DCC Systems - Opinions
Trevor Marshall
Hello everyone:
I've collected some information from a number of DCC system
manufacturers. Now I'd like to hear from users. After all, the
manufacturers will all tell you their system is the best, right?
Anybody with DCC out there care to share their experiences... good and
bad, please... on the systems they use?
I'm collecting information for a friend, who has about 25 locomotives
on a layout in a 25x25 foot room. He's primarily interested in the
freedom of DCC in building multiple units and having locomotives
interact with each other, without worrying about blocks. He's not too
interested in the bells and whistles stuff, such as being able to
control your entire layout from one controller. He's also not too keen
on the TV-remote look of many of controllers such as the full-feature
offerings by Lenz and System One, but then those two companies have
alternative controllers that are much simpler.
Let the opinions begin! Please c.c. any posting to the newsgroup to my
e-mail address as well, as I don't always catch everything on the
newsgroup. Thanks!
- Trevor Marshall, Ottawa Canada
tre...@magi.com
Jeffery Frederick
I've just spent the last month researching DCC (I'm in computers, so I
get kinda anal about this stuff!)systems. I have come to the conclusion
that Digitrax has the best system. Let me caveat that by saying that I
have not installed all the systems and actually done a comparision
test. I have been getting info on the systems and talking to the
manufacturs. I plan to drop by my local hobby shop tomorror (Sat.) and
actually look at the Digitrax system and see how it is put together. I
am impressed by the fact that the Digitrax system is somewhat open.
They are not writing any software (that I know about) for running their
system. They have the interface from the command station to the PC, and
are letting third parties write the actual software. Sounds
interesting. These guys seem to be on the leading edge of this stuff.
TomWarder
JEFFERY SEZ:
: I plan to drop by my local hobby shop tomorror (Sat.) and
:actually look at the Digitrax system and see how it is put together. I
:am impressed by the fact that the Digitrax system is somewhat open.
To the contrary, Jeffery. Digitrax has the most closed system. You can
only find out how to talk to Loconet if you sign some sort of
non-disclosure
license agreement! I have been running System One for over a year now,
after selling off my old (non-upgradeable) Digitrax equipment, and am
quite
happy with its performance.
On the other hand I have had little problems with Digitrax decoders other
than
I can't remember which locos have the entry level ones and which have the
FX.
We had tried Lenz in the early days and found that when you run more than
about 6 trains the system response slows quite a bit. I hear that he has
improved that now. Then I bought a Digitax Challenger which even though
it said you could run 16 trains you were limited to only 4 at a time. So
I bought a Digitrax Bigboy. I didn't like pushing 2 or 3 buttons at the
same time to accomplish simple tasks or having to have a "clue sheet"
glued to the back of each cab to just perform simple tasks. I also didn't
like the tiny little knobs that spin round and round rather
than stop at full speed or stop. We normally run about 12 cabs and 14-15
trains at a time on my 24 x 32 foot PRR layout. We have no problems with
system response and the control is
amazing. The most important thing is that I am NOT LIMITED to just one
manufacturer of components. I have bought both System One and North
Coast cabs for my DCC system and
the amazing thing is they are TOTALLY COMPATIBLE so I don't have to worry
if one of these
companies goes out of business the other will be there to to sell me the
stuff I need. This is
my "insurance policy" to guard against losing a sole source supplier such
as happened with
Keller Engineering. I also hear that Ramtraxx has joined in with System
One and North Coast to insure compatibility between all system components.
Don't believe all the negative comments that Digitrax publishes about
other manufacturers.
Digitrax has had a history of running negative "information" campaigns
through their dealers.
(they must have been watching political campaigns over the last 15
years.... apparently
negativity sell product!)
Tom Warden.
Scott Squires
> I
>am impressed by the fact that the Digitrax system is somewhat open.
>They are not writing any software (that I know about) for running their
>system. They have the interface from the command station to the PC, and
>are letting third parties write the actual software. Sounds
>interesting. These guys seem to be on the leading edge of this stuff.
Actually LocoNet and some of the software driver info is not public.
I know I did't have much luck getting info from them. It is a nice
system though.
-scott
--
Scott Squires "Insert funny stuff here"
squ...@crl.com
Scott...@aol.com
Mr. Bruce C. Sherman
I recently converted my layout to DCC. I used Digitrax's Big Boy
system. I also control my switches (turnouts) thru the controller.
For the price and complexity, I felt this was the right direction. I
have no complaints except my above average MRC power pack is now
obsolete. I now use the throttle control to vary my layouts lighting,
ie: houses, street lights. It is very easy to reprogram the decoders.
Remember, my layout is only 8 by 6.5 feet. You really have to do your
homework if you need a different system than I have. You may want to
wait for Digitrax to release their Chief set or I believe MRC is coming
with one too.
Bruce from Bklyn,NY
9/7/96 8:54 PM
die...@intelligent.com.au
> > offerings by Lenz and System One, but then those two companies have
> > alternative controllers that are much simpler.
> get kinda anal about this stuff!)systems. I have come to the conclusion
> that Digitrax has the best system. Let me caveat that by saying that I
There is oje around that is based almost entirely on a PC + software,
and used joystick ports as throttles. It's pretty elementary, but looks
like it could do the job. In a minimalist kind of way.
Douglas Menke
The most important thing is that I am NOT LIMITED to just one
> manufacturer of components. I have bought both System One and North
> Coast cabs for my DCC system and
> the amazing thing is they are TOTALLY COMPATIBLE so I don't have to worry
> if one of these
> companies goes out of business the other will be there to to sell me the
> stuff I need. This is
> my "insurance policy" to guard against losing a sole source supplier such
> as happened with
> Keller Engineering. I also hear that Ramtraxx has joined in with System
> One and North Coast to insure compatibility between all system components.
>
> Don't believe all the negative comments that Digitrax publishes about
> other manufacturers.
> Digitrax has had a history of running negative "information" campaigns
> through their dealers.
> (they must have been watching political campaigns over the last 15
> years.... apparently
> negativity sell product!)
>
that System One and Ramtraxx where actually manufactured by North Coast.
I don't know this for sure, however. Any one care to confirm or deny?
And BTW... Last time I checked, You can use diferent boosters and
decoders on ANY system that conforms to DCC standards, so any one (or
group) of manufactures can go under, and your ENTIRE system is not
scrap. A lesson I learned from the demise of Commodore (makers of the
Amiga computer) is that the technology will not roll over and die right
after the company goes out of business. O.K. So I can't interchange
Digitrax throttles with System One boosters, but I can't interchange
them with Lenz or Marklin, either. If Digitrax would ever go out of
business, I just go out and pick up a Lenz or System One command
station. My boosters and decoders will still work. You will never
protect yourself fully from a company going out of business.
jeffrey w. larue
TomWarder wrote:
> amazing. The most important thing is that I am NOT LIMITED to just one
> manufacturer of components. I have bought both System One and North
> Coast cabs for my DCC system and
> the amazing thing is they are TOTALLY COMPATIBLE so I don't have to worry
> if one of these
> companies goes out of business the other will be there to to sell me the
> stuff I need. This is
> my "insurance policy" to guard against losing a sole source supplier such
> as happened with
> Keller Engineering. I also hear that Ramtraxx has joined in with System
> One and North Coast to insure compatibility between all system components.
>
This is, at best, misleading.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, however it is my
understanding
that these 3 systems were designed and are built(?) by the same
person/place.
Also, to date, DCC has nothing to do with the throttle-to-power booster
bus, so the point about Loconet being 'closed' doesn't necessarily mean
anything.
The one thing that always puzzles me is the amount of concern that folks
put on the compatibility of the various power booster/throttles.....when
I look at the investment some of us have made in DCC, by far the largest
consumer of money are the decoders! The cost of the booster/throttle
pales in comparision!
