# QSI compared to the Aristo-Craft Revolution



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Well, since everything else seems to be compared to the new TE, it's time to compare another flexible, standards-oriented product to the new TE.

I have printed a document I received from QSI here in jpg form because I cannot figure out how to do a good job inserting tables.

I have reviewed this document and it's my opinion that it is all completely factual and it is moreover a fair comparison.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Greg, 

I wasn't aware there was a standard for NMRA DCC wireless receivers and/or transmitters. Is that something new? I can understand that the DCC output from a wireless receiver would be to a DCC standard so any decoder would work, but I didn't realize there was a standard NMRA wireless transmitter to receiver protocol. 

Keith


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Greg - The statement about "2.4GHZ being more crowded and subject to interference" than 900 MHZ leaves me a little puzzled. While I am sure 2.4 GHZ is more crowded, since most 900MHZ cell phones and other electronics are now obsolete, I question the interference part. Does the 900MHZ system use DSSS (Spread Spectrum) or Frequecy Hopping technologies? (I really don't know). My only experience with 900MHZ has been AirWire, and I have personally seen several AirWire installations lose speed control at less than 20 feet (not to mention sound control, which is another issue altogether I think). It appears to me that the 900 MHZ is still susceptible to motor noise, whereas the 2.4GHZ is not (at least in my experience so far).

And since you didn't specify that your post has to follow Aristo-Craft Forum Rules (never mention the competition!) I will add this. 


As to cost, the RailBoss ($107), Hobby King Radio ($30), P5+P5T($210): Total cost $347. Each follow on system would be RailBoss ($107) + Receiver ($15) + Sound ($210) = $332


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

It's interesting--I had range issues with QSI/Airwire, not that often but sometimes, but I've not yet had any range issues with the NCE radio throttle. Not sure why this is. They both operate on 900 hz. The NCE has more range than I need. I can operate trains from inside the house or anywhere in the yard. 


I can believe that 2.5 gigs is an advantage, I've seen it described that way many times. If I had a really big layout it would feature more in my consideration. But I doubt it would matter that much--I'm really impressed by the NCE DCC system. Yes, the initial price is a shock, but now it's extremely easy to run and cheap to install decoders. The consisting is easy and a lot of fun, I can control switches from the handled wireless throttle with no additonal wiring. There's a lot of tweaking to do, which is fun as well. I'll someday add a wye or reversing loop and that will trip automatically


The real advatage for me has been the decoders that combine sound and power in one board. I've got 7 locos running QSI now, and it's really a good system. The sound is just better, no way around it, because of the BEMF response and the way it varies under load. I have a RS-3 with QSI, and a USAT S4 with a Phoenix 2k2 in it, and although the Phoenix sounds are really high quality, they tend to get irritating because they don't vary with load. QSI's sound implementation is much more realistic and much less fatiguing. Sometimes soon I'll make a recording that shows this. It's really a clear advantage


And wiring is a pain with the REVO--QSI you wire the decoder, wire a speaker and you're done. Then you can monkey with the sounds using CV values in real time, on the fly. One board, minimal wires. Do I really want to wire the REVO decoder, then the accesssory board to trigger the sounds, then the sound board, then the speaker, then add the capacitor board? I don't think so. Maybe if I was running batteries 


I was scared of DC for a long time. It's partly the fault of the people who make and sell DCC equipment. It all seems more complicated than it is. Once I figured out a few things it was easy, and there's still a lot more I can do. It's relaible and I've had virtually no track cleaning problems.


I'm pretty convinced that the raves about the REVO come partly from people who've never never tried DCC operating outisde. Aristo will probably improve the REVO, and I'm sure its a great system. But after investong a lot in the 75 mhz system, which never quite did what was advertised and which they discontinued, I'm happy to be into a non-proprietary solution


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Keith, I did not write the document, but it's a starting point, so there is no DCC wireless standard, but what is transmitted over the air is DCC, people have actually taken the Gwire output and run another standard DCC decoder with it (Stan Ames did). 

So, you are right, that statement could be clarified, but this is missing the main point... the communication follows an industry standard, ANY DCC decoder manufacturer could easily put a socket on their card and hook to the Gwire, and run from an AirWire or NCE throttle. That is standards at work. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Del, first, please do QSI and I the honor that is being afforded the same courtesy the other 2 threads on manufacturer specific hardware are enjoying, leave everything else out, this is QSI vs. TE, no one is bringing QSI into your thread, and no one is bringing other stuff into Jerry's TE thread. 

The fact you have seen installations fail at 20 feet is the same as the fact as I have seen other installations of other products at 20 feet. 

The comment is about the airspace, not the interference issues of motor to decoder, it's 900 MHz vs. 2.4 Ghz.... that fact is true... I know all the EXTRA stuff that 2.4 gig has to do to avoid the interference in a very crowded band. 

2.4 has many things in it, cordless phones, Bluetooth, your wireless laptop, and even your microwave has significant emissions here (Try talking on a bluetooth headset near a microwave oven). 

You can get motor noise to interfere with ANYTHING, also the PWM power supplies that some manufacturers use for their smoke units and lighting systems. 

The 900 MHz band used to be crowded, lots of cordless phones, with all different kinds of protocols and channelizations. Now, everyone is buying 2.4 GHz stuff... and it seems EVERYONE has a 2.4 Ghz wireless access point for their computers in their house. 

No where was it stated one was superior to another... but on the Aristo side, it it touted as being better because it is higher frequency, or less interference. It is just not true todays. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Chip (Feb 11, 2008)

Greg:
Good information on the wireless Gwire/Airwire interoperability.
Thanks
Chip


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

So if I understand it correctly, Greg, the Gwire receiver is basically a 'repeater', that accepts the DCC wireless signal, then mirrors it to the decoder? That would make sense...nice and simple. 

@Del: As for motor noise interfering more with 900, I've never had any sign of motor interference with my Massoth gear and the range is several hundred feet. I suspect it's a engineering design and hardware issue more than anything else. 

Keith


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

I for one having been into QSI/G-wire for approx. 2yrs feel that as of the moment of writing this message, that it is the finest, least expensive, and simplest setup to use in any situation. It's ease of install and operation, are up to my expectations, and I don't see myself doing anything different in the future, although there is always something coming down the pike I suppose unknown of at this time that may change my mind, but for now QSI/G-wire is for me. I read about all the wiring, and other problems encountered with other systems and it just re-enforces my thoughts about being glad I chose this system. So if you are looking for a good, economical, easy to install system this is for you!!! I have used or tried several other systems and makes and models and this is for me with my limited knowledge of electronics, and such. Thanks to Noel and Greg E. out in California, and Ray M. and J.C. in Kansas, so far with they're help have surmounted any problems that I have had and I am enjoying running my trains both indoors and outdoors.The Regal









Oh and my range problems with my t-9000's have disappeared, I am now getting upwards of 80ft+ on them both???????? unknown what changed or disappeared but are both working fine now, and I have yet to try the Procab yet, but from comments on here I believe there will be NO problem, and maybe even better range with that. Hope to get out and try towards the weekend again. been 20-30's here in temperature, and rainy and drizzly since Sat when it was 70 out and I ran trains all afternoon 6hrs and broadcast it live from my backyard Sat. The Regal


----------



## dbwenrichjr (Jul 31, 2008)

Hey Guys, 

Does anyone have more info on the range of either system? 

Thanks, 
David


----------



## Jim Agnew (Jan 2, 2008)

The real advatage for me has been the decoders that combine sound and power in one board. I've got 7 locos running QSI now, and it's really a good system. The sound is just better, no way around it, because of the BEMF response and the way it varies under load. I have a RS-3 with QSI, and a USAT S4 with a Phoenix 2k2 in it, and although the Phoenix sounds are really high quality, they tend to get irritating because they don't vary with load. QSI's sound implementation is much more realistic and much less fatiguing. Sometimes soon I'll make a recording that shows this. It's really a clear advantage 


Lownote, by turning on the "Rev Wandering" feature in the Phoenix sound file, you can simulate the effect of work load variations.


----------



## George Schreyer (Jan 16, 2009)

I don't have either the ProCab or the TE Revo but it seems to me that the decoder configurations stored on the TX is a bad deal. That approach would be a true PITA. 

- gws


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I'm not going to argue with the side-by-side comparison of cost, features, etc. It's a very thorough comparison. 

The crux of the whole matter comes down to this paragraph: 

"Both systems are relatively easy to set up and program. Some feel the Aristo-Craft TE system is easier to program because you don't have to know the CV values, i.e., Engine # is entered into CV1. However, with simplicity comes trade-offs. The Aristo-Craft TE system does have a convenient menu-driven set-up procedure for configuring a locomotive, however, if you walk through the number of steps required for setting up a new locomotive, it is substantially more time consuming and complex than setting the engine number CV in the QSI decoder." 

My question to the DCC folks--because I simply do not know the answer--is setting CV1 all you have to do to get a locomotive to operate under DCC? (i.e,. if I were to plug a brand-new DCC decoder into a locomotive, would my only "required" step to get the thing to move be to give it an address via CV1?) If that's the case, is that like giving someone a Porsche, and saying "you have 6 speeds, but to get moving, you only need first gear." While accurate, you're selling the experience considerably short. The value of the DCC-based systems lies in the advanced functionality that's over and above what the Aristo TE can is capable of--functions the table outlines quite well. To access the higher-end functions that DCC offers, you need to know the CV codes and programming--something that is not as straightforward as Aristo's menu-driven approach. It is, as they say, a trade-off. You trade simplicity for functionality. The "significantly more time consuming" aspect of their statement is a bit over the top, but show me advertising literature that isn't. Certainly some of Aristo's claims for the TE are equally shrouded in spin. 

...the decoder configurations stored on the TX is a bad deal. That approach would be a true PITA. ... 

Depends on the operating environment. The beauty of DCC is that it's an open protocol, so I can take my DCC-equipped loco over to a friend's railroad and use his throttles to run it. It's built with the receiver as the constant. The R/C model has always been transmitter-centric because it's built on the premise of being self-contained. In a complex operating environment where you're handing your train off from one operator to the next, it can get a bit problematic, but how many people in large scale operate that way? For the vast majority of large scalers, there's only one operator, so only one transmitter is needed. Even roads that do prototype operations tend to gravitate towards one transmitter per locomotive model. 

(I thought I had read that Aristo's working on being able to clone transmitters, too. Not sure where that stands.) 

Later, 

K


----------



## pimanjc (Jan 2, 2008)

At Marty Cozad's Thingy two weeks ago, I tested the range, end to end of his layout, with my M-190, using QSI/Gwire w/Procab TX. I had to have an observer watching the train at the north end since there was not direct line-of-sight. 










Gwire antenna can be seen taped to window ledge at bottom left of picture.










There was full control of motor, lights, and sound at approximately 260ft. My expectations were exceeded and I was very pleased. 

Jim Carter


----------



## Stan Cedarleaf (Jan 2, 2008)

I use both QSI/gwire/NCE Cab Throttle and the REVOLUTION and like both very much. The QSI system was installed 18 months ago and was upgraded to the NCE Throttle this June. The NCE throttle is a very nice upgrade and much easier to program CV's. I've had a mental block with programming but Greg has been a great heip in steering me in the right direction. 

Range on the REVOLUTION is quite a bit better but for my layout, it's not a factor. I ran both systems running at Marty's with equal ease of handling and success. 

I do find the MUing capabilities of the REVOLUTION much easier to do. As well as ease of installation. For me that is...... 

I think it's wonderful that we have soooooooooooo many excellent systems to choose from and operate.









Find one(s) we like and are comfortable with and "play with our toys".









With all the operators and operations at Marty's this past year, there was complete compatibility and "harmony". The only difficulty was when some of the 27 mHz TE folks were on the same frequency. However, is was not a big issue as the frequencies were quickly changed and trains ran under the control of it's own operator.









I wonder if there could be a way to remote control the older, windup clock mechanism concept in train propulsion.


----------



## George Schreyer (Jan 16, 2009)

When a new DCC decoder is installed, it comes set to address 03. There is NO configuration required to run it. However, the address should not be left that way, it should be changed to something easy to remember, like the engine number on the loco. 

Setting the address varies by system, but it is really easy on any of them. 

If the loco is on the main and running at address 03, then on Digitrax 

Press the program button until Po appears (4 presses max) 
Dial the left knob all the way down, it'll stop at the address CV. 
If you want a 2 digit address, dial it on the right knob 
Press Enter 
Press Exit 
Reselect the loco at the new address 

If you want a 4 digit address, after the address CV is selected as above 
Click on the right knob, this will change the address setting to 4 digit 
Dial the new address with the knobs, left knob for hundreds, right knob for ones OR key in the new address on the keypad 
Press Enter 
Then it will ask to change CV29 to use a 4 digit address, key Y 
Press Exit 
Reselect the loco at the new address 

Once you've done this a couple of times, it takes about 3 seconds. 

Other CV's are set the same way, dial the CV number on the left knob, dial or key the value on the right knob. 

When QSI decoders are programmed on the main, they will speak both the CV selected AND the value that you put into the CV so that you get feedback about what happened. With other decoders, and the QSI, the contents of any CV can be read back while the engine is sitting on a special programming track. 

NCE has their own way of setting CV's that is different but equally easy as Digitrax. 

About the location of the stored data.... on the decoder is the obvious place to put it. The data pertains to the loco, it should stay with the loco so that any throttle can connect to that loco and ALL of the special stuff that is needed is already there. The loco configuration only needs to be set up once. 

Even consists can be easily set up and remembered by the decoders involved so that the consist can be taken to another DCC layout and it will still run no matter who made the DCC system. 

Using JMRI, that stored data in the decoder can be read and recorded on a computer so that if you mess with the programming and get it totally screwed up, you can reload a configuration that worked. This works with ANY decoder. 

- gws


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

For me the ease of the NCE system and the range I have far out exceeds any other system I had used before. Later RJD


----------



## Ltotis (Jan 3, 2008)

At this time I am going with the Revolution. My reason is ease of use to non-technical people and I run Track Power. With an icon driven controller it make easier for for someone like my wife to use it. I was using MTS but that is all going to be sold. Having to sit there and program CV's is a bit of a pain. I have also seen DCC boards blow out the 5V lights in LGB locomorives beffore you got a chance to program the light voltage. 
I know this will set off a ton of postings.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Larry, the point of the thread was to contrast the QSI vs the TE, not to take one DCC, CV's and hard to use DCC systems.

You can find hard to program DCC systems, in fact you own one, and you are getting rid of it. Good idea. Congratulations.

Without the experience of a good user interface, ANY system sucks. The user interface on the MTS units you have sucks a lot. 

Using either throttle (Airwire or NCE), you do NOT have to program CV's to get a loco to run, and when you do desire to set or change the address using the NCE cab, you NEVER even "see" a CV. 

Since you have chosen the Revolution, it's a moot point, but if you had taken the time to try the NCE cab with the QSI, you would have seen how simple it is to do, and how many FEWER steps it is to "connect" a loco and run it. Out of the box, the QSI and NCE need NO programming at all. The TE MUST be linked and a cab assigned. I figured this out before my Revo arrived, and confirmed when ti got here, it's really more work to "connect" and run on the TE, no question. 

Yes, I have seen people connect full track power to 5v lights and blow them up. You can do this with ANY system you choose, try it with your TE, the "function outputs" are EXACTLY THE SAME with a Revo, it's NO different than a DCC decoder on it's function "outputs". These are all "pull to ground", DCC and TE... Whatever you experienced would have happened with a TE, sounds like the person did not know at all what they were doing, and it was not a PNP install. 

Larry, you have brought up several things you have experienced, but these experiences do not apply to the comparison at hand, they just appear anti-DCC in general. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 06 Oct 2009 01:32 PM 


My question to the DCC folks--because I simply do not know the answer--is setting CV1 all you have to do to get a locomotive to operate under DCC? (i.e,. if I were to plug a brand-new DCC decoder into a locomotive, would my only "required" step to get the thing to move be to give it an address via CV1?) K 

Kevin

I wish to stay out of the debate of which product is better but do think it appropriate to respond as this is clearly a confusion some have with DCC. Because DCC is normally done with microprocessors, it is relaively easy to have vast number of customizable features. A shorcut to facilitate communication and to provide some common definitions was to use the term CV. Most modern electronics have vast number of featurers the user can customize. MY HDTV for example has hundreds. But for the most part I plugged it in and turned it on. Over time I have altered some defaults to make it work the way I wanted a feature to work but I did not have to.

In the old days of DCC. it was often necessary to customize a lot of features to get good operation but as more experience has been had by the manufacturers, more and more excellent default values are becomming the norm. Many manufacturers now take pride in the fact that few if any individual options need to be set by the user for good operations.

When you get a new locomotive with a DCC decoder, as pointed out by others, normally you have to addign the address it defaults to address 3. This address is storred in the decoder so the locomotive will work on any railroad with address you provide. For locomotives with pre installed DCC decoders often the address is preset at the factory to be the locomotive number so no addrerss assignment is necessary.

A good DCC system hides the common CVs from the user and it is now common to simply tell the sistem which address you want the locomotive to have and system configures the CVs for you automatically. For example I tell the system I want the locomotive with number 463 on the cab to have its DCC address set to 463. The system then does what it needs to do to accomplish that task.

A new feature being designed as part of the bi-directional effort is for each decoder to have a unique ID so you can place the locomotive on the track and operate it from your handheld without knowing its address.

Providing a lot of options to allow customization equates to flexibility and does not equate to complexity. Why? Because these are options and not requirements. These options can be altered if desired but do not need to be altered unless you desire.

Myself the most common options I alter have to do with sound to get the bell and whistle the way I want it. I also now have a set of local railroad function assignments so often I have to remap the default assignment to become the function numbers I desire. This makes it easier for my operators as most locomotives on my railroad now operate the same way.

Hope that helps

Stan Ames


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

... Providing a lot of options to allow customization equates to flexibility and does not equate to complexity. Why? Because these are options and not requirements. These options can be altered if desired but do not need to be altered unless you desire. ...] 

The flexibility and complexity go hand in hand. It's not a bad thing, just the inherent nature of the beast. Take your digital SLR camera for example. It's got what's commonly called "idiot mode" in which it does all the thinking for you. It's a very simple mode in which to operate, and I use it a lot when I'm out and about shooting photos of the kids, etc. However, it is capable of being customized to the Nth degree--allowing the photographer a great amount of creative flexibility. I use that mode when shooting photos in the garden for publication. To get the most out of that level of customization, you have to know (a) what the controls you're altering affect the resulting photograph, and (b) how to alter those controls. The first requires a fair understanding of photography and lenses--something the basic user may not have. The second requires an understanding of how to program those variables on the specific camera. 

That's a very strong parallel to DCC. There seems to be the basic mode in which you simply select an address, hit the throttle button, and the train moves. That's probably adequate for 75% of the users out there. However, to get more out of the system, you've got to (a) understand what variables are there and how they affect operations, and (b) how to specifically program them with your particular system. That definitely takes a higher level of understanding than just "the basics." I keep getting DCC-compatible toys to review for the magazines, so I've been trying to indoctrinate myself into the world of DCC so I can really see the full potential of these various products. There's definitely a learning curve to it. 

To go back to the camera analogy, the Aristo-Craft system is more like a higher-end point-and-shoot camera. It gives you functionality far beyond the "basics," but still not what you can get with a good DSLR. But if you don't need that high level of functionality, you're never going to notice it's not there. At that level (and since cost is nominally equal), you can choose your system based on your personal preference of user interface. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Actually Kevin, you need to learn DCC to review a DCC product. I saw the recent review of the QSI in GR and it was reviewed as a sound card by someone who really has just the barest understanding of DCC. 

I think your analogy can be improved on though... It has been shown that the TE system takes MORE steps to get a loco configured to run, push button, enter names, link, now assign to a cab, then select cab... etc. 

Way more than: (out of the box QSI) push "select loco", push 3, push enter. That's 3 button presses, maybe 20 on the Aristo to navigate menus, enter names, select cab, etc. 

So, in basic operation, the QSI system is point and shoot, and the TE is a manual SLR.... 

When you go to more advanced things, like the next level, I think the TE is simpler, because there are fewer choices, and they are all menu items. The QSI/NCE combination is simpler for a few of these things, more steps for others. 

Example: setting momentum on the QSI is fewer steps, and simpler, there is a single "MOMENTUM" button on the NCE throttle.... more steps to do this on the TE 

But the TE is simpler if you want to set the "starting voltage", it has a menu item, but the NCE/QSI needs you to program CV2. It's easy, but you have to know that it's CV2 you want. 

When you get to all the bells and whistles, then it's no longer a comparision, there is just way more functionality in DCC, so there is no corresponding function in the TE. 

So, to recap, I think it is a mistake to try to make an "overall" which is better, or which is easier. 

Some things the QSI does easier, some things the TE does easier. 

It's not the "night and day" that seems to be what many people want to make the comparison "come out as". 

Regards, Greg


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm close to a total novice with DCC--I had never even tried a DCC system in any scale until I got some QSI-Airwire rigs maybe a year and a half ago.


To speak to Kevin's point, DCC works fine "out of the box"--speed control, direction control--they all work in a familiar way. The gofast makes it go fast, the goslow makes it go slow, reverse works, etc. The default address is three, but setting the address to something else isnt hard. Both the QSI decoders and the NCE decoders have preset momentum which you can tweak all day long. It runs just fine in simple mode. The tweaking is optional, but it's fun. 

The QSI/Airwire system is very good--you can progam a loco on the fly, while it's running. it takes a little bit of manual reading if you are usng the airwire throttle. It's much easier wth the NCE setup. It's not DCC per se, but the interface that accounts for a lot of the difference. 


I'll happily admit that it took me a long time to go to DCC, because I found it initially intimidating and hard to understand. As a guy who makes part of his living writing, I blame a lot of that on the way DCC is described by manufacturers and retailers. 


It's still really odd that aristo's REVO needs that cap board to work with track power. I suspect Lewis figures battery is the way the hobby is going/will go and they just didn't bother much with track power when they were testing. 


Anyway, it's a really central point--you can't beat the simplicty and low cost of adding sound and remote control once you've got DCC. Buy a QSI decoder and a [email protected] bucks. Wire the decoder (or drop it in the socket) and plug in the speaker, and you're done. It's really that easy. No cap board, no accessory switch, no extra sound board needing to be powered, no manual volume switch, no chuff sensor/reed switch/magnet rig-up, no programming socket.


----------



## rhyman (Apr 19, 2009)

I do not have any experience with the Revolution so I cannot make an apples-to-apples comparison. I run with a QSI / Gwire / NCE ProCab combination. At Marty's, I was able to run my RGS #455 over the entire layout from one spot with full control over speed, lights and sound. No drop-outs ... no dead spots ... and no interferrence from the multitude of others who were simultaneously running. Needless to say, I'm quite happy with the combination and am presently installing QSI and GWire into two more locomotives.


