One of my objections to DCC is the constant calculations needed to set the CV's. This should be a simple process with flow charts that lay it out for you. In my research I did find a number of flow charts but with little or no explanation as to how you can best use them. After reading pages of advice and thanks to good friends here on TB making suggestions and giving guidance it came down to this: (Read on it's grumble gripe time). You need to know who manufactured the decoder, not all decoders are universally made the same. MRC attempted to make it simple but.... it's not so. Not so at all. I purchased a used locomotive after seeing it operate. Looked good to me so I bought it. Downside this unit was programmed by someone else...well...that's not bad as the work was already done, for me. The downside is if you purchased a used locomotive and you have no idea who made the decoder, how it was previously programmed, you are a bit stuck. You will need to read the decoder to decipher it. Not to forget, you'd have to know the specific CV to go into it,,,,,, to change it's programming. You'd have to be able to read it and MRC seems to have a problem doing so...that or I do... getting it to read the decoder. To complicate matters there is an alleged computer program that will decipher it for you and possibly program the decoder for you. Yeah, right! Like I'm going to go to all that trouble to screw up my computer worse then it is now. I'm an old dog that can hunt and learn new tricks but this is just like the days when programs for computers involved a lot of knowledge about commands and how to write in your request and etc to get the desired end result. The boys at Apple and Windows finally woke up and delivered a simple and easy to use product...sort of! Today, you just click and enter and you are done. I'm hoping the complexities with DCC will be simplified and I won't need to know how it works but just work it. This is supposed to be about fun and not complex math calculations. Calculus was a long time ago. If I wanted to do that again I'd enroll in algebra III. Oh, I loved math especially algebra and enjoyed it. Difficult to learn but once I caught on...I was off and running. I'm sure this can be the same. My point is this. Since DCC is complex and requires various formulas to decipher the number or value needed to command the decoder. It can be discouraging to the beginner. An easy throw down and forget it. With most walking away from it. Do I dare say: The easiest way to discourage a newbie, is to make it complicated. This all reminds me of trying to describe Cab A and Cab B wiring and the need for DPDT electrical toggle switches. Incidentally, as I write and for the next few weeks I will attempt to accomplish this very task. I'm doing my best to help a fellow railfan discover the joy of this kind of wiring but he is having a difficult time understanding it and is about to give it up. Add DCC into this? Now just how complicated do we want to make this? I will forever cuss out the developers and programmers for making DCC so confounded complicated. My two cents. Growl, grump, furrump, hurrumph...grrrrrrrrrrrr! You don't have to like what I say or agree with it. You don't have to like what I do or how it looks. You just have to like what you are doing and enjoy it. Take from this what you will and leave the rest behind. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Darn complicated railroad, my dad was over heard saying tooooo many times...grin!err:baffled:eek:frown:.
I've been into DCC for five years now. Plus I deal with my club two digitrax systems. I have never had to use any math calculations to set up a loco to run well. It does take some practice to program addresses and adjust CV's, but that is enjoyable to me. The CV's I use have adjustable values from 0-31 0r 0-255 so I just play with them until I get the desired effect. It's not rocket science. Pick up the throttle, enter an address and away you go. No toggles to throw, no worrying about polarities, two wires, wireless walk around. What could be better? As for using the computor, I have the PR3 and downloaded JMRI recently and i'm still learning to use it (reads manufacturer, decoder type, CV settings and creates a loco roster, somethings I could do with a pencil and paper).
trigonometry + trains = DCC = unhappy nube track power + trains = dc = happy nube i think my horrable math skills are the one thing that would keep me away from DCC. 1+1+1+1+1 = this is not fun trying to figure out how to get the right number set...
