# R/C DCC transmitters.



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

In another topic Greg made mention of the following:

"As I stated, the number of DCC "throttles" that work with a command station (traditional track powered DCC) and can also transmit directly to a loco seems to be limited to Massoth and Zimo".[/b]

What I would like to know for sure is, does that mean that Zimo and Massoth TX hand pieces are the only ones that can be used with both direct R/C to on board battery DCC and trackside command stations?

Or, to put it another way, do AirWire and NCE, for example, have dedicated TX hand pieces only for R/C on board battery DCC that cannot be used with their own brand of track side command stations?
In other words, If a user has a track powered R/C controlled command station, do they have to buy another R/C TX, as well as the track controlled one, if they want to battery R/C DCC a loco as well as the G Wire RX?
Would one of you DCC enthusiasts kindly enlighten me please?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I re-read your post several times. 

I find it hard to answer the questions as posed.. 

Massoth and Zimo make "traditional" wireless throttles for "traditional" DCC systems. 

So the throttle communicates to a base station, and the base station sends the commands to the central station (the DCC brains) and the booster puts the signal on the rails. All of the last 3 "boxes" can be in the same box. 

Forget the protocol between the throttle and the base station, this is important. 

Now Massoth and Zimo make a gadget that will receive the signals directly from the SAME wireless throttles as above, and allow you to add a DCC decoder, and put these 2 things in a loco. 

As I understand it, ONLY Massoth and Zimo do this. 

Read the sentence again, the key is the same physical throttle can communicate directly to a loco (with the appropriate receiver and hardware) or to the base station on a "Traditional" DCC system. 

Does that answer the question? 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks for the reply Greg.

I get that Zimo and Massoth can control both a track side (as in traditional) DCC system by R/C and an on board DCC powered by batteries by R/C. 

I am trying to understand this from a non DCC persons perpsective about what can and cannot be done. So, can I put the question about non Zimo and Massoth R/C hand pieces another way. 

Is it possible for AirWire and NCE R/C handsets, for example, to do the same and control both a track side (as in traditional) DCC system by R/C and an on board DCC powered by batteries by R/C? 
If the answer to that is no, am I to understand that if someone had AirWire or NCE on board battery R/C locos operated by their handpieces, the operator would have to buy another TX handpiece if they wanted to control a track side (as in traditional) DCC system by R/C as well?


----------



## nkelsey (Jan 4, 2008)

If you look on the Airwire website, they advertise the RF1300 as a remote DCC throttle...for their easy dcc. Could this be what yo are talking about?


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Noel. 
I understand what CVP offer. My question is will it control both an on board battery powered DCC RX they make AND a regular traditional trackside, track powered DCC system? 

Greg's original statement can be interpreted as Zimo and Massoth are the only brands that can do both from one TX handpiece.

From a laymans point of view protocols don't really matter. 
Whether or not they have to spend extra money to do both is what will concern newcomers to DCC.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

So is there a "trackside" receiver for Airwire? 

Well, the new Aristo "Trackside" unit has about the same capacity as a CVP G2 controller... so it depends on what you mean by "trackside"... 

Greg 

p.s. you need to leave out the DCC, because not all DCC commands are "passed" through the Airwire units, and the signal is not strictly DCC, it's unipolar.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Greg. 
I am not asking about the capabilities of any non DCC system and trying to compare it with a DCC R/C TX. I will leave that subject for those that are qualified to discuss it. 

BTW, CVP products do make "traditional" track side DCC for other scales. 
Is the CVP TX hand piece that is used for AirWire also capable of controlling that "traditional" track side DCC? 
My thinking is that if it does, then someone progressing "up" from a small scale "traditional" track side DCC could use the same TX hand piece without having to buy a new TX. 

Yes? No? 

Same questions about NCE, for example.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

No on the NCE... 

On the CVP EasyDCC system, I don't know Tony, it might be, because they do state the wireless throttle for their "traditional" DCC system (EasyDCC) is 900 MHz and 8 channels. 

so you might have found a 3rd company that does this. The main page on the EasyDCC says "Updated for 2005"... 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

OK Thanks Greg. 

You could say I have discovered that, of the DCC manufacturers that offer R/C handpieces, the only one that will not work both a traditional trackside DCC and on board battery powered DCC, is NCE.









Assuming it is a Yes and not a maybe for AirWire, surely all an operator would need to do to boost the output of an H0 DCC system made by CVP up to Large Scale capabilities, would be to add a suitable booster? 

So, if a newcomer to DCC starts out with a "traditional" track side NCE DCC system with an R/C hand piece and wants to also have direct through the air RF control of an on board battery powered DCC decoder, they have to buy an extra, different transmitter hand piece. But with Massoth, Zimo and probably AirWire, they do not have to. 
Interesting. 
Now, I wonder what the cost of having two NCE TX hand pieces to do both things is, compared to say one Zimo, or Massoth or probably AirWire?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

It was not clear to me on the CVP website that the wireless controller used in their "traditional" system was exactly the same as in the "Airwire" system. 

You might be able to find a true yes or no by looking into the site more closely, or contacting them. 

It's not the case of boosting anything, the question was SAME controller for either modes as I remember. 

NCE is still cheaper... system and handhelds. 

If you know you are going to have a number of locos, then I don't see any benefit long term buying the right system up front. Most of the entry level systems, or some of the stuff we are talking about have limitations. 

For example the CVP "traditional" system has a limit on the number of wireless throttles, and thus the number of locos, 8... 
The NCE entry system, where you have a "power cab" and it's hardwired will limit the number of physical throttles to 2... 

If you think about it, the "one loco to one transmitter" model is inherently limited... that's why my NCE system lets me have about 40 throttles, 31 base stations, 10,000 locos, 1,000 switches. 

No, I don't have 10,000 locos, BUT I can use ANY of those numbers for a loco id, not limited to 00-49 like some lesser systems. 

The bottom line, you want just a couple of locos, maybe DCC is not for you. Maybe a different remote control strategy is better. If you will have a bunch, like 6 or more, trying to agonize over $200 more between systems when you have $3,000 in locos is a waste of energy. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 05 Mar 2011 05:24 PM 
SNIP

NCE is still cheaper... system and handhelds. 

SNIP

Regards, Greg 


OK. Being able to use the AirWire TX hand piece for both ways is how I read the CVP literature.
So, have you any idea what would be the cost of an AirWire TX controlled traditional DCC system and their on board DCC compatible system using just one TX hand piece.
How much cheaper than the AirWire way of doing it would be the NCE way of doing it? Bearing in mind NCE will require a minimum of two hand pieces to do the same thing.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I really don't keep up on the prices between CVP and NCE... in my experience they are not even in the same class, and the recent changes in functionality by CVP further reinforce my feelings. 

I never recommend to try to get into DCC on the cheap, with some entry level system that has limitations.... I'd recommend some alternative if the person had just a few locos. When they want all the functionality of DCC, then I give my advice and they can take it or leave it. 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Sorry Greg. 
You are the one who said *NCE is cheaper... systems and handhelds.* 

Not to worry I just thought you may have the figures that would justify the statement. 

Entry level DCC systems may be all that some users want and need. They may not want to invest in the extra cost for all the *"bells and whistles"*.


----------



## K27_463 (Jan 2, 2008)

Tony, Greg, i was told years ago that the CVP hand piece, the t9000- employed different software for Easy Dcc, and Airwire. Whether that is still true, I do not know. By the way , Cvp sells easy Dcc only direct- not through dealers. 
As regards, the one transmitter, one train comment, it is true CVP has 8 channels, and so limits the number of active transmitters to 8. however, the number of addresses within each channel is essentially unlimited, in practical terms- 1000. So, you could have 1000 running trains per channel, total 8000 trains all running at the same time, under independent control . Changing addresses while trains are running is straightforward and very quick, you can even scroll through the addresses programmed on your active channel using the speed knob and select with a single key. 

jonathan/EMW


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Jonathan. 

I guess it would be useful for newcomers to know for sure about the AirWire TX software either way.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Tony: My response was to this statement of yours: 

"Now, I wonder what the cost of having two NCE TX hand pieces to do both things is, compared to say one Zimo, or Massoth or probably AirWire?" 

Sorry, I blanked out Airwire, it's just not in the same class with the others. 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg. 
I was not asking for an opinion as to whether or not AirWire was in the same class as others. 
Merely if whether or not, as a "based on DCC" product, AirWire could work both a trackside DCC and an on board DCC. 
Given Jonathan's input it probably is still only be a maybe. 

Given that there are at least four through the air R/C controlled on board *battery powered* DCC systems on the market, perhaps a side by side comparison of such systems would be desirable. 
Cost, features, controllability, compatibility with sound etc? 
How about two levels of comparison.
1. A basic no frills level for those that don't want sound included.
2. All the bells and whistles.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I thought the criteria was DCC systems that could have the same throttle for either "mode".. 

Is the goal of this to have an upgrade path from throttle to loco to same throttle to "traditional" system? 

Or what? 

If you just want to compare battery systems that can use DCC decoders, then really the "same throttle" issue is not important. 

If you want to show systems that can use DCC decoders with an upgrade path, then the throttles still sort of don't count, since a throttle is about the same as a full functioned DCC motor and sound decoder without r/c. 

So what is the "goal"? 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg. 

For now I don't want to compare any systems, other than to find out which ones can do what I am talking about. 
That is, to discover which TX hand pieces can actually do both. 
Once we know for sure, then we can start looking at how much it costs to do it with the various DCC systems. 
I would have thought that if some systems can do it with just one TX hand piece they would have cost X. Those that require two TX hand pieces would cost Y. 
I don't know how closely they would compare in cost. That is why I am asking. 

I guess this thread stems from the other thread where Scott was asking about having the capability of both. DCC via the track and DCC via the atmosphere. 
If he selected Massoth or Zimo he could do it with just one hand piece. If he selected NCE he would have to have two TX hand pieces. Maybe the same for AirWire.
All on board battery R/C DCC systems require some sort of add on R/C decoder (such as G Wire) plus a DCC decoder.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Sorry I'm a bit late to the party - don't check mls too often now with the new forum software. 

