If you are interested, MRC has uploaded on the MRC Yahoo Group, a demo version of their soon to be released programming software.
In my opinion the software is simplistic and I posted accordingly on the Yahoo Group, however my post has not yet showed on the site.
I’m curious what you mean by “simplistic.” Simple is always good. Simplistic, on the other hand, suggests conceptually primitive such as a 1970’s 'Pong" video game compared to “Guitar Hero” on X-Box. Please explain.
What was wrong with Pong? I love Pong…In fact one of my most vivid childhood memories features Pong.
I was all of 12 years old. My Dad and I made a solo (without Mom or brothers) road trip from Geneva in Switzerland to the port of Calais in France in an Alfa Romeo sports car. We got to the port hours early for the ferry crossing and killed some time in a motorway rest-stop playing Pong. Remember the kind built into a coffee table? Just me and my Dad, what great memories. Late summer 74 I would guess. He is now 75 and I don’t think that there is much chance of playing Guitar Hero together any time soon!!
I mean simplistic as in conceptually primitive compared to Decoder Pro.
On the MRC Yahoo Group go to message #7132 and the file can be downloaded from the file section of the same group. Look for “MRC Beta Software.Zip”
With due respect, Jack, I hate the Yahoo group stuff for reasons I’m willing to discuss, but really are not pertinent here. Therefore, unless you’d like to enlighten this forum directly, I guess I’ll never know what you posted on Yahoo.
I suppose I’ll stay in the dark until more light is forthcoming from elsewhere.
Sorry I did not read you right the first time, here is what I posted to that forum.
(quote)
“I don’t know if my installation of the program failed but all I see in the
Program Page is basic programming of a few CV. The CV Blaster Page is nothing
more than a list of CV that you must fill yourself or load from an already
programmed decoder. So far what I see is nothing more than a computer assisted
throttle. Where are the definitions of all decoders on the marketplace, where
can I map functions, how do I go about sophisticate lighting effects?”
(end of quote)
You have to see the software to know about the “Program Page” and the “CV Blaster Page” and obviously my English in not perfect but this give you the idea.
Must I say I am the only one that gave such a feed back, all other posters where amazed from this software.
May be someone can tell me if it is possible for me to upload the software into Photo Bucket so you could download it yourself.
and this thread’s title…
Perhaps you don’t realise it; but you already gave the reason for it being “simplistic” – “MRC Beta Software,” and “MRC new demo programming software.”
“Beta” or “demo” software can sometimes be “simplistic” in looks while the programming code is tested for bugs. A more visually polished version could be forthcoming.
Why invest in making something look fancy before making sure all the programming code works properly ? You don’t paint walls, hang drapes and furnish rooms until after the house is built.
In term of cosmetic, I agree with you chateauricher. The software is simplistic in term of functionalities compare to Decoder Pro.
What is lacking is a Wizard to map functions, a Wizard for sophisticated lighting effects and ditch lights management, a Wizard to adjust volume of all the different sound found in today sound decoders. As of now only CV 1 to 128 inclusive is supported and no support for QSI multidimensional indexed CVs.
If MRC wants to add all these features a final version is not in the near future.
The beauty of Decoder Pro is that one can adjust decoders to his liking without any knowledge of which CV does what, not so with MRC. For the time being Digitrax PR3 plus Decoder Pro is a much more cost effective combo for PA users, then the forthcoming MRC interface.
Jack,
I totally agree with your comments but I was never expecting MRC’s interface/software to be able to do anything close to what JMRI does.
I was hoping, for the sake of MRC system users, that MRC would offer something with enough benefits that would not leave their users feeling totally left out due to lack of JMRI compatibility.
For example, one of the things I really like about Decoder Pro is being able to speed match locos via speed table settings while they’re running on the layout. My comment on their Yahoo site was related to this. If they could allow this to work, plus the obvious benefit of being able to save and reload CV settings, then I think that they would be offering a workable compromise for MRC users.