----------



## Bret W Tesson (Jan 6, 2008)

Having used both the QSI and Airwire 9000 throttle combo and now the revolution, I prefer the Aristo product. Both systems have their pros and cons and neither system is perfect. I only wish they had come out with the new throttle for use with the Airwire before I sold all my equipment. In particular, I grew frustrated with the inconsistent operation (range, bell, horn) and occasional complete loss of memory between the receiver and transmitter when using the Airwire 9000 throttle and QSI card. As others have mentioned, the Aristo system is easier to program (and understand without reference books), however issues like the need for capacitors and inability to easily add a plug & play sound card are definate drawbacks.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I have a Revo TE and the cap board. It has been observed that the TE decoder/receiver is reset by very short term interruptions in power. Aristo says you must use the cap board when running track power. Not giving the TE a hard time, but this was a problem with DCC about 10-15 years ago. 

It's no longer a problem with DCC, all modern decoders handle this. Aristo should be able to solve this problem, but as of now, there are no hardware or firmware updates. 

I will also say that with AirWire operation, when your installation does not have good range (installation problem) then the first things to stop working well are the bell and horn (and of course are 99% of the functions used typically after speed and direction). 

You are probably having range issues all the time, and you are noticing missed commands on the bell and horn, but are undoubtedly missing speed commands. Since the loco does not stop or change speed, a missed speed command is often unnoticed. 

Since both the AirWire system and the TE system are wireless, they can both have range and installation issues. 

In my experience, it's usually easy to fix a poor range issue, almost always installation-related, or electrical noise that can be suppressed, really an installation issue also. When I say "easy" I mean when there is a problem, ask an expert. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

... I think your analogy can be improved on though... It has been shown that the TE system takes MORE steps to get a loco configured to run, push button, enter names, link, now assign to a cab, then select cab... etc. 

Way more than: (out of the box QSI) push "select loco", push 3, push enter. That's 3 button presses, maybe 20 on the Aristo to navigate menus, enter names, select cab, etc. ... 
How realistic is it for a DCC user to have every locomotive have ID #3? Yes, it's the default, and you don't "need" to set it to get going. Still, 99% of the time the DCC user is going to change that to the loco's road number or some other identifiable number during the initial programming. The TE doesn't have a default ID to fall back upon, so the user "has" to set up its unique ID to get going. I think from a practical standpoint, both systems are pretty much a wash in that regard. In either case, we're not talking about hours on end to program, we're looking at 10 minutes per loco to give each one its own unique ID, give it a start voltage, top end, tell it which way is forward so the headlight matches the direction, etc. I meant to say this in my earlier post, but I'm glad to see more DCC systems become more transparent in terms of programming. (i.e, "plain english" menus where they're setting CV values but don't have to know they're doing so.) 

... So, in basic operation, the QSI system is point and shoot, and the TE is a manual SLR.... 
Try this - in basic operation, the QSI is a point and shoot, the TE is a point and shoot that requires you to set the clock before you can take a picture. (I shot with manual SLRs for years. Using your analogy, it'd be like comparing the QSI to a bag of electronic components you have to assemble yourself.) 

... It's not the "night and day" that seems to be what many people want to make the comparison "come out as". 
I don't know that the posts in this thread support the position that anyone's trying to declare a "victor" by any means. Truth is, in terms of higher-end capabilities, the difference _is_ night and day, by virtue of the fact that the TE doesn't support those functions. I think if anything, the posts support my position that for the "average" user, either system will work equally well; it comes down to personal preference towards the user interface. It seems to be running around 50/50, which doesn't surprise me. I've used Airwire and Aristo. My choice came down solely to the controller. I like the graphical display of the Aristo system. My ideal system would have that display coupled with the speed control knob of the basic Airwire throttle (the one with definite start and stop limits on travel). The bar showing throttle setting is a close second. Hopefully I'll have a chance to try the NCS system, if only to test drive it. At this point, I've already got two throttle systems. I'm loathe to add a third. 

...I suspect Lewis figures battery is the way the hobby is going/will go... 
Lewis has stated things to that effect in the past, so one can assume that perspective shapes product development. I don't know how many of the early Beta testers used track power. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, you are unfortunately exposing yourself as not reading or understanding the products enough to make statements like 99% of the time.

In AirWire people often change the frequency channel, not the dcc loco number. 

You REALLY need to be more familiar before you start quoting statistics like 99%.

No, it is NOT 99% of the time it will be changed... remember that many people who run AirWire and/or battery often pair just one transmitter to one receiver/loco. 

So just on this point I am in great disagreement with what you wrote. 

I think you need to speak to more battery people. Call TOC, and ask him. Ask Paul Norton. They will BOTH tell you that most users pair one throttle with one loco. I guarantee it. Paul is a big TE supporter, and is a member of a big battery operated club. TOC does not use the TE, but is a very well respected installer and guru of battery operation, locomotives, etc.


Have you really USED both systems? More than 5 minutes? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but your statements indicate to me that you are not familiar with DCC.

You also need to realize that the TE is constantly touted as being easier to set up, and "beyond DCC" and as I put in my previous post, that is sometimes true and sometimes not, and I gave specific, factual, measurable information, not opinion. (and I gave the TE the edge deservedly in one department)


Any person can take each system and count the keystrokes to "connect" a loco. There is a vast difference in the number of keystrokes. THREE keystrokes on the QSI system, dozens on the TE. Do you contest this? If I changed the address on the QSI loco, it would STILL be way less.


You are also hanging on saying that DCC needs people to pick a start voltage and top end and direction? You are very wrong here, most DCC systems are out of the box "good", in fact the TE has the problem that you have no idea which direction is forward, it's just an arrow.

Again, the comparison is very specific, the QSI/Gwire and the Aristo TE, not the old DCC decoders from 20 years ago, not an ole LGB MTS system, not anything else. The QSI has good default settings right out of the box.


Again, looks like DCC bashing on DCC in general, not sticking to the comparison at hand. How would it be if I bashed the Aristo Revo TE here for the crappy 75 MHz system? Same thing, has NOTHING to do with this thread and this comparison.


But this is what you ARE doing, bashing the QSI because you claim you need to set start and top speed, and that CV's must be involved to setup and run a new loco. 


Please get off the "CV bashing bandwagon", where opponents constantly try to scare people away because they have to "learn" CV's. 


It has already been mentioned that you can do virtually everything, and for sure get started without even knowing 

I'm keeping objective, but it's sounding like someone has an agenda to bash DCC here. Lewis Polk definitely has stated this in his advertisements. what a CV is.

Let's keep this on the subject and objective and factual.

By the way I do not agree with your updated analogy, comparing a point and shoot camera with a bag of parts... I think your analogy went from bad to absurd, really... why are you doing this? 



Regards, Greg


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 07 Oct 2009 05:38 PM 
... 

Any person can take each system and count the keystrokes to "connect" a loco. There is a vast difference in the number of keystrokes. THREE keystrokes on the QSI system, dozens on the TE. Do you contest this? If I changed the address on the QSI loco, it would STILL be way less.

...









From an outsiders point of view (because I have never used either system): I don't care how many keystrokes it takes to perform a function. Which one is easier to understand? My limited experience with programming CVs is helping others try to understand a system they bought and can't figure out. Many CVs, in my experience, require the user to understand the binary number system, so they can set certain bits of a byte in the CV to make a programming change without screwing up 7 other functions. This is NOT straight forward! Now it sounds like maybe some of these newer systems have made this process more user friendly. I hope so. Anyway, 10 keystrokes through a readable menu system is nothing, compared to X minutes of math on the sidelines before you make that 1 keystroke. Like I say, I'm not real familiar with the newer systems, and this hopefully isn't the case anymore. My point is, counting keystrokes may not mean a whole lot.


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

And come to think of it ... What difference does it make what the experience level of a product reviewer is? As long as they state their degree of familiarity with the subject. A review from a complete novice will be very helpful to the novice considering purchasing the system. A review from a guru may be more helpful for those seasoned users of a similar system. As long as the reviewer doesn't claim to be something they aren't, what is the harm?


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Del: Do not see why you even posted to this thread when you have stated you are not familiar with the system. I can program a QSI in less than 60 seconds with DCC so not a bit of a problem. Later RJD


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

I am responding to Greg's questioning the competence of Kevin to review a DCC product unless he is an expert on the subject. Have we now established a new rule on this site, that expressing an opinion that is not 100% on topic requires starting a new thread? Edit: And as to the programming, I'm glad the QSI is easy. I way speaking in general terms about counting keystrokes.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Del Tapparo on 07 Oct 2009 06:57 PM 
I am responding to Greg's questioning the competence of Kevin to review a DCC product unless he is an expert on the subject. Have we now established a new rule on this site, that expressing an opinion that is not 100% on topic requires starting a new thread? Edit: And as to the programming, I'm glad the QSI is easy. I way speaking in general terms about counting keystrokes. 
Del as you correctly state, you do not need to be an expert to comment. You SHOULD be an expert to do an in depth review, and compare features and quote usability.

If a novice does a review, it MAY be an interesting review, BUT the novice should not be stating demographical data like 99% of the users do this.... 

That's where I am having heartburn. And I never did state you needed to be an expert to comment.

*But continually bringing up the "CV scare tactic" is really just DCC bashing*. It's not that complex, but again:

LETS KEEP THIS THREAD TO THE SPECIFIC COMPARISION, NOT DCC AGAINST THE WORLD, BUT QSI/GWIRE COMPARED TO THE ARISTO REVO TE.

I really want you guys to honor this, as I am not invading the Railboss thread on why track power is better than battery power, and not invading the TE thread on why DCC is better than TE.

Many people have an agenda here, and it's really not being helpful or objective. 

Why is this specific comparison not afforded the same courtesy as the other topics? 


Regards, Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Del: For your info still does not make any sense for you to even to reply. Your comments are totally off the wall. Later RJD


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

I expressed an opinion to comments made by others in this thread. 1)Using the number of keystrokes required to perform a function as a benchmark. It may not be the best way, in my opinion. 2)The notion that a reviewer must be an expert on the subject ... Not always necessary, in my opinion. I didn't say anything about any specific brand or system. I guess I did relate my past experience ... sorry for sharing. So now you can clutter up this thread some more by calling me names. I think anything initiated by the poster of the thread, should allow for some comment.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg. 
You yourself have discussed the AirWire system above when you talk about range issues and missed commands. 

Apart from having the ability to control QSI via a G-Wire, what has referring to the Airiwre system per se got to do with a comparison of QSI and the REVOLUTION?


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

I myself think its time for a MAN group hug?


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

P.S. anyone need a slightly used LAMA.............?


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

The airwire system is an interesting beast and it seems to me it's worth comparing to the REVO because both can operate on straight DC. QSI/Airwire gives you a lot of the options of DCC on track power. It's a relatively cheap way to get into DCC on track or battery. 


I thought hard about going to the REVO--I liked DC track power with the aristo 75 mhz, but in the end the Airiwre/ QSI combo looked cheaper if you assumed you'd install sound. And then having been somewhat burned by the 75 mhz system, which never quite did what Aristo said it would do, and which they dumped, I decided against a proprietary system. QSI/Airiwre is really good, but after using it for a while--as a total novice--I concluded in the long rung that DCC is a better option for me. 

If I was a battery guy, I'd be very interested in DCC vs other systems, like Tony's new beltrol. But batteries?? No thanks!


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Sure would make an interesting comparison, but, the topic is QSI and REVO powered, I assume, by constant track voltage.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Kevin, you are unfortunately exposing yourself as not reading or understanding the products enough to make statements like 99% of the time. 
In AirWire people often change the frequency channel, not the dcc loco number. 
You REALLY need to be more familiar before you start quoting statistics like 99%. 
No, it is NOT 99% of the time it will be changed... remember that many people who run AirWire and/or battery often pair just one transmitter to one receiver/loco. 
So just on this point I am in great disagreement with what you wrote. 


I have not programmed the Airwire with a QSI receiver, that is correct. I have programmed QSI receivers in a DCC environment, where you need to change the address of each receiver to its own unique ID--typically the locomotive number--in order to control each locomotive individually. If I've got 6 locomotives I want to run from one Airwire trasmitter, cam I set all the locomotives to the same DCC address (for instance, the default 3) and select 6 different frequencies between the Airwire and its receiver? That'll most certainly work, though I'm still selecting unique addresses, though--be it via the DCC programming or via the receiver. To control multiple trains from one transmitter, there has to be a way of differentiating the signals, so you've got to make that distinction somewhere in the installation process. RCS uses dip switches to assign each receiver its own code. Aristo uses individual cab numbers. I'm not sure how the Spektrum radios that Tony and Del use differentiate things, but it's a unique address of some kind. 
I think you need to speak to more battery people. Call TOC, and ask him. Ask Paul Norton. They will BOTH tell you that most users pair one throttle with one loco. I guarantee it. Paul is a big TE supporter, and is a member of a big battery operated club. TOC does not use the TE, but is a very well respected installer and guru of battery operation, locomotives, etc. 
I know very well how typical battery R/C people operate their trains. I've been doing battery R/C since 1984! Tony and my dad were both very early pioneers of the control method. Tony went commercial, dad didn't. I've been following the technology's development from its infancy. I think that affords me a fairly good grasp of how people use R/C. And yes, the usual model has traditionally been one transmitter per locomotive, because that's what the technology afforded. Today, it's different. 
Have you really USED both systems? More than 5 minutes? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but your statements indicate to me that you are not familiar with DCC. 
As for DCC, I've stated repeatedly that I'm something of a neophite when it comes to DCC. I would never presume to be a guru in that regard. It's a complete foreign language to me, hence my phone calls to you when I need assistance. To conclude otherwise from my posts is to completely miss my message. 
You also need to realize that the TE is constantly touted as being easier to set up, and "beyond DCC" and as I put in my previous post, that is sometimes true and sometimes not, and I gave specific, factual, measurable information, not opinion. (and I gave the TE the edge deservedly in one department) 
Reread, and you'll find that I'm in full agreement with that--even to the point of saying some of Aristo's claims are laden with spin. That's advertising. You don't advertise without a degree of spin. You'll also find I've agreed with you and given DCC the clear advantage in a number of scenarios. I've maintained that position from the first time I got the Aristo system in my hand. 
Any person can take each system and count the keystrokes to "connect" a loco. There is a vast difference in the number of keystrokes. THREE keystrokes on the QSI system, dozens on the TE. Do you contest this? If I changed the address on the QSI loco, it would STILL be way less. 
No, I don't contest that, and I stated that very clearly, something akin to "Factually accurate" or such language. My contention is that in all practicality, people programming either DCC or the Aristo system will have a baseline set of criteria they want to set up. Neither system will take longer than 10 minutes to do--especially if the NCE system has "plain english" setups that older DCC systems have lacked. How often does one have to program their decoder? In the grand scheme of things, is this really an important issue--a deciding factor for purchasing a product? Overall simplicity of programming, yes. Number of keystrokes? Well, suffice to say my time isn't _that_ important. 
You are also hanging on saying that DCC needs people to pick a start voltage and top end and direction? You are very wrong here, most DCC systems are out of the box "good", in fact the TE has the problem that you have no idea which direction is forward, it's just an arrow. 
I'm saying that they are features that can be programmed--quite easily--on both the TE and DCC-based systems--to get the most out the locomotive performance. It's mandatory on neither system. The only "mandatory" programmable aspect is the cab number on the TE. As for direction, I'm not sure where your criticism is being aimed. Since this is a comparison between the QSI (which is a decoder/sound system only) and the Revolution (A transmitter/receiver pair) the visual indication of direction cannot be a criteria for comparison because the QSI board can be controlled by various controllers with differing displays. The Airwire controllers use an arrow as well, so I'm definitely confused here. Other controllers may use a "FWD, REV" to indicate direction, but that's not inherent in the QSI board. 
Again, the comparison is very specific, the QSI/Gwire and the Aristo TE, not the old DCC decoders from 20 years ago, not an ole LGB MTS system, not anything else. The QSI has good default settings right out of the box. 
Again, looks like DCC bashing on DCC in general, not sticking to the comparison at hand. How would it be if I bashed the Aristo Revo TE here for the crappy 75 MHz system? Same thing, has NOTHING to do with this thread and this comparison. 
But this is what you ARE doing, bashing the QSI because you claim you need to set start and top speed, and that CV's must be involved to setup and run a new loco. 
Please get off the "CV bashing bandwagon", where opponents constantly try to scare people away because they have to "learn" CV's. 
Er, please remind me where I stated that you "need to" set a starting voltage or top end speed, or "need to" learn the CVs. You have learn them in order to access the higher-end functions, but--as I've agreed with you--the newer controllers like MRC's Prodigy2 and (from your description) the new NCE system make programming many of the fundamental controls somewhat transparent. You _do not_ need to speak "CV" fluently to do a basic programming of DCC-based systems. You do to control the higher end functions. Hopefully one day that, too, will be equally transparent. 
I'm keeping objective, but it's sounding like someone has an agenda to bash DCC here. Lewis Polk definitely has stated this in his advertisements. 
If you're referring to me having and anti-DCC agenda, you're greatly misinterpreting my position. I've stated repeatedly that I like the functionality that DCC gives you. It does require a higer degree of technical prowess to access these higher end functions, but that's about as "critical" of DCC as I've gotten. And even you've said that programming CVs takes some getting used to. It's not something a neophite picks up right away. 
Let's keep this on the subject and objective and factual. 
By the way I do not agree with your updated analogy, comparing a point and shoot camera with a bag of parts... I think your analogy went from bad to absurd, really... why are you doing this? 
Because I delight in these attacks on your blood pressure???  

Seriously, there's obviously a high level of misinterpretation going on here. You seem to be of the opinion that I don't like DCC, and am bent on bashing it. Nothing's further from the truth. If Aristo hadn't come out with their controller, I'd be using Airwire or NCE and QSI decoders in my stuff. I love the QSI decoders. They've got some really cool features, and I've enjoyed programming them in the DCC installs I've done. I've not done many, but the few I've done have been positive experiences. I'm still not 100% on what variables I'm changing when messing with individual CVs, but that's part of the learning curve to which I alluded in an earlier post. I personally don't find myself needing the higher-end functionality that DCC affords the user, so I'm fine living with the compromises of the Aristo system simply because I prefer its user interface. That's my personal choice; it's not gospel. 

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

What I would like to know is how you can split the quotes and insert the reply so that the quotes are all in separate "boxes".


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Tony, I use the quick reply window, and click the "quote" button, which gives me the tags which inset the text into the box. Then I cut and paste the text from the post to which I'm responding between the two tags. 

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Then I cut and paste the text from the post to which I'm responding between the two tags. 

OK I see how to do it. Thank you.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

I've got a question about QSI and the sound part of that decoder:

Can it be programmed by the user with different sounds and functionality? What I am getting at is one of the reasons I pay more for the phoenix sound cards is the ability to load different bells/whistles and sounds and program them. I am just curious since I don't care about the comparision between the two systems. 

PS. the programming cable is about $80 extra so add that to the total.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Mark:

Yes, you can program and modify the sounds--but you need to get the "Quantum programmer" interface, which is about the same price as the Phoenix software/cable. Once you have it you can modify sound files and cut and paste different components of a sound file to make a new file. For example, you can change the chuff, the bell and whistle, the air pump, generator, etc. There are about twenty dfferent whistles, as I recall, maybe more. You can modify the sound volumes relative to each other, and you can adjust the chuff rate to match your loco. You can change a diesel file to a steam file, and vice versa.


I've never actually played with the Phoenix software--it may allow you to do more stuff? Bruce Chandler was kind enough to use his Phoenix software to modify a Phoenix card I had, and I got a look at the software, but didn't actually mess with it myself.


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 07 Oct 2009 12:01 PM 

The flexibility and complexity go hand in hand. It's not a bad thing, just the inherent nature of the beast. Take your digital SLR camera for example. It's got what's commonly called "idiot mode" in which it does all the thinking for you. It's a very simple mode in which to operate, and I use it a lot when I'm out and about shooting photos of the kids, etc. However, it is capable of being customized to the Nth degree--allowing the photographer a great amount of creative flexibility. I use that mode when shooting photos in the garden for publication. To get the most out of that level of customization, you have to know (a) what the controls you're altering affect the resulting photograph, and (b) how to alter those controls. The first requires a fair understanding of photography and lenses--something the basic user may not have. The second requires an understanding of how to program those variables on the specific camera. 


Kevin 


Lets use your camera analogy a little further.


With your camera you can use it in simple mode but to get its real advantages you must learn how to use and configure the customized features which must be utilized each time you desire to use the camera at its full potential. Said another way, to get the full advantage of the camera you must understand how to use the advanced features. 

Not necessarily so with a DCC decoder. DCC is neither simple nor complex. DCC is a protocol which can be as transparent to the end user as the manufacturer wishes to make it. Simplicity or complexity is a feature of an individual product and most often pairing between system and decoder. My experience over the past 18 years I have been working on the evolution of DCC has been that most comments of complexity and simplicity of DCC can be traced to the choice of system the user has experience with.


True there can be a lot of features that the user can customize. But unlike your camera the end user does not need to either customize the features now does customization need to be done more than once. 

Take the special lighting effects. You normally need to set the headlight effect to the desired lighting effect if your locomotive has that effect (like a mars light) But once set you simply turn it on and off. This means for example that the installer can preset everything for you and once set it need never be configured again. 

This is one of the advantages of pre installed decoders. If you purchase a locomotive with decoder the manufacturer can configure the locomotive and absolutely no CVs need ever be know or modified. When we designed DCC CVs and other such terms were defined to facilitate communication between the developers. End users only need to know how to control and in some cases configure features. Take TCP/IP which we are all using in this communication. From an end user perspective is it simple, complex or transparent. The number of features is not a measure of complexity.

For the sake of discussion lets look at two very different decoders. The Bachmann decoder and the QSI decoder. The Bachmann has 10 CVs which allow the end user to set 9 different features. The reason for the difference is that some CVs use a combination of CVs while other features use only a part of a CV. I will leave it up to Greg to provide the number of features and CVs that can be configured with the QSI decoder but it is a ton more. 

The complete list of user settable features for the Bachmnan decoder are 

1) The user can set the address (CV1, CV17, CV18, CV19, CV29) 2) The user can change the voltage the locomotive starts to move (CV2) 3) The user can change the acceleration momentum (CV3) 4) The user can change the breaking momentum (CV4) 5) The user can place the locomotive in a multi unit consist (CV19) 6) The user can change the brightness of the headlight when it is dimmed (CV52) 7) The user can change which function which controls the headlight dimming (CV51) 8) The user make the locomotive work in DCC only mode (CV29) 9) The user can configure the decoder to work on very old DCC systems which only support 14 speed steps. (CV29) 


That’s about it. Pretty simple, and best I can tell, the vast majority of users of this product only change the address as the defaults are reasonable. Of course the flip side is that its missing a lot of features some more advanced users like to have. That is the power of DCC. One size does not fit all. Using your argument, if the manufacturer puts in a lot of extra optional features it suddenly makes the product complex even though most users will still only set the address. 

I do believe Greg is also correct that you are trying to categorize DCC with very little experience. I have an offer for you. If you pay for shipping, I will loan you a couple of different DCC systems and decoders you can try out. That way you can make comments from first hand experience. 