But.....can someone enlighten me as to which Zimo control unit can be mounted in a loco be controlled directly "over the air" by the Zimo R/C throttle? 
I took a look at the Zimo website and came up empty. 

For the Massoth R/C throttle the loco mounted receiver is a DRC-300 which is now scheduled to be available sometime in the first half of 2011 but I have never heard of something with equivalent functionality by Zimo. 
The only Zimo unit I can think of that comes somewhat close is the old MX31ZL which has the central station capability integrated in the throttle but still uses the track to transmit the DCC signal.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hello Knut,

Greg said in another thread:

"As I stated, the number of DCC "throttles" that work with a command station (traditional track powered DCC) and can also transmit directly to a loco seems to be limited to Massoth and Zimo".[/b]*
*
I just assumed from that it could be done by Zimo TX.

Courtesy of Greg we now know for sure now that NCE cannot, so perhaps it is only the Massoth that can. ........and maybe AirWire.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Hello Tony, 

Maybe there is a Zimo solution that I'm just not aware of. 

As to Massoth - they really can't today either. 
The DRC-300 capabilities were first described by Massoth exactly two years ago. And then, after some delays, everything just fizzled out. 
The discussion area on the DRC-300 on the Massoth forum is currently blocked. 
Shourtline is the first place I have seen a target availability date of May 2011. 

The concept of the DRC-300 is great, it's probably hard to hit the price point to make this product viable. But for its intended use, typically only one engine per layout, it should be OK. 
I can also see people trying to marry this unit up with a DCC booster for a really low priced traditional wireless DCC system. 

Best regards, 

Knut


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Knut. 

What do you mean by "But for its intended use, typically only one engine per layout, it should be OK".[/b] Does that mean it can only operate one engine at a time from the TX handpiece?

I read somewhere that the DRC-300 was going to be US$130 + a DCC decoder at say US$50 Plus a TX handpiece, whatever that is. 
I doubt it can compete with either AirWire or NCE. 
It is these costings that I am really interested in. 
Time will tell I guess.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 05 Mar 2011 11:12 PM 
Knut. 

What do you mean by "But for its intended use, typically only one engine per layout, it should be OK".[/b] Does that mean it can only operate one engine at a time from the TX handpiece?

I read somewhere that the DRC-300 was going to be US$130 + a DCC decoder at say US$50 Plus a TX handpiece, whatever that is. 
I doubt it can compete with either AirWire or NCE. 
It is these costings that I am really interested in. 
Time will tell I guess. 

Re: "Does that mean it can only operate one engine at a time from the TX"

No, no no Tony.
I wrote that simply because of the cost.
The typical application that people have stated they will use it for is in the track cleaning engine or the snow removal equipment, cases where the electrical pick up from the rails is not necessarily the greatest.
I don't think there is any expectation that this will compete pricewise with Airwire or NCE.
If you're looking for a good inexpensive system to compete with those I would suggest you look at the new Piko DCC system, it's essentially a Massoth system lacking a few capabilities that many people don't use anyway, like a PC interface and a system display, this system works with either the Piko Navigator or the Massoth Navigator and has R/C capability.
If you want a bit more information on the DRC-300, there is a short write up here:
http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/krs/DRC 300 basics_eng.pdf


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

I think we have come to some sort of consensus with this subject.

If I may, I think a general review is in order.

It seems rather than there being two DCC transmitter hand pieces that can be used for both and two that cannot we have discovered that there are actually none that do both AT PRESENT!![/b] 
In no particular order:

NCE.[/b] Definitely no. A separate TX hand piece is required for an operator that wants to run both through the air battery powered DCC and traditional track side DCC.

AirWire.[/b] Seems to be a no, but maybe a yes. 

Massoth.[/b] Not at present. But, if and when the DRC-300 becomes available it definitely will be able to.

*Zimo.* Knut says no. If anyone can refute that and can confirm Zimo can do both, please do so.

My comment.
Given that *at present* there appears to be no R/C DCC systems available where the TX hand piece can control both through the air battery powered DCC AND[/b] traditional track side DCC, it seems to me that through the air battery powered DCC is in effect a separate animal (so to speak) from traditional track side DCC.

I understand that AirWire is a restricted type of DCC, but nevertheless uses DCC protocols for speed, direction, lighting and sound triggers etc. 
If anyone disagrees with that synopsis please do so with facts that prove otherwise.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

We need to hear from Axel again, I thought he mentioned the hardware in another post, and I believe it is available. 

I re-read everything on the CVP site, if you read carefully, the Airwire throttle is a T9000, but the wireless one for the easydcc system is a T9000E. I cannot find where it says they are the same or interchangeable. 

(so the goal is a system where you can use the same throttle in both configurations... again, since the throttle is in the $150 to $180 price range, who cares... ) 

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Tony -

I still don't know what the purpose of this whole exercise was but here is the answer as far as Airwire is concerned - right out of the Airwire throttle manual:


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Great! There's the answer! I only read the EasyDCC manual. 

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 06 Mar 2011 05:31 PM 

*Given that *at present[/b]* there appears to be *no R/C DCC systems available where the TX hand piece can control both through the air battery powered DCC AND[/b] traditional track side DCC[/b], it seems to me that through the air battery powered DCC is in effect a separate animal (so to speak) from traditional track side DCC.[/b]



Tony - 

Why would one even want that?
People tend to start with straight DC since that's the way maos engines come, then either go the battery route with a proprietary R/C system or the DCC route either wireless or wired.
How many people would actually consciously plan to go R/C battery with the intention of switching to R/C DCC or the other way around.

Somehow doesn't make sense to me.

What I have seen a lot however is people who start with DC,
then move to wireless DC (ie the Aristo TE)
and then to R/C battery or R/C DCC 

For that upgrade path Piko has come out with a really nice solution:
You start with a fixed DC supply (or transformer) and a regular wired 5 amp throttle,
then when you want to go wireless DC, you just buy the Piko Navigator which will control the DC throttle via R/C
and when you're ready to go wireless DCC, you just buy the Piko DCC Command Station, reuse the same Piko wireless Navigator throttle and the fixed DC power supply
and sell the original 5 amp DC throttle.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Knut. 

You seem to be approaching this subject from a track power point of view. I think differently, as do many other Large Scale operators. 
However, I do acknowledge that most people start with regular DC and then progress to either DCC (traditional or not) or on board power and control by one means or another. 

I guarantee you there would be plenty of DCC users who would like the option of on board battery R/C DCC so they can run DCC controlled locos by battery R/C on non powered layouts such as most Live Steamers and battery only operators have. 
To do that at the moment they simply cannot use their existing R/C hand pieces with battery powered DCC locos. They have to buy another TX hand piece, which can get expensive. 

If the DCC makers did not think there was a market for on board battery powered DCC, why would some of them offer (or propose to offer) just such systems?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think it's more of another "path" to "full on" DCC... but it is also an avenue for people with unusual requirements, like all DCC but want a couple of battery locos, or have friends with battery power only, etc. 

I do NOT see it as a logical first entry to DCC for most, because the money you "save" by being able to re-use the throttle is completely lost in the extra cost to add a receiver to the loco, and the cost of the batteries. Spending $200-$300 to be able to re-use a $150-$180 throttle does not make sense to me. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 06 Mar 2011 06:48 PM 
If the DCC makers did not think there was a market for on board battery powered DCC, why would some of them offer (or propose to offer) just such systems? 
Well, well, well - and Knut can probably confirm this. Compared to the high-tech environment where I (and Knut come from) the toy (pardon my English ---- Model train) and the associated DCC market seem to lack what we call proper product marketing and to a high degree product management as well.

So but the mere fact that somebody builds something, it doesn't mean anything (how does one write "diddly squat"







). It just means some engineer thought of it, and then when try to sell it they spin a story around it.

Market analysis, user interviews, you name it - done??????? From what I see - Nope.

So from where I stand, my argument is as follows:

First and foremost, I build the layout for myself. Therefore I don't care about compatibility with any other layout out there. Since I decided to go with DCC there is and was nothing wrong with track-power. I can't see a single iota advantage of wanting to now have a battery powered yet DCC driven train on my layout - on top of my track powered DCC.

Well - would I be interested to carry my engines to someone else's layout who is not DCC and run them there - like a show and tell







Let me think........................................................
For one I can do that already with my standard DCC installation because it runs also on DC track power







(oh well I can't trigger any of the extra sounds - but is that worth the investment in a battery car, RF receiver, RF transmitter....

NO TO ME.







[/b] 
Now I am scratching my head..... what could be the motivation other than to ride on the rising DCC wave????









And don't get me wrong I understand the motivation for a Revolution style system (in limited ways), and honestly if the receivers would have been more tolerant to DC fluctuations battery power wouldn't be an topic on the revolution, since it could run otherwise as reliable as DCC on track power.

From the standpoint of RF to RF central station and signal distribution through a common bus is better then RF to tiny antennas hidden in locomotives, especially the full metal ones. And on top of that as stated many times before, I don't lie the idea of a battery car behind my engine, makes everything so much more restricted.

And what about train automation (or semi automation) for some interactive play fun - were can I have this with RF? Or what about switches, how do they get their power?

The other day on another thread somebody asked me what I have against battery power, other than what I mention above and the added cost, nothing - to each its own. Is it in my world of thinking a viable option ----- in a very narrow spectrum of what I call applicability scale.

May the force be with you


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Hi Tony, 

Yes, I do approach it from the DC track power point of view since that is still the product every manufacturer ships. 
Live steam is a separate faction in Large Scale and has always been that, but other than live steam does any manufacturer ship an engine that will not run on DC out of the box? 
I don't know for sure, but I don't think so. 

In our Large Scale club we have about 150 or so members; many have outdoor layouts and a few indoor layouts, ther are live steamers, battery R/C guys, DCC guys and DC guys; all of them regardless which type of power they run also provide standard DC track power so everyone can bring their equipment and run it at the various open houses. 

I disagree with you Tony, I don't think there is much of a market for on-board battery powered DCC; Massoth is the only company that has such a device in development and that one is more than two years late. 
If there was a real pressing market demand, the Massoth unit would have been out sooner and other DCC system manufacturers would have jumped on the bandwagon.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Thank you for the contribution Axel. 