I don’t believe that anyone using DCC will disagree with you Rick on all points.:tb-cool: On the other hand I happen to be one of the more fortunate computer techno nerds that resolved this problem once and for all. I have a computer set up running JMRI DecoderPro using a Digitrax PR3 programming interface module. By the way this does not require a Digitrax DCC system to work. I call up the program, enter my loco description, pick from a list of decoders and enter programming mode. I then make the desired changes in English / decimal on the various screens / menus without having to convert anything and save the changes. Done! I do sympathize with those of us who are less computer techno savvy and I will up the ante here by saying I will be more than happy to provide training in this area free of charge to anyone that desires to learn including you Rick.:tb-wink: Anyone interested should PM me for further details and explanations. Sincerely, Jerry
What math, Rick? The only math I am aware of is the addition you might need is for setting CV29, the one that configures normal direction of travel, whether the loco is enabled to also run on DC, how many speed steps, etc. I guess it may depend on your decoders and system, too. My Digitrax Zephyr will program most decoders to 4-digit address without me having to fiddle with CV 17 and 18, but sometimes I have to do all that in which case I just use one of the online calculators. I agree that DCC can be discouraging to some. My daughter who is identified as learning disabled in math would have a heck of a time programming anything, but then she's also ADD so she'd probably get distracted by just about anything else anyway. If you have specific questions we could help you out with them. The software you may be speaking of is JMRI's decoder pro. It's open source and free, and if you get yourself an interface (something like the SPROG or Locobuffer or PR3) and get someone to install the software (if that is intimidating) you will have a nice visual look at your decoder settings, and then you can go through and change them on a form not unlike the online forms you might use to register a product or sign up for a website. There's a lot less remembering involved. Anyway, have fun with it. Adam
Me either. I'm just not convinced it's that complicated. Speed matching on the other hand is kind of a bag of worms to a degree but nothing that can't be fairly easily worked out.
JMRI Helps I am not a DCC guy at all, but I use it, install decoders, and program engines using the JMRI interface. I think that does make it very simple.
Rick, I have yet to run into the need to deal with the complexity you describe. This was a fear of mine when I was shopping for a system and decided on the NCE. It guides you in plain english via menus so that you can get up and running in no time and even fine tune your loco. If you ever come down off the hill, and snow is no longer an excuse, come on over and I can show you my NCE set up and if interested the Decoderpro setup. Shoot if I need to I can bring it to you. I have a mobile set up for use at train shows which includes the Powercab and computer interface for use with a laptop.
Well, until I started my sojourn into model railroading last year, I would have said "my hobby is computer programming," so I am not the best person on response. But, JMRI works very very well, and makes DCC so much easier to deal with. I have an old laptop dedicated to it, for when I need to program. DCC made my entry into this hobby much more enjoyable. I do agree, if one was going to try this by setting CVs directly through the throttle, ugh. Strange coincidence story: Bob Jacobsen (JMRI developer) and I use to spend just about every other Saturday together, while his son and my daughter would practice their competition rifle shooting, with their coach. I never knew, until this past year, what he was doing with JMRI, and that was after his son graduated from high school and went off to college! VERY SMALL WORLD
I did that too Rick. I have DecoderPero on an old laptop that was otherwise destined for the bone yard! Works great. I haven't even upgraded to the latest version. That's how little trouble I've had with it. What am I missing with the latest version of JMRI?
Take a look at some of the documentation that comes with TCS decoders and additional documentation on their website. They have a simple programming guide and a more complex one. You basically fill in the sheet and add up the numbers. Very simple. Most modern decoders have a ton of CVs you can tweak but in reality you only need to set a few at a minimum to make the loco run. The rest are icing on the cake and allow the very detailed modelers adjust to their hearts' content.
I have to (kindof) side with BarstowRick here. I haven't actually had the opportunity to actually USE DCC yet, but am observing and studying from the sidelines. And my day job involves (among other things) human usability of computer based systems. (Where I disagree with Rick is where the problem is. DCC isn't complex. It's actually much simpler in some ways than DC. But current versions have a very ungainly user interface that really hamstrings its acceptability to folks who don't "get it".) The current crop of DCC systems very much remind me of pre-Windows/Mac personal computer days. I can remember as a kid having to literally peek & poke individual registers to get my computer to do particular things. And having to write my own programs to do things because nothing existed. DCC right now is much like that. In fact, it's EXACTLY like that. Modifying CV's, for those who remember, is basically the same as poking registers in a first generation computer (say, C64 or Atari 400, for example). Franlky, it's a HORRIBLE user interface for non-tech-geek users. It's a bad enough interface for the tech geeks. But, these things follow a fairly predictable evolutionary path, and DCC is still very, very young on its development curve. JMRI goes a long way toward fixing that, but it requires a whole computer to be the middle man between JMRI's graphical interface and the decoder's registers. Next step (and I can't wait!) will be to better standardize the CV's (or simply provide software "profiles" for the various vendors) so that a common GUI can provide an "easy" interface. All the stuff about figuring out which decoder is installed and which CV does what should be automated and HIDDEN FROM THE USER. Just download a master profile file from somewhere and let the programming software query the decoder to see what is what. You'd need bidirectional DCC to do that last bit, but it's coming (may already be here). Then the really key part is to put all of that in the controller and get rid of (or hide) the computer. Imagine having a touch-screen controller (iPhone?) that shows a graph of the speed curve for your loco. Or both of them superimposed. You touch the screen and drag the curves where you want them, click "program", and the controller does the magic. Even better. Why not just select two locomotives, click "Speed Match", and let the controller automate the whole process? I bet somebody could do this TODAY with JMRI. If not, it's only a matter of time. The fun part will be cutting out the middle man and getting rid of the 423 separate function buttons on your controller.