Stan Ames


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Stan

From your example...
{snip...}[/i] "The complete list of user settable features for the Bachmnan decoder are

The user can set the address (CV1, CV17, CV18, *CV19*, *CV29*)
The user can change the voltage the locomotive starts to move (CV2)
The user can change the acceleration momentum (CV3)
The user can change the breaking momentum (CV4)
The user can place the locomotive in a multi unit consist (*CV19*)
The user can change the brightness of the headlight when it is dimmed (CV52)
The user can change which function which controls the headlight dimming (CV51)
The user make the locomotive work in DCC only mode (*CV29*)
The user can configure the decoder to work on very old DCC systems which only support 14 speed steps. (*CV29*)
 That’s about it. Pretty simple" {snip...}[/i]
_(emphasis added)_
For an individual new to DCC, how is it NOT confusing and or complex that CV19 & 29 control multiple parameters?

Unless the individual...
[*] From previous experience understands.
[*] Register bit addressing, and...
[*] Hexadecimal to Decimal conversion. or...
[*] Calculates the proper decimal value using a vendor provided table matrix. or...
[/list][*] The manufacturer has made these actions 'Transparent to the user' via a plain English user interface, where they merely enable/disable a feature in a menu driven selection. Provided in the hand-held control unit and/or a separate computer software interface.
[/list]


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 08 Oct 2009 08:35 AM 
Stan

From your example...
For an individual new to DCC, how is it NOT confusing and or complex that CV19 & 29 control multiple parameters? 

Steve

The answer is simple, the end user should not have to know anything about these configuration CVs.

User know about features. Lets look at address. Lets say the user wants to know the address of the locomotive which is unknown to the user. That a simple question with a simple answer. But internal to the DCC protocol the question involves more.

The user asks the address and the system says the address of this locomotive is 463. Pretty simple.

Behind the curtain the system has to ask the decoder several questions.

1) Is the locomotive currently in a consist (information contained in CV19)
2) Does the locomotive have a short or long address (information (CV29)
3) If short what is the value of CV1, if long what is the value of CV17-18)

The answer to the above can be displayed to the user in about 1 or 2 seconds.

Look at this as you do your TV remote. You tell the remote to go to channnel 42. You do not know or care to know the codes the remote sents the TV to accomplish this task? But if you really wanted to you could indeed generate the codes yourself to cause the TV to do what you desire.

Thats part of the problem. DCC is a very rich protocol. True enough you can understand it at the bit level and do everything manually. But you do not have to and the common complex tasks can and are made transparent to you by the system you choose.

True indeed there have been systems in the market that provide almost no transparency. But that is more a statement on that system and not on DCC.

DCC is only a protocal which defines a standard way of communicating. It is neither simple or complex. The degre of simplicity or complexits is a statement about how a particular product has decided to implement the protocol.

Stan Ames


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Speaking again as a DCC novice, I can say most of the time I'm only changing a few CV--mostly cv 1, for address, and 3 and 4 for momentum/acceleration. QSI's sound implementation is a little trickier, but not much, and i've used that to set nornal volume and mute volume and the relative volume of individual sounds. Using either NCE's throttle or the QSI programmer software, I've changed the default direction, and the max and mid and start volts, and a few other things. Most of the CVs I need to use on an operating session are automated--for example, consisting. I don't have to enter the CVs for consisting, I press some buttons and make some menu choices. I agree--you read Stan's measage and it looks like you need 4 CVs just for address. It's really much easier than that.

If you want to get in deeper, you can, whihc is what's part of the fun


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Stan

To an end user that is new to DCC, what the electrical/electronic specifications are, and what the communication protocol specified is, are totally irrelevant to them.

What they are concerned with is getting their DCC controlled devices (e.g. locomotive etc.) to do what they want them to do, and that means dealing with CV's in one way or another. So regardless of whether it is technically correct or not, to the end user, DCC is/are the CV's they have to deal with. If the manufacturer doesn't provide a 'User Friendly' manner in which to deal with the CV's then as far as the end user is concerned the system is confusing and/or complex.


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

I have been a user of DCC like systems in HO dating back to the introduction of the CTC article in MR about 1980. I built that system then later used the Onboard Command Control before switching to DCC in the mid 90s. I currently use Digitrax along with about half the other small scalers in the area while the other half use Lenz. Although none of the modellers I know including myself would ever go back to cab control, none of us would say that DCC is very easy. We have taken to using JMRI Decoder Pro from our computers to program the CVs in the decoders which has simplified the programming task at the expense of course of getting the computer interfaced to the railroad.

Also debugging problems associated with a shutdown power district are never much fun ...

In any case, DCC is the best there is for flexible and non proprietary products and I am glad to use it ... inside. Outside where I have to put up with 6 months of snow and ice on the tracks, a location over 300 feet from the nearest electrical supply and long wiring runs, I find the freedom of battery power to be quite refreshing.

I am a member of that same large club referred to by Greg that Paul Norton belongs to that is committed to battery power. Up to now, the available technology has led us to use a dedicated tranmitter for each loco. We have many different RCS and Aristo installations having tried most every system over the years. Most have worked well enough though none were perfect. No one here has bothered with Gwire and/or QSI - Paul did obtain a system but has since sold it. The Revolution came on the scene about 6 months ago and now about half the members have bought and installed it - I suspect that we have a critical mass within our club now and most members will acquire it ... though most of us including myself will not convert locos which are running well with another system.

In our situation, two specific things probably tip the balance in favour of the Revolution. Club members most often do not have any track but run solely at Fred Mills' IPP&W (or occasionally on my own Northland) in the saturday morning operation. Most members own a few locos and will bring one out for the ops session - depending on whether the session is using narrow gauge steam or transition era diesels. It is convenient and less expensive for a member to have one Tx and a decoder or Rx in each loco - the Revolution makes trailing car installations less necessary and already there is a move to self install locos. Storing the loco parameters in the Rx may be better in some ways but is a non issue for a member with 3 or 4 locos to link with his one Tx. Remember, this is not like a large HO club layout where trains are assigned locos from the pool ... in our setup members mostly run their own locos. The Revolution comes out ahead in the choice of the single Tx because ... it has excellent range, it can be handheld easily (or carried in a pocket) - an essential requirement for operating when a swtchlist and other stuff must also be carried - plus it is relatively inexpensive. 

The second point is that we do not use smoke units at all and sound installations are not very common. Battery/power car operation does not favour sound as the same car is used with multiple locos. I love sound but I'm also the first one to shut mine off when I'm doing some switching. It just drives me crazy ... That is perhaps the reason that QSI has not been on any club member's buy list and also perhaps why no one has really gotten bent out of shape with additional wiring to get sound with the Revolution. Paul has wired sound in one of his diesels with the Revolution but neither myself nor other club members have done so as of yet. Sound is expensive and not a priority for those of us engaged in an operating session though I suspect in time we will eventually add sound to our favourite locos. 

In short, track power (traditional cab control or DCC or any DCC like system) is not going to gain much of a foothold outside in a land with snow cover from mid November till early April. The Revolution is not perfect but is a significant step forward from any of its predecessors for the kinds of applications that we have. 
Regards ... Doug


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg

I owe you an apology for contributing to the tangent that your topic has taken, I should have kept my comments out of your topic and started another, sorry.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

DCC is a protocol which can be as transparent to the end user as the manufacturer wishes to make it. Simplicity or complexity is a feature of an individual product and most often pairing between system and decoder. My experience over the past 18 years I have been working on the evolution of DCC has been that most comments of complexity and simplicity of DCC can be traced to the choice of system the user has experience with. 
To take this comparison as Greg originally intended it--a straight comparison of the QSI decoder/sound module with G-wire receiver, the exact DCC interface (i.e, the thing you hold in your hand to make the train go back and forth) is not specified. By your description--which I fully agree with--this interface can be straightforward or complex, depending on who makes it. Some are going to be more intuitive than others. By that argument, then, the ease of programming the QSI board relative to a single complete product package such as the TE cannot be determined, because the interface doing the programming is not specified. Someone using one of the more complex interfaces will undoubtedly have a tougher go of programming the decoder than someone using the more intuitive versions. Now, if you were to specify a specific interface (Airwire, NCE, etc.) then a direct comparison of programming simplicity can be drawn. The _only_ comparison viable comparison that can be drawn is to say that the QSI decoder does not inherently need to be programmed at all in order to get trains to run because of the default values, whereas the TE has to be linked, requiring more steps. I'm not doubting that, but it's my opinion (and it's just that--an opinion) that such a comparison does not reflect real world tendencies. The user who is drawn to DCC for its functionality is not going to be satisfied with setting everything to the default any more than a photographer drawn to the DSLR camera will be always shooting on automatic. That's not saying there aren't people who buy DSLR cameras and never take them off of "auto," and maybe I'm mistaken as to the number of people who use DCC and never bother customizing any parameters. 

Using your argument, if the manufacturer puts in a lot of extra optional features it suddenly makes the product complex even though most users will still only set the address. 
It has the _ability_ to make the product more complex, should the user decide to go there. The user is under no mandate to do so. The overall complexity--as you state--is based not on the decoder, but the interface. 

I do believe Greg is also correct that you are trying to categorize DCC with very little experience. 
I suspect part of the problem lies in familiarity. Both you and Greg have lived and breathed DCC for something on 20 years. It's second nature to you. When an admitted neophyte comes forth with his perception of the protocol, your immediate reaction is to say he doesn't know what he's doing. To a point, that's a valid response, but it disallows for the learning curve involved. Another parallel, if you will--video editing software. I've used Avid editing software for 15 years, starting with version 1. It's the industry standard, capable of editing anything from home movies to the latest box-office attraction. I am as fluent with that software as both you and Greg are with DCC. If I were to sit you down in front of that software, your head would explode. I know exactly how you feel relative to a newbie's comments about DCC. When I train photographers and interns on the software, I scratch my head and say "it's so basic!" But it's not. It's only "basic" because I've done it every day for 15 years. I can talk someone through a procedure from my car without even having the software in front of me, as I know both of you can talk someone through programming DCC without anything in front of you. The learning curve on DCC programming can be steep and utterly confusing to someone just walking into the technology. I know I'm not alone in that characterization. How a system is perceived by the new user is every bit as important to its success as how it's used by those with experience. There's a distinct reason manufacturers are working to make the programming interface more and more transparent to the end user. You do that, you lessen the learning curve and make the technology more accessible to the average hobbyist. I'm all for that! Until that happens, though, DCC will remain something of a foreign language that needs to be learned _in order to be fully mastered._ It is exactly the fact that I _don't_ have decades worth of experience that makes my characterization valid for what it is--a view of the technology from the neophyte's perspective. That is a perspective that someone who's been using a technology for any length of time has no way of fully comprehending. For anyone with experience, you simply forget what it's like not to have experience. 

Later, 

K


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 08 Oct 2009 10:51 AM

To take this comparison as Greg originally intended it--a straight comparison of the QSI decoder/sound module with G-wire receiver, the exact DCC interface (i.e, the thing you hold in your hand to make the train go back and forth) is not specified. By your description-

K 

Kevin 

If you go back to Gregs origional post at the top of this thread you will see he has specified both the controller (NCE) and the decoder (QSI) for the comparision. The only thing that does not make this an apples to apples comparision is that a specified sound unit was assed to the Aristo Revolution, a product no produced by AristoCraft.

It is a fair comparision to judge the complexity, ease of use, and feature set of the two systems. In doing so the manner which the NCE handheld is used to configure the feature set in the decoder is relevant and where the configuration parameters are storred is also relevant. So to is the complexity level of how the configurations are organized and documented.

I will intentionally stay out of this comparision but have posted to point out that whatever the complexity of the NCE/QSI combination is or is not has little relevance as dto the complexity or lack thereof of DCC in general. It is a very comon mistake to try to generalize on a technology from one sample. Consider how a user of a DOS PC and a user of a MAC would compare the use of SNMP and TCP/IP to exchange email. Neither would know or care about the power of the underlying protocols but each could draw conclusions on how easy it was to use based on their use of the upper level hardware/operating system.


Stan Ames

BTW the offer to loan you some systems so you can get experience and be more accurate in your pronouncements still holds.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

If you go back to Gregs origional post at the top of this thread you will see he has specified both the controller (NCE) and the decoder (QSI) for the comparision. 
Mea culpa. Somehow that got lost in the debate as the Airwire and other DCC controllers got thrown into the discussion along the way. Thanks for pointing that back out to me. With a single specified controller, it is a solid side-by-side comparison. I've not used the NCE controller, so I don't know how user friendly the interface may or may not be to the DCC-neophyte. I'll take QSI's "both systems are relatively easy to set up and program" as an indication that there's a comparable level of transparency to the process between the two systems. It doesn't change my argument that QSI's use of the phrase "significantly more time consuming and complex..." relating to the programming TE system is laden with spin. It may be a factual representation of programming at a single level, but in "real world" applications, my opinion is that it's going to be a wash. Note that what I consider "simple" is subjective, so arguments relating to counting keystrokes, etc. don't bare out. I've programmed QSI decoders, I've programmed Revolution receivers. The menus on the Revolution are a bit more intuitive than the MRC interface I used for the QSI, but neither system was difficult in the least for comparable functionality. 

The better test for any DCC interface is how simple it is to program the higher functions--functions which the TE doesn't have--functions which give DCC a clear advantage over other control systems. How easy is it to configure BEMF feedback to the sound system? How easy is it to set up auxiliary functions to control marker lights, smoke, various sounds, etc.? You know better than me the minutia that can be controlled via DCC. That's where the complexity of understanding CV coding rears its head. You've got to set this value to this, in order to adjust that value to that--for the newbie, it can be an unintelligible mess! That's what I'm still wading through trying to grasp. I'm getting there, slowly, but--as is popular to say, it's a long, hard slog. Make that aspect "relatively easy to set up and program" and DCC will take great strides to overcome its stigma of being user-unfriendly. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By markoles on 08 Oct 2009 07:01 AM 
I've got a question about QSI and the sound part of that decoder:

Can it be programmed by the user with different sounds and functionality? What I am getting at is one of the reasons I pay more for the phoenix sound cards is the ability to load different bells/whistles and sounds and program them. I am just curious since I don't care about the comparision between the two systems. 

PS. the programming cable is about $80 extra so add that to the total.

Yes Mark, actually it is a great system here, ALL the bells and ALL the whistles are in the sound file, so you can pick any of them. There is a default horn and an alternate horn (or whistle) available... you use function 11 to swap between them. Also a short press of the horn/whistle will (on most recordings) give you a different sound than a long "pull".

You can reprogram the QSI from a diesel to a steam, to an electric.

In addition, there are a lot of files already customized, but all of them have the ability to change without using a different file. You can change all kinds of things, the pump sound, dynamic brakes, blower, bell, 1 or 2 motors in a diesel, and on and on... way beyond what you can do with a Phoenix... you can also control these sounds from DC... if you run a single engine, you need a $45 box. If you need more, unfortunately you need a more expensive box, but it can handle 30 amps of locos... you can control all the sounds from DC and raise and lower the volume, and on and on.... 

Hard to post everything it can do...

Regards, Greg


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND CLARIFICATION STAN! 

I thought I did set the stage, but it's almost like you have to restate the goal of the thread/question every "page". 

It was looking like it was just beat up on Greg day... 

There is light at the end of the tunnel. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Ward H (Jan 5, 2008)

"With the TE if you use multiple transimitters, you have to program each one and re-link" 

I have no experiance with DCC or any other type of non TE control system so my post is in no way indicating one is better than the other. 
I would like to clarify the above comment in the table. Yes, you have to program each transmiter. There is no clone function. 
However, after programing, you can set each transmitter to "Multiple Transmitters". You do not have to re-link with each receiver. Programing a second transmitter is a PITA but having to re-link would be a real FPITA! 

I found the comparison very interesting. Thanks for posting it. 

Greg, what is needed to reprogram the sounds on the QSI board. Is it like the 2K2, just need the software and cable?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks Ward, so the link ID stays the same for the second transmitter, and you just set up a cab to a link ID? I was not clear on how to get a link ID "into" the TE throttle without re-linking. If you can explain that will help me from making the same wrong statement again,.

Yes, the usb "programming cable" is $75-80 street price. Comes with a little power supply, and USB to your computer. You hook the output right to an isolated piece of track and program up there. When you program, you are installing the firmware to do all the DCC functions for motor and sound. There are new features all the time, like the new "rod clank" which is very cool sounding.

You can hear the rod clank well at 1:24 into the video.



Regards, Greg


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

I just did the multi-transformer exercise about an hour ago, Greg. Basically I did not re-link the second transformer. You just make sure that all the settings for the engines in question are identical, and that the RF channel is the same and the group ID is the same. You set up the single unit characteristics, and then you also replicate the cab settings. This makes the link, and then it is just a matter of choosing the transmitter you want to use.

Hope this helps.

Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

It does Ed, of course you meant transmitters, not transformers









I think because the system is two way, I prefer to use "throttles" and "decoders" instead of "transmitters" and "receivers"... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Yup, you're right, Greg. Too bad my fingers don't work in synch with my brain!! Throttles and decoders is a good description of them too.

Ed


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 08 Oct 2009 03:12 PM 
Thanks Ward, so the link ID stays the same for the second transmitter, and you just set up a cab to a link ID? I was not clear on how to get a link ID "into" the TE throttle without re-linking. If you can explain that will help me from making the same wrong statement again,.

Yes, the usb "programming cable" is $75-80 street price. Comes with a little power supply, and USB to your computer. You hook the output right to an isolated piece of track and program up there. When you program, you are installing the firmware to do all the DCC functions for motor and sound. There are new features all the time, like the new "rod clank" which is very cool sounding.

You can hear the rod clank well at 1:24 into the video.



Regards, Greg 




OOOOOOOOO Yuck what a ugly locomotive? i would never buy one of them ....


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg, 
Nice loco. 
No disrepect, but that chuff sounds like someone beating a tin can in a 44 gallon drum. 
Very reminiscent of the original AristoCraft thing that had a short production life many years ago in the first run Pacifics. 
As to the rod clank. Yuk.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Tony, it sounds nothing at all like that--i had one of those, it's a night and day difference.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike, do you mean the sound you had was better than that coming from Gregs loco? 
Or, do you mean that particular sound in Gregs loco does not sound ike a tin can in a 44 gallon drum? 
I do acknowledge it could be the rod clank that is ruining the actual chuff. A well maintained loco would never have that rod clank.


----------



## Ward H (Jan 5, 2008)

Greg, 
Ed explained it well. I just did this for one loco this past weekend, to play with it. Switching transmitters was pretty easy. The receiver only listens to the transmitter that transmitted last so it does not get conflicting signals. 
I do miss a cloning feature, though. 

I am glad to see that QSI allows for easy reprogramming of sounds. I've always disliked buying sound cards only good for specific locos. 

Thanks


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Could be that your ears are not in sink. Sounds are sure a lot better than most. Rod clank when properly set up are a very good feature and sound good. Every systems has its pros and cons and depends on what you like and off course price is a factor also. Overall i'm pleased with the sounds and I've had them all. Later RJD


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

My ears are not in sink. 
Rather they are in sync. 
I am not knocking anything. 

I deal with a number of sound systems here and have done so since the days of the PH systems 20 years ago. 
I would dearly like to encompass QSI sound but not if that is an example of the chuff they produce. 
Can anyone put up a QSI clip with a steam chuff please. Without the rod clank for now.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 08 Oct 2009 05:36 PM 
Tony, it sounds nothing at all like that--i had one of those, it's a night and day difference. 

I agree Mike sounds great, RJ programing my boards as we speak........... Rod CLANK IS HEARD ON MOST VIDEOS I HAVE VEIWED ON REAL LOCOS..........








I guess if there Battery powered they may be quieter.....


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By aceinspp on 08 Oct 2009 06:17 PM 
Could be that your ears are not in sink. Sounds are sure a lot better than most. Rod clank when properly set up are a very good feature and sound good. Every systems has its pros and cons and depends on what you like and off course price is a factor also. Overall i'm pleased with the sounds and I've had them all. Later RJD 

Me tooooooooooooooo! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I've been thinking for a while about how to get a good recording of the sounds. And ten make it deliverable over the web so that you get a good representation, even on tiny laptop speakers. Every time I go outside to try, there's a lot of wind or ambient noise. I like it more than the PRR steam file I had in the one Phoenix 2k2 card I own. 


I'm going to Strasburg to see the Strasburg Railway tomorrow. I'll listen for rod clank


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

I find it interesting that everyone seems to be intent on proving that the system they have is the best. I happen to be enjoying the Revolution and the Phoenix sound. Does that mean I think that combination is best? For me, yes. But for Greg, or Nick, or RJ, or Lownote? No, of course not. I am personally happy that you like your track powered DCC systems with QSI sound. That is why we have various manufacturers. My very limited experience has been that each system has its good points, whether sound or control, and each of us picks the system that fits are particular desires, likes and dislikes.

One of the things that I really appreciated about Jerry's Revolution thread was that it just discussed the Revolution alone, without necessarily comparing it with another system. I personally think it is too bad that this thread isn't similar in that it could discuss the DCC system with QSI, what people enjoy with it etc., without trying to convince each other that it is better or worse than other methods. Again, personally I have learned a lot about both QSI and DCC on this thread.

Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The point of the thread was to compare the 2 systems, and really the TE vs. the QSI functions, not sounds to sounds, although that is certainly in the mix. 

I like the Phoenix sounds, what is there not to like? I never said that the QSI sound overall is better than the Phoenix. My opinion, which is found all over the forum is that Phoenix is hard to beat on sounds. Their RS-3 Alco is definitely superior, for example. 

What I don't understand is the comments from tony about sounding like a whatever, and that steam locos do not have rod clank. Maybe they don't in Australia, but the do here. I was right up against the 3751 Santa Fe Northern, a perfectly maintained loco and it has rod clank. 

If I compare the sound systems, there is a lot more configurable options, volume levels, and features in the QSI, and I think the sounds in the Phoenix are better. But QSI is continually improving it's library and software, so I'm happy with my choice. 

Ed, just keep being impartial, I will be, and those who cannot, well, it's their loss. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg. 
With respect. 
I said that the *chuff* sounded like a tin can in a 44 gallon drum. I also said that it could be the rod clank overwhelming the chuff. 
The other respondents also said they have heard the QSI sound in real life. I have not had that pleasure. I can only report what that particular video sounds like to me. Which is it does not sound very good to me. 
But then what would I know. I have only been playing around with Large Scale sound for 20 years.


----------



## rhyman (Apr 19, 2009)

Can anyone put up a QSI clip with a steam chuff please. Without the rod clank for now. 

Tony, 
If you take a look at the video clip that Adam posted from Marty's steam-up, the first two run-bys are of a K-27 with a QSI decoder/sound module installed. 
The clip is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnWzZ0KDnF0


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 08 Oct 2009 07:49 PM 
Greg. 
With respect. 
I said that the *chuff* sounded like a tin can in a 44 gallon drum. I also said that it could be the rod clank overwhelming the chuff. 
The other respondents also said they have heard the QSI sound in real life. I have not had that pleasure. I can only report what that particular video sounds like to me. Which is it does not sound very good to me. 
But then what would I know. I have only been playing around with Large Scale sound for 20 years. 

After 20 years id think you'd know what sounded good and what didnt? Guess i was wrong....... Rod clank is pritty much normal on most steamers here in the U.S.of A...... I guess over sea's sound might be different..


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I keep trying to make this point, and I need to shoot some video to show it. 