I think we all get the point that you certainly don't like battery power. 

I am not arguing for one over the other. Merely asking questions that I have never seen asked before. 

One thing all DCC marketers are realising is that not all consumers are going to do what they are told they should do. Many of them will simply not consider track power, period. 
For whatever reason, these recalcitrants would still like the facility of DCC protocols and control but have self contained *on board* battery power. 
There must be a market for such equipment otherwise the DCC makers would not offer it. 

BTW. Whether you think it is a good idea or not, would you kindly be able to tell us if a Zimo R/C handpiece can control both traditional trackside DCC and battery powered on board DCC or not.? A simple yes or no will suffice.


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Axel Tillmann on 06 Mar 2011 07:20 PM..... 
And what about train automation (or semi automation) for some interactive play fun - were can I have this with RF? ...








Apparently you've never heard of my products ... Automation using battery power and RF


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 06 Mar 2011 07:33 PM 
Hi Tony, 

Yes, I do approach it from the DC track power point of view since that is still the product every manufacturer ships. 
Live steam is a separate faction in Large Scale and has always been that, but other than live steam does any manufacturer ship an engine that will not run on DC out of the box? 
I don't know for sure, but I don't think so. 

In our Large Scale club we have about 150 or so members; many have outdoor layouts and a few indoor layouts, ther are live steamers, battery R/C guys, DCC guys and DC guys; all of them regardless which type of power they run also provide standard DC track power so everyone can bring their equipment and run it at the various open houses. 

I disagree with you Tony, I don't think there is much of a market for on-board battery powered DCC; Massoth is the only company that has such a device in development and that one is more than two years late. 
If there was a real pressing market demand, the Massoth unit would have been out sooner and other DCC system manufacturers would have jumped on the bandwagon. 

Knut. 
I am sure we can agree to disagree.
Whilst there may be some live steam layouts near you that do have track power I am willing to bet they are well into a minority nationwide.
Live steamers simply do not want what they see as the hassles associated with track power.

As to your last statement. 
There already are on board battery powered DCC R/C systems on the market. AirWire and NCE (with extra bits needed) continue to successfully offer and sell what they claim to be on board battery powered DCC R/C systems. 
Massoth are possibly going to add to those two.

Again, why would any DCC manufacturers offer on board battery R/C DCC systems unless they thought there was a market for them?


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 06 Mar 2011 08:04 PM 

*There already are on board battery powered DCC R/C systems on the market*. AirWire and NCE (with extra bits needed) continue to successfully offer and sell what they claim to be on board battery powered DCC R/C systems. 


I don't think there are any on-board battery powered DCC R/C systems on the market today.
AirWire certainly doesn't meet the most basic of DCC definitions - the loco decoder type and manufacturer being totally independent of the specific DCC system and manufacturer. That's the basic premise that DCC is built on.

With AirWire, I have to use the AirWire loco decoder with whatever features and capabilities it provides, the only option that relates a bit to DCC is that I can add a DCC accessory decoder using addresses 1-99. period.

That doesn't make it an on-board DCC R/C system by any stretch of the imagination regardless of what they claim.

I don't really know what NCE can offer in that respect, but I doubt it would qualify to be called an on-board DCC R/C system.

Best regards,

Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Also, you cannot change the loco number with the NCE controller apparently.. Definitely not standardized, although maybe they were not happy with NCE being able to sell a throttle that works with their system. Also G1 and G2 products work differently. 

It's really not a standard, and I will agree with Knut, paraphrasing a bit, it's violating some fundamental principles of interoperability. This kind of "alternate DCC" will remain pretty proprietary until a wireless protocol standard is made, and I doubt it will be. Sending raw DCC over the air is not really the best idea for a number of reasons. 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

It is not me making the claim that AirWire and NCE are DCC systems. It is the manufacturers. 

As far as I can tell, an AirWire TX can change the address in an AirWire RX. Likewise an NCE TX can change the address in an NCE compatible RX such as the QSI. 
Other than that all the regular run functions and sound triggers comply with DCC protocols? Yes No? 
That the two systems are a bit different and don't operate each others function the same or at all, is irrelevant as there is no RF protocol as far as I know. 

To the best of my knowledge NCE and AirWire have not drawn the attention of the NMRA DCC committee regarding spurious compliance or compatibility or even "based on DCC" claims 
So, unless, and until, it can be proven NCE and AirWire are not DCC (or DCC based) and they are stopped making the claims they do, the newcomer can only logically accept the manufacturers claims as being fact. No matter what DCC aficionados may wish the situation to be. 

Me, I have no iron in this fire. I am just an interested observer who likes to have the facts brought to the fore.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 06 Mar 2011 10:16 PM 
It is not me making the claim that AirWire and NCE are DCC systems. It is the manufacturers. 


Tony,

I don't see anything on the AirWire website where they claim to be a DCC system:


http://www.cvpusa.com/airwire_system.php

All it says is that one can connect a DCC decoder to the AirWire receiver. 


"EasyDCC" is the DCC system that CVP Products sells.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

The latest ad from CVP in GR on page # 80 states: 
*"AirWire900 is based on established standards including the NMRA-DCC standard with the result..........."* 

I would think that the ad was worded that way so a casual observer would logically conclude that AirWire was in at least some part, DCC. ......and it is. 

If the DCC fraternity is happy to let that state of affairs exist, who am I to argue with it?


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 06 Mar 2011 11:09 PM 
The latest ad from CVP in GR on page # 80 states: 
*"AirWire900 is based on established standards including the NMRA-DCC standard with the result..........."* 

I would think that the ad was worded that way so a casual observer would logically conclude that AirWire was in at least some part, DCC. ......and it is. 

If the DCC fraternity is happy to let that state of affairs exist, who am I to argue with it?


Even if the DCC fraternity is not happy with this, there is nothing they can or should do about it.

As you said - that statement is true, AirWire does provide an output on their decoders that is NMRA-DCC compliant but that doesn't make it a DCC system.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Ahhhhhhhhh!!! Yes. 

But, the buying public thinks it is DCC and that is all that matters to them. 

They can control speed, direction, lighting and sound functions using (at least some) DCC protocols sent from a TX hand piece. So, as far as Joe public is concerned, it is DCC. 
Just like NCE with QSI solutions is. 

I can understand the point of view that these are not "DCC Systems" in the traditional sense. 
So, what would you suggest they be described as given that DCC is used in the adverstising and they are at least partially DCC compliant?


----------



## benshell (Oct 1, 2008)

Just to add my two cents, awhile back I was looking for a system where I could use the same decoder and same throttle with track power or battery power. I prefer track power but like the idea of being able to run on the numerous non powered layouts in my area. Not saying this is practical or something that should be built though.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 07 Mar 2011 12:21 AM 

But, the buying public thinks it is DCC and that is all that matters to them. 


Well, they may "think" it's a DCC system just reading the ad, although I doubt it, but regardless, before someone spends hundreds of dollars, I'm sure they would educate themselves a bit more about they spending their money on and it will become clear real quick that AirWire is a proprietary R/C system with some DCC interface capability. I think the way they advertise is just fine - after all, any company tries to put their company in the best possible light.

Best regards,

Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By benshell on 07 Mar 2011 07:55 AM 
Just to add my two cents, awhile back I was looking for a system where I could use the same decoder and same throttle with track power or battery power. I prefer track power but like the idea of being able to run on the numerous non powered layouts in my area. Not saying this is practical or something that should be built though. 


Sounds like a perfectly reasonable requirement to me.
If you mean *DC* track power or battery power, there are a number of options.
If you mean *DCC* track power and battery power, not so many. 


Knut


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

OK. 
I have no dog in this fight. I just wanted to know what, if anything, was available for battery powering and R/C'ing DCC. 
Whilst Knut, Greg and Axel obviously don't approve of the idea of *battery* powering on board DCC and controlling it through the air with R/C, enough consumers do for at least some DCC manufacturers to believe there is a market out there for such products. 

Far be it for me to tell anyone what to do, but I would have thought consumers having the option of *"on board battery R/C DCC"* available, would add another string to the bow of DCC. 

So it looks like describing *"on board battery R/C DCC"* as just that, will be OK.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

I have no dog in this fight. 

Well colour me cynical Tony, but given you've just posted 20 times on this topic I suspect you're not doing it out of curiousity alone.









Keith


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

It's not that I don't approve, I don't see the need except in some special cases, which I ALREADY stated, so Tony, if you want to make assumptions about what I want, read my posts first before resorting to ESP ha ha!.. 

Yes, Tony must be heading somewhere, albeit ponderously ... 

Again, why are you worried about having the same wireless throttle if you only have one loco on battery/wireless and the rest DCC? 

The audience for this very specialized requirement is pretty small, many people have asked, but few really care when the throttle costs $150. 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Cougar Rock Rail on 07 Mar 2011 03:16 PM 
I have no dog in this fight. 

Well colour me cynical Tony, but given you've just posted 20 times on this topic I suspect you're not doing it out of curiousity alone.









Keith 

Keith. Not only have I posted 20 times, I started the topic. But, not once have I criticised DCC. Period. Nor will I.

Looks like you are worrying unnecessarily about conspiracy theories.







My only aim was to bring information to the consumer so they can make up their own minds.
Plus I need to be aware of what is actually out there in the market place, and what is involved in using it. Is there anything wrong with being better informed?

Those that love track power and cannot abide the idea of battery powering Large Scale trains simply do not get it. Well, maybe they do get it and don't like the implications.

There are plenty of folks who do not want track power, but would still like DCC capability. Heaven forbid, they might even be able to start off with battery R/C DCC right from the get go. The DCC "spokespeople" have already realised that might stymie the sale of Command Stations and boosters.

