouts.
Some people may voice concerns that this is computers running the trains, but from what I read modelers still have 100% control of trains while functions such as:
- Train detection,
- Track Signals,
- Setting up train routes,
- turnouts being thrown,
- Lights in a town’s structures and street lamps turning on or off on a schedule,
- Background sounds. Turning them on/off as well as controlling the volume,
7.Sounds in locomotives…
All this can be easily controlled with one small system instead of having a smattering of separate switches and buttons on your control panel.
One cool scenario for the lone modeler who likes to run two trains at one time is that while he’s performing switching activities in a yard or industrial area, his passenger train can run and stop automatically at stations. That passenger train could also stop automatically at any red signal, such as when the switcher has to temporarily block the main line. (Sorry, I can’t help it-----Just like Union Pacific does to Amtrak!! [(-D] ). Yet, at anytime the modeler can easily override and take over that train in a few seconds. Another advantage is that if a distant turnout doesn’t engage all the way, it will show up on the screen. (the old HO Atlas turnouts are notorious for this)
The club I joined will be looking into this for the long run as ideas about train detection have been discussed before I joined. Great layout, but an easy to use system like this will make operation sessions even more enjoyable. Currently, there are “spurts” of time where members not paying close attention and become distracted (including m
Elliot,
Actually, DCS can accept commands through the serial port. The only problem with this is that Mike hasn’t seen fit to release any software or publi***he commands like Lionel did with TMCC. It’s too bad that they’ve chosen to concentrate on the gimicky features that 99% of the people who buy the system never want or or bother to learn how to use. There may not be many wanting to use the serial interface, but those who do could easily turn out to be big customers with really big layouts.
At one time, there was someone working on reverse engineering a TIU to write a computer program to control it, but I don’t think that anything ever became of it.
i looked at a lot of systems for adding computer control to a model railroad and decided on CTI . here’s a few things i like about it
- train control is possible . it’s not required though , so no fear of the computer running your layout and you just watching unless that’s what you want
- it’s very modular , for example i don’t have to have the circuitry for signalling since there weren’t any signals that i know of in 1900-1905 , the era i’m modelling
- i can build my own detectors and save a bundle of cash
- one supplier for hardware and software , i know they’re going to work together
- works with DCC (or DC) independantly from the DCC buss but is capable of sending out DCC commands and includes on-screen throttle controllers
- price !
what i don’t like
- you do have to write the program to run it all . (there is a custom language to program in , similar to basic , and there is a yahoo group that gives advice on coding so this isn’t all bad)
- doesn’t read DCC information . for example you can’t use digitrax’s occupancy detectors connected to a locobuffer to send info to the software
He lurketh…he speaketh…he lurketh again…
MTHRules…a lot of B movies get great hype, but lack story.
I have been thru the grind of train control, CTI comes exactly the plans I have been looking at working on my own, remote modules that can control signals and send data back to the PC. Its flexible and you can do what you want.
I’m looking for PC DCC systems than buying digitrax/lenz…etc.
but fully compatible.
When I have spare PC’s around, I don’t need another CPU based system to run the trains, I want to get the PC to handle the DCC.
I hate to be the bearer of some sad news for Mr “rules” but DCS is non-existant over here. We have DCC and some large-scale operators use LGB’s MTS system, I strongly suspect the rest of Europe is similar - I’ve seen plenty of Marklin’s 3-rail digital system there too though. Interestingly some manufacturers (Fleischmann for one) are now offering locos and control systems that can handle multiple protocols. Fleischmann offered a digital system named FMZ for many years which wasn’t DCC-compatible but they’re now offering decoders that will run under either system and control units that can address either. Food for thought maybe?
Market dynamics being what they are, the best system does not always take over. We can debate whether or not DCS is better, but let’s assume it is better for this discussion. And we also know MTH tends to keep things proprietary rather than opening them up to the public domain.
The analogy is the PC versus Mac in the computer arena. The Mac is a more stable system and a simpler but more powerful UI than the PC, making the Mac a better computer in many ways. But Apple has also been proprietary minded, not wanting to freely release the Mac’s internals to the public domain – unlike the PC which has a public domain architecture.
As a result, the inferior PC has taken the computer world by storm, being at least 10 times more popular than the Mac. And now the PC “open” mindset is taking the software world by storm with free open source software popping up all over the place.
And if you are a new computer hardware or software company and you want to have the best potential market, you will target the PC, not the Mac.
I submit that if you truly understand how to grab market share, you will position yourself with the customer so you are seen as on their side in all you do, and you will release many of your developments to the public domain. You will also go with the open standard, and not try to create some niche proprietary standard of your own.
MTH’s proprietary and “if we didn’t create it, then it’s not as good” stance will not win hordes of converts in the market, no matter how wonderful their DCS system is. If the customer perceives you are a somewhat paranoid single source for a core product (the "operating system for your layout in this case), they will tend to steer clear of you.
Joe’s analysis is very pertinent to the DCC vs. DCS discussion. As a different comparison, I like to look at the original Video Cassette recorder war. Back in the late 70’s and early 80’s, we had the competing standards of Sony Betamax, which was proprietary, and VHS, which was licensed to anyone who wanted to build them. I’m not an expert on VCR’s, but those who thought they were generally rated the Betamax as a better machine. Alas, it was more expensive, and the availability of “software,” or rental tapes in this case, pushed the Betamax off the market long before DVD’s came along and signalled the demise of video tapes in general.
In this case, it looks like CTI is embracing the “open source” model, and trying to maintain the highest possible degree of compatability. As we’ve seen in both computers and video tapes, the public wants to pick the “winner” early on so it won’t be stuck with an expensive and obsolete also-ran.
MthRules, in fairness to you… Perhaps DCS is superior in some ways to DCC, however, you have to be realistic. When DCS hits the HO market (which now seems questionable) will masses of modelers ru***o own a more expensive system that they’re not even familiar with?
Please…Here’s a sign…DON’T FEED THE TROLL. I’m a fan of MTH and all, but DCS will not take over DCC.
CTI and DCC, that’s awesome, I can’t wait to see everything that can be done.[:D]
TrainFreak,
I understand but haven’t you guys noticed? If you answer him in battle mode, he punches back with more ammunition. Answer him fairly and in a cool manner… …and he either doesn’t reply at all or actually replies courteously as well. I’ve seen this twice already. So a DNFTT alert is not necessary! [;)]
One thing I’ve learned in my adult life that I couldn’t see when I was in high school…Study an author’s writing patterns! You’ll wind up actually getting to know him better than even he realizes!
On this forum, I’ve actually done this with several members, including some past trolls. That’s how I’ve been able to recognize some members that use “alias” names.
So for you teens that find English or Lanuguage Arts class in school boring…trust me! It really pays to do your best in those classes!!
Or you may find yourself as a journalist[:D]
(I hated english as a kid. 26 years later and with a bunch of help from the U.S. Army and Air Force, I’m now a “professional” writer [:D] )
Similar to me … I hated english in school.
Now I’m a published writer with somewhere over half a million words in print, some of it translated into German, Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Japanese.
Go figure …
As a result, I had to do a lot of remedial learning on the job …
As “Dad” used to say, “Too soon old, too late smart!” If only we knew what we were going to need to know now, perhaps school would not have been so BORING.
[2c]
Will