To my mind, the quality of a "chuff" sound is not just how "good" it sounds in a static way, it's how good it sounds running. The really interesting thing about QSI is the way the chuff varies under load. Even the best recorded chuff gets monotonous when it's exactly the same sound only faster. I'd be willing to agree that the basic Phoenix chuff might be better--maybe--but the way the sound reacts to load and changes in operation is really to my mind much much better with QSI


You don't have to trigger a "drift" effect, it starts drifting as soon as the load lightens. And it starts barking when it hits a grade--whether or not you change the throttle setting. That's a feature of BEMF, and as far as I know the Phoenix boarrds don't do that.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I waited a number of years to purchase a sound board, because I heard this feature in HO in Debbie Ames' booth at a convention... (Yes, Stan's wife). I was so impressed at the realism. Then you had to go a motor decoder with a SUSI output (data stream that had load information) and that connected to at DIETZ sound board, and it took that information and changed sounds according to load. 

But the first promised all in one decoder was the large scale Tsunami, by Soundtraxx... which never hit the streets, a sort of large scale one was in the Bachmann shay, but it was a half-hearted attempt that did not work on LS DCC voltages. 

When QSI came out with a solution all in one, with DC capability, and then an interface to Airwire, it was a winner to me. It's still evolving, and the next generation is in the works, with even more features. 

So, for reasons of economy, and features, this is where I went. I am track power, but if I had fewer locos, I would be battery and using this system. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Thank you Bob. That does sound good and it does have the clank turned *OFF* so you can actually hear the chuff properly. 

I still think that clip of Greg's sounds like banging a tin can in a 44 gallon drum.


----------



## Ward H (Jan 5, 2008)

Greg, 
Do you think QSI will ever add sound trigger capability to its sound boards? I like everything I hear about them but I want triggered sound capability. Is it hard to add that functionality?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Ward, it is a very strong possibility. 

I'm not at liberty to discuss all the details of the next generation, but we had a 1.5 hour teleconference on the feature list of the new version for Aristo and USAT (Tony's trains, QS Industries, Mike Greenwood and I), and this is definitely on the list. I personally have been after Tony P. for this for a while, if nothing else because I feel it's not good to have Phoenix as the only alternative. 

By the way Tony: dunno what your agenda is... go to the QSI web site... download the FREE software, load a sound file, and play the sounds on your own computer. I have a cheap little camera with a microphone built it. My 0-6-0 sounds awesome, from all the comments of people that have heard it in person. 

The QSI software is FREE and you can EASILY install it on your computer and do NOT need to buy the "interface" to do so. Anyone who is having trouble doing this, get in contact with me and I'll walk you through it (that means you Tony)... why? Because it's fun to play around with the sounds and whistles, and it's free, what the heck. 

My email is where it always is, my signature below, in red. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Ward H (Jan 5, 2008)

That is good news, Greg. When I get some free time I will try downloading the software and play with the sounds.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Stupid CORNPEWTERS... put my post in the wrong thread... sorry.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg. 
I have no agenda regarding QSI. 
In fact, as you well know, I am working on making the sounds triggereable by non DCC battery R/C equipment. 

I repeat, that video sounds to *ME* like someone is beating a tin can in a 44 gallon drum. My guess is it is the rod clank that is overwhelming the much quieter chuff. 

I have no idea how to download stuff into a computer as you also well know. 
4 months ago Jen bought a new lap top. It was fitted with an anti virus program. Unfortunately no one told her it was only a trial version and it subsequently lapsed. Whereupon Jen used it on the net and picked up something that will not permit Word to open. Earlier in the week I couldn't even load anti virus protection that works for me in my computer without completely stuffing her computer up. All she then got was the Lenovo screen and no icons whatsoever. With someone helping me I managed to get it started in safe mode and retrieved an earlier known setting. Now the computer will start OK but not open in Word which is about the only thing she ever uses it for apart from the occasional foray on the Net to look for information. 
Computers terrify me.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think you are hearing the rod clank, and emphasizing that sound that is new to QSI was one of the main points of the video. I actually bumped it's volume up to be heard. 

This weekend I am actually changing it, the stock level was 10%, I bumped it to 20% for the video, I am going to put it to 15% and raise the chuff. I had planned and discussed this a week ago with RJ, who is likewise experimenting with the new sound. 

Call me one evening (when I am on chat is a good time) and we'll work on your anti-virus, there is a good, free one. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

greg. 
I keep saying it is probably the rod clank overwelming the chuff. 
Phoenix have had that for years and it is one of the things my customers always ask me to turn off when I am programming the sound. 
No doubt they will also when I get around to selling QSI in OZ. 

Thanks for the offer of sorting out the anti virus. I can get the one I already have (CA) on my computer as an add on to mine and have it fitted to another computer. It works just fine. I could not get the Free AVG to even load. Let alone work. 
I screwed up on the download and I have no idea what I did. Other than I had not removed the original trial thing that was fitted. 
I will call you later today if that is OK.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 09 Oct 2009 03:50 PM 
----I repeat, that video sounds to *ME* like someone is beating a tin can in a 44 gallon drum. 


OK OK....this has been said a few times....what is a 44 gallon drum? All the drums I've seen are 55 gallon drums. We call them barrels....or is this an Ozmonian thing.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Went to the Strasburg Rialroad today, Sat in the car and watched the 2-6-0 go by as they moved it from the bacl of the train to the front

Distinct and unkmistakeable rod clank, sounded like someone banging on a 44 gallon drum--but protoypical

My wife remarked on the rod clank as soon as she heard it in a steamer--hey, that sounds neat


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Strasburg Railroad is neet isnt it Mike? did you go across the street to the museam great place, one of the finest in the country i think for trians


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Mikey. 

One US Gallon is roughly 4/5ths of an Imperial gallon, which we no longer use in OZ anyway. 
We have been totally metric since 1966, but old habits die hard for us in betweeners. 

Thank you lownote. 
Whilst it might sound neat to many ears, I can assure you it does not sound neat to many others. 
As I understand it, rod clank only occurs if the rods are becoming worn. A situation here on our Puffing Billy line which would be rectified asap.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

There is no law that prohibits you from lowering the rod clank volume or eliminating it. 

Focusing on this issue seems to be a point of personal preference. 

Every sound level, even what sound (whose bell, whose whistle, etc) is programmable. 

Nice derail to a thread that tried to be informative and helpful. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 09 Oct 2009 06:17 PM 
Hi Mikey. 

One US Gallon is roughly 4/5ths of an Imperial gallon, which we no longer use in OZ anyway. 
We have been totally metric since 1966, but old habits die hard for us in betweeners. 

Thank you lownote. 
Whilst it might sound neat to many ears, I can assure you it does not sound neat to many others. 
As I understand it, rod clank only occurs if the rods are becoming worn. A situation here on our Puffing Billy line which would be rectified asap. 

I was born in 1966 its a good year??????????? thou im track powered ?


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

1966 was a confusing year. 
Perhaps that explains why confusion is often a trait of those born then.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 09 Oct 2009 09:19 PM 
1966 was a confusing year. 
Perhaps that explains why confusion is often a trait of those born then. 

OOOOOO snap i guess i will go crawl back under my rock? i sure hope my barttery powered rock warmer is still charged,,,,


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Nick.
If you are going to take continual pot shots at me you must surely expect a retort sooner or later.


You go crawl where you feel the most comfortable.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Well I'm running engines that are weathered to simulate wear, so why not have some rod clank?

I will admit that when I first got the new sound files I bumped the rod clank up way high, because I wanted to hear it, and then adjusted it back down. But as Greg said, that's one of the cool things about QSI--you can adjust the rod clank relative to the other sounds, so it's barely there. On steamers that ar emodeled with a lot of wear, like workaday engines, the rod clank is nore pronounced thamn on steamer that I set up as better maintained.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 09 Oct 2009 10:44 PM 


Nick.
If you are going to take continual pot shots at me you must surely expect a retort sooner or later.


You go crawl where you feel the most comfortable.










Im only messin with you Tony like you do with me, alls good







i will wait for the retort but i really think 66 was a good year


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Playing with the rod clank is kind of like folks running diesel locos that are not equip with dynamic brakes but the turn it on anyway. So no bit deal if folks don't care for the rod clank but one thing about it it was real in the days of LS. Thank goodness that one can turn off. For the folks that are not rivit counters. Later RJD


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Nick. 
I could not be bothered messing with you. 
I have more important things to worry about in life than dealing with a recalcitrant user of track power.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 10 Oct 2009 04:37 PM 
Nick. 
I could not be bothered messing with you. 
I have more important things to worry about in life than dealing with a recalcitrant user of track power. 

OOOOOOOOO snap! You got me.... im track power yes...


----------



## noelw (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Nicholas Savatgy on 09 Oct 2009 07:29 PM 
Posted By TonyWalsham on 09 Oct 2009 06:17 PM 
Hi Mikey. 
Nk
One US Gallon is roughly 4/5ths of an Imperial gallon, which we no longer use in OZ anyway. 
We have been totally metric since 1966, but old habits die hard for us in betweeners. 

Thank you lownote. 
Whilst it might sound neat to many ears, I can assure you it does not sound neat to many others. 
As I understand it, rod clank only occurs if the rods are becoming worn. A situation here on our Puffing Billy line which would be rectified asap. 

I was born in 1966 its a good year??????????? thou im track powered ?











.............................................................................................................

Nick... Nooooooooo That was a bad year. ( 1966 ) Just kidding with your Nick.... buuuuuuuuuuuuuuut..

Got my first New Truck in 1966. It was a Freightliner, 2 axle cabover and stupid thing had Positive Ground Batt. sys. Screw up my Big rig. CB and had to get an inverter to run the darn CB Radio and lost the ground plane on the co-Ph. whips Ant's. laf... Keeped it for two yrs. and traded it in for a KW. 
Now that was a good year( 1968.). Got Divoice that year to. lol.
The video that Greg E. did, was kind of poor quality, but the idea was there. We do like the Rod clanks being we live around Sacramento Ca. where S.P. did most of there Steam Eng. overhauls here. So Rod clanks was a normal sound around our area. Some Eng's came as far away as Texas with there clinks and ya some of them were very loud.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

[No message]


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg. 
Does the QSI have a mechanical chuff timer input for a more accurately timed chuff relative to the wheel rotation? 

That chuff is easier to hear but is certainly not (to *my* ears at least) the same chuff as was demonstrated in the K-27 clip.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Yep it has a mechanical chuff. Now your talking of two different types of locos' What do you want? Guess your ears are very sensitive. Later RJD


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Sound file sounds great to My ears, luv the rod clank....thanks again Greg for programing the board...


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

I am well aware they are different locos. 
I want a chuff that sounds like a chuff not one that sounds (to *me*) like someone bashing a tin can in a 44 gallon drum. 
I have very discerning customers here. Mostly live steamers who know what steam chuffs sound like. 
I can guarantee you they would all turn their noses up at that particular chuff. Obviously there are other chuffs available and soon I will listen to them and gain an opinion. 
I can also guarantee you they would baulk at chuffs that were not accurately timed, so having a mechanical timer input is good.


----------



## Stan Cedarleaf (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm running my 0-4-4-0 QSI/gwire/battery in mechanical chuff mode triggered by a magnet on the axle. Greg gave me the CV settings but I can't remember what they were. I set it and forgot about it..


----------



## Ward H (Jan 5, 2008)

I was reading this comparison again today while looking for a comment from Greg about QSI possibly coming out with a Revo compatible board. 
I would like to address two incorrect statements about the Revos features. 

I can't copy and paste the paragraph but the paragraph above the summary states the Revo TE only provides "automatic on/off control of headlights", "the lights are always on when the locomotive is moving". The Revo does allow one to turn off the headlights when the loco is moving. This works well when MUing multiple locos. The headlight direction can also be changed. 

In the paragraph above that it sounds like the Revo does not have custom speed curves. The Revo does allow the user to set speed curves for each loco. Not knowing how DCC and QSI handles speed curves, I do not know if Aristo's speed curve feature would meet the definition of "Custom speed curves". 

Now a QSI/DCC question. I see in the chart, under "Program on the Main", both the QSI and Revo are listed as Yes. At one time I thought I had seen the term "Programing track" associated with DCC. When and why is a programing track used, if at all? 

Please note: I do not believe one system is better than the other. It is all a personal choice. I am just looking for and helping to provide accurate information.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The words "speed curve" mean something specific, and a very literal interpretation of the word curve. 

What Aristo offers is an "offset" in voltage, nothing like changing the curve of voltage vs. commanded speed, and nowhere near the capability of custom speed curves in DCC. 

It is not even a curve. It's the use of a DCC term to compete and say that it's in the Aristo product. VERY misleading, since the term has been used a long time in DCC. 

I'll look at the description of the lighting functions and clean that up. The QSI has very sophisticated functions and control over when lights go on or off. The Aristo is nowhere near the capability, but I will get the functions exact for comparison. 

Again, as I have said many times, if Aristo would stop using phrases like "beyond anything ever conceived in DCC" in it's advertising, I would not be be so nit-picky. The continued use of misleading advertising is a detriment to the industry, and consumers alike. 

A DCC programming track used (a long time ago) to be the only way you could change settings in a decoder. Nowadays, it's rarely used. It does allow changing and resetting setting.. like if you "lost" the address of a decoder, or want to do a full factory reset (and even those functions do not always need the programming track). 

Essentially it is an output from the DCC system that is connected to a dedicated piece of track, and allows complete control of the decoder without knowing it's address or current state. 

Many current DCC users will NEVER use a programming track, but it's something anti-DCC people will "harp" on over and over, just like the "miles of wires", and the wiring for hardwired throttles. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Greg, I'm not exactly sure I understand what you mean by the Revolution only has a "voltage offset". Originally you could adjust the start voltage and the maximum voltage for each engine. Now you can also adjust the voltage at mid-point +or - 50% to provide a two section "curve". I suspect that DCC decoders offer more points for adjustment, but the Revolution does now offer one point.

Also, you and I have gone around the table on this before, but as far as I can read, Lewis has only made the statement "far beyond DCC" when referring to the 1000 steps of speed adjustment, not the entire Revolution operation. I know you don't agree with this, but I can't see any evidence of additional operational characteristics being referred to as "far beyond DCC". In addition, I think you couldgive him some credit for apologizing for his errors in descriptions of DCC.

Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Upon further investigation, you are correct on both points Ed, it seems that in print, the phrase is applied to the 1000 speed steps (by the way several DCC decoders interpret to 1024 steps). 

Thanks for the update on the midpoint matching, that is definitely not a speed curve, but it's a good start. Having the mid point settable really helps in speed matching. 

However, the functions do not appear from my testing to have the same capability as the DCC Vstart, Vmid and Vmax, specifically that you cannot make the starting speed lower so the loco starts at a slower rate. Now this may just be the problem with no BEMF and poor low speed performance, but from my testing it's not really great. 

Nevertheless, the 3 settings approximate the Vstart, Vmid and Vmax of DCC. That's good. 

The system does NOT, however, have "speed curves" either in the DCC sense, at least in the original documentation, and the unit I tested. I heard recently that there was some change to allow some "curvature" of the speed vs. "voltage" though. I will read the current literature again in case this feature has been added. Maybe you can point me to this information. 

That's the second level, where you can pick curves of different shapes, The QSI does this also. 

Finally, the "true" DCC speed curve, where you can set 64 different "voltages" for 64 different speed steps, and interpolate between them, which virtually ALL DCC decoders have, that function, is not in the TE as far as I can tell. 

That's really what people in DCC talk about when they have a speed curve. 

Using this feature, I was able to set 2 locomotives 4 feet apart and run them as a consist, and they stayed 4 feet apart for about FOUR hours. 

Now, THAT's what is called "speed matching"... maybe overkill for some people, but it's the "Quantum" difference here. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

With a 64 point curve, Greg, you could get a good reasonably smooth "curve". I tend to think of the Revolution "curve" as two straight lines! As you said, it is not the same as the 64 point curve, but it does give a reasonable matching of two engines. With a minimum of effort I got two engines to run 4 feet apart reasonably well, but I assure you, they would not have stayed that way for 4 hours!! Regarding the start point, what the Revolution does is adjust the voltage at which the engine starts out.

Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Definitely not a curve ha ha! The 3 point method is adequate for most people, so I am glad Aristo adopted the DCC standard here. 

One thing I had difficulty with is setting the start speed low enough, no matter what I did, the first motion from the loco was way too fast, and I tried every combination... the best was the highest "resolution" on the speed steps, and the lowest starting speed. 

I did a lot of testing on an RDC since it was easy to pull the TE out and plug the QSI in. The QSI could make it tick over so slow it took more than a minute for one wheel revolution. 

The lowest starting speed with the TE was about 8 smph. I think BEMF would help the TE, but there's something else going on here. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Ward H (Jan 5, 2008)

Hi Greg, 
The Revo has both speed offsets and speed curves. The speed curves I believe were a late edition. My transmitter software is Ver 2.0.4. 
As was explained to me at by Navin, speed offsets allow you to adjust a locos throttle up or down so at the same displayed throttle setting, locos in a MU would run at the same speed. 
The speed curves are supposed to allow you to match the acceleration curves of the MU locos. 

I have not played with speed curves but I have matched RS3s with S4s and had them run separated and never catch up to one another for up to an hour. 

I, of course, can not compare the two systems but it sounds like DCC is a more sophisticated method to match mismatched locos. When I ran traditional track power I would connect mismatched locos and run them with no problem so I guess my locos and running habits don't require precise speed matching. 

Thanks for explaining the programing track. 


Ed, went back and read your and Greg's post again. When you talk about setting the mid point, is that what the Revo speed curve is doing?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

We had a good discussion on the Aristo forum some time ago, under load, the locomotives tend to contribute what they can, and speed matching sort of evens out between them (that are coupled to each other, mid train and pusher is something else!). 

Speed matching shows up most in lightly loaded and slow speed operation. 

Pardon me for answering your question to Ed, but there is a mid point "voltage setting" that is similar to the DCC Vmid setting, AND an "offset" setting that raises or lowers the voltage "across the board" for all speed ranges. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Ward, Greg has it right (can you believe that, Greg, I agree!!). My understanding of the speed curve adjustment is that you can increase or decrease the voltage at the mid-point by up to 50%. For me, that is a great feature even when I'm not muing two engines. Some of the newer Aristo engines require a higher voltage to achieve the same operating speed as the older engines. By adjusting the mid-point on the newer engines, I can run all my engines at about the same "speed" on the Revolution display. I'm not changing the actual voltage going to the motor, but psychologically I'm happier with the lower setting on the screen display.

Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

A message from Mr. Polk, and an open response to Aristo: (the following was posted on the Aristo forum today by Lewis Polk)


"Dear All,

I just noticed another mis-statement on the QSI comparison chart. They say we do not have an over-current protection, but we do. When we hit 175F degrees the system shuts off and this is the correct way of handling over-current. This is done with a thermister and we have overcurrent protect circuitry as well at 5 amp continuous and 8 amp surge.
Whoever wrote their report did not take the time to really understand our sophisticated design. No one fact checked their analysis with us. Really a shaded report in their direction, but actually more than that.....it's untruthful. This is a report is posted on Tony's Train Exchange's web site and they make the QSI board under license. Our design engineer is a full r/f engineer with 30 years experience in designing radio control, while the QSI system uses r/f made by others and synchs it to their requirements. That's not a problem, but perhaps they don't understand our state of the art original engineering.

All the best,
Lewis Polk

P.S. I do not go on other boards to comment as the flaming is to extreme for me when I try to explain our point of view. There are too many conflicting commercial conflicts on other boards who use them as soap boxes for free advertising for their products. So....I only post here even if it's preaching to the choir. I don't like commenting on a specific competitor's product here, but made an exception due to what I think is a shaded comparison by the other maker." 
Dear Lewis: 

Since in your last paragraph you say you will only post on your board, then I guess this is our communication mode since you banned me from your site when I could not promise to "never say anything negative again".

On the detail about over current: You have OVER-TEMPERATURE protection, not OVER-CURRENT. A slow overload will indeed heat the board and components and the thermistor will sense the heat. I examined your hardware, and I AM an engineer. If I missed the overcurrent sensing circuitry, please point it out specifically, i.e. the components that can sense CURRENT, not temperature. Therefore, unless there is additional information, this is not a mis-statement.

The people who wrote the report are experienced people, and I am one of them, and had your unit for TWO MONTHS. I understand your design, it's not terribly sophisticated. Why would I check my analysis with you, who has openly stated your target was DCC and has supplied many mis-statements? I have no allegiance to either QSI or Aristo, you cannot say the same. 


Now, for the word "untruthful", please point out the untruths, and you need to provide facts, not just name calling. If you want to say something is untruthful, then state facts, like show me the overcurrent circuitry that I cannot find on your TE.

There's an interesting statement: Our design engineer is a full r/f engineer with 30 years experience in designing radio control, while the QSI system uses r/f made by others and synchs it to their requirements.

Very funny since the Aristo RF modules are purchased as a separate module, just as the QSI/Gwire combination. What is the point here? Both QSI and Aristo are purchasing their RF systems, as they should. If you want to compare engineering quantity or quality, QSI has been making sophisticated motor controllers and sound units for longer than Aristo and Aristo does not make sound systems.

Maybe you feel flamed when you try to explain your point of view because people are not agreeing with you. You have plenty of "friends" on MLS, and the only way to keep things objective is to state facts that can be verified, not just call people names from afar.

With Paul Norton calling me a rotweiler, you calling me a troll, (both statements on the Aristo forum) and saying that there are all these untruths, the real story is that the protected environment of your personal forum allows you to maintain the untruths. 


I will continue to be objective and deal with facts. When you have to resort to name calling you have lost the battle.

Post any mis-statements, or untruths anywhere and I will address them, and your friends here on MLS will be delighted to take me to task.

Regards, 


Greg Elmassian


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)




----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

NICK! DID YOU RUN OUT OF WORDS?????? HAH LOL I GUESS I ONLY HAVE TWO THINGS TO SAY IN AGREEMENT WITH GREG E. QSI/G-WIRE ALL THE WAY, NO REVOLUTIONARY IDEAS HERE!! YIKES "INCOMING" i'LL BE OUT PLAYIN WITH ME TRAINS AFORE ALL OF YE!! WHILST YOU ARE ALL SOLDERING, READING DIAGRAMS AND WIRING AND SUCH!! UNFORTUNATELY HAVE TO USE A LITTLE OF "POLK" TO DO SO!! HAH

HERE'S ANOTHER ONE FOR YOU TO CONFISCATE!!


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Lewis - I am impressed. You must have had to lay out a bundle to have a custom RF chip designed and manufactured! That is quite a commitment.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Why are you yelling at me? YOU KNOW HOW SENSITIVE I AM.......


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

I think that Lewis has become so paranoid and insecure that he has to continually promote his product on his forum and bad mouth the competitions there by breaking his own forum rules. Later RJD


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Hipacrit comes to mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Doug C (Jan 14, 2008)

"...think that Lewis has become so paranoid and insecure that he has to continually promote his product on his forum and bad mouth the competitions there by breaking his own forum rules.."

Weeell he is the President of the company and considering presidents of COUNTRIES badmouth/lie about others so in respect to just a company, could it not be easily considered a 'moot' point







And I don't see where he is badmouthing QSI (with respect to this material/application/ thread) He is actually at most highlighting what they have accomplished and pointing out what the Revo' can (actually ?) do ! 