Now the consumer knows what they can and can't do with respect to R/C DCC transmitter hand pieces.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Ha ha! What me worry? No...I'm actually really looking forward to the Massoth DRC-300 because there are a few items I would love to be able to control with my navigator using live steam and battery. I am building a crane that I want to have DCC control but battery or track power option so I can take it anywhere with me and still have the navigator control. Likewise, for my live steamers it would be great to use the navigator to run servos, which I'm already doing on my track powered DCC. I also want the DRC-300 to be able to run accessories. 
So no, I see what you're doing and I know why you're doing it, but in the end the more options we have the better. 

Keith


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 07 Mar 2011 02:54 PM 
OK. 
I have no dog in this fight. I just wanted to know what, if anything, was available for battery powering and R/C'ing DCC. 
Whilst Knut, Greg and Axel obviously don't approve of the idea of *battery* powering on board DCC and controlling it through the air with R/C, enough consumers do for at least some DCC manufacturers to believe there is a market out there for such products. 

Far be it for me to tell anyone what to do, but I would have thought consumers having the option of *"on board battery R/C DCC"* available, would add another string to the bow of DCC. 

So it looks like describing *"on board battery R/C DCC"* as just that, will be OK.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Cougar Rock Rail on 07 Mar 2011 04:37 PM 
Ha ha! What me worry? No...I'm actually really looking forward to the Massoth DRC-300 because there are a few items I would love to be able to control with my navigator using live steam and battery. I am building a crane that I want to have DCC control but battery or track power option so I can take it anywhere with me and still have the navigator control. Likewise, for my live steamers it would be great to use the navigator to run servos, which I'm already doing on my track powered DCC. I also want the DRC-300 to be able to run accessories. 
So no, I see what you're doing and I know why you're doing it, but in the end the more options we have the better. 

Keith 

See, nothing to be worried about after all Keith.
You have expanded the possible used of such systems by adding controlling live steam with servos to the mix. Something that is not really possible with traditional DCC systems as they stand, unless the loco is completely isolated from the track. Very few are isolated.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 07 Mar 2011 03:21 PM 
It's not that I don't approve, I don't see the need except in some special cases


Same here ................


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Many DCC decoders now drive servos, so as the Massoth and Zimo units become available, you can also run live steam, battery power and DCC all from the same throttle. 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 07 Mar 2011 06:20 PM 
Posted By Greg Elmassian on 07 Mar 2011 03:21 PM 
It's not that I don't approve, I don't see the need except in some special cases


Same here ................ 

It matters not whether Greg or Knut approve.
What matters is that some DCC manufacturers already see a need for battery R/C DCC and are catering for that market. Not just special cases.
Others are getting ready to tag along.

I started this thread with a comment from Greg that intimated crossover TX hand pieces already existed from Zimo and Massoth. It transpires that is not actually the case.
No one has anything on the market yet that can do both. 

NCE and AirWire do offer On board battery R/C DCC, so what we have at the *moment* is an "either or situation" for potential DCC customers just starting out.

Traditional Track powered DCC.
OR
On board battery R/C DCC.

There is no way to save any money by utilising one form of TX hand piece equipment with the other.

If anyone thinks that the On board battery R/C DCC NCE and AirWire do offer is not "real" DCC, what should it be called?


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Actually, they are not rreal DCC, because the last time I looked at the diagrams it looked kind of "weird".

If it would be true DCC the RF rfeceive would generate a +/- 22V rectangluar signal on two wires with a strength of 3A or 5A and you would connect only the two wires to the DCC decoder input - not so from the diagram I have seen. There it looks like that they ca triger functions on the DCC decoder (such as sound and lights - more or less) via what looks like a SUSI interface.

If I am right about it - then that's far from being DCC.  And nothing that I saw on the RF boards indicates otherwise, becuase I didn't see any 5A capable chipset on here. 

But I am here to always learn.

And no ZIMO doesn't have an integrated throttle doing RF and DCC although it would now be easy for them to add a X-bee receiver to the engine in the latest generation and maybe that can be an option for the upcoming MX32ZL. The problem is that a different communication protocol is required for talking to a base station versus directly to an engine. A regualr cab would be unjustfiably more expensive.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 07 Mar 2011 07:51 PM 
Posted By krs on 07 Mar 2011 06:20 PM 
Posted By Greg Elmassian on 07 Mar 2011 03:21 PM 
It's not that I don't approve, I don't see the need except in some special cases


Same here ................ 

It matters not whether Greg or Knut approve.



Tony,

You are absolutely hilarious!

*You* posted that Axel, Greg and I don't approve of of on-board battery R/C DCC, Greg stated that this wasn't true for him and I just joined him in saying that wasn't true for me either.


But that doesn't mean that we "approve", I honestly don't care.
If a manufacture thinks he can make a buck developing this type of product, he can go right ahead.

Massoth should have had the DRC-300 on the market at least 18 months ago, now maybe it will show up in May.
Nobody else has even implied that they have a similar product in the pipeline.

That doesn't sound to me as if people are clamouring to get their hands on one. 


If you look at the additional cost - $130 for the receiver plus the on-board battery; installation cost of the extra equipment and battery, some sort of charging station for the battery - you're easily well over $200.- EXTRA (over traditional DCC) per locomotive so equipped.


Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

So, when the 2 units from Zimo and Massoth hit the streets, will you be as vocal? 

Tony, I believe you are making a case for a very small market, someone who wants both traditional DCC and one or very few battery units, and wants to have the same TX do both. 

I have a lot of DCC locos, I have them because I want to. I went to DCC because of the features and because it is way cheaper than using battery. 

So if for some reason I wanted a battery powered loco, I could EASILY spend the extra $140 for another controller after all the MONEY I ALREADY SAVED going DCC over battery. 

Your market does not make sense. Also, most people who want to go DCC will be like me, have enough locos to have it make sense, and AGAIN, the cost of the system goes away after about loco 6. 

Your "market plan" just does not make sense for the majority of people who want to go DCC... So you buy the system sooner, and your up front cost for one loco is higher. 

All you need to get to is 6 locos... many people have that many. Most DCC people do, at least. 

So, going DCC saves money ALREADY... you don't need to try to find some hybrid solution to save the price of one puny throttle. 

I save money over other systems EVERY TIME I set up a new loco. 

I think you are trying to solve a non-problem, and really promoting something else. 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg. 
I don't have a market "plan", nor am I "promoting something else". 
You and Knut are reading into this something that isn't there. 

I am merely eliciting information so that a here and now consumer can decide for themselves whether or not they want to go battery powered On Board R/C DCC or traditional track side DCC. 
As it turns out they cannot do both with one TX hand piece. That may change. 

At present there are only two DCC makers offering On Board battery powered R/C DCC systems. AirWire and NCE. 

I will still not have an opinion one way or another when and if Massoth and Zimo do likewise.


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

Tony 

Perhaps I can shead some light on this topic 

When a throttle is on a handheld network connected to a DCC system it normally is talking in a full duplex network protocol which is manufacturer or groups of manufacturers specific. 

This handheld network is connected to a command station which transmits the half duplex DCC protocal to the track. 

The easy way to transmit the DCC signal directly to a locomotive is to consider the air as the track and simply transmit the half duplex DCC protocal over the air rather then over the track. 

I have scoped out the Easy DCC (and G Qire) signals and this is exactely what they are doing. 

You can reconnect these systems back to the track by simply feding the signal from the radio signal back into a power station (booster) 

You can not connect the signal back into the non standard manufacturer bus protocal without a converter. 

There is a more expensive way of doing this. You can put a manufacturer bus receiver in the locomotive and have it generate the DCC signal. In this case the handheld would be no different than any other normal manufacturers handheld. 

Architecturally it is a question as to where you put the command station. NCE CVP place the command station in their throttle which transmits the DCC signal directly over the air. To use a CVP AirWire throttle on a different network you need to replace the software in the device (that is what I do when I switch between Airwire and using the throllte as a wireless throttle on my Xpressnet which is the Lenz based throttle network. 

Your question was a simple one and the answer is also very simple. 

Stan


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Stanley. 
I agree the original question was a simple one and it has taken 4 pages and a lot of obfuscation by others who, for whatever reason, have been clouding the issue. 

So to summarise. I interpret your comments as being the NCE and Airwire TX's sold for on board battery R/C, use proper DCC protocols transmited through the air. 
Is that a fair reading? 
If so, would it be a legitimate use of the initials DCC to describe both of them as "on board batery powered R/C DCC". Yes? No?


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By StanleyAmes on 07 Mar 2011 08:36 PM 
Tony 

Perhaps I can shead some light on this topic 

When a throttle is on a handheld network connected to a DCC system it normally is talking in a full duplex network protocol which is manufacturer or groups of manufacturers specific. 

This handheld network is connected to a command station which transmits the half duplex DCC protocal to the track. 

The easy way to transmit the DCC signal directly to a locomotive is to consider the air as the track and simply transmit the half duplex DCC protocal over the air rather then over the track. 

I have scoped out the Easy DCC (and G Qire) signals and this is exactely what they are doing. 

You can reconnect these systems back to the track by simply feding the signal from the radio signal back into a power station (booster) 

You can not connect the signal back into the non standard manufacturer bus protocal without a converter. 

There is a more expensive way of doing this. You can put a manufacturer bus receiver in the locomotive and have it generate the DCC signal. In this case the handheld would be no different than any other normal manufacturers handheld. 

Architecturally it is a question as to where you put the command station. NCE CVP place the command station in their throttle which transmits the DCC signal directly over the air. To use a CVP AirWire throttle on a different network you need to replace the software in the device (that is what I do when I switch between Airwire and using the throllte as a wireless throttle on my Xpressnet which is the Lenz based throttle network. 

Your question was a simple one and the answer is also very simple. 

Stan


OK - with that type of DCC architecture none of these systems you describe will meet Tony's requirement.

Knut


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Knut. 
I don't have any requirements. 
I was just asking whether they did work with both existing on board battery R/C DCC and traditional track side DCC, or not. Stan's comments say they don't. Which is all I was asking about all along. 

As an aside, the description of that architecture, as I read it, does confirm that both AirWire and NCE are on board battery powered DCC systems and can legitimately be described as such. 
I am sure potential DCC users will be grateful for the information made available here for when they are choosing a way of using DCC. 

Thank you all gentlemen, for your input.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Nope, DCC is defined with the signal on the track. 