-Jeff
.---------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Jeffrey W. LaRue ! Jeff....@cop.mts.dec.com |
| Principal Network Consultant ! (301)918-5886 / (dtn)339-5886 |
| Digital Equipment Corporation ! Greenbelt, Maryland |
`====================================================================='
Supporting networking before networks were cool!
david d `zoo' zuhn
>Don't believe all the negative comments that Digitrax publishes about
>other manufacturers.
>Digitrax has had a history of running negative "information" campaigns
>through their dealers. (they must have been watching political campaigns
>over the last 15 years.... apparently negativity sell product!)
I have to say the opposite. I've spoken with most of the major
vendors in the last couple of months, and I've found the Digitrax
people to be the most helpful, and the least vitriolic towards the
competition. The folks at SystemOne in particular said very few
things about their own product, and a lot of negative slamming of
others (especially Digitrax).
I haven't bought a system yet, so I'm not biased by that at all.
I'll say that no one has the system that I'd like to buy, but a couple
come close, but each in their own way that appears to be somewhat
incompatible, in philosophy if not in packet conformance.
--
david d `zoo' zuhn | Armadillo Zoo Enterprises, St. Paul, MN
z...@armadillo.com | http://www.armadillo.com/ for more info
David Moyce
tomw...@aol.com (TomWarder) sez:
>Don't believe all the negative comments that Digitrax publishes about
>other manufacturers.
>Digitrax has had a history of running negative "information" campaigns
>through their dealers. (they must have been watching political campaigns
>over the last 15 years.... apparently negativity sell product!)
This is one reason I've hesitated to invest in Digitrax. I'm not
enough of a techie to know if what they say about the system's
technological superiority is true, but when I encounter a negative ad
campaign, my first instinct is usually to shop elsewhere.
David Moyce
oys...@wco.com
Practice random spelling and senseless acts of punctuation.
Lyle Dowell
In article <323419...@ccmail.wiu.edu>, dme...@ccmail.wiu.edu says...
>
>I don't want to start a holy war here, but I was under the impression
>that System One and Ramtraxx where actually manufactured by North Coast.
>I don't know this for sure, however. Any one care to confirm or deny?
>
System One and Ramtraxx.
Lyle Dowell
Chuck Davis
Further along this line. Since the surface mount CPU chip is
'Programmable', and the programming is what makes the difference in the
DCC Decoders, you can have decoder units that ARE PHYSICALLY identical,
but behave differently. (different internal programming.)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
He, who will not reason, is a bigot; William Drumond,
he, who cannot, is a fool; Scottish writer
and he, who dares not, is a slave. (1585-1649)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Davis / Sutherlin Industries FAX # (804) 799-0940
1973 Reeves Mill Road E-Mail -- c...@ns.gamewood.net
Sutherlin, Virginia 24594 Voice # (804) 799-5803
.
stev knowles
>The one thing that always puzzles me is the amount of concern that folks
>put on the compatibility of the various power booster/throttles.....when
>I look at the investment some of us have made in DCC, by far the largest
>consumer of money are the decoders! The cost of the booster/throttle
>pales in comparision!
maybe, but the knowledge that the challenger system i have can basically still
be used (the throttle cant, but i wont miss it:) with most of the new systems
i might buy (from digitrax, wangrow, or lenz) sure makes me alot happier.
it is also my impression that north coast engineering, wangrow, and ramtrax are
seperate companies, with different design tradeoffs (like ramfix has a 5 amp
booster and command station in one box, while wangrow only has seperate power
and command stations), but a common technology base. i certainly dont know what
the business relationship looks like, but having more than one source of
equipment sure is enticing . . .
Tim O'Connor
tomw...@aol.com (TomWarder) wrote:
> Don't believe all the negative comments that Digitrax publishes about
> other manufacturers. Digitrax has had a history of running negative
> "information" campaigns through their dealers.
This is crap -- from yet another Wangrow fan. I have never seen anything
negative from Digitrax or from any of their dealers (many of whom also
sell other DCC brands) -- but I've seen plenty of negative posts on this
newsgroup from the "I hate Digitrax" crowd, to which I add Tom here. (I
also have never seen anything negative from Wangrow, or any other vendor.)
Digitrax is good and so is System One, and the others. Why do people feel
it's necessary to shit on Ford just because they prefer a Chevrolet?
Bill Dixon
David Moyce wrote:
>
> tomw...@aol.com (TomWarder) sez:
>
> >Don't believe all the negative comments that Digitrax publishes about
> >other manufacturers.
> >Digitrax has had a history of running negative "information" campaigns
> >over the last 15 years.... apparently negativity sell product!)
>
Negative "information" campaigns? What negative information campaigns?
If you have been paying attention to events on the net you will note
that most of the Big names have slanted their comments against Digitrax
while Digitrax has remained quiet and polite with their replies.
I would be curious to know what you mean by negative information campaigns.
Bill Dixon
Bruce Z. Friedman
David Moyce wrote:
>
> tomw...@aol.com (TomWarder) sez:
>
> >Don't believe all the negative comments that Digitrax publishes about
> >other manufacturers.
> >Digitrax has had a history of running negative "information" campaigns
> >through their dealers. (they must have been watching political campaigns
> >over the last 15 years.... apparently negativity sell product!)
>
> enough of a techie to know if what they say about the system's
> technological superiority is true, but when I encounter a negative ad
> campaign, my first instinct is usually to shop elsewhere.
>
> David Moyce
>
> oys...@wco.com
> Practice random spelling and senseless acts of punctuation.
Digitrax is one of the most positive and professional organizations on the streets. They
only state facts and clean up the many rumors that exist! I suggest you go to the source
and call them directly or email them! Stop believing other people's insinuations! Call
them! Challenge them with your fears and thoughts. Then listen and make a decision.
One of the great things about Digitrax is the following, They are a full time DCC
company. You can call their company and they answer the phone. They have several
employees and can be reached through email or the Website. They don't run their business
out of a home, and they don't hide behind snail mail or a website. Take matters into
your own hands and get the facts! (soapbox off)
Bruce Friedman
Mark Johnson
First, let me say that our club and several individual members
(including me) have purchased Digitrax systems. We are
converting from Keller Onboard in most cases, although a few
are completely new to command control. We chose Digitrax
for several reasons:
- the other large club in our city was using it
- the local dealer is very helpful
- there were good words on the net about the power of Loconet
- Digitrax had simple, "buddy" cabs before the others
That said, my reservations about Digitrax are related to the limited
information available about Loconet and the peculiar stance of Digitrax
with respect to common rail wiring.
Neither of these stand in the way of reliable operation, but I like to
know HOW things work, not just "trust us, they work". I have not been
able to get an explanation from Digitrax as to why they do not support
common rail wiring (which makes signalling simpler). They say they
are slowly educating people as to the advantages of their approach,
but I remain uneducated.
Currently (pun intended), I would purchase boosters from System One,
with cabs from Digitrax. I have no preference on decoders (yet).
Mark
--
mailto:Mark.J...@InfoHarvest.ab.ca
InfoHarvest Inc. http://www.ccinet.ab.ca/InfoHarvest/
David Moyce
Bill Dixon <Bill_...@bc.sympatico.ca> sez:
>I would be curious to know what you mean by negative information campaigns.
And Tim O'Connor <toco...@bbn.com> sez:
>tomw...@aol.com (TomWarder) wrote:
>> Don't believe all the negative comments that Digitrax publishes about
>> other manufacturers. Digitrax has had a history of running negative
>> "information" campaigns through their dealers.
>This is crap -- from yet another Wangrow fan. I have never seen anything
>negative from Digitrax or from any of their dealers (many of whom also
>sell other DCC brands)
See http://www.digitrax.com/syscomp.htm (on Digitrax's company
website). This is the only company-sponsored criticism of competitors'
DCC systems I have seen. However earnest and well-intentioned the
author may have been, it bugs me when a manufacturer publishes
negative comments about a competitor.
