Loathar’s right, and I;m glad you came out to tell us. If I may say, m=y and some other problems with DCS is not that it isn;t compatible, it;s just that a lot of cool features Can;t even be accsessed. Sure, the DCC controllers are behind to get to what is already available for them, but it’s the principal of not working more with something that;s already there.
Again though, I always like seeing the presidents coming out and talking to us.
It’s nice to have a mfgr. on a list like this. Thanks for being here.
I always got a good laugh out of posts that say that MTH is pushing the DCS over DCC. Yes, for optimal preformance, maybe DCS would be the best option. However, the locos work perfectly normal in straight DCC.
And if you think that their wanting people to try DCS is bad, what has DCC done to us DC modelers over the past few years?? We can’t buy anything new without it coming with DCC and or sound.
It’s nothing new. We never complain, and you DCC guys shouldn’t.
(PSST!!! MTH!!! Still waiting for the Yellowstones!!!)
Phil
A number of points are not addressed in this commentary:
(1) The only reason MKT/Korea Brass was vulnerable to this legal action is that they, unlike Lionel, failed to appeal the erroneous decision in the original trial. The verdict favoring plaintiff MTH Mr. Edleman refers to was completely reversed and remanded for retrial on Lionel’s appeal. Korea Brass, for reasons unknown, chose not to join this appeal. Nonetheless the fundamental evidentiary basis for the original decision in MTH’s favor was rejected by the appeals court who found the original trial conduct and evidence irremediably flawed. Lionel and MTH chose to settle rather than go through another trial.
(2)Mr. Edleman fails to note that it was an employee of MTH’s partner in South Korea, Samhongsa that initiated the illegal transfer of design drawings to Lionel’s partner in South Korea, Korea Brass. There was no evidence presented at the trial, nor any that has come to light that Korea Brass actually employed MTH designs in their production of products for Lionel.
(3)Mr. Edleman fails to note that MTH’s letter to DCC manufacturers some years ago caused great concern about legal activity by MTH, and MTH did nothing of substance (e.g., a public retraction) to dispel these concerns. Thus the portrayal of both hobbyist and manufacturer concerns about MTH’s potentially litigious behavior as baseless is disingenuous and inaccurate, in my view.
Phil
You can purchase the new Genesis models steam or diesel with or without DCC/Sound and I believe that Atlas also offers with and without sound.
I certainly go along with the Yellowstone model and would purchase one also. Remember, the DM&IR M4 and the B&O EM1 were both built by Baldwin and share many common drive parts overall. In fact, the AC12 Cab Forward also could share many of the drive parts with the Yellowstone, all three built by Baldwin.
I don’t understand why someone has not jumped on this idea.
MTH, please read our posts and give us the 2-8-8-4 and 4-8-8-2. We are waiting.
CZ
The main reason why MTH HO locomotives are pretty much untouchable for me is because they are so friggin’ expensive. It would be nice to have the equivalent of an Atlas “Silver” series, or (forgive me) BLI “Blue Line” series available for MTH locos. I’m very happy for you that you have realistically-smoking engines and 15 million sound effects that can be accessed with DCS, but I’ll go out on a limb here and say that the average modeler really doesn’t care about all those extra bells and whistles. Until there is an MTH loco available for less than $150, I’ll continue to window shop.
Absolutely…Everybody isn’t into sound or DCC that is why we still have a choice-with or without.A quick look at the market will show the choices we speak of including more sound decoders being DC friendly…Then we need to add the sound only modelers that uses the Quantum Engineer
I’d have to agree. When I look at an MTH product, I see one option only - the fully-equipped DCS/DCC and smoke unit. I’ve got no interest in smoke at all, and I run DCC, so what do I gain from the extras I don’t want?
When I look at the Walthers catalog, on the other hand, I see many engines available either DC (or “DCC-ready,” the same thing) or with DCC and sound. Others have DC/DCC options, but no sound. When you compare them, you can decide which option best fits your budget and your preferences, not some marketing guy’s idea of what you want.
Right now, it seems that MTH is putting out some nice engines, but they’re using the smoke gimmick (IMHO) to “set them apart” from other manufacturers. Unfortunately, this also sets them apart in price, and is certainly going to hurt sales and market share as food/fuel prices take a larger share of our paychecks every day. So, as a constructive suggestion, how about producing the same engines without the smoke units, and without the high-end dual mode decoders? Or maybe with a LokSound or Tsunami installed? Try it with one engine just to gauge market reaction.
Regardless of the “superior technology” argument, the installed DCC base is now too large for DCS to
In my opinion (and please note the word opinion so I don’t get sued) I don’t trust anything anybody from MTH has to say. You are the only company that appears to be planting shills on the boards to say how wonderful MTH is. You are the only company that ran down a competitor directly in your advertising. You are the only company who feels it is necessary to explain your position publically in a forum. I remain steadfast in my stance that if you gave away $1000.00 with every engine I wouldn’t take one. Your past positions which I think you conveniently glossed over have done great harm to the hobby and I won’t support you no matter what you produce.