Stan does not say they "are" DCC systems. 

It uses a unipolar DCC signal over the air, there's no standardization, and not all DCC commands are available at the interface... notice that the NCE throttle cannot set all the parameters in the CVP G2. 

So in a month or 2 we'll revive this thread and then change the answer with the new products. 

Potential DCC users should continue to use an evaluation process hashed out over and over on this forum, and remarkably, you were in most of them, arguing cost, list prices, street prices, prices in Australia. 

I think your goal is to show there is no low cost entry into DCC. The cost of the throttle and re-using it is a smoke screen.

There are INDEED very inexpensive ways to do entry level DCC, and there are a few ways to go to be able to re-use the throttle, but this is a one-sided game. 


Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg, 
If AirWire and NCE on board battery R/C DCC are not DCC systems, what are they? 

If and when the (so called) "proper" on board battery DCC R/C systems appear from Massoth and/or Zimo, I will be glad to ask questions about them. 
The more factual information the consumer has the better for them eh?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The don't HAVE to be ANYTHING. They are exactly as Stan described them. They are not strictly DCC for several reasons. Do they use a subset of the DCC protocols, yes. Do they use a unipolar version of DCC protocol over the air, yes. 

But do they have standardization on the over the air interface? No. Is there standardization of the frequencies? No, do all DCC commands come "out" of the G1 & G2 decoders? No. 

One of the great strengths of DCC is any decoder that meets the standard will work with any system. This is NOT true with the Airwire and NCE and QSI hardware. 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

OK. So, from that answer are you saying it is not improper to call them "on board battery powered R/C DCC"?


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 07 Mar 2011 11:14 PM 
If AirWire and NCE on board battery R/C DCC are not DCC systems, what are they? 


If you must give them a name, they are *proprietary on-board battery R/C control systems for model trains*...........

Just like

RCS
Locolinc
Reed's
Aristo Revolution
Train Control (not to be confused with TCS or Train Control Systems)


and a bunch of others I have probably never heard of.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Knut. 

You said on the 6th in reply to whether or not DCC should be used in the desciption of the NCE or AirWire product: *"Even if the DCC fraternity is not happy with this, there is nothing they can or should do about it."*
Now you are saying: If you must give them a name, they are *proprietary on-board battery R/C control systems for model trains*...........

Stanley said they transmit DCC protocols over the air. Instead of through the rails. He didn't say it wasn't DCC 
Either it is or it isn't DCC. 
In the last ad that QSI solutions ran in GR, they described the equipment as DCC. Go read it if you don't believe me.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

The NMRA definition of DCC is the following: 

DCC is short for DIGITAL COMMAND CONTROL. It is not just another method of control, it is a standard for manufacturers to use to make their products compatible with other products on the market that meet this standard. 

Does the QSI Solutions product meet that or not? 
In other words can one use the QSI decoders that they describe in the ad with DCC command stations of all other manufacturers? 
And can the QSI command station control other manufacturers DCC compliant decoders? 

That's what determines if a system is a DCC system or not in my opinion and NMRA's the way I always understood it. 
Simply being able to drive a DCC accessory decoder by an output of a proprietary receiver doesn't cut it. 
And whatever is published in an ad doesn't cut it by a long shot. 
DCC is extremely popular, more so in the smaller scales than in Large Scale. No wonder every manufacturer wants to be somehow associated with it. 

In my 6th reply that you quote I was specifically talking about the AirWire capability to provide some limited functional control to a connected DCC accessory decoder - that's what they are talking about in the ad I looked at and that's what the product provides. That's also what you quoted from the ad so I though we were looking at the same ad. 
I have no clue what NCE offers that could be considered "on board battery powered R/C DCC". NCE offers a full fledged DCC System with wireless control and a number of DCC decoders but I thought it was clear early in this discussion that NCE did not have a throttle that can control both rail based DCC and what you call R/C DCC. 
And now you're starting with another ad by QSI Solutions. 

Tony, we are going around in circles here 

Not that what's posted in ads really matters, but could you perhaps at least be specific as to which issue of GR you're talking about? 
I'm looking at the Feb 2011 issue, don't know if I have the April 2011 issue yet if that is what you are looking at.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 07 Mar 2011 11:56 PM 

Stanley said they transmit DCC protocols over the air. Instead of through the rails.



Oh, on that aspect.

I wish Stan had elaborated a bit more on that.
Using DCC protocols does not mean a DCC signal is sent over the air. 


DCC uses a bi-polar signal of very low frequency (compared to the frequency required for radio transmission).
One cannot send that signal as is over the air - you need a higher carrier frequency of some sort which you can then modulate in some fashion.


It doesn't really matter how they do this, it's still proprietary and therefore by definition not a DCC system or a DCC decoder.


Knut


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Knut, I did say the last ad. That was in August 2010 page #16. 

You can go on and on about whether or not the on board battery powered DCC systems made by NCE and CVP are DCC or not. All that matters is that the manufacturers use the DCC imprimatur in their advertising which is what the potential customers actually read. 
If it is good enough for them to do that then it seems to me any casual observer will read those ads and logically assume it is DCC. 
If you feel so strongly that is wrong, then why not take it up with the manufacturers, the NMRA and the magazine to have the situation rectified. 

In the meantime I will take a lead out of the NCE book and call their product DCC, like they did last time they ran an ad in GR. 
For AirWire I would say, as they do, that their system is "based" on NMRA DCC standards. Does that satisfy you? 

Now, once again, thank you all for your input.


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 07 Mar 2011 08:59 PM 
Thanks Stanley. 
I agree the original question was a simple one and it has taken 4 pages and a lot of obfuscation by others who, for whatever reason, have been clouding the issue. 

So to summarise. I interpret your comments as being the NCE and Airwire TX's sold for on board battery R/C, use proper DCC protocols transmited through the air. 
Is that a fair reading? 
If so, would it be a legitimate use of the initials DCC to describe both of them as "on board batery powered R/C DCC". Yes? No? 


Fair and simple querstion. Not a simple answer.

At one time I was the chair of the DCC WG and later Chair of the NMRA C&I committee (this was long before Deb had a business interest) and at one time was the lead editor for most of the NMRA DCC Standards and RPs. Thus I have a little expertise in answering your question. That said I can not provide an official answer to your question. Only the NMRA C&I committee can.

With that caveat let me try to answer your question.

If submitted to C&I would NCE and Airwire be judged as conforming to NMRA S9.2, RP-9.2.1, and RP9.2.2?

In my opinion the likely answer is Yes. A detailed analysis may find a problem as I have not done an extensive packet capture but in all likelyhood any problems found (if any) could easily be corrected.

If submitted to C&I would NCE and Airwire be judged as conforming to S9.1

No but not for any of the reasons stated.

Lets look at the specific sections

A: Both systems transmit bits at 9600 baud which is ever so slightly under the minimum specification for transmitting 1 bits by command stations. It is above the minimum specification for decoders so it wil work with any conforming decoders. Please note that there are other systems in the market sold as DCC systems that also transmit a little under the minim limit.
B: In my opinion yes

C: This is a judgement call. I believe if the package was properly summitted it could pass this one. Howeveryou would need to do it as a pair(transmitter and receiver) and Either NCE or CVP paired with QSI would fail the minimun voltage test. Both NCE and CVP would pass using the CVP receiver because it provides a higher current and voltage interface. (Note please see footnote 7)

Stan Ames


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By StanleyAmes on 08 Mar 2011 05:20 AM 
Posted By TonyWalsham on 07 Mar 2011 08:59 PM 
Thanks Stanley. 
I agree the original question was a simple one and it has taken 4 pages and a lot of obfuscation by others who, for whatever reason, have been clouding the issue. 

So to summarise. I interpret your comments as being the NCE and Airwire TX's sold for on board battery R/C, use proper DCC protocols transmited through the air. 
Is that a fair reading? 
If so, would it be a legitimate use of the initials DCC to describe both of them as "on board batery powered R/C DCC". Yes? No? 


Fair and simple querstion. Not a simple answer.

At one time I was the chair of the DCC WG and later Chair of the NMRA C&I committee (this was long before Deb had a business interest) and at one time was the lead editor for most of the NMRA DCC Standards and RPs. Thus I have a little expertise in answering your question. That said I can not provide an official answer to your question. Only the NMRA C&I committee can.

With that caveat let me try to answer your question.

If submitted to C&I would NCE and Airwire be judged as conforming to NMRA S9.2, RP-9.2.1, and RP9.2.2?

In my opinion the likely answer is Yes. A detailed analysis may find a problem as I have not done an extensive packet capture but in all likelyhood any problems found (if any) could easily be corrected.

If submitted to C&I would NCE and Airwire be judged as conforming to S9.1

No but not for any of the reasons stated.

Lets look at the specific sections

A: Both systems transmit bits at 9600 baud which is ever so slightly under the minimum specification for transmitting 1 bits by command stations. It is above the minimum specification for decoders so it wil work with any conforming decoders. Please note that there are other systems in the market sold as DCC systems that also transmit a little under the minim limit.
B: In my opinion yes

C: This is a judgement call. I believe if the package was properly summitted it could pass this one. Howeveryou would need to do it as a pair(transmitter and receiver) and Either NCE or CVP paired with QSI would fail the minimun voltage test.  Both NCE and CVP would pass using the CVP receiver because it provides a higher current and voltage interface. (Note please see footnote 7)

Stan Ames


Thanks Stan.

A very interesting comment to round out the thread.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

If you must give them a name, they are proprietary on-board battery R/C control systems for model trains........... 

Just like 

RCS 
Locolinc 
Reed's 
Aristo Revolution 
Train Control (not to be confused with TCS or Train Control Systems) 




I agree with what Knut has said in his posts above, and for the same reasons. Until you can plug any manufacturers decoder into the wireless receiver, then it is not a DCC system. By using the term DCC they are implying a sort of inter-operability that simply does not exist. Nice try, Franklin. 

Keith


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 08 Mar 2011 01:50 AM 
Knut, I did say the last ad. That was in August 2010 page #16. 

You can go on and on...........
Tony,

How would I know which issue of GR had the last ad of whichever manufacturer you just happen to quote? 