>-- but I've seen plenty of negative posts on this
>newsgroup from the "I hate Digitrax" crowd, to which I add Tom here.
Tom speaks for Tom. I haven't read the posts Tim's referring to, and I
don't hate anybody -- well anyway, not Digitrax. In fact, I may very
well send them several hundred dollars soon. I'm simply saying that
if the intention of disparaging the competition is to win me over as a
potential customer, it tends to have the opposite effect.
>Digitrax is good and so is System One, and the others. Why do people feel
>it's necessary to shit on Ford just because they prefer a Chevrolet?
Well, that's how I feel, too.
Keith Rogers
Tim O'Connor <toco...@bbn.com> wrote:
>Digitrax is good and so is System One, and the others. Why do people feel
>it's necessary to shit on Ford just because they prefer a Chevrolet?
>
I guess it's the nature of the human beast. And it extends to
everywhere. Witness the religion wars--"My religion (and my God) or the
wrong religion." Same-o, same-o with the DCC wars, "my <brand> DCC or
the wrong DCC." Enough to make you sick.
Trevor Marshall
Hey everybody, let's give it a rest on the question of whether any DCC
manufacturers are smearing other companies. Or put it in a different
thread, because this one is getting seriously off topic...
The reason I posted the original article asking for opinions from DCC
users about their systems is because I want testimonials from users about
what they like and dislike about the systems that they have used. This is
to help a friend of mine decide which system he will purchase.
I've already read everything from the manufacturers. Obviously they
highlight the advantages of their own systems. I don't care what they say
about other systems, or even IF they say anything about other systems,
because if they did say anything I would have to take it with a grain of
salt anyway... they want to sell their own system, obviously.
What I'm intersted in is what you guys, as users and/or owners, like
about the system you use... and what you'd like to see improved on it.
This will be much more helpful than ANYTHING a manufacturer can tell me.
If you buy a car, do you ask the dealer what to buy, or do you ask your
friends what they're driving and what they like/dislike about it?
Seeing as I've been unable to "test-drive" all the DCC systems, I'm
looking for advice from people who have...
1 - Has anybody found a particularly annoying aspect of using their
particular system? IE: small display size, tiny buttons, complicated
procedures for common operations (like selecting a locomotive or MU-ing
two or more together)?
2 - Has anybody found something that their system does particularly well?
3 - If you could improve one thing, or get one new feature, what would it
be? I'd like to see a throttle that does away with the tether,
personally.
4 - Are your throttles too "busy"? Or do they lack certain features you'd
like to see on the hand-held units?
5 - Can you use th throttle with one hand? Do you have to look at it to
use it, or can you "learn" the feel of the throttle enough that you can
watch your train instead?
6 - Are there features on your throttles (or systems) that you have never
used... why not?
I'm particularly interested in hearing from people who have used the
North Coast/Ramtraxx system, as I haven't seen any opinions from those
people yet. Lenz and Digitrax have been fairly well covered in this
discussion (but keep those opinions coming!), and System One has been
mentioned, but not as often.
Thanks everyone!
Bill Dixon
Tim O'Connor wrote:
>
> tomw...@aol.com (TomWarder) wrote:
>
> > Don't believe all the negative comments that Digitrax publishes about
> > other manufacturers. Digitrax has had a history of running negative
> > "information" campaigns through their dealers.
>
> This is crap -- from yet another Wangrow fan. I have never seen anything
I think that part of the problem with Wangrow users is that in a DCC world
of 10 vendors, their choice is 15th <G>. This tends to make them somewhat
defensive and they respond in the only way they can - with anger and BS.
If they would just do what Digitrax users do, Run Trains, they would be a lot happier.
Bill Dixon
Chuck Davis
David Moyce wrote:
>
> Bill Dixon <Bill_...@bc.sympatico.ca> sez:
>
> >I would be curious to know what you mean by negative information campaigns.
>
> And Tim O'Connor <toco...@bbn.com> sez:
>
>
> >> Don't believe all the negative comments that Digitrax publishes about
> >> other manufacturers. Digitrax has had a history of running negative
> >> "information" campaigns through their dealers.
>
> >This is crap -- from yet another Wangrow fan. I have never seen anything
> >sell other DCC brands)
>
> See http://www.digitrax.com/syscomp.htm (on Digitrax's company
> website). This is the only company-sponsored criticism of competitors'
> DCC systems I have seen. However earnest and well-intentioned the
> author may have been, it bugs me when a manufacturer publishes
> negative comments about a competitor.
David:
I was curious, so I went to http://www.digitrax.com/syscomp.htm to see
what you might be disturbed about.
There wasn't ANYTHING of even a slightly negative nature that wasn't
FACTUAL information. Now I realize that people may come to different
conclusions form the same data. That's the way the world works. There
ARE some things that could be taken as negative. But if it's a truthful
statement of fact. Then it's NOT something being said 'just to be
negative'.
Now maybe I have an unfair advantage, in that I understand what is being
said, but time and education will help take care of that part of
whatever problem there is.
>
snip
Robert Hudon
I don't have DCC yet. Someday, maybe. After reading most of the
posts in this thread, I have one question.
Is it possible that a lot of the badmouthing from non Wangrow
owners is because they can't afford Wangrow and wish they could?
Price notwithstanding, I have read about both Wangrow and
Digitrax, and find a lot of positive features in each. And the
nice thing about NMRA compatibility standards is that you can
mix and match. I must be blind, but I can't seem to find a
problem here.:-)
claffp
Henry Stowell
All the poor guy asked for was information on DCC, and look what he has to
put up with...DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS...the subject matter seems to get lost
in all this...Hank.
On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, David Moyce wrote:
> Bill Dixon <Bill_...@bc.sympatico.ca> sez:
>
> >I would be curious to know what you mean by negative information campaigns.
>
> And Tim O'Connor <toco...@bbn.com> sez:
>
> >tomw...@aol.com (TomWarder) wrote:
>
> >> Don't believe all the negative comments that Digitrax publishes about
> >> other manufacturers. Digitrax has had a history of running negative
> >> "information" campaigns through their dealers.
>
> >This is crap -- from yet another Wangrow fan. I have never seen anything
> >negative from Digitrax or from any of their dealers (many of whom also
> >sell other DCC brands)
>
> See http://www.digitrax.com/syscomp.htm (on Digitrax's company
> website). This is the only company-sponsored criticism of competitors'
> DCC systems I have seen. However earnest and well-intentioned the
> author may have been, it bugs me when a manufacturer publishes
> negative comments about a competitor.
>
> >-- but I've seen plenty of negative posts on this
> >newsgroup from the "I hate Digitrax" crowd, to which I add Tom here.
>
> Tom speaks for Tom. I haven't read the posts Tim's referring to, and I
> don't hate anybody -- well anyway, not Digitrax. In fact, I may very
> well send them several hundred dollars soon. I'm simply saying that
> if the intention of disparaging the competition is to win me over as a
> potential customer, it tends to have the opposite effect.
>
> >Digitrax is good and so is System One, and the others. Why do people feel
> >it's necessary to shit on Ford just because they prefer a Chevrolet?
>
Rick Hines
Trevor Marshall wrote:
<snip>
>The reason I posted the original article asking for opinions from DCC
>users about their systems is because I want testimonials from users about
>what they like and dislike about the systems that they have used. This is
>to help a friend of mine decide which system he will purchase.
<snip>
>What I'm intersted in is what you guys, as users and/or owners, like
>about the system you use... and what you'd like to see improved on it.
>This will be much more helpful than ANYTHING a manufacturer can tell me.
<snip>
I personally find the System One to be far more "user friendly" than Digitrax.