Points seemingly missed within the QSI product comparison ;
http://www.aristocraft.com/vbulletinforums/showthread.php?t=15105


IMHO, 
doug c


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Points not missed, not at all: 

There was a point that DCC/NCE/QSI has forward and reverse clearly indicated, but TE only has right arrow and left arrow, so you never know which way a loco will go, especially if you are on someone else's layout. 

Aristo response in that thread: 

"8. Our loco direction is just an arrow, but you can easily re-set the direction of the loco according to it's wiring." 

This was not only NOT missed, but it is the problem. It was a comparison, and in this case, I believe that KNOWING which way is forwards, vs. guessing is better. 

I have a whole set of responses to that thread, and reviewing objectively, I can only see one point there that has merit or is correct. 

Regards, Greg 

p.s. I would ask others here to refrain from name calling, there is enough name calling on the Aristo forum by Paul Norton and Lewis already, we do not have to sink to their level.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

There was a point that DCC/NCE/QSI has forward and reverse clearly indicated, but TE only has right arrow and left arrow, so you never know which way a loco will go, especially if you are on someone else's layout. 

Doesn't matter whose railroad you're running on. Both the TE and DCC systems are blind to track polarity when it comes to determining forward and reverse. If locomotives are programmed to run "forward" when forward is indicated (however it's indicated), they will run forward. 

I believe that KNOWING which way is forwards, vs. guessing is better. 

What guessing? If you know your convention is that the right arrow is "forward," then you know by looking at the arrows which way your loco is going to move. It's only by a similar convention that the word "forward" actually means forward. There's no magic circuitry in the QSI or NCE products (or any control product) that automatically determines the front of the locomotive and sets it to match the "forward" indication. You've got to program that in _and_ be consistent in your programming across your fleet according to the convention you've established. I've got a QSI-equipped loco here right now that didn't get the "this way forward" memo, so it runs backwards when "forward" is indicated. I've got to reprogram that before I send the loco back home so it doesn't fight with its stablemate that did get the memo. I've got to do the same thing with the Revolution decoders. Part of the set-up means making sure the loco moves forward in accordance to the directional arrows as determined by my convention. Once that's done, they're good to go. They will _always_ run according to that convention. 

Now, you can debate the superiority of words vs icons to better convey meaning, but it's a purely subjective argument. Our non-english-speaking members might prefer icons to a series of letters which have no meaning in their native tongues. To ascribe any kind of superiority of one system vs. another based on the specific iconography used to indicate direction is simply not a valid basis for critique. _Any_ indication is a good thing, as those who have long used systems that lack such a feature can readily attest. Knowing is definitely better than guessing.  

Later, 

K


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Hi Greg,

It is unfortunate that competitors to Aristo and QSI did not give you the courtesy of discussing your topic about QSI and the Revolution without confusing the topic beyond recognition.

As you know I personally bought the Revolution without ever looking at any competitive products and I have never looked back. I also have not made any effort to educate myself on how the Revolution compares with other systems. I HATE reading manuals and technical discussions - but that is simply my way of avoiding complications in my life and does not reflect on or suggest what others should do.

Saturday we had a club meeting. I was rushed so I grabbed an E8, some boxcars and a caboose and put them on the track planning to add a throttle and power supply but I was sidetracked with the need to remove the leaves that were covering buillding materials that could have caused accidents if members did not see "stuff" that was covered by the leaves. By the time I had removed the leaves, members were scheduled to arrive.

To save time I grabbed a battery, threw it into a boxcar and connected the boxcar to the E8 with the Revolution and I was ready to run the train.

The first member arrived and brought a GP40 with QSI and Airwire so we plugged it into the battery car instead of the E8 and he ran the train.

This highlighted to me that I have no idea what the heck QSI is.

To me QSI is a brand of sound system that used to be used by MTH in their O Gauge locos (ProtoSound 1). I more or less assumed that QSI today was a sound system for large scale as evidenced by my friend's GP40 with QSI sound and Airwire control.

I tried glancing through this topic but it was too complicated and confusing because of all the competitive interruptions.

Perhaps it would help (me at least) if you would offer an abbreviated explanation of just what "QSI" is today in reference to large scale.

1. Is it a stand alone sound system that works with multiple brands of controls?
2. Is it a stand alone complete System that includes sound, power and throttlle?
3. How does Airwire, NCE etc. fit into the QSI picture?
4. What differences (if any) are there between installing QSI (whatever) into an E8 compared to installing a Revolution receiver and brand x sound system?

In general, starting with an Aristo E8, GP40 or whatever that has the Aristo Revolution/DCC Interface (since this topic was comparing QSI with the Revolution) what are the options that are available that involve the various QSI products and what do those QSI products do or not do (what else is or is not needed)?

This is NOT in any way a loaded question. I have no idea what the answers are and I suspect that is true for many other MLSers. With most brands I have a good idea of what is offered but QSI has stepped out of my preconceived understanding of who they are and what they offer.

If the answer is complicated I would suggest that it be made in two parts.

a. QSI for Dummies like me who just want a general concept to understand what discussions regarding QSI are about.
b. More technical explanations of the various QSI offerings.

I would also request that competitors of QSI do not confuse the issue with their interpretations of what QSI is or is not.

Thanks,

Jerry


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I think a lot of people don't understand it. 

QSI is a motor controller with high quality sound built in.

It can work via DC track power, with a conventional "turn the gofast knob" power pack. 



Or via DCC signals sent through the track

Or on batteries, using the "G-Wire" add on receiver card and a compatible throttle 


You can also run on conventional DC track power using the G wire/Airwire rig--set the track to a constant voltage, and control the trains via wireless, as you might with the REVO.


If you run it on plain old variable voltage DC track power, you get limited control of the sounds. If you run it using the "Gwire" card, then you are sending DCC commands over the air, and the train is getting DCC commands, regardless of whether it's running on batteries or on track power.

The thing that sold me on it was cost and simplicity. No need to buy and wire up an additional sound card. You do need the "G-Wire" receiver to run with batteries, but it's still less than the revo and a phoenix




If I wanted to run QSI on batteries, I would either drop into the qsi card into the socket, if my loco had one, or hook the battery power leads to the inputs on the QSI card and the motor leads to the motor ins on the qsi. Then I would buy a "Gwire" card. The G wire card is a wireless receiver operating in the 900 mhz range. It plugs into a socket on the QSI card. Then I would buy a compatible throttle.There are two--the Airwire, and the NCE. The NCE is much better, IMHO. Hook up the speaker and you are done. You could now do all the things you would do with DCC, except over the air, running the trains on batteries. You would have full control over the sounds using the wireless throttle.




I also think the QSI sounds are better, because the card senses the load on the motor, and changes the engine sounds in response. It does not just sense voltage, it senses load. So set the throttle to 50, let the engine go. When it comes to a grade, the chuffing or rev sounds will get louder and sharperr as the engine works. Then when you crest the grade the sounds will change dramatically, getting very quiet and smooth as the loco "drifts."


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

Simply put Jerry, from another Jerry, its the "Best bang and simplicity of installation for yer buck" there now I went and did it again!! especially if you are going to want to install 2+ engines, and save money AFTER the first install. QSI/G-wire all the way for me. The Regal


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

I have heard reference to the fact that QSI senses load on the motor, and adjusts the sound accordingly I must confess that at first I didn't fully understand the effect of this. Recently I discovered that I can do the same thing manually with my Phoenix sound system, and I understand now what it being talked about. It is a very nice feature. Since I "drive" my trains, as opposed to just letting them run around the track (no judgement here at all), manually putting the motor under load works just fine for me. I see why folks like that feature though, I do too!

Ed


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 17 Nov 2009 09:33 AM 
Or on batteries, using the "G-Wire" add on receiver card and a compatible throttle 


OK. Lets dumb it down a bit further...

What is "G-Wire?"

Who makes it (QSI?)?

Lets start with the basics:

1. An Aristo-Craft loco with the DCC/Revolution Interface

2. Either a Revolution or other Interface compatible receiver (and compatible transmitter)

3. A sound system to go with #2

4. A power supply if track power or

5. A battery to be put into the loco or battery car

In other words - everything that is needed (and from which manufacturers the options are available from) aside from the locomotive.



Let me explain my situation.

I already made my personal decision to buy the Revolution so right or wrong I have no desire to replace it with anything else so I don't have a need for in depth understanding of the various alternative systems.

On the other hand we have club members who buy their own locos and systems without influence by me (I prefer that they make up their own minds what they want to buy so if they end up unhappy with their purchase I have no responsibility for their decision to buy it).

It is not uncommon for a club member to ask me to install their system for them. I would prefer not to but if asked it is hard for me to say no.

The one rule that I have is that I am not willing to learn a system I do not own or plan to buy just so I can install it for someone else. 

That means that if a club member has a system and either wants me to install it or to attempt to figure out what he did wrong when he installed it himself, that system must be close enough to systems I own and have installed before I can help him with an installation or a problem.

There are no local hobby shops that do this so their alternative is to box everything up and ship it somewhere.

Even with my own installations whether it is MTS or DCC or Revolution my installations do not go beyond throttle, bell and whistle so features beyond those are not of much interest to me.

That is why an apple to apple comparison of components and installation requirements is what is most important to me. I think that for many people they too are more concerned with the details of installation than with all the capabilities of the systems - and perhaps why the Plug and Play interface is so important to many people.

Thanks,

Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Jerry, unfortunately, there are political forces at work to supress and attack DCC in an effort to promote their product. This has unfortunately reached to the GR magazine people, where the TE was given a glowing review and tons of pages, and our own Kevin Strong (if I remember right) reviewed the QSI as a sound unit only. 

Nothing could be further from the truth, it is an integrated motor and sound decoder that runs in many modes, and had a ton of features. 

While at it, I really do not understand Kevin's (extensive) comments unless he has stock in Aristo. 

I made a short post, and in it said: 
"There was a point that DCC/NCE/QSI has forward and reverse clearly indicated, but TE only has right arrow and left arrow, *so you never know which way a loco will go, especially if you are on *someone else's layout[/b]."

In DCC, after installation, forward is forward. period.

With the TE, there is no definitive standard, so while all of your locos may go forward with "left arrow", someone else may have their layout set up as "right arrow".

So besides no nomenclature for forwards and backwards on your own layout, there is only a 50% chance it will be the same on another layout.

I cannot understand how anyone can contest the fact that this is an advantage DCC has over the TE.... it's clear. Maybe YOU do not care, but it is an advantage.


If the contesting of things so simple and fundamental keep ocurring, I will suspect there are other, non-objective forces at work... 

It's too bad, MLS may be the last bastion where facts and truth can prevail.

Regards, Greg


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

The "Gwire" card is a small (maybe 1/2 by 1 inch) card that has a receiver on it for wireless signals. QSI makes it. It costs around $100 bucks, maybe a little less. It comes with a ribbon cable. You plug one end of the ribbon cable into a socket on the G wire card, the other end into a socket on the QSI card, and you are now capable of receiving wireless signals. But they have to be DCC signals, and as of yet there are officially only two throttles/transmitters that work with the G wire card--the Airwire, and the NCE. 

The QSI card comes with sound on it, or you can reprogram it to other sounds if you have the software--as with phoenix. Basically you'd be skipping step three in your example above. but if you wanted to run the QSI card wirelessly, you would be adding the Gwire. If you had a DCC setup, you would only have to drop the decoder in and hook up the speaker 

Example 

1. Aristo mikado with socket 
2. QSI card goes in socket 
3. G Wire card connected to QSI card 

Everything else is the same as it would be with battery or with track power. The QSI board contains the sound and the motor and light controls. The Gwire card is just a wireless receiver


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 17 Nov 2009 12:05 PM 
it is an integrated motor and sound decoder that runs in many modes, and had a ton of features.. 
Regards, Greg 



Greg,

This is where I get confused.

The friend who brought his GP40 to run on my layout has a QSI system installed but yet he runs it with Airwire.

If the QSI is a motor and sound decoder (controller?) then why does he need Airwire to control it?

I suspect my confusion is in the terminology.

To my mind a receiver like the Revolution is like a wireless decoder that receives the controlling signal over the air rather than through the rails.

In effect is the QSI system a wireless decoder that depends on another brand of controller (transmitter) to tell it what to do or does QSI make a transmitter etc. to go with their motor and sound decoder?

To my mind DCC is a wired system and if QSI makes it wireless does that make it somehow compatible with MTS or am I just totally confused?

Jerry


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 17 Nov 2009 12:05 PM 
Jerry, unfortunately, there are political forces at work to supress and attack DCC in an effort to promote their product. This has unfortunately reached to the GR magazine people, where the TE was given a glowing review and tons of pages, and our own Kevin Strong (if I remember right) reviewed the QSI as a sound unit.


I don't remember who wrote that review, but I do remember thinking the review really missed the boat. Reviewing the QSI card as a sound system is like reviewing your car as a sound system. Yes, your car IS a sound system, but it does a bunch of other things. The QSI cards integrate sound and motor control in a way that nothing else in large scale, that I know of, comes close to.


QSI deserves some of the blame. Lewis at Aristo is really good at making even the most mundane thing seem like cold fusion in a jar, with just as much basis in fact, while QSI makes this really remarkable product but lots of people don't understand what it is.


Similarly, lots of people don't know what DCC is or how easy it is. I was exactly like that. It's in large part the fault of the people who make DCC gear. They don't explain it that well. DCC is reliable, easy, and can be as simple or as complex as you like.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 17 Nov 2009 12:14 PM 

1. Aristo mikado with socket 
2. QSI card goes in socket 
3. G Wire card connected to QSI card 

Everything else is the same as it would be with battery or with track power. The QSI board contains the sound and the motor and light controls. The Gwire card is just a wireless receiver 


OK. Now it is starting to make sense to me. 

Would it simply things to say that the Revolution is the on board controller (sound to be added) while with QSI the G Wire Card is the on board controller with QSI being the sound to be added?

Thanks for clearing it up a lot for me.

Jerry


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Jerry McColgan on 17 Nov 2009 12:27 PM 

Greg,

This is where I get confused.The friend who brought his GP40 to run on my layout has a QSI system installed but yet he runs it with Airwire.If the QSI is a motor and sound decoder (controller?) then why does he need Airwire to control it?I suspect my confusion is in the terminology.To my mind a receiver like the Revolution is like a wireless decoder that receives the controlling signal over the air rather than through the rails.In effect is the QSI system a wireless decoder that depends on another brand of controller (transmitter) to tell it what to do or does QSI make a transmitter etc. to go with their motor and sound decoder?To my mind DCC is a wired system and if QSI makes it wireless does that make it somehow compatible with MTS or am I just totally confused?Jerry
















Airwire was the first company to make it possible to send DCC signals over the air. With the Airwire system, you are controlling the trains wirelessly, but you are sending DCC signals over the air, via the Airwire transmitter. The full DCC loco command set is available. DCC is _usually_ a wired system but with either Airwire decoders or QSI decoders you can run DCC wirelessly. I did it using QSI and the Airwire throttle for over a year.


QSI made the "Gwire" card so that you could use Airwire throttles with qsi sound/motor controllers. The G wire card just receives the signal from the transmitter and sends it to the QSI decoder. The QSI card is the motor controller AND the sound. The G wire card is just the receiver for wireless signals. If you use wired, through-the-rails DCC, you don't need the G wire card. In the last year, NCE also came out with the transmitter that talks to the G wire card. So if you want to run QSI and batteries, you can use either the Airwire TX, or the NCE TX, but to use it with batteries you must have a "Gwire" Rx installed to pick up the wireless signal and relay it to the QSI card


When MTH comes out with its newest version of "protosound" (proto3) you will be able to run MTH locos on DCC track, and trigger most of the MTH sound and power functions.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 17 Nov 2009 12:35 PM Similarly, lots of people don't know what DCC is or how easy it is. I was exactly like that. It's in large part the fault of the people who make DCC gear. They don't explain it that well. DCC is reliable, easy, and can be as simple or as complex as you like. 



In my opinion DCC is its own worst enemy.

Every time I asked a question about DCC the unanamous response was to "go buy and read a book about DCC." 

If a system is so complex (or made to appear so complex) that requests for information cannot or will not be responded to with helpful assistance then it invites competition from systems with a graphic display that says arrow left = train go left; arrow up = train go fast.

QSI may have a great system but as with DCC explaining the features and possibilities may well be getting in the way of "how hard or easy is it to install and use?"

When it comes to DCC around here people come to me for help which is a terrible situation because I know and want to know so little about DCC. I do not know of a large scale MTS/DCC layout other than mine or those I have installed within 150 miles of here. 

Someone needs to come up with an online (FREE) "DCC for Dummies" if they hope to sell such systems in areas that do not have an existing Large Scale DCC presence.

Jerry


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

and our own Kevin Strong (if I remember right) reviewed the QSI as a sound unit. 

You do *NOT* remember correctly. Perhaps a quick search of GR's Product Review archive would remind you who _did_ write that review before you go crediting me with someone else's work or chalking it up to a vast anti-DCC conspiracy on anyone's part. I implore you--go back and read what I've written here, in magazines, and on other fora. Show me one shred of evidence of me being anti-DCC. My _ONLY_ criticism of DCC has ever been the learning curve involved in programming it. I've stated repeatedly that I'd be using QSI and Airwire or NCE if I didn't find the user interface and functionality of the Revolution adequate for my needs. If I wanted more, there'd be no contest. 

(BTW, here's a direct link to the QSI review in question: http://www.trains.com/grw/default.aspx?c=a&id=1444 I don't know if that's "subscriber only" content or not. For the benefit of those who can't read it, it very clearly states it's both a sound and motor control decoder, and it's written by Gary Raymond.) 

In DCC, after installation, forward is forward. period. 
With the TE, there is no definitive standard, so while all of your locos may go forward with "left arrow", someone else may have their layout set up as "right arrow". 

If you're using your own transmitter on their railroad, your conventions still hold. Someone else's transmitter will not run your locomotive unless you link to it. At that point, you can program the direction to suit your convention, then re-link it to your own transmitter when you return to your home rails. _That's_ where the DCC-based systems have the advantage over the Aristo system. If I'm running DCC-based systems, I needn't bring my transmitter with me when I go to run on someone else's DCC-equipped railroad. I've stated that advantage on more than one occasion. That's a different issue than simple iconography. (To be fair, I don't think anyone's making the case that such portability is a feature of the Revolution. Clearly it's not despite Aristo's efforts to make it as seamless as possible.) 

it's clear. Maybe YOU do not care, but it is an advantage. 
The overall portability of transmitters is an advantage. The specific means of displaying direction is not --in my opinion--empirically advantageous one way or another. It's a matter of personal preference, which is neither right nor wrong. You like words, I like pictures. 

If you keep contesting things this obvious, I will suspect there are other, non-objective forces at work... 
No amount of pointing you to my previous posts which clearly contradict your misconceptions is going to convince you otherwise, so I'm not even going to bother trying anymore. Believe what you will. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 17 Nov 2009 12:44 PM 
Airwire was the first company to make it possible to send DCC signals over the air. With the Airwire system, you are controlling the trains wirelessly, but you are sending DCC signals over the air, via the Airwire transmitter. The full DCC loco command set is available. DCC is _usually_ a wired system but with either Airwire decoders or QSI decoders you can run DCC wirelessly. I did it using QSI and the Airwire throttle for over a year. 





This is interesting because I may have been using QSI and not even realized it. When at Marty's for the past two years I spent a lot of time running Bubba's USAT Hudson with Airwire. I have no idea what sound system was in it (it sounded great) or whether it has QSI or not.

All that mattered to me was that I loved running the Hudson and all I needed to know was that the knob controlled direction and speed while buttons #1 or #2 controlled the bell and whistle.

I had just assumed that Airwire was a proprietary control system like other on board controllers and that QSI was like other sound systems.

As long as it was working I never concerned myself with what it was that was working.

At least I am finally starting to understand what the discussions regarding QSI are all about.

Jerry


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Jerry, it took me FOREVER to figure this stuff out. I started using QSI/Airwire because it had sound, and because aristo was bailing on the 75 mhz system, and because it was cheaper--then i realized "hey, this is DCC! What the **** is DCC?" 

If you were running that hudson with an airwire throttle, then it was running on DCC. But like you said, it's totally transparent at that level--fast, slow, toot-toot, ring ring. That's mostly all I do. but then i started figuring out all the other fun and basically unecessary stuff you can do. Now I know enough to get myself in trouble


I got a ot of help from Greg


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

Jerry it was probably Phoenix sound with airwire. Sell the revoulutionary stuff and come over to the easy peasey other side of fun and just runnin trains no fuss no muss no soldering no wiring nightmares, just pnp and run yer trains!! Easy Peasey!! The Regal 

QSI/G-wire nuff said Hah LOL


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Sorry Kevin, as I put ?? about the review. I really did not remember, and I am at work with no reference material. 

The GR review is disturbing though when someone reviews a DCC product and indicates they know nothing about DCC. Of course I could be mis-remembering, but the last issue of GR did have a small apology for reviewing the QSI as a sound unit only. Kind of like the review of the 1984 Corvette in Consumer Reports where they complained about the trunk space... 

So, to the point, for you, you do not care to know which is forwards except by remembering left or right arrow. You do not care when visitors come over that this will also be a source of confusion, or at least ease of use. 
*
* I maintain that in the case of this little item, this one little distinct concept, that there is a clear advantage of knowing for sure which way is forwards, whether I have gone brain dead and cannot remember which TE arrow, or it's a 7 year old and FWD makes more sense than


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

The siimple truth is that I am a bargain hunter at heart.

When Davis Trains went out of business I bought their remaining Massoth and LGB decoders plus their remaining Soundtraxx Sierra sound systems.

I had intended to install the sound systems with the decoders into some existing USAT and Aristo diesels but the advent of the Revolution with its relatively inexpensive bidirectional and wireless communications with the loco and my existing Soundtraxx Sierra sound systems and the E8s in UP and ATSF and GP40 in Cotton Belt made my mind up to go with the Revolution.

Earlier I had started installing super cheap MRC decoders into FA/B-1's but the power draw of a F1-ABBA with lighted Streamliners plus the unreliable MU characteristics of the decoders forced me to give up on that idea.

For me QSI was a non-starter because I already had the sound systems and my LGB Central Stations are limited to 5 amps so my mind was made up for me.

None of this detracts from QSI or DCC. I've just decided to stick with MTS for my DCC applications (with an occasional MRC 8 amp booster). I also stick with LGB and Massoth decoders for MTS capability with little DCC knowledge required so all olf my layouts are track powered but sub-parts of my layouts are MTS or DCC or DCS or Revolution or Battery or when visitors come over, are QSI. Even live steam gets run once a year or so. I don't mind variety - I just try to keep the variety easy to understand and easy to use and most important easy to install and operate.

Chuff, Chuff, Woo, Woo and Ding, Ding pretty much sums it up for me.

Jerry


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Jerry. 
The QSI and Revolution are two competing on board locomotive control products. 
They compete mainly for access to the PnP socket in AC locos. 
Only one at a time will fit. 
So, in general, it is one or the other. 