I don't keep a track of that.

And about going on and on - with all due respect, you're the one who is going on and on about this topic.
I would have been happy had this ended 70 posts ago.


Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By StanleyAmes on 08 Mar 2011 05:20 AM 
If submitted to C&I would NCE and Airwire be judged as conforming to NMRA S9.2, RP-9.2.1, and RP9.2.2? 
In my opinion the likely answer is Yes.


I need someone to enlighten me about NCE, the first system under discussion.
Exactly what product does NCE offer where the NCE wireless throttle controls a DCC decoder in the engine directly bypassing the DCC traditional command station?


And as to AirWire, the components, ie AirWire throttle and AirWire receiver are clear, but neither one meets the most basic of DCC requirements, ie interoperability with other manufacturers DCC products so I don't understand how they could even remotely being considered DCC systems.

A Large Scaler is going to be mighty disappointed when he places his new engine with a Zimo DCC decoder on the track and cranks up his AirWire (not CVP!) throttle and nothing happens.

Knut


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By Axel Tillmann on 07 Mar 2011 08:04 PM 
Actually, they are not real DCC, because the last time I looked at the diagrams it looked kind of "weird".

If it would be true DCC the RF receive would generate a +/- 22V rectangular signal on two wires with a strength of 3A or 5A and you would connect only the two wires to the DCC decoder input - not so from the diagram I have seen. There it looks like that they ca trigger functions on the DCC decoder (such as sound and lights - more or less) via what looks like a SUSI interface.

If I am right about it - then that's far from being DCC. And nothing that I saw on the RF boards indicates otherwise, because I didn't see any 5A capable chipset on here. 

But I am here to always learn.

And no ZIMO doesn't have an integrated throttle doing RF and DCC although it would now be easy for them to add a X-bee receiver to the engine in the latest generation and maybe that can be an option for the upcoming MX32ZL. The problem is that a different communication protocol is required for talking to a base station versus directly to an engine. A regular cab would be unjustifiably more expensive.
It seems to me that nobody knows the concrete answer to points I brought up in my above contribution. I am incldue to beleive therefore that none of hte methods so far here3 described (Airwire etc....) are actually functioning as a miniature DCC central station. The merely send out SUSI information (a protocol that can be used as a subset inside DCC) to control auxilary devices.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Knut, NCE handhelds work on 900 MHz. They make a special version that emulates the Airwire wireless throttles, and uses their protocols. Unfortunately, there is something nonstandard in the Airwire protocol that makes it so the NCE cannot do certain functions, and also apparently the new version Airwire receiver (G2) has even more "exceptions"... Of course, the QSI decoder with the optional 900 MHz receiver works fine. 

So much for standardization or "DCC"... it's BASED on DCC, but not all DCC commands work, and not all commands are DCC obviously. 

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Thanks Greg,

I didn't know that NCE offered a "special" throttle that is intended to work with the AirWire receiver.

Nice idea but it's always hard to reverse engineer something especially if the other company doesn't want you to do that. So in the next release of their product they throw some monkeywrench into the design to trip up the reverse engineered product. Now that I understand that particular NCE product a bit better, it doesn't qualify as a DCC product in my books either, same as Airwire.
The regular NCE system is of course a "true" DCC system, sot that someone just glances at this post and reads the above line out of context.


Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The throttle looks identical to the other throttles, but says "Gardenwire" on it or "Gwire"... most people miss this, and just see they look similar, so they assume it's the same. 

I have one for evaluation, and ran it with CVP receivers and the QSI. I don't think that NCE can make a "dual mode" one, because the Airwire stuff relies on different frequencies, the "normal" NCE wireless throttle is always on one frequency, thus the radio modules are different I believe. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Axel Tillmann on 08 Mar 2011 10:33 AM 
It seems to me that nobody knows the concrete answer to points I brought up in my above contribution. I am incldue to beleive therefore that none of hte methods so far here3 described (Airwire etc....) are actually functioning as a miniature DCC central station. The merely send out SUSI information (a protocol that can be used as a subset inside DCC) to control auxilary devices.




Axel,

As far as I know none of the US based DCC systems offer SUSI, not AirWire, NCE, Digitrax, CVP, MRC...............

What the AirWire receiver in the loco does provide is a 3 amp DCC output that you can connect a DCC function decoder or DCC sound decoder to.
That output looks the same as the output of a 3 amp central station but has some limitations such as the number of addresses etc.

Here is one page from the manual:


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 08 Mar 2011 01:53 PM 
The throttle looks identical to the other throttles, but says "Gardenwire" on it or "Gwire"... most people miss this, and just see they look similar, so they assume it's the same. 


Greg,

I was curious and looked it up.

Seems the NCE GWire throttle can also be used to run regular NCE DCC after al....... which is the original question Tony had - see below, the last paragraph from a page of the manual.

However, that still doesn't make GWire a DCC system even though NCE actually advertises it as such.

Best regards,

Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Misunderstanding... a Pro Cab is a WIRED cab... if you take the GWire cab and connect with a wire to the NCE system it will function fine. 

(A Pro Cab R is the wireless version) 

but the question was to use (I believe) the same cab in wireless mode for both applications, that cannot be done. 

All NCE wireless cabs can function as a wired cab... a 4 conductor phone cable in an RJ11/12 configuration. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

OK, thanks Greg, 

I see with NCE every little letter counts. 

Regards, 

Knut


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 08 Mar 2011 01:01 PM 
Knut, 
SNIP
So much for standardization or "DCC"... it's BASED on DCC, but not all DCC commands work, and not all commands are DCC obviously. 

Greg 

Thanks Greg.
From that I can only deduce you would be OK with describing AirWire and NCE as being *BASED* on DCC?

It is important how R/C systems are described. 
AirWire and NCE fall somewhere in between "proper" DCC, and non DCC systems. They are definitely not simply proprietary, as one brand of TX will work the other brand of RX. That implies a standard of some sort. As it turns out, that standard is, in part, DCC based.
When and if Zimo and Massoth come out with their own battery R/C DCC it will likely be legitimate "proper" DCC. 


Knut introduced non DCC equipment to this discussion when he attempted to lump in NCE and AirWire on a list of R/C equipment that he said is proprietary. Let us look at that list.
RCS
Locolinc
Reed's
Aristo Revolution
Train Control (not to be confused with TCS or Train Control Systems)



The old Elsema based systems I no longer make was proprietary. 
The current range of RCS ESC's are *not proprietary*. I am now using international Digital Proportional standard on 2.4 GHz R/C that could be said to be the DCC of R/C. Any ESC designed to operate with Digital Proportional stick radios will work with any brand of R/C. They all work the same way with respect to servo operation, and thus control of the ESC, even if the RF parts of one brand may not talk to different brands. 
Locolinc is proprietary.
Aristo Revolution is also proprietary. 
Reeds no longer exists and I have no idea what Train Control is. I would be interested in finding out more about them. Is there a link?

If a list of available battery R/C systems was being formulated for comparison it would probably look something like this:
Brand Operating Technology Price ETC[/b]
Zimo DCC ? ?
Massoth DCC ? ?
NCE Based on DCC ? ?
Airwire Based on DCC ? ?
RCS Digital Proportional ? ?
RailBoss Digital Proportional ? ?
Locolinc Proprietary ? ?
Revolution Proprietary ? ?

My apologies if I have left any brand out and assuming Zimo and Massoth were actually available.
My apologies also if the headings don't line up accurately. I can't do html.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Tony, your mention of digital proportional just gave me another thought: In theory, since say the Massoth or Zimo can already control servos either end to end or proportionally based on throttle setting, they should be able to control any r/c device using their receiver (such as the DRC300) and associated decoders. So while it may not be as cost effective for a two or three channel system, if you wanted to control boats, cars etc., or have many channels plus all the regular function outputs that the DCC decoder would have all of a sudden this becomes a pretty powerful option. So if you want to start describing protocol then for those that have the capability you need to say "DCC plus digital proportional", don't you? 

Keith


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Tony, 

Train Control has been the most popular on-board battery R/C systems for Large Scale in Germany for many years. 
I'm surprised that you never heard of it - in Germany it would be your prime competition. 
Train Control just recently revamped their system to go to 2.4 GHz. 
Here is a link describing the basic system a little bit, but it's a;; in German - you could try using the google translator, it's not too bad. 
http://www.herforder-lokschuppen.de...tent&view=category&layout=blog&id=10&Itemid=9 

Interestingly enough, Train Control has just developed a product very similar to the Massoth DRC-300, a Train Control receiver that basically a DCC central station. 

And finally - "Digital proportional" is not a protocol, it's a technology; ZigBee for example is a group of communication protocols one of which Zimo is using in their new wireless DCC system design. 
If RCS is using a specific protocol it would be nice to know what it actually is. 

Best regards, 

Knut 

BTW - Even if a system uses the DCC protocol, that doesn't make it a DCC-compliant system. 
Using the term "DCC" creates expectations by the consumer that these "DCC-based" systems cannot fulfil.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Knut. 
Thanks for the info. 
I don't target Germany with my stuff. I do sell some in Germany. Some in France, some in Italy and a lot in the UK. 

OK. I am happy to call the communication and control method a "technology" rather than a "protocol". 

Digital Proportional is a Worldwide standard where every manufacturer observes that standard. Otherwise they could not use any brand of servo for what the primary purpose was. Controlling servos and ESC's. 
RCS uses off the shelf Digital Proportional R/C systems that observe the same standard, so it is "compliant" with that Digital Proportional convention. 

I am not saying AirWire and NCE are DCC. Greg says they are *BASED* on DCC. I read Stanley as agreeing with that too. In fact he went further and said, if submitted for approval it *MAY* be approved as DCC compliant. 

So if *BASED* on DCC is a good enough description of the product for Stan, Greg, the NMRA, the actual manufacturers and GR magazine, it is good enough for me.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Tony, you are focusing on the over the air technology, which is a far cry from where you started. 

Showing your chart above clearly unmasks what you want to talk about, and it's not DCC. 

Why not take your discussion over to the battery r/c forum where it belongs? 