BTW, I only looked and played with the two systems, so I can't comment about any
other brand. Digitrax's new "Chief" system, which I haven't actually seen yet,
is much closer to System One in features and would have to be a serious
consideration.
I don't think either is "better" quality wise. It only comes down to feature
set.
The ease of programming a decoder is very high on my list of "must haves".
Neither "Easy Ramp" from System One or PR1 from Digitrax is of much use in my
"personal" opinion, although I lean toward the PR1 as a step in the right
direction. Both software programs are brain dead as far as user friendliness.
What they do, they do well, but they don't do a lot. Such as let you know the
entire state of an engine and not just the settings they want to focus on.
Consequently, the ability of the base system to program a decoder becomes a key
factor. The System One is far superior to the Digitrax in this case. You can
program everything except decoder address on the mainline. And there is a
separate programming track output that allows programming of everything.
Also, with Digitrax, you have to select all those hexidecimal programming values
with a "dial". I consider that a real bummer. Push button programming is the
way to go.
However, I know a lot of people using Digitrax and they like their systems just
fine. And remember, once you have an engine setup the way you want, you
probably won't be messing with it again. I find that getting an engine the way
I want, however, to be a really big deal.
If the Digitrax "Chief" had been available when I bought my System One, I would
have seriously considered it, but it wasn't. System One IS expensive, but it's
feature set is very complete and far more user friendly than anything else I've
seen.
I don't think you'd be wrong buying either Digitrax or System One (and the very
similar, feature wise, Ramtrax and NorthCoast Engineering systems). It's a
matter of what you think you want and/or need.
Hope that helps,
Rick.
_____________ ___________ Rick Hines
___/][ ][]|____ |------------|===========| Senior Software Engineer
| | ST/ | \ Slack Time| || | ||| | But I just want to ride
|_|___|__/RR_|_____\__|_|__|_|__|__||_|__|||_|_| my motorcycle.
@|=|#YY##YY#YY# \________________/ #YY##YY#YY#|=|@ email: rhi...@teleport.com
/= \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ =|
Douglas Menke
> To which I'd like to add...
> 7 - What are the advantages / disadvantages of the different approach
> to the throttle control line: Digitrax's Loco Net vs X-bus used by
> all(?) the rest. Yes, the Loco Net is 'peer-to-peer', but what are
> the real advantages here?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Paul
I am going to try my hand in this. I do not claim any of this to be
gospel, nor do I swear that it is 100% accurate, but this is how it was
explained to me.
(Disclaimer...I favor Digitrax, but I will try to offer a fair and
impartial explination.)
The x-bus protocal is a polled system. What this means is the system
control unit, in this case, the command station, has a number of devices
that are connected to it. It goes in a linear fashion and "polls" each
device one at a time. "Device 1?-no changes-Device 2?-increase speed
20-Device 3?-no changes" and so on. The command station polls at a high
rate of speed, but if you get a large number of devices on the bus, it
can slow the system down significantly.
O.K., what does that mean as far as operation?
I do not know the bus speed for x-bus, so I can't say exactly, but if
you have a number of devices all trying to get on the bus at the same
time, some of them are going to end up waiting. When the only devices on
the bus are throttles, you would need quite a few of them to notice the
decrease in response time. But, If you have a CTC system, signaling
system, block ocupancy detection, and so on sharing the bus as well, It
will take longer to poll all these devices. In fairness to x-bus, even
with all of these systems active, there would still probably not be a
significant speed decrease until you get to large layouts. You could
increase the speed of the bus, but there tends to be more errors at
higher speeds, so there is a practical limit to the speed.
The Loconet protical is similar to Ethernet technology. It is also a
data bus that runs at a given rate, but rather than waiting to be
polled, devices just send data out and then looks for collisions. If it
sees a collision, it resends the data packet that collided. This
eliminates the need to wait for the poll, which takes up a lot of time.
Now, this is not without it's limits, and there is a practical limit to
the number of devices that can share the bus without causing a high
number of collisions and slowing the network down. However, this limit
is considerably higher than a polled system. Also, the manner in which
the data is transmitted allows for a higher bus speed than what is
practical with polled systems.
Will both systems work? Yes. Of course they will. Are both systems
capable of handling improvements made over the next few years? Yes, they
are. But there are practical limits with both systems.
I personaly favor Digitrax. No secret there. I feel it has the bandwith
needed to handle advancments in train control over the next several
years.
Keep in mind when Bill Gates himself said "No one will ever need more
than 640K of RAM." You may not need it now, but in 10 years, when you
want to add a full CTC system to your basement layout that would put
most clubs to shame, you will be glad it's there.
Doug Menke
Disclaimer..Feel free to correct or clarify any information you feel is
inaccurate. Lack of information is one of the most dangerous things in
our society. Open sharing of information is one of the best things in
our society.
Chuck Davis
> The Loconet protical is similar to Ethernet technology. It is also a
> data bus that runs at a given rate, but rather than waiting to be
> polled, devices just send data out and then looks for collisions.
A little clarification here (remember these things are happening at a
VERY HIGH RATE OF SPEED).
The First thing a cab/controller/whatever (c/c/w) does is to listen for
a break in the flow of data on the 'bus'. When a break is detected, it
transmits (while also listening for a collision with another c/c/w).
Two possible cases, (1) no collision - data gets to destination.
(2) collision, wait a random length of time, and go back to "The
First thing" (above)
The random time prevents two transmitters from being 'hung' by ALWAYS
seeing the other transmission.
> If it
> sees a collision, it resends the data packet that collided. This
> eliminates the need to wait for the poll, which takes up a lot of time.
snip -- No argument - Well put information.
Laurence Shaw
In <32385E...@ccmail.wiu.edu> Douglas Menke <dme...@ccmail.wiu.edu>
writes:
>
>> Paul
>
>I am going to try my hand in this. I do not claim any of this to be
>gospel, nor do I swear that it is 100% accurate, but this is how it
was
>explained to me.
>
>snip>
I find it refreshing to have a simple yet elegant synopsis of the
differences. I will shortly be converting to DCC and the succinct
disscussion has helped me. I hope others will ;find it the same
Thanks Larry Shaw
Don Wells
rhi...@teleport.com (Rick Hines) wrote: ...
>The ease of programming a decoder is very high on my list of "must haves".
>Neither "Easy Ramp" from System One or PR1 from Digitrax is of much use in my
>"personal" opinion, although I lean toward the PR1 as a step in the right
>direction. Both software programs are brain dead as far as user friendliness.
>What they do, they do well, but they don't do a lot. Such as let you know the
>entire state of an engine and not just the settings they want to focus on.
I am a little surprised at this description of the PR1 software. There
is a command to read out the current settings of the programmable
registers. It is then easy to modify the values and upload the
changes. I wish the speed curve drawing algorithm were slightly more
clever, such as automatically generating smooth monotonic curves, but
that is nit-picking ---- the program is certainly quite useful as it
is, and I very much prefer to use it instead of the DT200 to program
decoders.
>Consequently, the ability of the base system to program a decoder becomes a key
>factor. The System One is far superior to the Digitrax in this case. You can
>program everything except decoder address on the mainline. ..
That feature, which BigBoy does not have, will be in the Chief.
--
Donald C. Wells, Charlottesville, Virginia
mailto:dwe...@esinet.net
Railfan (SP, RGS) and model railroader (HO, HOn3, DCC).
http://www.esinet.net/personal/dwells/dwells_rr.html
stev knowles
>To which I'd like to add...
>7 - What are the advantages / disadvantages of the different approach
>to the throttle control line: Digitrax's Loco Net vs X-bus used by
>all(?) the rest. Yes, the Loco Net is 'peer-to-peer', but what are
>the real advantages here?
good question. does anyone know what the max amount of throttles each system
will allow? you can design either kid of system badly, or really well. i can
easily see a peer system dieing because of all the sync packets you might
decide to send between throttles and other members of the throttle network. i
can also see the other system, which seems to basically be serially based, to
die under load also.
in the end, both are probably adequate for 99% of the users out there . . .
stev knowles
st...@precision.guesswork.com
stev knowles
In article <32385E...@ccmail.wiu.edu>, dme...@ccmail.wiu.edu says...