If you want battery R/C and sound with the REVOLUTION, you will need to add Phoenix, Dallee etc. 
If you want battery R/C with QSI you will need to add a G wire receiver plus either an AirWire or NCE transmitter. Then you have a suite of DCC compatible sound and control. 

The QSI can also be powered by regular DC. In other words the QSI could be inserted in the PnP socket and powered by another ESC, such as the REVOLUTION. However, the REVOLUTION should not be used to power the QSI as the pwm output of the REVOLUTION will *CONFUSE* the QSI.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Jerry if you were runing at Martys then every thing was set up for battery power so chances are the sound you heard in the Hudson where not QSI. 

I for one like the visible read out for direction. Sure makes it easier for one to see the dir mode versus the arrows. To me it requires one to remember which key to press for forward or revers kind of like My AC LS very confusing and no convenient. Later RJD


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 17 Nov 2009 05:03 PM 
Jerry. 
The QSI and Revolution are two competing on board locomotive control products. 
They compete mainly for access to the PnP socket in AC locos. 

If you want battery R/C and sound with the REVOLUTION, you will need to add Phoenix, Dallee etc. 
If you want battery R/C with QSI you will need to add a G wire receiver plus either an AirWire or NCE transmitter. Then you have a suite of DCC compatible sound and control. 

Tony, 
That makes sense.

Thanks,

Jerry


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By aceinspp on 17 Nov 2009 05:33 PM 
I for one like the visible read out for direction. Sure makes it easier for one to see the dir mode versus the arrows. To me it requires one to remember which key to press for forward or revers kind of like My AC LS very confusing and no convenient. Later RJD



The lack of a visible read out for direction and throttle value (without pushing exta buttons) was one thing I noticed with the Airwire unit that was used on Saturday.

I too much prefer a visible read out and for me the Revolution readout was easier to understand than the Airwire. The fellow with the Airwire has since bought a Revolution and I think the display was a primary reason. Then too he also likes to try different things.

One thing that was really nice with the Airwire was that if he set it down it soon stopped the train and shut itself off. I like that a lot better than throttles that turn off to save batteries and leave the loco running (out of control). I don't know how Airwire does it but it is a nice feature that it turns itself back on when picked up.

That kind of sums everything up. Every system has some very nice features (if not there is usaully a lower cost) so choosing one system over another means giving up some desirable features.

Jerry


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Jerry McColgan on 17 Nov 2009 05:54 PM 

One thing that was really nice with the Airwire was that if he set it down it soon stopped the train and shut itself off. I like that a lot better than throttles that turn off to save batteries and leave the loco running (out of control). I don't know how Airwire does it but it is a nice feature that it turns itself back on when picked up.





Turning of the Tx doesn't make a system "Out of Control". It just means it can't accept any new commands until it is turned on again, whether that is my flipping a switch or automatically (if that is how AirWire works. I don't know). I will agree, there may be some delay in regaining control "in time". My trains run for hours at a time "out of control".


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

You say it is not an advantage because YOU remember and YOU don't take your transmitter to another's layout (by the way Paul Norton says they always keep the loco with the transmitter, and so does TOC)... 
I've always taken my transmitter with me. That's been SOP for the R/C crowd from day 1. No transmitter, no run trains. I don't know that I've ever stated otherwise. Why wouldn't I take the transmitter with me? That way I'm not imposing on others, I've got the transmitter I'm used to using, and I don't need to reprogram anything. If I want to MU with someone else, I have the option of running my loco independently or linking with their transmitter (or linking their loco with mine). 

So, to the point, for you, you do not care to know which is forwards except by remembering left or right arrow. You do not care when visitors come over that this will also be a source of confusion, or at least ease of use. 
I certainly understand your examples. Yes, the words "forward" and "reverse" are a bit less ambiguous than arrows for those who read. I still maintain that arrows are equally understandable. Left and right arrows for direction are fairly universal. Cell phones, DVD players, many menu-driven devices use the right key for stepping further into a menu (going forward) and the left arrow for stepping back out (going backwards). Like "fwd" and "rev," it's equally intuitive. 

I'm not using opinion, and feel free to break down my 3 example, but please use facts, or agree that the clear indication of forwards and backwards is an advantage. 
Fact - I've handed my throttles (Revolution and earlier systems) to kids and adults and showed them which buttons do what. Instances of confusion have been very rare indeed. That's after 25 years of running R/C, and often with systems that have _no_ indication as to direction of travel. 
Fact - It's my experience that pictograms are far more effective in conveying meaning than words. It's the whole "a picture is worth a thousand words" thing. 

I'll respect your opinion, acknowledge your examples as viable examples, but I will continue to shape my opinions based on my experiences and personal observations. If you cannot accept that, that's not my issue. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

As a totally non-knowledgable bystander in this. i.e.: I have not used or even seen any of these systems, though I have used two R/C transmitters to control two independent locomotives and found it near impossible for ME to keep straight which transmitter was controlling which loco, please allow me to express some thoughts:

Icons are quite useful, but only if the image and your mindset are compatible. "Right" and "Left" pointing arrows work only if the user's mindset is that they mean "Forward" and "Reverse", respectively. There is a problem if the mindset perceives them as "go right" and "go left"... e.g.: If the locomotive is on the track in front of you and is facing to the Right, then pressing the "Right" arrow will move the train "Forward", but if the train then proceeds through a loop at the "right" end of the layout and comes back facing the other way and is brought to a stop, then pressing the "Left" arrow will not make it continue in the same direction it is facing. i.e.: to make it go to the "Left" you have to press the "Right" arrow which for some people will be counter-intuitive. I think words would be more intuitive in this case.

But I see a more difficult problem. What if you have a Diesel ABBA lashup? One "A" unit is facing forward and the other is facing backward and if the two "B" units are not easily determined which is the A end and which is the B end they might be facing either direction when placed on the track. Maybe in this situation the individual locos are supposed to be interconnected and the wiring sorts it all out, I don't know; but if not, then the user may have quite a programming/linking task to get them all agreeable as to which way is "Forward", regardless of whether the control has icons or words.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

If the locomotive is on the track in front of you and is facing to the Right, then pressing the "Right" arrow will move the train "Forward", but if the train then proceeds through a loop at the "right" end of the layout and comes back facing the other way and is brought to a stop, then pressing the "Left" arrow will not make it continue in the same direction it is facing. i.e.: to make it go to the "Left" you have to press the "Right" arrow which for some people will be counter-intuitive. I think words would be more intuitive in this case. 
That's the situation I have on my railroad, which is a double reverse loop. You get used to it. Do I get it "right" 100% of the time? No. I just hit the opposite arrow and the train moves the other direction. Most of the time when I'm switching, I'm operating by feel, not even looking at the display. I think that's probably a carryover from my RCS controllers which don't have a display at all. I just got used to remembering which buttons I pushed. 

I'll grant you that "forward" and "reverse" is clear cut, and in a case like my railroad may alleviate a moment's pause to remember right is forward regardless of the direction the loco is pointing. I just don't think it's anywhere near sufficient an advantage over arrows to where I'd consider a product "superior" in that regard. Greg feels very strongly that it would be, and I respect his position. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

I have to admit to having been "directionally confused" by every single remote I have ever used whether it was MTS, DCS, DCC, Airwire, Train Engineer, Revolution, Bridgewerks and even a hardwired (tethered) LGB or Bridgewerks analog track powered remote. Actually the MTH DCS remote seemed the easiest for me to use but it too takes some getting used to.

Perhaps that and auto shutoff of remotes are the two main reasons I keep falling back on old reliable analog track power with a manual hand throttle where turning the throttle clockwise makes everything run clockwise and turning the throttle counter clockwise makes everything run counter clockwise. There is no auto shutoff and everything runs until I move the throttle to the center stop position. If I want to park a train I throw a switch that turn off power to the siding it is on.

Heck, I often screw up with a Bridgewerks throttle with a switch for forward and reverse and a sliding throttle.

The two things (in addition to the Plug and Play Interface) that convinced me to buy the Revolution were:

1. a graphics display that tells me I am running E8 #*** (I don't remember where I put the stupid list that tells me the loco numbers of my MTS locos so I usually run them on analog track power anyway).
2. bidirectional signals that tell me that the transmitter is communicating with the receiver. Without it an accident is almost inevitable for me.

I don't know if QSI has these features but the Airwire control I used Saturday did not appear to have them.

The older I get the less complicated I want things to be.

Jerry


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

If you are running QSI with DCC over the track, then the answer depends on what DCC system you are using. For example, the NCE throttle I use says "FOR" and "REV" for direction. I like that a lot more than I liked the arrows, but it's not a huge deal. It does not display the type of loco, only the address number. But Zimo is making a handheld which not only tells you the type of the loco, it displays a picture of the loco you are running!

The Airwire throttle is graphically really basic. If you go with the new NCE "gwire" throttle, you get more info


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes, and the purpose of this thread was the NCE/QSI combination as compared to the Aristo Revo TE... 

Not whining about derails, but there was really a purpose to this thread, to make an accurate and fair comparison to help people who want to purchase a system. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Jerryj (Jul 29, 2008)

I just got my new AC GP40 from RDL Hobbies with QSI sound & power decoder with QSI G-wire. IT took longer to take the screws out of the shell and put them back in then to put the two CB in. No add on boards all done and prog.in 20 min. with the new NEC cab not bad. 
jerry


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes--exactly. It's easy and it's cheap to add high quality sound. With aristo locos, you buy the QSI, open the loco, drop it in, connect the speaker and you're done. No capacitor boards, no accessory trigger boards, no extra wires, no battery for the soundboard, no chuff sensors, no programming jack. I think if people really understood how easy it is there'd be a lot of "aha" moments.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Okay, so to end the suffering of the words and arrows of outrageous fortune, a query... 

This is based on a few posts on various fora recently about QSI in Bachmann locos, and my experiences trying (unsuccessfully) to get the Revolution to play well with the B'mann plug-and-play board: 

I've currently got a K-27 with the QSI board sitting in the tender, and I just got done with an install of the Revolution in another K-27. A few issues came up along the way. 

First, the Revolution board didn't play well with the B'mann plug-and-play socket when it came to controlling the headlights. I don't know if it was just my board, or the B'mann socket, or an outright incompatiblity. It _should_ work, but lacking another Revoluton receiver (and unwilling to disassemble my Mogul installation), I didn't test further. It didn't, necessitating removing the B'mann socket board from the tender and wiring things directly to the Revolution via the small adapter board. Disappointing, especially given the plug-and-play concept. Along the way, I decided to go ahead and power the marker (class) lights and headlight via the accessory controls, which work like the function keys on a DCC controller. The upshot is that I can turn the front headlight on and off at will, the same with the class lights. Pretty slick, which I'm sure the DCC affecianados are saying "well, duh. Of course it is. We've been doing that for decades." 

Of course DCC can do that, which got me looking at controlling the markers independently on the QSI-equipped K-27. After all, the loco is built for DCC compatability, right? Unlike the Revolution board, the QSI controls the headlights. Alas, I'm told the QSI does not support powering the marker/class lights or firebox via DCC when plugged into the socket. That begs the question... how does one go about programming and wiring the QSI board so that it would control the markers and other DCC-controllable lights which a locomotive might have? Are there markers, etc on Aristo locos that can be controlled via the board? 

Next issue, borrowed from Charles' post, concerns setting the direction of the motor and lights. 

With both systems, you can set the direction of the motor relative to direction indicated on the controller. This--obviously--makes it simple to reprogram a locomotive such as an A-unit diesel to run opposite its "normal" direction when turned around and coupled back-to-back with another A-unit. On the Revolution, it's a menu setting for each individual loco, which you can get to fairly quickly. (I'm talking overall simplicity of concept, not counting keystrokes.) Near as I can tell on the QSI board, to do that, you've got to set CV 29(?) to some value or another. Is there a more transparent method of doing that with the NEC controller as there is for setting start voltages and other basic parameters? If there's not, is there a formula for determining which setting to set the CV to, or is it simply a matter of memorization or referring to charts? 

Is the lighting direction controled by the same parameter? (i.e., if you reverse the motor, does it automatically switch the headlight as well?) If not, how does one go about changing that to match? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Since the socket does not support any lights other than the front and rear lights, the QSI made for the Aristo socket does not have any additional light outputs/inputs.

The next version will. 


That will not solve the problem of having to hardwire any additional lights using either the Revo or the QSI.... in this case the socket is the limiting factor. 


If you wanted to power additional lights, you need additional hardware, in the case of DCC, you would add a $14 light decoder like a TCS FL4, there several manufacturers of simple add on light controllers in DCC.

If you want to power additional lights from the Revo, you also need an add-on board, which is not commercially available from Aristo or anyone yet. You COULD use their smoke board, which has a nice big relay though. You need one per light, very expensive solution.

So, remembering this is a comparison, the advantage again goes to QSI in the availability of hardware to support additional lights.


But really both the QSI and the Revo are limited by the socket if you keep to plug and play, and limited in hardware (next gen QSI will have extra lighting outputs built in though, but really not available yet). So comparing this part is a "push" in my opinion between the QSI and the Revo.

Second question: (I will answer the parts inline with >>>> as my response)


With both systems, you can set the direction of the motor relative to direction indicated on the controller.
>>>>>not really, you can make either arrow mean forward in the Revo, in the NCE/QSI/Ariwire you can make forward be forward or you can make it reverse. This fine distinction is important.


Is the lighting direction controled by the same parameter? (i.e., if you reverse the motor, does it automatically switch the headlight as well?) If not, how does one go about changing that to match?"
>>>> I have not tested the Revo to see what it does. The QSI correctly turns on the headlight when you are going forwards. 


This--obviously--makes it simple to reprogram a locomotive such as an A-unit diesel to run opposite its "normal" direction when turned around and coupled back-to-back with another A-unit.
>>>> With the revo, it is NECESSARY, because when you consist locomotives (this is the accepted term) and one loco now needs to run backwards when the consist is going forwards, you need to change it's "base direction" to the opposite direction.
>>>> What makes it a mess for the Revo, is when you remove the loco from the consist, it is not returned to "normal", meaning it now runs backwards when you are using your "forward arrow" whatever your convention is.
>>>>Basically with the Revo, you have to just see if your loco runs the right way, and if it does not, you reverse the direction. This is why I keep making a big deal why DCC knowing which way is forwards is a BIG advantage. 


>>>> On DCC, the system not only remembers which way is forwards when running as a single loco, but it also has an INDEPENDENT setting of how the loco will behave when in a consist, which goes FAR BEYOND anything conceived for the Revolution. One of the items that is stored independently is the direction of that loco in a consist. So in your example, an F unit will have it's nose forwards when running alone, but it can be configured to have it's nose "last" when running in a consist. There are MANY more consist-specific settings in DCC.... there is absolutely no comparison between the Revo and DCC in consisting. Huge advantage for the QSI over the Revo here.


On the Revolution, it's a menu setting for each individual loco, which you can get to fairly quickly. (I'm talking overall simplicity of concept, not counting keystrokes.)
>>> simplicity AND number of keystrokes must be considered... simple but 4 menu levels is NOT simple... 


Near as I can tell on the QSI board, to do that, you've got to set CV 29(?) to some value or another.
>>> no offense, but you need to either read my posts about how few keystrokes it takes to consist, or look at the NCE controller, or something... really.... if you read something, it was not the manual or even the sales literature... 


Is there a more transparent method of doing that with the NEC controller as there is for setting start voltages and other basic parameters? 
>>>> ABSOLUTELY... look at the NCE throttle, right on the front are 4 buttons for consisting, way easier than the multiple menu steps on a Revo, no menus to FIND and then execute, the functions are on the throttle right there with speed, direction, momentum, bell, whistle, etc. 


If there's not, is there a formula for determining which setting to set the CV to, or is it simply a matter of memorization or referring to charts? 
>>>> this last statement indicated you have been listening to "DCC haters" who go around saying they have to read charts or memorize stuff... this is the typical preaching of people who either used a system long ago, or had a bad experience with no help, or whatever... I know a guy who spends all his time putting down DCC and putting up the Revo, and the bottom line of his bad experience was that he had his radio turned off on his throttle. The rest of his buddies were using wired throttles and had no idea (and obviously did not care) about this guy's radio throttle.

You are getting biased information, and not seeking out how things work today. Go visit someone who has DCC and does not have an axe to grind.. Come over my house and you will be consisting locomotives in minutes and you will NEVER touch a CV. You could run for hours on my layout consisting and unconsisting and running and playing and have no idea a CV even exists.

I know this to be true, I have my friends bring over their kids, and the 2 year olds can run and stop and reverse and do the bell and whistle... the 7-9 year olds can consist... last time a 9 year old figured out how to line switches remotely all by himself... he asked what the accessory button did..


Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

If you want to power additional lights from the Revo, you also need an add-on board, which is not commercially available from Aristo or anyone yet. You COULD use their smoke board, which has a nice big relay though. You need one per light, very expensive solution. 
Perhaps you missed the part where I said I was able to hook lights up to the accessory control leads. Those leads on the Revolution handle currents up to 100mA, according to one on-line source. (Another had a more conservative 50mA.) It handles my LED headlights and markers very well--see my thread on TRR #10. No extra boards needed. I just hooked the brown wire to the (whatever color it was) wire, pressed the button, and voila! Lights! Incandescents are another story, and would require the smoke boards (which Aristo recommends for incandescents). LEDs are no problem on those triggers. 

not really, you can make either arrow mean forward in the Revo, in the NCE/QSI/Ariwire you can make forward be forward or you can make it reverse. This fine distinction is important. 
Ugh... Getting past the "words and arrows," you know what I mean. The motor direction can be changed relative to the directional indicator, whatever it may be. Do you need to know which CV to change (and to what) or is it a menu-driven parameter like start voltage? 

...simplicity AND number of keystrokes must be considered... simple but 4 menu levels is NOT simple... 
Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. My criteria for "simple" and yours are clearly different. I don't care about keystrokes, I look for intuitiveness. The Revolution's programming is intuitive. From what I'm understanding, there's apparently a lot about the NCE stuff that is equally intuitive (i.e., transparent to CV values). I'm wondering if motor direction is one of them? 

BTW, it's only two levels to set motor direction on the Revolution. If you want to count keystrokes, there's 6 total: 

1) Menu Key 
2) Stop key (to select "Assign Functions." It's the first option.) 
3) Down arrow (Hold to get to "G") 
4) Left or Right arrow to select preferred direction (left "reverse," right "normal.") 
5) Menu Key (to step back out) 
6) Menu Key (to return to main control screen) 
The last two really should count as only one, since it's basically a double-click, but I'm giving you two there. 

ABSOLUTELY... look at the NCE throttle, right on the front are 4 buttons for consisting, 
I get that consisting is easier. What about programming the motor direction in general, not in a consisting environment, but just "I just plugged this thing in and it runs backwards from how I want it to..." What are the specific steps involved in setting that? With the MRC Prodigy controller I'm using, you scroll through the programming until you get to the CV programming page, enter the CV number you want to change, then enter the value you want to set it to. That's fairly painless except for knowing what the CV value is that you need to set to change the direction. 

The QSI correctly turns on the headlight when you are going forwards. 
So it does follow the locomotive programming. Good to know. The Revolution does as well (I wasn't sure, so I just checked.) 

On DCC, the system not only remembers which way is forwards when running as a single loco, but it also has an INDEPENDENT setting of how the loco will behave when in a consist. 
Thanks. I agree, that's an easier way to do business. 

this last statement indicated you have been listening to "DCC haters" who go around saying they have to read charts or memorize stuff... 
No, it means I've been pouring over on-line manuals for QSI and other DCC decoders, and I'm more confused than ever--hence my questions here to those who I had hoped could give me clear answers without a combative attitude. If there's a system out there that lets me program a DCC decoder from soup to nuts in plain English (or even French, though I'm horribly rusty), I'm all for it. If there's a simple method of figuring out CVs, I'm there. I want to understand this stuff, because it seems to me to be incredibly powerful once mastered--and (as I've stated repeatedly, including in my GR review) decidedly above the capabilities of the Revolution. I don't know that I'd ever need that level of control, but I'd still like to learn as much as I can. 

You are getting biased information, and not seeking out how things work today. 
Wait a minute... Asking honest questions on a forum where I know DCC folks like you and others hang out and can give informed input is _not_ seeking out how things work? Playing with DCC decoders in my workshop even though I don't even use the technology myself isn't seeking out how things work? What, pray tell, must I do to quell my curious mind to your satisfaction? I'm not anti-DCC, I just don't know a whole lot about it, and am trying to get my questions answered. I'm doing my homework, and going to the teacher with questions only to be told I've got an agenda, so I just need to go back and re-read. Where does that get either of us? 

Later, 

K


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Lighting control is a weak point with QSI at the moment. You can turn the headlight on and off, but that's it. The qsi software and manual are full of info about control of multiple lights, so I assume it's coming.


But when you change the locos relative direction the lights change with it, automatically. So for example I have 3 aristo locos with PnP sockets. On one of them, the default was reverse, the engine moving bacward. The NCE handheld makes it very easy to change that: it's a couple button presses and screen reads, no cv entering. Now they are all set so "FOR" means the engine is chasing its headlight.


With the Airwire throttle, I had to memorize more cvs and yes, sometimes refer to a chart. With the NCE, I don't. 


It's worth mentioning the "CV manager" software QSI uses. Once I figured out a couple things, i was very impressed. You can change every single aspect using windows, menus, and sliders, and never enter a cv number. So you can turn down the blower relative to the chuff, and turn up the cylinder cocks: you can fine tune the engine performance, calibrae the chuff etc. You can do all that on the main as well, but you need t know the cvs for some of the more obscure stuff


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The NCE handheld makes it very easy to change that: it's a couple button presses and screen reads, no cv entering. Now they are all set so "FOR" means the engine is chasing its headlight. 
That's fantastic. The more that's intuitive and "plain English" for the user, the better. Seems to me, then, that when looking at programming core features common to both systems (ID, direction, start voltage, top voltage, momentum) that both systems seem to be comparably straightforward. (That's using my criteria, in other words--on par in terms of simplicity as entering a new contact on your cell phone or programming your TiVo.) That's exactly what DCC needs to get people through the "learning curve" and I'm glad to see it. 

It's worth mentioning the "CV manager" software QSI uses. 
I've been reading up on that, too. It seems the "ideal" way to program these things. Alas, I lack the software, so I'm stuck doing things the "old fashioned way" with the MRC Prodigy controller CV by CV. 

Getting back to the lights, perhaps either you or Greg can help me with an issue, then. Here's the deal... I've got the K-27 whose direction runs opposite the words on the screen. When "FOR" is displayed, the engine goes backwards. The headlights match the direction of travel, _but_ the locomotive is moving forward (throttle displaying "REV") the rear light is dim. I assumed this to be because under the normal lighting programming, the "headlight" (i.e., the light that's on full when the controller says "FOR") is set to go dim in reverse. I muddled through the CV charts in the QSI manual, and determined that if I were to set CV 29 to 7 instead of the default 6, the locomotive would run the proper direction relative to the words displayed on the screen. (i.e., it would move forward when "FOR" is displayed.) Well, I guessed correctly and it worked--except that the lighting didn't do what I expected it to. I was expecting the headlight to be full when in forward, and dim when in reverse, getting its cue from the words on display. It's full for forward, but it goes out when stopped or in reverse. The tender light is still the light that stays dim full time except when traveling in reverse when it properly turns on full. It's evidently not tied the words "FOR" or "REV" as I had thought, but instead is specific to that particular light regardless of the CV 29 setting. Where do I need to look to change which light is on dim? I'm pretty sure I programmed that on the previous QSI install, but I can't for the life of me find the same chart I used in the on-line manual (which is definitely a more in-depth manual than the one I used previously). 