One would still have to study and understand each decoder manufacturer’s manuals to enter proper CV settings for function mapping, lighting, etc. This is not necessarily a bad thing as it allows one to learn a lot about DCC CV settings, but it sure is a lot easier, faster and more fun to use the amazing convenience of Decoder Pro.
Using the PR3/Decoder Pro combo is a p
Standard practice is that buy the time you release something for a PUBLIC beta, it’s pretty close to complete feature-wise. The object of the public beta is to turn it loose to general users, who ALWAYS find ways to break things that peopel close to the development process wouldn;t have even considered trying - when you’re the one writing a program, you have an idea of how it is intended to be used. So when you test, you miss trying odd combinations because it never occurs to you that someone would try to use it that way. The general public have no such ‘misconceptions’ and will click anythign, anywhere, in any order.
WHat I would expect to see in a beta program is errors when performing certain operations. What I would not expect is a whole bunch of extra features to be added afterwards. Barring, of course, enough feedback from the beta testers saying “hey this is great but it really needs to do X Y and Z”. If enough people say that additional features are needed, they may appear by the final release. But the manufacturing releasing it to public beta is pretty much saying “this is it, we just want to make sure there are no errors”
–Randy
Hi Jerry,
I wish I could manipulate words as well as you do. I agree about David’s method of using Decoder Pro, in fact I use it on one of my home computer.
Here is a quote from Frank Ritota on the MRC Group when he introduced the software.
" If any of you are using JMRI please let us know if you agree that ours is easier
to use".
Rightly or wrongly I interpreted the comments as a request to compare it to Decoder Pro.
Yours is impeccable logic, Jack. [:D]
-Crandell
I would not expect the MRC software to be the equivalent of Decoder Pro. To accomplish that, MRC would have to obtain the complete set of CV listings and CV functions for other decoder manufacturers, and then code them into the MRC software. This is not likely to happen, given MRC’s fairly closed architecture on their own DCC systems and components.
The other avenue is take the information from JMRI files. But under the open source license (I’m assuming some version of GPRL), MRC would be obligated to donate their enhancements and changes back to JMRI. Again, not likely to happen, given that JMRI was rebuffed when requesting the information necessary to interface MRC DCC control systems. Remember, JMRI is a volunteer project. Vounteers donate their time to maintain the software and update it for new decoders and other technologies, just as they do for the track libraries in XtrkCad.
I believe that MRC will come up with a good equivalent to Decoder Pro as far as MRC decoders are concerned. But I doubt they will do the same for decoders from other manufacturers. They will likely have a simplified CV read/write interface (compared to a DCC throttle), but the specifics of a what a particular CV for a non-MRC decoder does will be missing. Anything else would be competing with their own decoder sales.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Were can I get a Wizard? The guy in the lamp layed down on me!!![(-D][(-D][8)]
How about fixing the quality ( or lack thereof ) of their sound decoders too? Please?
Hopefully we will see that soon from what I recently heard at a show. I just downloaded this Beta version and it does look simple. Can’t compare it to Decoder Pro since I’ve never used it.
How are we supposed to check this for bugs if the hardware isn’t available yet?? Don’t we need that first? Isn’t it kind of like checking Windows 7 without a computer??[%-)]
I DID notice they have a new decoder out with 24 different chuffs and a bunch of bells and whistles. I guess that’s a one decoder fits all steam deal.(which would make sence) Their MSRP is only $89, which means it can probably be bought for $69. I might have to look into that.
A “one size fits all” kind of thing-a-ma-jig? What is the world coming to?
Well, memory is cheap, so instead of creating a “you program it” design, it’s cheaper (and probably easier - creating GOOD sound files for sound decoders is NOT exactly easy) to put extra memory on the decoder and preload every sound you could possibly want, and turn them on and off with various CV’s.
–Randy
Ok. With an open mind I downloaded, unzipped and ran the program.
Quite frankly, The’re going to charge money for that? It has a loomg way to go before it can even compare to JMRI’s range of operation.
Not that it is unusable but better costs nothing.
Martin Myers
I think it’s the hardware that costs the money. MRC said once the final version is released it will be available for download on their site. I didn’t get the impression there was a charge for it. Just the hardware interface. (I think)