>But, If you have a CTC system, signaling
>system, block ocupancy detection, and so on sharing the bus as well, It
>will take longer to poll all these devices.
it is my impression that all the current block detection and switch machine
control stuff is done over the rails, not on the throttle network.
any one got any comments on the things digitrax (or anyone else, for that
matter) is planning to put out on the throttle network?
Marc Starmans
Bruce Z. Friedman <bfri...@infosysinc.com> wrote in article
<3236D9...@infosysinc.com>...
> David Moyce wrote:
> >
> > tomw...@aol.com (TomWarder) sez:
> >
> > >Don't believe all the negative comments that Digitrax publishes about
> > >other manufacturers.
> > >Digitrax has had a history of running negative "information" campaigns
> > >through their dealers. (they must have been watching political
campaigns
> > >over the last 15 years.... apparently negativity sell product!)
> >
> > This is one reason I've hesitated to invest in Digitrax. I'm not
> > enough of a techie to know if what they say about the system's
> > technological superiority is true, but when I encounter a negative ad
> > campaign, my first instinct is usually to shop elsewhere.
> >
> > David Moyce
> >
> > oys...@wco.com
> > Practice random spelling and senseless acts of punctuation.
>
Talking about negative information, in most hobby shops, the sales people
always give me the impression that Digitrax is rubbish and that I should
invest in a "decent" system from another manufacture. Well I'm already 2
years a satisfied Digitrax customer and I'm very happy with the quality of
it. It delivers what I need at a reasonable price (much lower than the
other system) and with a good service! What else do I need?
Marc Starmans
Marc Starmans
Trevor Marshall <tre...@evert.com> wrote in article
<51712h$6...@nntp.igs.net>...
> 1 - Has anybody found a particularly annoying aspect of using their
> particular system? IE: small display size, tiny buttons, complicated
> procedures for common operations (like selecting a locomotive or MU-ing
> two or more together)?
> 2 - Has anybody found something that their system does particularly well?
> 3 - If you could improve one thing, or get one new feature, what would it
> be? I'd like to see a throttle that does away with the tether,
> personally.
> 4 - Are your throttles too "busy"? Or do they lack certain features you'd
> like to see on the hand-held units?
> 5 - Can you use th throttle with one hand? Do you have to look at it to
> use it, or can you "learn" the feel of the throttle enough that you can
> watch your train instead?
> 6 - Are there features on your throttles (or systems) that you have never
> used... why not?
Just for the record, I use the Digitrax Big Boy system.
ad 1. normal operation is reasonable easy, even my brother who hates
computers can setup the system. The display is for normal functions enough
but is small during programming. Sometime the two throttles can be
confusing but these two knobs make MU-ing easy.
ad. 2. very smooth control of the engines, I like the characteristics of
the throttle knobs very much.
ad. 3. smaller (or different sized decoders, command station which
'remembers' the situation on the layout from earlier sessions.
ad. 4. The two throttles can be confusing but they make MU-ing easy. For
the rest it's more than enough.
ad. 5. I can use it with one hand without looking.
ad. 6. the speed table, I haven't needed it yet and you should use a PC if
you want to try it.
Marc Starmans
Soest, Netherlands
Mr. Bruce C. Sherman
I'll try and answer your questions as it goues to my Big Boy system
>1 - Has anybody found a particularly annoying aspect of using their
>particular system? IE: small display size, tiny buttons, complicated
>procedures for common operations (like selecting a locomotive or
>MU-ing two or more together)?
have to set one throttle (cab?) to be a master and then plug it into
the LA-1 (loconet) cable. Sometimes it doesn't work and I have to
power everything down and try again. It takes getting used to. I'm
able to power up now almost 99% of the time. Would I let it stop me
from buying it again, no.
>well?
question
>3 - If you could improve one thing, or get one new feature, what
>would it be? I'd like to see a throttle that does away with the
>tether, personally.
Digitraxx system, it is an import. There might be some problem with
FCC rules to operate here though. Not too sure about this.
>4 - Are your throttles too "busy"? Or do they lack certain features
>you'd like to see on the hand-held units?
>5 - Can you use th throttle with one hand? Do you have to look at it
>to use it, or can you "learn" the feel of the throttle enough that
>you can watch your train instead?
press buttons, you need to look at it. I have two differnt styles of
the same cab control. One has the flat buttons (ie touch screen), but
the newer style has raised buttons. But I still look to make sure I am
pressing the right button and the screen shows the correct info.
>6 - Are there features on your throttles (or systems) that you have
>never used... why not?
just hook up my Big Boy ( my 4-8-8-4 not the DCC system). It can pull
all the cars I can fit on the layout, even up hills. Just have to be
very carefull starting and stopping the train or I could derail half
the consist.
Bruce from Bklyn,NY
9/13/96 7:58 PM
Rick Hines
Don Wells wrote:
>I am a little surprised at this description of the PR1 software. There
>is a command to read out the current settings of the programmable
>registers. It is then easy to modify the values and upload the
>changes. I wish the speed curve drawing algorithm were slightly more
>clever, such as automatically generating smooth monotonic curves, but
>that is nit-picking ---- the program is certainly quite useful as it
>is, and I very much prefer to use it instead of the DT200 to program
>decoders.
OH, I agree it's much better than using a hand throttle, but to fully explore
possibilities of an advanced decoder, it's woefully inadequate. I want to be
able to see how "everything" is set. I'd like to be able to print it out so I
know what's happening for ALL the configuration variables. The command to read
out the current settings doesn't help with all the registers you use to fine
tune things that don't get displayed. And a "lot" of configuration variables
are not displayed at all - even though you can modify them.
Finally, if I setup a curve I like but have picked way to low a starting point,
for example, it would be nice to "move" the entire curve up or down without
having to radically alter the forward and/or reverse trim voltage, etc., etc.
That is one thing that Easy Ramp does very nicely. But even if you combined
both programs, you'd still only end up with a partial solution.
I DO like PR1 as far as it goes.
KEMACPRR
As to the number of throttles that can be used I've used the Lenz system
for the past three years on a 31 by 79 double deck PRR layout . WE run 45
to 50 trains in a 4 to 5 hour session . We use 15 LH-100's during the
session and the system handles it with no problems. I've also been testing
System One with 15 handsets and have experienced no delay problems. The
only problem we have experienced is after two sessions the system (Lenz)
starts to slow down . You'll notice this first in the use of headlights it
takes longer to turn them on or off. This problem is easily fixed by going
from the auto mode to manual after the first session and turning the
system off .I understand the upgraded version of Lenz will take care of
this all by itself. I think the X-bus versus the Loco net argument would
not affect 99% of the users. I'm not an electrical engineer or anything
like that just a consumer of DCC and a happy one at that. Compared to the
previous systems I've owned Dynatrol.Onboard and Mann Mades Digipac it out
performs them all with few problems. If you have any further questions
feel free to ask.
Ken
Claes & Diane Jonasson
On the issue of comparing Loconet and XBUS and their relative speeds:
This is like comparing apples and oranges.
Loconet is designed to handle ALL the data transfer needs in the
system, from input devices to command station to booster, as well as
collecting and passing on all feedback from track detectors etc. Given
all this data, loconet has to handle a large amount of data, at any
given time.
XBUS is designed to handle data transfer from input devices to the
command station (both ways). That's it. Another line handles data
transfer to booster. A 3rd bus handles feedback from track detectors
etc to the command station. So each bus handles a smaller amount of
traffic.