You clearly do not do DCC, and now you've taken the discussion to battery and remote control systems with no connection to DCC at all. 

I don't blame you for promoting your product. 

Please stop doing it under the cover of DCC in the DCC forum. It's getting tedious. 

Of course the DCC guys could invade all the R/C battery threads asking them if their throttles can run a DCC system... boy, wouldn't people complain to the moderators!! 


Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg. 
With respect, I started talking about DCC R/C over the air. All I wanted to do is find out what DCC R/C systems are DCC and what are not. 
Thanks to your input and that from Stan I now know what is and what isn't DCC R/C over the air. 
I scrupulously refrained from introducing anything to do with general battery R/C. 

It was Knut that introduced the subject of general battery R/C. Not me.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

With respect, I started talking about DCC R/C over the air. All I wanted to do is find out what DCC R/C systems are DCC and what are not. 

I'd have thought you'd have all that figured out by now Tony, given you are now advertising your system as "The low cost alternative to DCC"! 

Keith


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

"With respect, I started talking about DCC R/C over the air. All I wanted to do is find out what DCC R/C systems are DCC and what are not" yeah, well where you are is NOT there, you are way gone... Tony, with respect to the truth:

When you start posting stuff like this:

Brand Operating Technology Price ETC[/b]
Zimo DCC ? ?
Massoth DCC ? ?
NCE Based on DCC ? ?
Airwire Based on DCC ? ?
RCS Digital Proportional ? ?
RailBoss Digital Proportional ? ?
Locolinc Proprietary ? ?
Revolution Proprietary ? ?



Any credibility to the topic of DCC is gone.

Turning this forum into an advertising excercise is wrong, and you'll get called on it.

I know you STARTED marginally in DCC, but even the mentally handicapped can follow where you are taking it.

Please go do this on the Battery R/C forum.

You are just creating ill will, at least with me.

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 09 Mar 2011 12:06 AM 
It was Knut that introduced the subject of general battery R/C. Not me. 



I did?

If so, probably because this "wireless DCC" concept keeps coming up.

DCC is much more than just the protocol itself.


Knut


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg and Greg. 
Again with respect. 
Given that both Zimo and Massoth are planning, or already have, on board battery R/C systems that will be DCC compliant, then surely what I did raise was exclusively DCC. Especially as now there is mention of claims made by QSI, that they are complying with NMRA RF standards with their R/C systems. 

It was Knut that brought up non DCC subjects. Not me. What part of that do you not understand? 
Given that Knut had factual mistakes in his posting, surely I am able to correct the mistakes in what he raised. 
It is fair enough that you do not want any discussion on subjects other than DCC in this forum. In which case, don't raise them in the first place.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Tony,

Pray tell - which "factual mistakes?"

The only thing I can remember is that it looked as if the NCE throttle could control both the G/Wire receiver and the NCE DCC system.
But that very misleading on NCEs part descriping the details about their wireless transmitter and receiver and then throwing in a transmitter that can only control the NCE system via a wired connection.


And you do need to take Zimo out of this discussion.
Didn't Axel make it crystal clear that there are no plans at Zimo in the direction we're talking about?
Let me remind you what Axel posted: 


_And no ZIMO doesn't have an integrated throttle doing RF and DCC although it would now be easy for them to add a X-bee receiver to the engine in the latest generation and maybe that can be an option for the upcoming MX32ZL. The problem is that a different communication protocol is required for talking to a base station versus directly to an engine. A regular cab would be unjustifiably more expensive._


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

I pointed out those factual mistakes concerning *non DCC R/C equipment* in the follow up. 
I would respectfully suggest you go back and reread the reply I made. 

I am quite happy to leave Zimo out of the mix. 
It just means that Greg was wrong in his initial statement I quoted in the first posting on this thread. I am sure he will be more than happy to be corrected.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Tony, 

There are 97 posts in this thread, 
I don't have time to go through the whole thing - why don't you just give me the post number of your reply. 

Thanks, 

Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Trying to blame Knut for the dogged direction you are taking this thread is again absurd. So Knut opened the door, and that justifies you continuing down the path of making your chart of products to compare to your line of hardware? Boy, that is way off base. 

And you don't know the protocol over the air of the Massoth unit. And the Airwire and NCE throttles are not strictly DCC, they are missing some things, but more importantly, some BASIC DCC commands are different, like setting the locomotive address... this is CV1, the FIRST CV (settable variable) in DCC. 

So this is not DCC equipment, it's still proprietary, there is no standard, you are INDEED the person making a table up. 

Keep it up, I can invade every one of your R/C threads with DCC comparisons, try me... unlike you, I have no vested interest, I cannot hurt the sales of my products, since I have none. 

Unfortunately your goal is not to educate, but to sell your products. Understandable, but don't give me any BS about trying to educate people with helpful information. 

Greg


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Let's call this one at an even 100 posts guys.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg. 
All your recent comments look to me as though you are trying to bait me into making some inappropriate uncivil comments here. 
The longer you continually accuse me of taking this thread in a *"dogged direction"*, the more I will be forced to deny it. 
I am not taking this thread in any particular direction. This thread was about RF was it not? Not how the actual ESC works. 

I can only stress that I am hardly to blame for Knut bringing up proprietary non DCC stuff in a DCC thread. 
The chart corrected *a* mistake that Knut had made by categorising my RCS products as being *proprietary*. I corrected that mistake by listing the RCS *technology* as being compatible with the international standard of Digital Proportional RF. It is RF that this thread is all about. Is it not? 
There was no mention of prices, batteries or anything else.
His other mistake was to list Reeds at all. Let alone listing Reeds as being proprietary. Reeds is no longer being made and when it was, it was using Digital Proportional RF technology. 

I have accepted that until evidence to the contrary is brought to our attention, what NCE and AirWire make should not be called DCC, but, rather, as you agreed, it should be described as *based on DCC*. 
I would respectfully suggest you leave it at that.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

No Tony, we have been what I consider friends for some time, and no baiting intended. "Dogged" has nothing to do with canines nor is derogatory, it means something different, like really determined. I doubt that anyone would contest that statement. 

The thread is not about DCC anymore, it was marginal at best, and whatever an ESC is (means nothing in DCC terms) (yeah I know what it means), that is not where you started, you started asking about the same throttle on wireless DCC from the throttle to the loco as the same throttle in "traditional DCC"... all the posts are there. 

What is clear is what your motive is, to contrast a wireless DCC system with other R/C systems, even though there is no "real" wireless DCC standard. 

The simple question: why must you promote your Non-DCC non track powered system on a DCC track powered forum? 

WHY? 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Gee whiz Greg. 

Why are you continually grasping at straws? 
I started this thread in response to comments you had made in another DCC thread that mentioned R/C DCC transmitters. 
I didn't know anything about them at the time so I asked about them. 
As it transpires those comments have turned out to be completely incorrect. 

In any case I have received an answer. 

If I had wanted to promote my RCS equipment I would have done so in the correct R/C Battery forum. 
How can I possibly compare other R/C systems with *"a wireless DCC system"* using signal transmission through the air direct to a locomotive, if such wireless R/C DCC systems do not exist?


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 09 Mar 2011 07:05 PM 

The chart corrected *a* mistake that Knut had made by categorising my RCS products as being *proprietary*. I corrected that mistake by listing the RCS *technology* as being compatible with the international standard of Digital Proportional RF.

Ahhhhhh.......that's my mistake........

I hate to tell you this Tony, but just using a particular international standard doesn't mean that the RCS system is not proprietary.


What makes a system non-proprietary is if one has the choice to buy and use products from several manufacturers to perform the same function.


So for DCC as an example, if I need a decoder, I can buy it from

CVP
Digitrax
Dietz 

LGB
Lenz
Massoth 

MRC
NCE
QSI 

Umelec
Uhlenbrock 

Zimo 

and probably others.

These are just people who manufacture decoders for Large Scale.


How many different manufacturers are there that offer model train R/C receivers that will work out of the box with RCS?
I suspect the answer is "none", but please educate me.


Knut


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Knut. 
Once again you are trying to cloud the issue. 
We are talking about RF. Not the part (ESC, or decoder if you will) that actually controls the motor speed, lighting directions and sound triggers. 
In which case RCS will work with virtually every* manufacturer of 4 or more channel 2.4 Ghz Digital Proportional R/C. Why is that you may well ask. The answer is, that there is an international standard adopted by those manufacturers so that *EVERY* servo on the market will work with the RX's they offer for sale Worldwide. 
It is that signal that is the standard and is what RCS uses to tell the ESC what to do. 
* Subject to the RX switch on procedure and possible subsequent servo movement being the same. Some do vary slightly and the software developed by Del Tapparo takes that into account.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 09 Mar 2011 09:12 PM 
We are talking about RF.


No we're not.
We're talking about RCS and if it's a proprietary system or not.

That's where you claimed I posted the wrong information.

Just using 2.4 Ghz Digital Proportional R/C does not make a system non-proprietary.


If RCS closes its doors tomorrow, which other manufacturers can I go to to buy a receiver for my next loco?

If you don't at least have a short list of four or five, the system is proprietary.

For the customer that means he has to replace the whole system - all the receivers and also the transmitters.

The fact that an International Digital Proportional R/C standard was used does not help, and the fact that there are dozens of manufacturers who make transmitters to that standard doesn't help either.


The advantage of non-proprietary systems is that they don't have that problem.

Or take a simpler maybe more common scenario, one doesn't really want to think about a company going out of business.
If I want a feature my favourite DCC decoder manufacturer doesn't offer.....well, with a non-proprietary system I have dozens of other decoders from a wide range of manufacturers to chose from to find the one with the features I want.

With a proprietary system I'm limited to what that one manufacturer offer. if that manufacturer doesn't offer the feature I need I'm SOL.


Tony, you can try to spin this any way you want, RCS is as proprietary as Locolinc or the Revolution or any other model railroad on-board battery R/C system I have ever come across.
It didn't have to be that way - the various manufacturers could have gotton together and agreed on a standard to make their products interchangeable - interoperability is the keyword here.
But they all chose to take their own individual route.

Best regards,

Knut


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

OK. Knut. 