Later, 

K


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 18 Nov 2009 09:38 PM >>>> this last statement indicated you have been listening to "DCC haters" who go around saying they have to read charts or memorize stuff... this is the typical preaching of people who either used a system long ago, or had a bad experience with no help, or whatever... I know a guy who spends all his time putting down DCC and putting up the Revo, and the bottom line of his bad experience was that he had his radio turned off on his throttle. The rest of his buddies were using wired throttles and had no idea (and obviously did not care) about this guy's radio throttle.

You are getting biased information, and not seeking out how things work today. Go visit someone who has DCC and does not have an axe to grind.. Come over my house and you will be consisting locomotives in minutes and you will NEVER touch a CV. You could run for hours on my layout consisting and unconsisting and running and playing and have no idea a CV even exists. 






Hello Greg,

At first I thought you were talking about me but I don't have any friends who use wired throttles.

I certainly do not hate DCC (if so I would not have installed it in many of my locos - a lot more than will ever have Revolutions). I also own more MTS remotes than I will ever own Revolution remotes but I still would have to find a chart or memorize something before I could run anything on MTS/DCC. Granted I do not have and have never seen a NCE system but as far as I know there is not one available for me to look at within 150 miles.

Since I clearly state that I am using LGB's MTS it is obvious that it has limited DCC capabilities (one of the things that I like about it).

There is no axe to grind. LGB, Massoth, MRC, Digitrax, NCE and a whole bunch of other companies offer current and had offered now discontinued DCC systems with varying degrees of incompatibility.

The fact that NCE and QSI may currently offer something new and even more that has been announced but is not yet available (but is not interchangeable with other DCC systems) is not an axe - it is a fact. So too is it a fact that the Revolution is also incompatible with older 75 mhz systems which then were incompatible with 27 mhz systems whether they run on 900 mhz or 2.4 ghz (or whatever).

For someone to suggest that I do not like DCC would be like suggesting that I do not like computers and it would have some truth in it but to say I hate DCC or computers would only make sense if I had bought my last DCC product or my last computer (not at all likely).

Lets face it. DCC and QSI and NCE and the rest of them including the Revolution are all computers and as with all computers todays computers will be replaced with fancier, faster and better computers in the future that may or may not be compatible.

In my opinion QSI. NCE and the Revolution are like Microsoft Windows 7 or whatever the MAC equivalent is. The graphics of Windows obsoleted the analog display of DOS. MY wife's new laptop came with Windows 7 but most of my hardware and software has long been obsoleted by newer, faster and better stuff but it still works so I continue to use it.

Eventually all the products now available from QSI and NCE and the Revolution will be obsoleted by future products from the same and different manufacturers. It would be as logical to be anti-QSI, anti-NCE or anti-Revolution as it would be to tell someone to never buy a new computer or new software.

Hate is an emotion that requires passion. I am not passionate about this hobby. I play with toy trains for pleasure. Some folks prefer the Revolution while others prefer QSI/NCE. It makes no difference to me since they are spending their money not mine.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, the Aristo and Dave Bodnar say the outputs are *NOT *to be used for lights and over 10 ma is probably dangerous and of course you disregarded the total current dissipation on the package should more than one light be on.

(You do know that Dave is Lewis' prime technical "outside guy") 


Kevin, you need to stop this, and get more educated on the product and electronics if you want to speak as an authority.

Yes you are speaking as an authority here, making STATEMENTS about items as facts. 


Using the reason that "Those leads on the Revolution handle currents up to 100mA, according to one on-line source. " is absurd.

I can give you an online source that the earth is flat. 

I don't think it's worth answering your questions, you not only apparently have an agenda, you are not going to enough effort to research and understand before you state something, and you do not have the expertiese in electronics or DCC to try to jump right into the details. 

I'm not wasting any more of my time...you win, I give up on this one, the truth will never out.


I honestly feel that you don't want facts, you just want to win. As a moderator, I think you have stepped over the line. 



Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Kevin, the Aristo and Dave Bodnar say the outputs are NOT to be used for lights and over 10 ma is probably dangerous and of course you disregarded the total current dissipation on the package should more than one light be on. 
Well, I asked on the Aristo forum, and no one said it couldn't be done. In fact, one of the references to the current handling of those triggers was either posted directly on or referenced from the Aristo forum, and while I forget who the author was, was someone who I would take as an authority on what the Aristo stuff can handle. Combine that with the fact that my LEDs have been shining cheerfully for probably 15 hours of testing and running since I did the installation, I'd say it can be done. Again, I stand by my experiences despite what "they" say can and cannot be done. If the board suddenly goes "POOF!" then I guess I know where to start troubleshooting. But so long as my lights burn brightly, I'll continue to agree with the others who say it CAN be done. 

I don't think it's worth answering your questions, you not only apparently have an agenda, you are not going to enough effort to research and understand before you state something, and you do not have the expertiese in electronics or DCC to try to jump right into the details. 
Well, gee, thanks Professor for giving up on a student who's just trying to learn a new technology that is somewhat foreign. You want me to learn, you want me to check my facts, and when I ask the one person who I consider to be a good authority on things DCC, I get rebuked. If you cannot see that I have no agenda, we'll go nowhere. (Remember what they say about not ascribing to malice that which can adequately be explained by ignorance.) I'll happily take advice from professors who have shown a far kinder acceptance of new students. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Truthman (Dec 13, 2008)

Well, gee, thanks Professor for giving up on a student who's just trying to learn a new technology that is somewhat foreign. You want me to learn, you want me to check my facts, and when I ask the one person who I consider to be a good authority on things DCC, I get rebuked. If you cannot see that I have no agenda, we'll go nowhere. (Remember what they say about not ascribing to malice that which can adequately be explained by ignorance.) I'll happily take advice from professors who have shown a far kinder acceptance of new students. 

Later, 

K 

BUT Professors earn big salaries as part of their agreement with their employing university to actually sit in a classroom or lab and teach. Greg is not a professor nor is he paid to be here and teach any of us, he's just trying to help. Let the show go on!!! 

Nate


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Truthman on 19 Nov 2009 10:59 AM 
Well, gee, thanks Professor for giving up on a student who's just trying to learn a new technology that is somewhat foreign. You want me to learn, you want me to check my facts, and when I ask the one person who I consider to be a good authority on things DCC, I get rebuked. If you cannot see that I have no agenda, we'll go nowhere. (Remember what they say about not ascribing to malice that which can adequately be explained by ignorance.) I'll happily take advice from professors who have shown a far kinder acceptance of new students. 

Later, 

K 

BUT Professors earn big salaries as part of their agreement with their employing university to actually sit in a classroom or lab and teach. Greg is not a professor nor is he paid to be here and teach any of us, he's just trying to help. Let the show go on!!! 

Nate 
(Comment Deleted)

At any rate, this little argument over direction arrows is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin:


I can't answer your questions, but QSI's website suggests they have posted a fix:


Special Bachmann problem




The new Bachmann G Scale steam locos are equipped with a plug that allows the QSI Quantum Aristo sound decoder to plug right in. Unfortunately the Bachmann engines are wired a little differently than the AristoCraft locomotives. 


If you use a QSI sound decoder with a standard G scale sound file in a Bachmann loco, the engine will go forward while the rear headlight will come on. Vice versa in reverse. We have solved this dilemma by making several sound files specifically for the Bachmann locomotives. They are: 
[*]3017-520 - Bachmann Forney 2-4-4 [*]3017-552 - Bachmann K27 2-8-2 [*]4004-749 - Bachmann 2-6-6-2 Logger [/list] 

I'm extremely grateful to Greg for all the help he has given me, for free.


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 19 Nov 2009 11:36 AM 

I'm extremely grateful to Greg for all the help he has given me and Del, I think your snide comments about how much he does or does not work are none of you business and out of line.


You're right. It doesn't belong here. I do apologize to Greg and all.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin:

* http://www.aristocraft.com/vbulleti...ory+inputs*

In the light of the professor jibe, a good student does his homework.

Lewis Polk gave this information.... it took me *20 seconds* to search for it on the Aristo forum. 

It's not worth my time if you are not prepared to go to the effort to understand first, you are not prepared enough nor have taken the time to read enough to not only discuss this level of detail, but present poor research as facts and arguing points.

Now I am really done. 

(and I see you have escalated to name calling, and character references, saying you are not prepared is a fact, not a reflection on your character or name calling) 


Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I can't answer your questions, but QSI's website suggests they have posted a fix: 
Thanks! Just posted yesterday I see. I'll e-mail them about how best to download it to the decoder I have here (if I even can, not having the software or cables). Much appreciated. 

I'm extremely grateful to Greg for all the help he has given me and Del, I think your snide comments about how much he does or does not work are none of you business and out of line. 
That's exactly my conundrum. Greg's given me the same fantastic assistance in the past relative to DCC programming as he has both you and Del and countless others. There's a distinct reason why I recommend anyone with DCC questions e-mail Greg. He knows the technology inside and out. That's why I'm a bit perplexed when I ask an honest question about function and he tells me "go do your homework, I'm not going to answer you." I honestly don't know where that's coming from. I'm sorry you feel my comments are out of line, I'm just frustrated at my reception at the moment. I'm merely trying to understand the technology, and getting turned away from the one person who's most vocal about insisting that I do exactly what I'm trying to do. I sincerely appreciate your responses, as I would Greg's if he'd offer them as he has graciously in the past. 

http://www.aristocraft.com/vbulleti...ory+inputs 
In the light of the professor jibe, a good student does his homework. 
Yes, that is one of the references I looked at when trying to figure out if I could power LEDs straight off the accessory triggers. It states "Just a reminder that the accessory ports on board are 50MA max." Thats the "more conservative" figure I mentioned in my post. I suppose that's where the disconnect between you and I may lie. You look at that as evidence that it can't (or at least shouldn't) be done, I see it as evidence of a possibility that it _can_. My LEDs draw 9mA each. Based on that information, I figured the accessory triggers could handle the load of two or three LEDs, even if the conservative estimate was optimistic. Aristo still uses incandescents in some of their locomotives, which would definitely exceed the current rating if one were to hook them up directly. That is what I figured to be the genesis of their call to use the smoke board for the lights. I'd never hook an incandescent up to those triggers. But LEDs? They're very low current consumption, so why not give it a shot? One way to learn is through experimentation. In that I haven't fried the Revolution board yet while running 27mA worth of LEDs (plus I'm assuming a bit more for the extra electronics in the K, I just measured the draw of the LED), I'm left to figure it's been a safe gamble. As I said earlier--if it goes poof, I'll know I was wrong, and I'll tell people not to do it. But for now, I maintain it can work so long as you stay within bounds. 

BTW, the "Professor" comment was a failed attempt at humor relative to your repeated calls for me to educate myself, trying to reference the fact that I was looking specifically to you for advice as you have given me in the past. For Mike's benefit, the reference to "other professors" was not specifically directed to him. It's just pure coincidence that he happens to _be_ a professor, and has answered some of my questions. 

It is regretful that you no longer wish to answer my queries, but as I stated, I'll seek my tutelage elsewhere. From what I've come to understand, the NCE/QSI combination sounds every bit like the great product you make it out to be. Certainly Mike, Jerry, and others believe that. It bothers me that I'm unable to communicate my acceptance of that concept to you, but what can I do? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

A good friend recently sent me an email, it was the 3 question test from Socrates. (I consider him a good friend and I hope he considers me for that position too)

The test of three: (I've edited a tiny bit)

The first test is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?"
The second test is Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me .... [is] something good?"
(Apparently you could "get ways and not pass the second test, because the 3rd test is
The filter of usefulness: "Is it useful?"

Believe it or not, I often struggle with the second one, because apparently the "war" on DCC is on at Aristo, no denying it, and funny thing, many Aristo supporters are over here battering at me, besides Kevin.

But I come back to #1 and #3 all the time. Is it true, and useful?

Yes, it's true and useful to debunk the myth that DCC takes "miles of wiring"... a statement from Aristo on their forum, in their advertising, etc.

So, when someone comes on and says, well someone said 100 ma, and my lights have not blown up, that statement is not "true", and definitely not useful.

Just because something has not blown up yet, it's not the right answer. If/when it does, it will damage your receiver, not your LEDs. Aristo says do not connect lights directly to the board. (I'm not going to find that for you, look for posts by Dave Bodnar, about the circuit he developed using darlington transistors)

If Kevin had _*asked *_instead of _*stating *_that it was ok, and _*not *_used the fact that it has not blown up yet as "proof", then the statements of "really trying to learn" would be believable.

But this is not the first "contradiction" where the student is informing the teacher. I'm not the teacher here, I take my information from many places, and the best place for the electronic side of the Revo TE, and a very honest person is Dave Bodnar. He gives lectures on the product, he's an engineer, knows the product. Aristo loves him, but he does not lie. I may not agree with everything he says, but I have complete respect for him.

If you want to get to the nuts and bolts, then you must be willing to do the homework. Not doing the homework and trying to jump in and make statements as fact is what I strongly object to, moderator or not.


Even the apologies are half-hearted... when an apology contains the word "BUT", it's really not hearfelt.

Kevins final statement tells it all:

"As I said earlier--if it goes poof, I'll know *I *was wrong, and I'll tell people not to do it. But for now, *I* maintain it can work so long as you stay within bounds. "

The official bounds are: "do not connect lights to the Revo, only trigger inputs to sound cards."


In my opinion Kevin's statement is NOT a student talking, who is still learning. This is a person acting as an authority. There are *NO *questions asked in that statement, just a statement made as fact. (I'm only wrong if it goes poof).


After previous incidents, I do not have the faith that all these questions are based on an altruistic desire to know the truthful answers, since the only questions that seem to come up are FOR Aristo and AGAINST DCC. Read the questions from Kevin yourself here and on other Aristo vs. DCC threads, NONE of them are saying there is any advantage to the QSI combination in the thread, they are all questioning the capability of DCC and saying that there is no advantage.

This is just like being on the Aristo forum, where everything Aristo does is right, and everything the competitor does is wrong. 

So I'm back to where we were many posts ago, the thinly veiled questions are all serving Aristo in the Aristo vs DCC war. When this changes, if anyone cares about the truth, I'd be happy to help.

Regards, Greg


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 19 Nov 2009 02:08 PM 

I'm extremely grateful to Greg for all the help he has given me and Del, I think your snide comments about how much he does or does not work are none of you business and out of line. 
Later, 

K 
Kevin--my "out of line comment" was aimed at Del. He very graciously apologized. i was not aiming that comment at you. It's a grammar thing--it should say "given me; and Del, ..."



But yikes! People I like and respect are fighting!! It's like Mom and Dad having an argument. I'm covering my ears! 


So..anybody think LGB is coming back?


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

NOW KIDDIES CALM DOWN K????? IT'S ONLY TRAINS YIKES!! REGAL 

GREG JUST HOW MANY DEPENDENTS DO YOU HAVE????? HAH LOL REGAL P.S. STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO CALL! YOU ALREADY LOST $100 GOIN FOR MORE??????


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Mike, thanks for clarifying. Much appreciated. Please accept my apoligies. 

Greg, it's too bad you're reading too much into my genuine interest in the technology. I'm not going to convince you otherwise, and that's a shame. I've stated repeatedly that I like the QSI stuff and the flexibility of DCC. I'm at a loss to see how that's bashing the technology. But perhaps it's just perspective. 

As for "bounds," that, too, is a matter of interpretation. I see a 50mA limit as just that--an overall current limit that is not dependent on what is actually drawing that current--despite what "they" say can and cannot be done. If a triigger is designed to handle a 50mA load, why would something that draws less than 1/5th of that be bad? The circuit doesn't care _what's_ drawing the current, just how much is being drawn. I will continue to experiment and publish my successes (and failures), stating them as just that--examples of what can be done. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)




----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 19 Nov 2009 04:30 PM 
Mike, thanks for clarifying. Much appreciated. Please accept my apoligies. 

Greg, it's too bad you're reading too much into my genuine interest in the technology. I'm not going to convince you otherwise, and that's a shame. I've stated repeatedly that I like the QSI stuff and the flexibility of DCC. I'm at a loss to see how that's bashing the technology. But perhaps it's just perspective. 

As for "bounds," that, too, is a matter of interpretation. I see a 50mA limit as just that--an overall current limit that is not dependent on what is actually drawing that current--despite what "they" say can and cannot be done. If a triigger is designed to handle a 50mA load, why would something that draws less than 1/5th of that be bad? The circuit doesn't care _what's_ drawing the current, just how much is being drawn. I will continue to experiment and publish my successes (and failures), stating them as just that--examples of what can be done. 

Later, 

K 
Sigh... wrong on the assumption of 50 ma, and wrong on it that it doesn't care about what is drawing the current... big difference between lamp, led, resistive load, inductor, etc.

I really cannot school you on electronics, surge currents, open collector current ratings on microprocessors. You cannot become an overnight expert, or reduce complex concepts to yes or no all the time.


You know why people are experienced? They had to amass the experience. I really don't have time for a tutorial to make you an engineer.

Since you continue to cling to an (as far as I can tell, incorrect) assumption of 50 ma, and that drawing current is as simplistic as you pose, you again are out of student mode and back telling us how it is. This is really like the time Lewis told us that using an abrasive on SS track removed the protective coating, there was a small amount of understanding (there is a protective layer on SS), but completely wrong conclusion (it's a few molecules thick and self healing).. that was hilarious... (still on the forum)..


That time a salesman trivialized chemistry and physics, instead of asking.

BUT (in the spirit that there may be a faint spark somewhere) 


To answer your continued questions: until you RESEARCH the current limit ratings on the open collector outputs of the particular microprocessor used, and until you get some facts *that are better *than what Dave Bodnar says, I really am wasting my time when you keep using that specification.

And to answer the other question, no, you are wrong, the circuit really does care what is out there, you have to worry about inrush currents and breakdown voltages, but the short answer is that a properly current limited LED should be a safe load, much safer than an incandescent bulb, and the steady state current of the LED would be good enough to calculate the individual and the aggregate current handling capability, as compared to the SPECIFICATION of the microprocessor chip.

It is NOT trivial, the specifications on this chip have been researched by NO ONE, Aristo says don't connect anything more than the trigger inputs of a sound card or their smoke unit. So if I was giving advice, I would not tell a friend to try this and if it burns up your TE, then I was wrong.

Also, who knows if you are right near the limit or not? Yours may work, but another person's may not.

I prefer making recommendations based on facts, not short term experiments.

But then, I AM an engineer and physicist. This is how I was trained and the methods I used to actually build microprocessor based hardware. Have you built or designed an amp, microprocessor, or even a darlington pair? Not putting you down, but my recommendations are based on experience and knowledge and facts, not "let's ask a bunch of people (who don't know) and take a "middle guess" and then pronounce it is good unless it burns up."


You are free to have your own methodologies... but if you ask my opinion, and then reject it because it does not match your determination, don't ask. I've now told you several times what is wrong with your assumptions.


You have basically rejected them each time, but you have rejected my facts with your incomplete testing to see if something smokes. 


My conclusion is that your repeated statements that you really want to learn is not what it really is, you really want to push your 50 milliamps and other electrical theories down my throat.


It is not happening unless you produce *facts*, not speculation.


Regards, Greg


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 19 Nov 2009 03:10 PM 
So..anybody think LGB is coming back? 



Funny you should ask that.

I just finished looking through the LGB 2009 new items brochure and I was pleasantly surprised to find:

1. Christmas Forney
2. ATSF 2-4-0 Passenger Train
3. PRR 2-4-0 Freight Train
4. Rio Grande Forney
5. C&S Mogul
6. Durango & Silverton Mogul and matching Baggage, Combine and Coach
7. Uintah Mallet

My first thought was that this should indicate future parts availability for current 2-4-0's, Forneys, Moguls and Uintah Mallets.

My first observation was that the 2-4-0's have a Direct Decoder Interface but the Forneys, Moguls and Mallet all have a DCC Interface.

None of these locos have sound systems.

That brought up a previous curiousity I had about potential compatibility of the LGB DCC Interfaces with things like QSI, Revolution, NCE and other wireless systems that may bypass central stations and communicate directly with the onboard receiver/decoders/sound systems.

I don't see any way that the Revolution or anything that fits the Aristo PnP interface will fit the LGB DCC Interface (space wise) but I wonder if anyone has attempted to make a DCC extension cable to connect the LGB DCC interface to a decoder/receiver where it might fit elsewhere in the loco or tender.

I have a couple LGB Moguls with a DCC Interface but I am not willing to be the first one to try it and perhaps burn something out. I'd rather someone else try it first.

Since this topic is about QSI and NCE (DCC) I think the LGB DCC Interface may fit into the topic concept. I guess part of the question is just how compatible are the LGB, Aristo and Bachmann DCC Interfaces?



Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Complete derail... thread was for honest, factual comparision of Revo TE to NCE/QSI system... 

Kevin I give up, you win... 

Over and out for the duration..... being hammered by a moderator is just too much along with the statistical probability that every point of contention comes up pro Aristo and then character references are added in because the "student" doesn't like the "teacher's" answers.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

This has been an interesting post...running from what I saw as a decent attempt to compare two products...and a flat out bitch session between a MODERATOR here and a pretty expert commentator. I accumulated 9 rules for managing my life from folks far smarter than me...and this whole latter episode (post comparison) seems to fall into one rule. The 19th century humorist Josh Billings wrote "It ain't the things that you don't know that gets you in deep trouble, it's the things that you knows for sure what ain't so." 

This whole debate about whether you can SAFELY hook lights or LEDs to a microprocessor output pin reflects that. Greg's right...it DOES matter what you hook to those pins. Triggers are normally SHORT in duration. Running a light or LED is NOT. So...even if an output can handle a 50ma "trigger"...it sure doesn't mean that it can handle a 50ma steady load.

This is a good time to end this thread IMHO. There's lots of good information in it...and there's no need for more controversy. I hope Greg posts a summary comparison table, reflecting all the information that has been contributed. THIS WAS A VALUABLE THREAD.


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

DER YA GO!! NUFF SAID MIKE HUH?????? REGAL


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

K Fed i think your way wrong on this one, Gregs got you out gunned and GR magazine even printed a retraction to there reveiw............... give back the FREE REVOLUTION and get with the real R/C................mth/dcc the only way of the future..............


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

And D/C


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

Nick you and I will have to agree to disagree on that one!! Hah LOL QSI/G-wire is the only way!! Whoops wait a minute folks I can go both ways MTH and QSI/G-wire OMG did I say that????? Hee Hee Old nicky will take me to task here or on the old "live" show tomorrow nite. LOL The Regal


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I'm going to end my input with this... 

Every now and then, I'll write a review that's absolutely glowing save for one or two small details. Sure enough, the manufacturer latches onto those two featueres and raises heck, overlooking the general positive tone of the review. 

For the record, my overall personal opinion of the two products--no spin, no agenda... 