In practice each communications setup (loconet or XBUS) should work
fine for its intended use. I do wish this was a standard by NMRA, so
that feedback decoders etc from one manufacturer would work with
command stations from another manufacturer. Oh well!
Claes Jonasson
nwb...@ix.netcom.com
st...@precision.guesswork.com (stev knowles) wrote:
>>To which I'd like to add...
>>7 - What are the advantages / disadvantages of the different approach
>>to the throttle control line: Digitrax's Loco Net vs X-bus used by
>>all(?) the rest. Yes, the Loco Net is 'peer-to-peer', but what are
>>the real advantages here?
> i can
>easily see a peer system dieing because of all the sync packets you might
>decide to send between throttles and other members of the throttle network. i
>can also see the other system, which seems to basically be serially based, to
>die under load also.
peer-to-peer has the potential advantage of only moving data when
required. This saves the bandwidth required to ask a node for its
status, and eliminates "no change" overhead. However at about 50%
theoretical bandwidth and beyond, the performance will degrade quickly
until almost constant collisions are the only happening thing on the
bus (i.e no data throughput).
The master-slave (polled) network wont really die in the sense that
the p-t-p system will. The information will still be flowing, but the
response to additional nodes is linear... it will keep taking longer
to poll all the nodes as more nodes are added. One could characterize
a network so large that it causes poll time to exceed some time
critical control element as "dead" I suppose, but data throughput is
constant. The master slave relationship is usually very reliable
because it requires each node to communicate at some *regular*
interval (the same feature which degrades response time).
Polled (m-s) network data throughput can be improved if nodes are
prioritized. e.g. cab control is polled more often than block detect.
I suspect this is addressed somewhat by the multiple bus architecture.
p-t-p reliability can be improved if critical devices can be set to
"acknowledge" a packet (the transmitter will continue sending until
the intended receiver verifies it received the packet e.g. panic
shutdown), and also if some function can verify that all nodes are
available (and operational) from time to time. These functions wont
help keep the network from thrashing (constant collisions, no data
throughput) but will make it more reliable up to that point. Does Loco
Net already use "ack"d packets? Having non critical nodes implement
longer backoff times (after collision before retransmit attempt) could
also help critical nodes get the message through.
Systems that provide these types of features are more likely capable
of expansion. As noted, many of us may never exceed the current
limitations. Of course as also noted, computers "...640K", to which I
might add "Windows runs on 2MB", no "4MB", wait "8MB", unless you
meant Windows NT... 16 - 32MB :). As depressing as that may seem to
the just invested, plenty of folk are still quite happy running
systems with 640K that perform the function they were purchased for.
Being able to easily install, setup, operate, and modify a system are
major points in my book.
Nate
PS. I dont have a system, but I keep my eye on the features and cost.
My wiring is implemented so that a few barrier strip jumpers can
replace the switch board for full power/DCC operation.
Digitrax Inc.
Mark.J...@InfoHarvest.ab.ca (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>That said, my reservations about Digitrax are related to the limited
>information available about Loconet and the peculiar stance of Digitrax
>with respect to common rail wiring.
Mark,
Thank you for standing by.
I promised to get back to you after N-Trak East and I will do so. We
have been swamped with Chief set stuff.
I locked down the DCS100 firmware for completion today and we can now
finish "canning" the first 500 from pilot run #1. The DT100 will be
"locked down Friday" [still got room for more features!]....and Zana
has about finished the manual. So we're moving down the slippery slope
to shipment........
We have had a dozen Chief units in field, beta-testing for the last 8
weeks or so , so I belive that we have sufficient testing and closure
on such a comprehensive Master command station.
What particular items of LocoNet do you worry about?
I will have more time to interact next week, but if I delay the Chief
any longer the customers are going to yell...
regards
AJ
Digitrax Inc.
nwb...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>st...@precision.guesswork.com (stev knowles) wrote:
>Nate
Nate,
You bring up some _excellent_ points, along with Doug Menke and
others.
The Ethernet analogy is a good comparison with respect to having a
CSMA/CD type of physical transport layer and media access control.
In the Digitrax LocoNet implementation, serendipity (a.k.a. Physics)
played a large role , and we managed to get almost 100% traffic with
about 10exp(-3) collision backoff failures. Very important as you
point out for peak performance!!!
Hint: All related to apperture uncertainty..... So, we do _not_
"crater" at 60% traffic, which 802.3 does.....
It is true , and we acknowledege, that for a non-demanding
application a Master/Slave polled system is _easy_ to understand ,
implement and will get the job done.
By the same token, I remember when 16K (x1!) Dram's were the "cat's
meow" and nobody thought an operating system would recommend 16Mb to
run efficiently....
So our thoughts are firmly towards the future, and having a physically
simple and flexible wiring and hardware plan with exceptional
expandability.
When I have used the generic term "Peer-to-Peer" over the last 4 or 5
years (that long?), it is in the general "distributed" processing
sense. The addition of "Chief" will actually be the first time we can
truly show the differences to the previous generations of Master
/Slave paradigm.
The most notable possibilities are in the "synergy" when a user can
dynamically pre-empt functional sections of the system. There are
many examples of this possibility embodied in the DCS100.
A Master/Slave or centralised Main Control Program [MCP] strategy just
can't "get you there"...
I will have an opportunity in the next several months to elaborate on
some of these issues. The DCS100 has about 40 user configurable
"option choices" for _Advanced_ system operations. Out of the box
there is _nothing_ to set or worry about !
For the guys who really want to "drag race" we've put in lotsa
goodies.
I will answer tech questions from DCS100/Chief users, do some app
notes and post the whole mess to the web site, over time....
Don't get me wrong , the majority of guys (at present) have no desire
to hook up any fancy systems or lots of PC's!.
They simply don't need or want to.
But, all the hooks are there for the "techies" to build some slick
combinations of systems for _their_ operating styles.....
In the true Peer-to-Peer paradigm, we typically free the network from
the reliance of a single point failure (main control program bugs!).
We can have mutiple conversations and transactions occur
independantly in an ordered fashion. We need _no_ "sync" or "mother
may I?" type of limitations. Note that a device is free to care or
not care about any type of transaction and can verify a transfer if it
_chooses_ to and the feedback justifies bandwith usage.
There is great flexibility to manage the data flow dynamically and
modify the system to suit a particular application.
The conversations between devices are inherently "self-syncing" and
follow a predictable path. The important point is we have the freedom
to have any "connectivity" or data flow or control we wish within a
rigorously enforced network syntax and operating system.
Note that the LocoNet model is predicated on hundreds of Sensors
active in the system "realtime", along with a baseline load of
throttle transactions from e.g. 50-60 throttles. We can dynamically
loadshare the peak and baseline bandwith to ensure all the priorities
are sensible and allow good latency or real-time response.
LocoNet is more than simply a CMSA/CD layer or Electrical and Physical
specifications, but embodies all these plus a scalable "operating
system".
So, with LocoNet we can pretty mauch give you the points you are
looking for.
I couldn't see how to do this with polled or MCP systems.....
...but then, like Jeff LaRue "I was doing networks before networks
were cool" ( Jeff ,excuse the plagarism!!)
see ya later, gotta go
AJ @ Digitrax
PS I posted a couple of thoughts in the original DCC Thread that
started this "Smear" one . I never was one for formality <grin>.
Digitrax Inc.
squ...@crl.com (Scott Squires) wrote:
>>am impressed by the fact that the Digitrax system is somewhat open.
>>They are not writing any software (that I know about) for running their
>>system. They have the interface from the command station to the PC, and
>>are letting third parties write the actual software. Sounds
>>interesting. These guys seem to be on the leading edge of this stuff.
Scott,
Thanks for the kind words. Actually we write a LOT of software that
works on LocoNet! [it runs in our widgets!]
However, we are focusing on providing a strong growth _hardware_
environment and platform for our users.
