I wasn’t aware that the DCS could now access all TMCC Cab-1 commands!
From the newest MTH catalog:
New! DCS 4.02
DCS 4.02, the latest DCS software upgrade, is now available as a free download and is fully compatible with all DCS systems and every Proto-Sound 2.0 engine ever made. DCS 4.02 features new engine control options; allows the DCS handheld to emulate virtually every feature of the TMCC CAB-1® handheld; and allows the user to back up data on the DCS handheld to a personal computer — and clone that data to another DCS handheld if desired.
A unique feature of DCS is the ability to control the other major command systems used by 3-rail O gauge modelers, Lionel’s TrainMaster® Command Control (TMCC®) and Legacy™ systems.
With the addition of a Lionel command base, the DCS handheld can control engines from all systems on the same track at the same time.
While all TMCC features can be accessed by the DCS handheld remote, at present some Legacy features cannot be accessed by the DCS remote
Hmmmm…further reading shows that you can access 128 speed steps and also set momentum on TMCC locos. Also you can control crane cars using the thumbwheel.
Its true, prior to 4.02, my TMCC Cab Fwd has a Street Horn in addition to the Whistle. The Street Horn was NOT functional on DCS, now it is. I have also used the 128 speed steps, it is easily selectable and can be changed at any time. The only time I use the Legacy controller is when I want to effect a start up sound that is unique to the Legacy controller.
“While all TMCC features can be accessed by the DCS handheld remote, at present some Legacy features cannot be accessed by the DCS remote”
As usual, MTH’s advertising hype is not entirely accurate. While DCS has always been able to access the command base of TMCC for most locomotive functions, it still cannot access all cab-1 functions, including any commands involving tracks, accessories or switches (routes)-- you still need a cab-1 or Legacy handheld for those.
The deception is that MTH is implying their ability to access TMCC commands is due to some technical wizardry they invented, and Lionel isn’t capable of making the cab-1 or Legacy handheld access TIU/DCS commands. This is a bald faced misrepresentation on their part. The only reason this is true is MTH’s litigious and piratical approach to business. They’ve threatened anyone who tries to access the TIU commands and make an interface device despite the fact that it clearly is legal to do so.
Given the freedom to access DCS TIU commands, as Lionel gave the world for TMCC (while Mike Wolf was still six years away from providing command control back in 1996 :), there is absolutely no doubt the TMCC/Legacy system could control PS2 locos in command mode. Each system is needed to access the commands and locos of the individual system in any case. The DCS handheld can emulate most TMCC locomotive commands, but it’s only because Lionel made those commands public domain and you still need the TMCC command base to do so.
- Really ! My DCS controller CAN do everything my TMCC Cab-1 does. (I don’t have the SCC for switch or accessorys control, to the TMCC cant control it either.) I do have the DCS AIU and that does control all the switches and accessory items thru my DCS controller.
- I’m sure Lionel HAS the capability of producing a like system, that could control all the engines on the layout, and so does Microsoft, Westinghouse, Viewsonic, and many other companys. But it currently doesn’t exsist.
- When I’m running my Pike I use one controller for everything, track, accessorys, switches, MTH engines, TMCC engines, Leagacy engines, K-Line (TMCC engines), and even some street lights that I turn on/off through the AIU and a relay.
Speed steps…I believe the more speed steps, the better you can control the exact slow speed of the locomotive. And from what I have read, they even have some locos with 256 speed steps!!! This says it better:
Locomotive Speed Controls
Because DCC is a digital system, discrete speed steps define locomotive speeds. The DCC standard calls for 14 forward and reverse steps for speed control. Some decoders offer advanced 28-step operation to give you even more speed control. And if that’s not enough, how about 128 step operation. With 128 step operation you have extremely fine speed control. You can really make those locomotives crawl! The ability to take advantage of more speed steps depends on the throttle you are using. The number of speed steps a particular decoder can use is determined by the manufacturer, some systems use CV29 to set up which mode the decoder will operate in.
I really don’t think MTH is using advertising hype. And what Don says is pretty much confirmed if you read the PDF for 4.0. DCS can pretty much control everything about TMCC. They have instructions in the PDF for TMCC lashups, remote crane control, and EOB functions. I’ve read a while back that DCS can be used to control Fastrack switches, so that’s nothing new. And the only part needed to “access the system” on TMCC is the command base. No CAB-1 is necessary to access TMCC loco commands any more. I really don’t see the point in rehashing the Lionel vs MTH dispute. And I expect in the not-to-distant future that Legacy features will also be controllable via DCS. I mean MTH already has “quillable whistles” on some of it’s locos. How much more can it be to incorporate a command that will access the quillable feature on Legacy locos? Like it or not, the features of one system are being absorbed by the other.
“And I expect in the not-to-distant future that Legacy features will also be controllable via DCS. I”
I can also expect that if MTH tries to do that without allowing Legacy to control DCS, you can expect MTH to lose a decision in federal court for intellectual property theft and anti-competitive trade practices, and Lionel will then own Mike Wolf’s entire wardrobe and his Mercedes :).
Maybe. But Lionel didn’t lift a finger when MTH recently came out with the “quillable whistle” technology. And that is one of the major features of Legacy locos. MTH even used the exact wording of “quillable whistle” to describe their version of it. Maybe Lionel’s pockets are empty after the last lawsuit. Lawyers ain’t cheap.
A lot of people wanted better low speed control of their locos for more realism. People got tired of the “postwar lunge” when they started up their locos. Higher numbers of speed steps give that control.