Overall functionality - NCE/QSI. The capabilities of the Revolution are eclipsed by DCC, there's no comparison. I've always believed this. Many users who just want to move the trains and blow the whistles aren't going to use the higher-end features that give DCC its advantage, and both systems would be comparable at that point, but in terms of "sky's the limit" operations, there's no question. 

Programming - Not having a NCE unit in my hands, but basing it on testimony by others, I'll call this a wash. Both seem to be "plain English," and the fact that you can program comparable features to the Revolution on the NCE without even knowing CVs exist is a welcome advancement over DCC systems I've previously used. 

Consisting - NCE gets the nod here. Not having personally done it myself, the fact that it automatically switches the direction of a locomotive when consisted vs. not is a definite plus. It's still fairly simple with the Revolution, but you do have to remember to switch the direction. 

Display - A subjective concept, but I'll give the nod to the Revolution because of the overall amount of information displayed, including identifying features (roadname, number, etc), numeric and graphical display of speed, and bi-directional feedback on the strength of the signal. I'll accept that the use of words to display direction has unique advantages in terms of consisting in the DCC environment. 

Range - Arguably a wash. Both systems appear to work far out of sight of the railroad. Realistically, I don't think you'll ever be out of range with either of these systems. 

Speed Steps - I'll call this one a wash. Sure, the Revolution's got "1000" speed steps, but geeze, who'd want to push the button 100 times just to get to 10% throttle? There is such a thing as "too much." Set your NCE to 128 steps, or your Revolution to 100 steps and be happy. I'd give the NCE a slight edge for maintaining 128 steps between the start and top voltages, but if your speed range is small with the Revolution, you can change to 200 steps and double the number of steps that you use between them. 

Speed Curves - Obviously 64 adjustment points has advantages over three. What I cannot comment on--because I've not used the NCE nor is my version of the Revolution capable of adjusting the curve--is how easy it is to set those parameters. I'll leave this one undetermined because of that. 

Lighting control - Both have directional control of the headlight. The Revolution does not allow for a "dim" setting. I'll give the nod to the Revolution simply because the QSI does not support class/marker or other lights without additional purchases and the Revolution does. I'll stipulate that you need to use the smoke controls to power lights, but since the board is included in the kit, not an added product, it gives the Revolution the advantage. If you're the adventurous sort, you _can_ power LED lights straight off the accessory triggers, though from the discussion here, most would call it an "off label" application. 

Portability - If you are in an environment where multiple users are running on the same system and you want to consist or hand off control, the NCE system is designed for that, the Revolution is not. Most R/C operators simply bring their transmitters with them as SOP, so for most instances, it's a moot point. 

Overall opinion--both systems are incredibly flexible for the user, offering probably more functionality than 70% of the large scale market will ever use. For the power user, the QSI/NCE has a clear upper hand. For the average user's needs, the Revolution/Phoenix P5 combination will offer identical functionality. As such, the average user can choose between the two systems based on their personal preference of interface and which sound system they prefer. No doubt with the ever-changing technology, this comparison will be obsolete in a year's time. 

Through all the bellyaching back and forth, I agree--this has been a very good thread and ultimately a good comparison of the two systems. I did learn a good deal about the NCE/QSI combination, and some of my opinions have been reshaped as a result of the discussion (particularly consisting and programming). I regret the discussion took the negative spin that it did; miscommunication and pre-supposed ideas coloring our perceptions will do that. It's not the first time, and I'm sure it won't be the last. Please accept my apologies for my role in that downward spiral. 

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Given that QSI seems to be a pretty good sound system at a competitive price, I bet there are a lot of potential REVO customers out there that would like the answer to this: 

Has anybody actually had a REVO driving a QSI? 

As in setting an idle speed that remains when the emergency stop button is pressed, and controlled the QSI Whistle/Horn and Bell in DC mode? 

Did the speed ramp up and down smoothly. 
Could they "Play" the sounds? 

Enquiring minds want to know how to do it.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Mike Reilley on 19 Nov 2009 07:36 PM 
THIS WAS A VALUABLE THREAD. 



I agree. All topics end up with varying degrees of confusing off the topic information. My topic on the Revolution was off talking about multi-meters and table saws.

In my opinion the value of topics is generally determined by whether the reader does or does not come away with the information he/she is looking for.

Also in my opinion the QSI/NCE and Revolution are as different as apples and oranges. I don't think it is possible to rate either one as better than the other any more than track or battery power can be considered the best.

Until Greg had started this topic my understanding of QSI was totally WRONG. This topic has been viewed 6,651 times and 187 replies have been made to it so far. By comparison my topic on the Revolution has been viewed 3,486 times and there have been 89 replies so far. Sometimes controversy adds life to a topic and increases interest in it.

If the objectives of the two topics were to inform folks about the Revolution and QSI/NCE in my opinion both objectives have been accomplished very well.

In my opinion both QSI/NCE and the Revolution are WINNERS. As long as people understand the system they are buying, I would suggest that it is more important that they buy the system that is most suitable for how they enjoy running their trains than it is which system they choose to buy.

Hopefully 10 years from now QSI, NCE and Aristo-Craft will all be doing well and their systems will be compatible with today's offerings and everyone will be happy.

Jerry


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I keep harping on this, and I wish I could find a way to show it--the way the QSI motor/chuff sounds react to voltage under load is really an improvement. I rarely leave my trains running unattended, but still, the way the chuff will roar up a hill and then go nearly silent, and then resume on its own as the motor senses load goes a LONG way towards breaking up the monotony that plagues sound in large scale. Same with diesel sounds--they vary with load, so the engine goes gradually and "naturally" from a throaty roar to an almost slent hum. And by naturally I mean it does it the way an actual train would. You can't talk about QSI as simply a control system, because it's control and sound, and the blending of the two is very diferent from how the REVO works. It's more like the way MTH's DCS system works, I think--I've never really spent any time with DCS. 


I think on the whole the sounds in the Phoenix card are "nicer," maybe, but I have an SW-4 with one of Phoenix's Alco sound files in it, and it's consisted with an RS3 that has a QSI card. I just turned the Phoenix off--it was annoying in comparison, because even though the individual sound files were excellent, the overall experience of listening to it was far less realistic, less "natural," and so more fatiguing to the ears.


Even if QSI was more expensive, and harder to wire, I'd still prefer the way it implements sound. That it's cheaper and easier just ices the cake. In my opinion Aristo made a big mistake not integrating sound in the REVO, but that's just my opinion. And they certainly seem to be selling well.


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

The BIG selling point for me on QSI/G-wire for me is the simplicity of the installation, true plug n play on aristo engines, no wiring no soldering (although now i can solder hah somewhat) and the cost factor AFTER the initial setup because of the having to buy one of the two throttles to start then afterwards it does go down considerably!! I did notice my favorite supplier has raised the price considerably, but I still would choose it over the other systems! Just have to look for the best prices or "bang for my buck on same items). I also have an MTH Triplex which is amazing, and I really like that system too. The QSI works for me on battery, or track power, which sometimes i think is a misconception on here too!! I can also actually power up the tracks or the system with my old TE and then let the T-9000 take over the control!! And the TE system works on both the MTH and the QSI so you get the best of both worlds!! Right Nick???? Hah LOL The Regal


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

deleted


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

For what it's worth, there's a thread over at the Aristo forum in which user of the REVO are complaining about the direction arrows being a little confusing

Scroll down 

_"Before starting out, the arrows are set with the menu for the direction of travel of the locomotive I am running that day. Unfortunately in the center portion of the railway I end up on the wrong side of the tracks and the direction arrows are reversed. No problem! A quick change with the functions menu and away we go.

Some day I am going to make a couple of “R” signs for the railway to indicate the points at which an adjustment should be made for those club members using the Revolution system."_ 


I think this was Greg's point. If the indicator says "forward" then you know the loco is always chasing its headlight, regardless of where you are or where the loco is.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Left and Right to determine direction went out with the Ark. 
Just like DCC, battery R/C always has the loco(s) going either forewords or backwards. 
Ever since RCS first came out in 1992 I have used an arrow on the hand piece pointing away from the operator for forward motion, and arrow pointing towards the operator for reverse motion. 
I still use the same principle today with BELTROL as well as RCS. I guess the elegant simplicity of the method is part of the reason why RCS is well liked for that simplicity.

AC have been making R/C for Large Scale trains for how long?? It isn't rocket science. 
I guess the easy logical way of showing it is a not deep enough for their designers.


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 21 Nov 2009 04:39 AM 
For what it's worth, there's a thread over at the Aristo forum in which user of the REVO are complaining about the direction arrows being a little confusing

Scroll down 

_"Before starting out, the arrows are set with the menu for the direction of travel of the locomotive I am running that day. Unfortunately in the center portion of the railway I end up on the wrong side of the tracks and the direction arrows are reversed. No problem! A quick change with the functions menu and away we go.

Some day I am going to make a couple of “R” signs for the railway to indicate the points at which an adjustment should be made for those club members using the Revolution system."_ 










Folks having these sort of spacial relationship problems should definitely not waste any money on R/C airplanes!


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

You got that right Del


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I have used an arrow on the hand piece pointing away from the operator for forward motion, and arrow pointing towards the operator for reverse motion. 
The only flaw in that is that there's no indication on the hand piece letting you know which direction you're actually going. The arrows merely tell you that's the button you push to change direction. In that light, left/right arrows would convey much the same meaning. You're still left to look at the locomotive for clues as to which direction you're actually set to. (The advantages of directional headlights. Alas, when one models the pre-electric light era, one doesn't even have that advantage.) With the Beltrol system, even though the stick returns to center, you push it up or pull it down--two distinct actions--to control the direction. That's a decided improvement over a single button that just flops between the forward and reverse setting. 

Question with the Beltrol system. Is there any provision for using the digital proportional component of the direction stick to control the "labored chuff" aspect of today's digital sound systems? In that regard, the direction stick would be akin to the position of the Johnson bar. If you move it up far enough, you kick in the control that triggers the long, labored chuffs. Move it closer to the center, you trigger the shorter drifting chuffs. Dad did something similar with one of his old analog sound systems he designed, and the effect was pretty cool for its time. Seems to me that if you can use the position of the stick to emulate the commands that trigger the labored chuffs on the various systems, that'd be fairly simple to do. The trick would be emulating the commands. I don't know if there's any consistency as to how that's done. 

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 21 Nov 2009 10:41 AM 
I have used an arrow on the hand piece pointing away from the operator for forward motion, and arrow pointing towards the operator for reverse motion. 
The only flaw in that is that there's no indication on the hand piece letting you know which direction you're actually going. The arrows merely tell you that's the button you push to change direction. In that light, left/right arrows would convey much the same meaning. You're still left to look at the locomotive for clues as to which direction you're actually set to. (The advantages of directional headlights. Alas, when one models the pre-electric light era, one doesn't even have that advantage.) With the Beltrol system, even though the stick returns to center, you push it up or pull it down--two distinct actions--to control the direction. That's a decided improvement over a single button that just flops between the forward and reverse setting. 

Question with the Beltrol system. Is there any provision for using the digital proportional component of the direction stick to control the "labored chuff" aspect of today's digital sound systems? In that regard, the direction stick would be akin to the position of the Johnson bar. If you move it up far enough, you kick in the control that triggers the long, labored chuffs. Move it closer to the center, you trigger the shorter drifting chuffs. Dad did something similar with one of his old analog sound systems he designed, and the effect was pretty cool for its time. Seems to me that if you can use the position of the stick to emulate the commands that trigger the labored chuffs on the various systems, that'd be fairly simple to do. The trick would be emulating the commands. I don't know if there's any consistency as to how that's done. 

Later, 

K 

Hello Kevin.
There is no flaw in having one button (an up arrow) for forward motion and another button (a down arrow) for rearward motion. You are always assured of selecting the correct direction when you press and hold either of them to accelerate in the chosen direction. You do not have to think about it. Forwards is always forwards.
Oh!! Perhaps you are referring to the fact that RCS gives you the operator, the option of two ways of controlling their trains. TWO button Centre OFF as above. Or: Regular sequential direction change using a dedicated button, for those that do prefer that method. You can reprogram your own RCS equipped locos if you are not using them that way.

I can understand Left and right when there is a need to STEER something. But steering is one dimension NOT required with trains.


BELTROL. As to the possibility of using the digital proportional data signal to control variable chuff cut off or play a quillable whistle.
Yes, Phoenix have said they would consider incorporating such niceties. However, given how long they have taken to bring the (still as yet unreleased) P8 to market, don't hold your breath.
Perhaps QSI will figure out they could open up a whole new market.

Del and I are providing the Large Scalers with the opportunity to use exclusive and superior Digital Proportional speed control. We can't do everything.


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

Somewhere in QSI/G-wire or Airwire manual, there is a section on "if your engine moves in the opposite direction than that of the throttle it address that issue and tells you how to program it so the arrows or direction is the way YOU WANT IT!! That way when yer train is flying off in the atmosphere in the wrong direction you can change it. Hah LOL no seriously there is a section on HOW TO do that.


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

I like that, Regal! The Revolution directions aren't quite that elegant in phrasing, but they do have the ability to switch the direction of the engine with respect to the "arrows" easily too.

Ed


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

TWO button Centre OFF as above. Or: Regular sequential direction change using a dedicated button, for those that do prefer that method. You can reprogram your own RCS equipped locos if you are not using them that way. 

Tony, this is going to sound really stupid, especially since I've been using your stuff since the mid-90s, but is that new? (and by "new" I mean in the past 8 - 10 years since I last bought one of your throttles)? The photo of the throttle currently on your web site has a horn icon over the right-most button, which is where all of mine have the up/down arrow for reversing. (Then, there's one further down with the up/down arrows.) 

Under the "center off" control with the two buttons, the up and down arrows make obvious sense. My comments were relative specifically to the arrows on the right-most reverse button. Sorry for the confusion. 

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Kevin. 
I am not sure exactly which systems you have but if the program # is MT8-v6.2 or later, they certainly can have the centre off control systems. Dave Goodson usually programs them with the RH button providing sequential control. This is way he likes it, but the operator can change it if they wish. 
You may not be aware that I no longer offer the TX-24 that has 8 buttons. Responsibility for that has been taken over by Dave. He and Don Sweet are still offering the full function ELITE systems 
I now only sell the TX-4 and use the EMP-103 operating program which is only centre off. I have changed the label so that it is easier to locate the single sound trigger function. There are two more automatic functions available.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I'd have to open up my tenders to see, but I'm pretty sure my systems pre-date that. Thanks. At least I know I'm not crazy... well, not in that regard at least.  

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

If only others would open their eyes to doing things differently, then more people would be able to see the true path.


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Ahh Tony. If we could only all agree on what the true path is, we would have it made!!

Ed


----------



## Ralph Berg (Jun 2, 2009)

Variety is the spice of life. 
One mans path is another mans dead end. 
Ralph


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

Hey Ralph do you have that philosophy on yer women folk too!! Hah LOL The Regal 

Life is the spice of Life if ya wakes up in the morning to greet another day it be a "good day" !!


----------



## Ralph Berg (Jun 2, 2009)

Posted By blueregal on 22 Nov 2009 10:11 AM 
Hey Ralph do you have that philosophy on yer women folk too!! Hah LOL The Regal 

Life is the spice of Life if ya wakes up in the morning to greet another day it be a "good day" !! 


Yes Jerry.
You just have to use your imagination








Life is good.
Ralph


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Ed, 
The point is we don't have to agree. 
Instead of blindly following the path laid out by the Ring Master at Kool Aide land, it would do the soul a World of good to think laterally for a change.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Hi Greg,

A friend of mine has come up with two questions. He is using the Revolution with several of his locos and has another with Air Wire running QSI.

Without getting into which is better (he has already made up his mind to do what he is doing) can you advise:

1. Can he add QSI sound to a revolution equipped GP40? If so can you advise what needs to be done to complete the installation (does he need additional components for the sound connections etc.)?

2. He has heard that NCE is coming out with a system that is compatible with the Revolution. Do you know what he is referring to and how it works? 

Thanks,

Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

1. Yes, but not nicely. The QSI reads the motor rpm and load, so it "wants" the motor connected to it. So you would need the Revolution motor output connected to the track/rails input on the QSI. 

If you are using plug and play, then you have to cut traces and modify the Aristo main board..., you would "tap into" the motor outputs from the revolution. Actually simple, but not plug and play. If you have a non plug and play, very little additional work. 

2. I have not heard this rumor. I had not talked to the NCE folks in a while. I just got off the phone with them, and there are no plans as such. Also, realistically, there's no way Lewis would allow them to do this without at least a fee, that would put them in direct competition with his Revolution. 


Regards, Greg


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 13 Jan 2010 11:13 AM 
1. Yes, but not nicely. The QSI reads the motor rpm and load, so it "wants" the motor connected to it. So you would need the Revolution motor output connected to the track/rails input on the QSI. 

If you are using plug and play, then you have to cut traces and modify the Aristo main board..., you would "tap into" the motor outputs from the revolution. Actually simple, but not plug and play. If you have a non plug and play, very little additional work. 

2. I have not heard this rumor. I had not talked to the NCE folks in a while. I just got off the phone with them, and there are no plans as such. Also, realistically, there's no way Lewis would allow them to do this without at least a fee, that would put them in direct competition with his Revolution. 


Regards, Greg 



Hi Greg,



I think I figured out what happened. I believe he read the QSI ad in the February 2010 issue of Garden Railways and did not realize he was reading about an alternative to the Revolution. Where it says it plugs into the Aristo motherboard I think he read it to mean it plugged into the Revolution Receiver. 


Thank you for the prompt response.


Jerry


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Jerry. 
In answer to your question about adding QSI to a REVOLUTION. The short answer is yes it can be done, but, be advised it does not work very well. The QSI cannot simply plug into the REVOLUTION. 
The QSI does not like reading a PWM output ESC. With PWM, it is extremely difficult to get the QSI in DC mode to recognise an idle voltage, so that the sound does not die when the loco is stopped. It works correctly on linear filtered DC. 

At present there are no triggerable inputs on the QSI, so the only way the whistle/horn and bell can be triggered by the REVOLUTION is by flipping the direction change. I don't know whether or not REVOLUTION is capable of doing that.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

You bring up points that I missed Tony, thanks. 

Yes you would probably have to filter the pwm output from the revolution.. also, I do believe that the revolution works like the other train engineers, that you cannot do a quick reversal of polarity, but it takes the voltage to zero, thus making the "reversal trick" to run bell and whistle on DC not work in the QSI. 

Since your friend decided he liked the Revolution more, he unfortunately has to live with his decision, to spend MORE money per loco if he wants quality sound... he will have to cough up the $220 or so for a Phoenix... 

... and another one bites the dust... oh well, we hashed this out before... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

If someone has a way of filtering out PWM from an ESC such that the output becomes fully filtered linear DC going to the QSI input terminals, *without causing the ESC output drivers to overheat*, I would dearly like to hear how they did it.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Tony, you did not mention cost... a filter should do it. Have you tried a simple 3 pole filter? 

You should not get overheating, the filter should increase the "effective" resistance of the "motor" to your ESC, which should result in lower current when "resisting" although if you want to optimize motor current you might use a different design... 

Obviously you have tried this, what did you try and what were the results? 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 13 Jan 2010 02:51 PM 
Jerry. 
In answer to your question about adding QSI to a REVOLUTION. The short answer is yes it can be done, but, be advised it does not work very well. The QSI cannot simply plug into the REVOLUTION. 
The QSI does not like reading a PWM output ESC. With PWM, it is extremely difficult to get the QSI in DC mode to recognise an idle voltage, so that the sound does not die when the loco is stopped. It works correctly on linear filtered DC. 

At present there are no triggerable inputs on the QSI, so the only way the whistle/horn and bell can be triggered by the REVOLUTION is by flipping the direction change. I don't know whether or not REVOLUTION is capable of doing that. 

Hi Tony,

In this case I was just asking for a friend so I am satisfied with telling him that it is not a practical solution for him.

On the other hand (for myself) I am thinking about trying the following (upper left of drawing). It worked with putting a decoder and analog sound into FA/FB-1s and I am curious whether it will also work with both LGB 4135s analog sound units and possibly a Sierra Soundtraxx system with the Revolution instead of with MTS/DCC. I am not an engineer and admittedly I know little about DCC etc. but the concept seems similar to PWM in that I belive both put out a pulsed signal to create a simulated variable DC voltage.




















Eventually I will get around to trying it and see what happens.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 13 Jan 2010 11:10 PM 
Since your friend decided he liked the Revolution more, he unfortunately has to live with his decision, to spend MORE money per loco if he wants quality sound... he will have to cough up the $220 or so for a Phoenix... 

... and another one bites the dust... oh well, we hashed this out before... 

Regards, Greg 

Hi Greg,

In this case the guy likes to try just about anything and everything. It is not a case of which is best but rather that he likes to experience them all.

I am similar in many ways in that I prefer not to standardize on anything. We both run track power, MTS/DCC, DCS, and now the Revolution but he also runs AirWire and QSI while the only QSI that I run is with MTH O Gauge. I have put a few AD322 decoders into some of his diesels and he is satisfied with that level of sound quality just as I often run LGB 4135 type analog sound units. 

When the quantity of locos increases the cost of high quality sound systems for all of them can become prohibitive. 
Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The combination he wanted to try really kind of flys in the face of the designs. It's kinda funny, because QSI designed this a long time ago for Aristo, then Aristo decided they needed to be the "master" of the socket, and they wanted the QSI to plug into the Aristo receiver. 

Of course, if you are using BEMF technology to sense motor load and control the sounds, then that component needs to "own" the motors, and thus the socket. 

This product could have been out years ago. 

So it's kind of comical seeing what appears to be a plausible request from a user's point of view, that is stymied by silly history and arrogance. Just my opinion. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg if I knew what a three pole filter was I could tell you if I have tried it or not. 

I tried a number of designs including one from a DCC users group. 
None of them worked very well and resulted in the LMD18200T motor driver I am using overheating. They do not like any capacitance at all on the output circuit.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

capacitance would be across the output leads, so you probably have tried it. How come the output cannot drive a cap? 

Interesting. 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Greg. 

I don't know why technically the H Bridge overheats with capacitance, but I know it does. 
I started using that particular H Bridge as that is what Mike Zemek, the initial designer of the successful and reliable RCS system, specified. We tried a number of methods trying to convert the output to linear DC and each one caused the H Bridge to overheat. 

I also tried a DCC based "filtering" but that was many years ago and was mainly tried to get rid of the Buzzz associated with the low frequency pulse I first used on FET / Relay ESC's I made at the time. Nowadays of course the PWM frequency has been raised to be more or less out of the range of human hearing for most people. 

I do make a Linear out ESC that converts the pwm output of the IC I use to filtered DC. I use a voltage multiplier circuit to raise the the voltage form the 5 volt logic up to a maximum of 20 volts. It is that 10 amp ESC that I successfully used for testing with a QSI sound decoder in a GP-40 a few months ago. 
I don't think the effort required to rewrite the current operating program to provide timed pulses for blowing the Horn/Whistle and triggering the bell is worth it, given that I understand that QSI are rumoured to be modifying the decoder to read trigger outputs. If that upgrade eventuates I may develop the system further.


----------