We feel that having hundreds of others working on their "pet" software
projects will give a rich range of choices for all.
John Kabat's freeware is an enabling tool so that they can build their
projects easily. His drivers are a "work in progress" and being
expanded all the time , and we hope to soon have Windows drivers
available as well. Think of John as providing the NE2000.com drivers
and you are free to concentrate on the applications layers.
LocoNet is not "secret". We recently met a very talented engineer who
had reverse engineered a number of Big Boy exchanges (using John
Kabat's software!). He was a little apprehensive when he met us! We
didn't bite him, but had a good chuckle, and signed him up to do the
Fast Clock Repeater module for LocoNet. We were delighted to sign
him up as co-developer (#48?).
Now we know he will design a competent product, since he is in
possession of the accurate details and subtleties of LocoNet.
Personally, I'm jazzed, that we get another goodie for our Loconet
community that I don't have to lay awake at night worrying about!
Our criteria for co-developers is subjective, but basically boils down
to: " can this person bring a real product to LocoNet community that
will justify the energy Digitrax will expend?". Its pretty reasonable
and simple.
I get numerous calls a week for people who want to roll-their own
"stuff". Most can work with John Kabat's tools, especially when we do
the Windows drivers.
I don't remember your enquiry, I see e-mails from so many. If you
wish to follow up, please call and talk. It is the only way we can
distinguish serious developers from "tire kickers". (nothing against
kicking a few tires now and then <grin>)
regards
AJ @ Digitrax
Digitrax Inc.
tomw...@aol.com (TomWarder) wrote:
<snip>
>Don't believe all the negative comments that Digitrax publishes about
>other manufacturers.
>Digitrax has had a history of running negative "information" campaigns
>through their dealers.
>(they must have been watching political campaigns over the last 15
>years.... apparently
>negativity sell product!)
Tom,
I hate to say it but, "here you go again".
I would be grateful if you could provide accurate reporting of this
"smear campaign" of Digitrax' you allude to.
I spent some energy after Longbeach correcting your demonstrable
innaccuracies, which tended to indicate that you were not merely
constructively critical, but were unreasonably partisan.
You are welcome to your "warm fuzzies" towards Wangrow. It causes us
no heartburn. I spent some time explaining to Bill Dixon that we
needed to keep things "fair and friendly and as objective as
possible".
So, please come clean tell us as a group what information our dealers
have been "smearing about".
In point of fact as is often the case about "sweeping claims" being
artful mis-directions, the opposite case is in fact what has been
happening.
That is: Digitrax , as a leader in this DCC field, has been unfairly
the subject of ongoing "smears" from other parties.
We have patiently been documenting this for the last year or so. We
have a number of written complaints from both dealers and users that
we have been able to sustantiate with the requirements for evidentiary
accuracy.
In this thread and others , we have many (such as Marc Starmans in
Holland) that have recently remarked on this _undeserved_ negative
slant against Digitrax.
We will dutifuly bear the _fair_ criticisms where we have messed up,
or had problems. We don't feel it is right to blamed for a bunch of
"nebulous" evils and wrongs.
On the current "DCC Smear Campaigns" Thread, several have taken
exception to the slant in the Digitrax System comparisons on our Web
site.
As several have also noted in that thread, this text is
substantially and technically _accurate_.
But also note that at the beginning, Zana points out that it is her
"opinion" and she does _not_ hide that she is connected to Digitrax
and that her comments are partisan to Digitrax. The statements are
for all to see and read with _clear_ statement of authorship.
To date we have had no complaints from our competitors that we have
knowingly mis-represented technical points.
If this is ever the case, we rapidly make corrections. In fact we
see and talk to Bernd Lenz and Jim Scorse (NCE/Wangrow/Ramtraxx) on a
regular basis and we are co-operating on a number of ongoing issues.
A number of people make the _excellent_ point that the difference
between a Polled Bus and an Event Driven Peer to Peer system may not
be terribly important in a _small_ system that does not demand much
performance, and that both can work equally well in this case.
We happen to believe strongly that the ability of a system to be
"scaled" over time is _very_ important. There are a number of
postings we have made over the last several years that point out why
we chose a true "Network" architecture for LocoNet and Digitrax. Some
of these are even copied on our web site...
Remember when 640K of RAM and 30MB of Hard drives were all that one
needed?
The release of our Chief set will demonstrate what is _really_ meant
when we talk about a peer-to-peer "distributed system" (you a'int seen
nuthin yet!) . There is a raft of new network features that neatly
follow the capabilities of a system, when you have a scalable syntax
and operating system.
<snip>
>To the contrary, Jeffery. Digitrax has the most closed system. You can
>only find out how to talk to Loconet if you sign some sort of
>non-disclosure
>license agreement!
If you read our published thoughts on this matter you will realise
that the word "open" and "closed" systems have _very_ subjective
meanings.
We have upwards of 50 LocoNet co-developers. That takes a lot of time
and energy to co-ordinate. We have a number of new LocoNet products
that have been created by other co-developers. For example,
Tannersoft has just built a module that connects Marklin S88 input
sensors onto LocoNet.
By being a formal co-developer of LocoNet we have every confidence
that Dr Tanner will build a competent piece of hardware and software
and that we can recommend this to S88 Adapter our _common_ Digitrax
customers, based on our successful working relationship with Dr
Tanner.
An _important_ point to note is that these co-developers are building
real hardware from a formal technical specification. Digitrax just
supplied the concepts on _paper_. So, we get "parallel" engineering,
which is so important to ensure we don't build a number of products
with the same mistakes- as can happen when it is all the product of a
single mind.
This also ensures there is a pool of competence to build and support
products, that is _independent_ of Digitrax. Protection from the
"OnBoard" single-source syndrome....
The issue of developing on LocoNet is _not_ then a "conspiracy" thing
as many _uniformed_ individuals are trying to make it out , but is a
rational effort to ensure that we select a _core_ of individuals who
we will spend time and effort educating to independantly build good
products.
Could you imagine Novell or MicroSoft working with every programmer in
the US (or wherever) that want to write their own NE2000 compatible
NIC driver for their computer? It doesn't make sense!
You simply buy this driver software (for pennies) bundled with your
network adapter or Win95 or whatever. A small core of professionals
actually build and take the time to test it all works, with Novel or
MicroSoft test labs.
Why would we do any thing else in the hobby market? It is no bigger or
more professional than the PC Network market....
A solid demonstration of our "good faith efforts" is working with John
Kabat (he did most of the sweat and work!) to provide "freeware"
(i.e. no-cost) drivers and documentation for DOS users. He provides a
competent and consistent programming interface for any programmers'
desires. We will be meeting with John in the near future to
co-ordinate new items that the Chief has added, and John is working on
the "freeware" VxD/driver interface that will allow Windows and
Visual Basic users to build their own LocoNet applications. Read our
comments over time. We have been following up on our commitments to
provide cost-effective state of the art types of products and systems.
So we find people who try to criticise Digitrax's actual performance
(not rhetoric) often have not taken the time to research the issues
fully or fairly. The truth is easy to establish.
<snip>
>amazing. The most important thing is that I am NOT LIMITED to just one
>manufacturer of components. I have bought both System One and North
>Coast cabs for my DCC system and
>the amazing thing is they are TOTALLY COMPATIBLE so I don't have to worry
>if one of these
>companies goes out of business the other will be there to to sell me the
>stuff I need. This is
As a number of people have noted , Jim Scorse designed and wrote the
software for the Wangrow, Ramtraxx and NCE throttles. These should
work on the same bus!
So these are not "multi-sourced" from the perspective that the 3
companies have completely separate Engineering resources and
schedules.
Note that there are multiple sources for LocoNet products that have
been _independantly_ designed and produced without engineering
oversight from Digitrax.