BartowRick.... I'm with Spidge too: NCE + JMRI is defitely at humans level! I've take one obsolete PC (20G hard disk ! XP) for $100 and use it to setup decoders. Just move a slide, click your mouse and you are in businnes! Aside this and despite I'm in the computer tech from the beginning.... I refuse thecnology when it don't adapt to humans requirements: I've 10 finger (not 2 or 16!) .... and always wonder if a 3/64" is bigger of 7/16"... European (non english, sorry) are simpler: everything have a base 10 mesumenets , also the drill points are in 1/10 of mm.... exactly what you can count using your hands! I'm joking... but not really: I never really learn Inches .... I know is my fault!
actually, it is EXACTLY that (not even "like"). Just a different term :tb-biggrin: but the iPhone is a computer! Just has a fancier interface than, say, a Digitrax 402 or an NCE ProCab. I actually agree with everything said. The interface and standard is continuing to evolve, and will become more "user friendly" (except maybe to Rick biggrin. I don't know, I always wondered why people said they could only count to 10 on their fingers - I always got to 1023. :we2-jimlad:
"It works" always has to come before "it's easy to use.". Right now DCC is at the former step, not so much the latter. Time will fix that. Funny, I could only get to 511, but I could also get back to -512 when needed...
John, Steve and I are very close to planning a trip your direction. It's time to get down off this hill. Yes, I would love to look over your shoulder and watch how the computer interface works. To all others, I'm steamed up at the moment but I'm not a quitter. I will learn this and I will make it work. Now the health care bill...oops...tha'st another post for another time and place. Anyway, for now my one locomotive runs great and I've already used it to show off what DCC can do. I just hate being at the bottom of the learning curve when I thought...I knew it all...I said laughing out loud at the notion...I do! Ha. In today's world of model railroading you could never master it all. I liked all the responses pro and con. As I write and you read and absorb this, DCC isn't easy to understand. I can only hope the DCC providers, will listen in and see what they can do to improve things for some of us.... simple minded, country, mountain, desert rat types of plain old happy folk. Don't be riling us up...you hear.
" (except maybe to Rick biggrin. " Hawhahahahawhaw funny Rick, just tooooo funny! LOL and still chuckling. Babbo Enzo, Of course 1/62nd is smaller then 7/16ths. Or was that the other way around? RickB, You got 1023? I used to get 10 on my hands and ten more on my toes but I never knew the sum total. I still think it is 10 fingers and 10 toes. Until I met a lady that had 12. Then I tried take away with my fingers. Do you know how hard it is to remove a finger? Are we still talking about DCC?wink: I must have a CV going haywire.
BarstowRick, I am one year older then you. I attended Yermo School and if you happened to go there then I understand your problem. LOL
My gosh Bruce, LOL! This is good! This reminds me all to well...how I got the nick BarstowRick. Yep, I'm going to blame it on the teachee's.
Rick, my group will not set up at the San Bernardino Railroad Days but I can make myself available to you if you plan to attend and would like to visit. Also my FreemoN group will have a set up at the Big Train Show in June and you are welcome to come in and run some trains and I will have my portable set up there as well. The club uses Digitrax but my setup is NCE. We use it for speed matching, break in, and anything else that comes to mind concerning programming.