I was the very first of all the current specialist R/C makers for Large Scale trains back in 1992. The latecomers chose for whatever reason to go their own way. Why should I have followed them with my older proprietary R/C? 
I stopped making that older system for precisely that reason. Now I am following the International R/C Digital Proportional (DP) standard so that my ESC's can be used with virtually every R/C makers products. There is no need for me to get together with any other manufacturers of ESC's as the servo outputs of DP RF operating system are already standardised Worldwide. 
In that respect our ESC's are like DCC. They will not work with the established DP standard we all use, unless they comply with the way that DP stuff works. 
Now I suppose you will try and twist that to say I am trying to compare DP with DCC per se. I am not. I am merely saying that the two technologies have standards set that have to be complied in order to work. 

I will be delighted to list any number of manufacturers that make ESC's that can be used to control speed direction, lights and sound triggers etc of our trains. 
How many would you like? There are literally dozens that would be only too delighted to take up the slack if RCS ceased production as they use the exact same DP servo signal RCS uses. 
However, you only ask for four or five. How about we start with: 
Rail Boss. 
Timpdon 
Brian Jones 
Train Control. Your own contribution. 
I can certainly quote more if you wish. 

Then, if you want me to list makers of ESC's that only have speed and direction control, there are probably hundreds. 
That they often have no directional lights and/or no sound triggers is not a problem with digital proportional R/C. There are also numerous makers of add on bits that can control lights and sound triggers. 
You could consider: 
Mtroniks
Electronize
Plus pretty well every known R/C maker such as Futaba, JR, Hi-Tec, Turnigy, Hobby King. Just to name 5. I can assure you there are many more. 
Then there are all the ESC makers in the hobby robotics area. I guess you do not realise how big a market that is. Otherwise you would not be asking the questions. 
Their ESC's all use the same Digital Proportional signal that *EVERY* DP standard R/C RX sends to a servo. 
I grant you that not all the ESC's made can handle the sort of voltages we use in our Large Scale train, but many can. 
They come in all levels of amperage capability. 
There are also dozens of R/C switches on the market for all sorts of tasks not normally associated with trains, but can nevertheless be used by our trains. 
Servos can easily be utilised for mechanical tasks such as uncoupling, simply by plugging them into spare channels on the RX not used for speed and direction control. 

You do realise that the longer you keep trying to prove me wrong, the longer you extend the life of this thread anyway? Bearing in mind it was *you* that hijacked the thread when you raised the subject of proprietary R/C in a DCC thread in the first place. 
This thread was about through the air R/C of DCC. I kept to that theme until I was forced by you and Greg to defend myself when you misquoted certain facts about other R/C ESC makers. When I corrected your mistakes you and he twisted the subject to try and demonstrate that I am trying to promote my own products. 
I can only repeat I am not doing that at all.

By all means have the last word.
I am sure those reading this thread are now well aware what your games are.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Tony,

You are the one playing games, that was already established earlier in this thread and not by me.
So let's not start another discussion in yet another direction.

If one can use the Train Control throttle as is to control your stock receiver, that's great.
But I don't see any reference to that on your site or Meik Schröder's site.
Never heard of Timpdon or Brian Jones before.
Took a quick look at their websites - nowhere do the manufacturers suggest that these are non-proprietary systems.
Rail Boss actually states: 
_Combines low cost 2.4 GHz hobby radio control with a *dedicated* electronics speed control (ESC) for battery powered large scale locomotives._
Which also suggest a proprietary system.


Tony - if one can use the Train Control throttle (nobody else seems to make a model railroad throttle) with any of these receivers you need to get that message out there if it's important to you.

Right now each of those manufacturers tries to protect their own turf.

As an end user, I would have never thought in my wildest dreams that I could have bought and used an RCS "ESC" to use with the Train Control System when they have 3 months delivery delays for their receivers.


As an aside, have you actually tested any of this out?
I assume not with Train Control since you had never heard of them prior to this thread.

But what about the others?

I remember in the early days of DCC there were some interoperability issues even though DCC was specifically meant to prevent those.

The devil is in the detail.

But if there is indeed all this interoperability between thse systems it should be clearly stated.
Just saying that my system uses a certain technology doesn't cut it.


My cordless phone, garage door opener and remote thermometer all use 2.4 GHz R/C technology - that doesn't mean I can use my cordless phone to open my garage door or read the outside temperature on my cordless phone display.


Over and out for me - 108 posts on this subject are enough for me. 


Knut


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

While I think I understand the grumping and bitching going on in this thread, I must say, I've found it educational. While I understand completely that no standard exists for "wireless DCC" or R/C DCC, I personally look at the Airwire and NEC designs as that. I don't quite understand Greg's remark about CV1 on these systems being different from DCC standards, but I'll take him at his word. My take on the NEC and Airwire was that they transmitted a signal that, while only covering part of the DCC "message standard" (message protocol...whatever you want to call it...it's 1's and 0's), was compliant with the overall DCC "message standard". 

While this was one aspect of building a "wireless DCC" capability, there was another...that being manufacturers who build decoders that had SEPARATE inputs for power from signal. Prior to Airwire and QSI (and maybe a few others), the signal got to the decoder riding ON the power input. There was just ONE input port and the decoder derived both its power and the DCC "message standard" data from the track. In standards compliant DCC, the DCC "message standard" signal was multiplexed onto the power. QSI was the first (as far as I know) to do separate the signal from the power...because it meant that they could sell a single decoder that could be used for track and battery powered loco...assuming you could get a DCC "message standard" signal to the signal input port. QSI invented the G-Wire receiver to do this. 


Airwire bundled their receiver and decoder on one board...but functionally, it had a receiver component AND a decode component on their board...so their signal input was "inside" their board and the power input port could take power from the track OR battery. Functionally, in this minimal sense, they shared a common approach...two "inputs", one for power, one for signal...except in Airwire's case, the signal input could ONLY come from a wireless transmitter.


So...from a standards point of view, the QSI decoder could be DCC standards compliant, since it can receive a signal from the track...but Greg's remark about CV1 get me wondering. Airwire can't because there is no input for signal other than wirelessly without regard to CV1.


On Tony's behalf, I think he has brought to the forefront another approach to standards compliant wireless control of our trains. He advocates using the international standards developed for R/C airplane/truck operations. These standards are in wide use by a large number of manufacturers. Manufacturers complying with these standards deliver systems in which the digital signal from the TX to the RX complies to a standard. The signal from the receiver outputs comply to standards....to servo's, to electronic speed controls, and to switched devices. If you look at a modern, standards compliant R/C plane transmitter, you'll find all kinds of switches and trim controls BEYOND the two sticks that control the rudder, elevator, and motor. Today it is COMMON to have a TX made by one outfit, an RX made by another outfit, servos made by several vendors, an ESC made by another vendor, and switched components all integrated by plugging them together inside an RC plane being controlled by one TX. Heck, I've even seen ONE plane controlled by multiple TX/RXs when the flight crew requirements called for more than one guy could operate.


Earlier I said that my take on the NEC and Airwire systems was that they transmitted a signal that, while only covering part of the DCC "message standard", was compliant to the overall DCC "message standard". I think THIS is where the discussion should head if you really want to compare the RC plane/truck approach to standards with the "wireless DCC" approach. DCC does NOT require that the decoder/control station vendors implement 100% of the standard to be DCC compliant...but there's got to be a minimum set of required implementation AND a ban on non-standard message standards...otherwise equipment would not be interoperable between different vendors. 


The difference between the two approaches will appear from that discussion...versus just bitching and grumping.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

OK Knut. 
You have caught me out. 
I made a mistake quoting Train Control. I didn't actually check that it used DP signals to control speed and direction etc. In which case yes, it is a proprietary R/C system. 
What about all the other examples I cited? I can't help it if you have not heard of any other brands of DP ESC's. Perhaps you should take the time to do more research rather than stumble about blindly making your self look foolish by your lack of knowledge. I freely admit I know zip about DCC. That is why I ask questions. 

Just to remind you that this discussion started out being about DCC RF. Nothing else. 
However, since it was *you* who raised the subject of non DCC equipment and falsely (inadvertently or otherwise) claimed that RCS was not operating to a common standard, I am forced to play your games and refute those false assertions. You demand answers to non DCC related questions and then critcise me for replying. 

Once again. 
What part of Digital Proportional servo control do you not understand as being a standard? 
*"EVERY"* ESC made takes that same servo signal and uses it to control whatever function you want it to control. 
Say for example an RCS ESC was installed in a loco to control speed, direction and sound functions and it died and could not be replaced. You could use *any* of those ESC's I listed (except of course Train Control, my one mistake so far) and simply replace the RCS ESC between the incoming servo data signal from the RX and the loco. Same TX, same RX, the same wiring connections for the servo signal and probably exactly the same wiring inside the loco for the outputs. 
If that is not standardisation, what is? It is not proprietary. Period. 
I agree you cannot do that with Locolinc, Revolution, Train Control and other proprietary systems. 

MIke. 
Whilst it was once true that you could readily swap RX's and TX's between brands operating on the same frequency, that is not true of the 2.4 GHz systems which now dominate the Park Flyer market and are primarily what I and other DP ESC makers use, because of the extremely low cost. 
RF Interoperability disappeared when JR, and others, patented their technology and started making 2.4 Ghz systems. For a start they use two different RF protocols. DSS and FHSS, which are not compatible. 
However, they *ALL* still comply with the servo signal standard which means servos, and thus ESC's which read that servo signal, can be swapped between brands of R/C. 

Mike. I don't know why Knut is so terrified of battery R/C DCC becoming available, that he deliberately starts an argument about something that has nothing to do with the subject matter of the thread and then persists with the argument ad nauseum. 
Greg has left it alone since my last post. So that is where I will leave it too.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

You know Tony, I'm really fed up with your accusations and innuendoes and false information about what I said throughout this thread; you have constantly put words in my mouth essentially forcing me to reply even though I really want this thread to end. 
Even your last post is full of them and even ends with one: "I don't know why Knut is so terrified of battery R/C DCC becoming available" 
'nuff said.


----------