>my "insurance policy" to guard against losing a sole source supplier such
>as happened with
>Keller Engineering. I also hear that Ramtraxx has joined in with System
>One and North Coast to insure compatibility between all system components.
Wangrow , Ramtraxx and NCE have not happened to "agree" to
compatibility, they are "joined at the hip"! It would seem that the
system software _is_ is pretty much a sole source item.....
So, Tom, I think I can demonstrate where you statements may be a
little awry.
We at Digitrax work hard _not_ to be nasty and petty about the
competition. We do not have time for it.
We have a lot of positive things to say about our own products and
strategies.
We also spend time to make sure our dealers and users do _not_
succumb to the temptations of "going negative". (ask Bill Dixon!)
In point of fact , these negative comments really turn OFF
prospective customers, so we counsel their avoidance.
I welcome your response.
regards
AJ @ Digitrax
Jeffery Frederick
AJ,
Your developer program, I think, is great. Now, for us users, can we
get a list of the stuff that is being written? I would be interested in
helping the developers to test and debug the software. THX!!
Jeff
jeffrey w. larue
Digitrax Inc. wrote:
>
> Hint: All related to apperture uncertainty..... So, we do _not_
> "crater" at 60% traffic, which 802.3 does.....
>
just arbitrarily "crater" at 60% traffic....or any other '%' for that
matter. The point at which any *single* station on the LAN can expect
to start to see an exponential rise in the collision rate is directly
related to the overall *length* of that particular Ethernet LAN. If you
change the length....you change the point at which the collision rate
rises rapidly.
This is why Ethernet is known as a 'time domain' sensitive protocol. The
allowable overall length of an Ethernet is based on a number of timing
assumptions within the protocol. This is also why any discussion on the
amount of traffic that an Ethernet can handle *must* include the size of
the network.
If I run Ethernet completely within a single hub (repeater) module, the
LAN will see over 90% traffic utilization.....it's all in the design of
the network!
Of course, I've been around long enough to know that the "60%" number
tends to be used as a rough rule-of-thumb when doing gross design
estimates.
The point that is relevant to Loconet is that as a CSMA/CD-like
protocol, it too will be affected by overall length of the Loconet
network. But the size of a Loconet is not even close to the size
of the average Ethernet.....so the issue of collisions on Loconet
should just about never be an issue. Of course, if Loconet is
more accurately described as CSMA/CA (collision avoidance), then
collisions won't be a problem....period!
The main point of interest is that an Ethernet-like protocol is *very*
good where you have a large number of stations on the LAN...each
sending data at more or less 'random' times. Unlike polled or
token-based protocols, the presence of an increasing number of stations
on the LAN does not affect performance...if a station is not
transmitting, it is not contributing anything that would degradate the
network.
Once you look at adding things other than throttles to Loconet, the need
for a much higher performance network becomes more or less a given....
which is why AJ chose to go this route.
(of course, AJ holds the final word on what Loconet looks like!)
>
> I couldn't see how to do this with polled or MCP systems.....
> ...but then, like Jeff LaRue "I was doing networks before networks
> were cool" ( Jeff ,excuse the plagarism!!)
>
...no problem, I'm flattered!
.---------------------------------------------------------------.
| Jeffrey W. LaRue ! Jeff....@cop.mts.dec.com |
| Principal Network Consultant ! (301)918-5886 / (dtn)339-5886 |
| Digital Equipment Corporation ! Greenbelt, Maryland USA |
`==============================================================='
Supporting networking before networks were cool!
Rich Weyand
Also note that the size of the CSMA/CD network, for determining the
collision rate and resulting throughput, is not its physical size,
but, I believe, the transit time, measured in units of bits. I am
not sure of the bit rate on Loconet, but I suspect it is much less
than 8802-3's 10 Mb/s, so the physical size required to get the same
collision rates is correspondingly larger.
Rich Weyand | _______ ___,---. ---+_______:_ |Rich Weyand
Weyand Associates| |_N_&_W_| |_N_&_W_| |__|________|_ |TracTronics
Comm Consultants | ooo ooo ~ ooo ooo ~ oOOOO- OOOO=o\ |Model RR Electronics
wey...@mcs.com | http://www.mcs.net/~weyand/ |wey...@mcs.com
Dick Lord
In article <51n0e8$s...@camel0.mindspring.com> mark...@digitrax.com writes:
>
>
>That is: Digitrax , as a leader in this DCC field, has been unfairly
>the subject of ongoing "smears" from other parties.
>We have patiently been documenting this for the last year or so. We
>have a number of written complaints from both dealers and users that
>we have been able to sustantiate with the requirements for evidentiary
>accuracy.
>
Oooooh ! Is this reminiscent of Nixon's "Whitehouse enemies" list ?
I remember that Art Buchwald claimed that he lost his credibility because
he didn't make it onto the list.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could all get along, and not spend our time
tallying up other people's transgressions for future retaliation !
Just my humble $.02
Dick Lord
--
***____ __I_|HH|_ Dick Lord, Current Technology (603)868-2270
Y___|[]| ,~~~__ | x x | 99 Madbury Rd. Durham, NH 03824
>{|___|__|_|_____|_|_______| r...@curtech.com DCC user NMRA member
/oo--@-@ oo oo oo oo HO B&M/MEC Mountain div. under construction.
Mark Johnson
> Mark.J...@InfoHarvest.ab.ca (Mark Johnson) wrote:
>
>
> >That said, my reservations about Digitrax are related to the limited
> >information available about Loconet and the peculiar stance of Digitrax
> >with respect to common rail wiring.
>
> What particular items of LocoNet do you worry about?
> I will have more time to interact next week, but if I delay the Chief
> any longer the customers are going to yell...
> regards
> AJ
And I'm one of those customers in line for a Chief...
I'm used to controlled protocols, even with restricted developers.
Lots of highly competent people have been accepted into the
Loconet developer program, and I appreciate their positive comments.
(and I trust them...)
HOWEVER, the reservation I have is that the specs aren't even more
open, so more people could see them. I understand Digitrax' position
that this should be controlled, it's just MY PREFERENCE that it be
more widely circulated. Not enough to keep me from buying Loconet systems...
And AJ's priorities are in the right place.... everything can't come
at once!
Mark
--
mailto:Mark.J...@InfoHarvest.ab.ca
InfoHarvest Inc. http://www.ccinet.ab.ca/InfoHarvest/
Bruce Z. Friedman
Dick Lord wrote:
>
> In article <51n0e8$s...@camel0.mindspring.com> mark...@digitrax.com writes:
> >
> >
> >the subject of ongoing "smears" from other parties.
> >We have patiently been documenting this for the last year or so. We
> >have a number of written complaints from both dealers and users that
> >we have been able to sustantiate with the requirements for evidentiary
> >accuracy.
> >
>
>
> I remember that Art Buchwald claimed that he lost his credibility because
> he didn't make it onto the list.
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if we could all get along, and not spend our time
> tallying up other people's transgressions for future retaliation !
>
> Just my humble $.02
>
> Dick Lord
>
> --
> ***____ __I_|HH|_ Dick Lord, Current Technology (603)868-2270
> Y___|[]| ,~~~__ | x x | 99 Madbury Rd. Durham, NH 03824
> >{|___|__|_|_____|_|_______| r...@curtech.com DCC user NMRA member
> /oo--@-@ oo oo oo oo HO B&M/MEC Mountain div. under construction.
Gee Dick,
Thanks for your postive input. Why don't you tell us how you really
feel.
Bruce Friedman
John Hermanson
Here's an abreviated answer. I've been using Lenz for 3 years
(following Marklin 2 rail DC) and like their keyboard layout. I
am able to use it without looking at it for accel, decel,
direction change, headliht on + off.
Ive yet to use an additional function button because none of my
locos are equipped with any. Their EPROM upgrades are about to
come out, allowing 27 speed steps with any decoder.