Hate to burst the purple bubble, but Legacy locomotives have 200 speed steps. From what people who use both systems have posted on the other forum, they have better low speed control with Legacy than with DCS.
Also, Deputy posted the following:
“Because DCC is a digital system, discrete speed steps define locomotive speeds. The DCC standard calls for 14 forward and reverse steps for speed control. Some decoders offer advanced 28-step operation to give you even more speed control. And if that’s not enough, how about 128 step operation. With 128 step operation you have extremely fine speed control. You can really make those locomotives crawl! The ability to take advantage of more speed steps depends on the throttle you are using. The number of speed steps a particular decoder can use is determined by the manufacturer, some systems use CV29 to set up which mode the decoder will operate in.”
DCC is used for other types of trains like HO, so it isn’t relevant to the conversation.
No bubbles burst. There are locos with 256 steps. Manufacturers seem to be increasing the number of steps every chance they can. I look at all feedback, whether about Legacy or DCS, with a jaundiced eye. Just too many other factors affecting people’s input. I’m sure if you went to the DCS forum at the other place you’d get the opposite opinion. I don’t know what the ideal number of steps are. I don’t think there is any agreement in that matter yet. 512 may be the ideal number of steps. Or maybe 1024. Or there may not even be an ideal number for everyone. I have no complaints about slow speed control of either DCS or TMCC locos. Especially with the new version of DCS.
The quote about DCC was simply a description of the step advantages. Not a comparison of HO vs O-g
Note that 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, etc is the Hexadecimal Language of Computer Software. It makes it easy to set Whole Numbers and Fraction Numbers as computer can’t read a Decimal Point.
Then there is “Proto Sound 3”, already being shipped for MTH HO Locomotives and to be extended to “O” gauge and “G” scale lines. It contains BOTH the MTH/DCS and NMRA DCC Standards decoders. “HO” and “G” users of DCC will be able to put the locomotive on the track and have both Sound and Control standard.
The two systems, Lionel and MTH, are also different, one uses a radio signal, the other a track signal.
While I did hear MTH spent 4 millon developing DCS Software, does anyone know what agreements were made between Lionel and MTH at the end of the Court Case? Did it have any sharing of Patents and Copyrights?
I’m not going to get into the Lionel vs MTH he said she said game. I have been looking into a digital setup for a while and have seen both sides of the argument. At the end of the day for me it comes down to loyalty but not for one company or another but rather loyalty to my bank account and which system will get me more for the money. My last engine purchase was this week and it was the Lionel Mopac Heritage unit. I compared it to the MTH and found the MTH to have less detail in the small items right down to the horn being plain wrong and oversized. The paint was also less vibrant. I’ve been on the real engine. It’s paint actually does shine just like Lionel’s. That’s the one I bought. I was objective about it just as I will be with a control system.
If DCS can control all of TMCC Cab-1 controls and apparently will be able to control most if not all Legacy in the future given enough time, it’s hard for me to want to purchase a Legacy system. I’m leaning towards DCS. It was also an eye opening revelation when I stopped through Kansas City Union Station over the summer to see the local Lionel club running DCS! I asked one of the guys there why he wasn’t running Legacy. He said they have it but he can do more with DCS. When a LIONEL club prefers a competitor’s system, I have to ask why and then look into it further. Mike Wolf may be an evil dishonest businessman. I don’t know. I do know he has products that I like and if his are better than the alternative, I’ll buy them. He didn’t win with the Heritage unit but may with DCS. I also like being able to upgrade something myself rather than having to send it to the manufacturer. That’s huge with me.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been collecting “O” gauge Lionel Trains and been a member of the Train Collectors Association for 35 years. I love Lionel and have examples going back to 1918. They are quality built. My collection is heavy into 1930s and 1940s but I have a few newer one. I do not operate the “O” gauge.
As much as I collect “O”, I operate “G” gauge in the back yard with 14 of my locomotives running MTH/DCS control. (4 of them AristoCraft locomotives that I converted to DCS) I like DCS, but that’s me.
You think “O” gauge has problems? In “G” gauge you have control systems offered as LGB’s MTS, Aristo-Craft’s TE in 27mhz and 75mhz versions with a 2.4ghz coming, MTH’s DCS, DCC offered by outfits such as QSI, AirWire and others, plus Analog control and Live Steam. In both “O” and “G”, a standard, interchangable system would work to grow the hobby faster than each company having there own system.
“If DCS can control all of TMCC Cab-1 controls and apparently will be able to control most if not all Legacy in the future given enough time,”
It’s fair to say that DCS will control NONE of Legacy’s functions that differ from and augment TMCC, ever, unless MTH allows the same for DCS. DCS will not control Legacy’s quillable whistle, ever, for example nor its train brake and any new functions. Anyone who says otherwise isn’t aware of the issues.
Most clubs I know of have much more problem getting DCS to work than TMCC. The club you mention may have more PS2 locos than TMCC and therefore prefer DCS. It’s unlikely to be the functional ease of installation or reliability which are well known to favor TMCC in almost all settings. Clearly, if you have predominately PS2 locos, DCS is the way to go, and if you have predominately TMCC locos, Legacy is the way to go. If you have both, you’ll need both systems to operate and the DCS handheld will not access new Legacy functions, now or in the future, you can be assured of that, barring some thawing of the Lionel MTH nuclear winter.
As far as updating the system yourself, DCS uses a serial port, which is problematic for new computers, and you need a computer in your train room. Legacy will update in the future through the USB port it has, through modules that will be shipped to the consumer. This is probably going to be a much simpler and easier way of upgrading by your own hands than DCS, but it remains to be seen.