# New forum for Other Proprietary Control Systems



## ShadsTrains (Dec 27, 2007)

It has become apparent that some other proprietary control systems are gaining in popularity, but don't really fit in with DCC, traditional track power, or traditional RC-battery operated systems. I've created a separate forum for these systems. 

Discussion about the Aristocraft Revolution, MTH DCS, Scale Command, and other proprietary systems should happen in this new forum. It is in the Power & Sound Forums group. 

Thanks!


----------



## Stan Cedarleaf (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks, Shad...


----------



## Stan Cedarleaf (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Shad...... Noticed that there's no edit button and the smilies are different. 

Will there be a way to edit posts in this forum?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

You have to be running a Bridgewerks transformer to post and edit... 

Greg


----------



## ShadsTrains (Dec 27, 2007)

Sorry.. Should be fixed now.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Nice try Shad but unfortunately there are still crossovers in all systems. 

Given that any system that can control multiple locos on the track at the same time is by (loose) definition a form of command control, in my opinion it would be better to have just three subjects. 

1. Traditional track power. Any thing analogue and powered by voltage through the track. 


2. Track powered Command Control. This would encompass any system that used a constant voltage through the track to power on board individual ESC's. Including DCC, DCS, MTS, REVOLUTION, Locolinc, RCS etc. 


3. Battery powered command control. This would encompass any system that used self contained battery voltage to power on board individual ESC's. Including DCC, DCS, MTS, REVOLUTION, Locolinc, RCS etc. 

Yes I know that leaves out automatic battery operation but I for one would expect that subject could be handled by # 2 without causing any conflict.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think it's better to look at it from the control system perspective, not the power source. 

Why have track powered DCC in one forum and wireless/battery powered DCC in another forum? 

That's an example of what would happen with your suggestion Tony. 

Battery powered customers of yours would have to post in a different forum if they used track power and your equipment (which can be done). 

The tricky thing is the command/control system, not the batteries or source of power. It's the programming, interfacing of sound units, etc. that the commonality that needs to be in ONE forum, not split between two or three. 

I like the idea of the new forum. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

I respectfully disagree Greg. 

DCC is just another form of Command Control. 
So why should it have its own forum to the exclusion of other forms of Command Control? 
The REVOLUTION is just another form of Command Control. If it is powered by track power your suggestion would mean that any queries should be addressed to the DCC forum and when powered by batteries would be in the battery forum. 
When DCC is battery powered it should rightfully be discussed in the battery power forum. 
If RCS customers, for example, wanted to run using track power they would be well within the bounds of logic to post in the DCC forum.

Using your logic there should be forums for each specific method of Command Control. 

The way I suggest would divide the systems into how they are powered and I believe would be much more easily understood by the average Large Scaler.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I can see that your view is that all command control systems should be lumped together. 

From experience, the issues with each is very different. The DCS people have complained about being compared to DCC. The Revo users have complained about being compared to DCC. 

Both of these proprietary systems are very different from DCC, in their signalling problems, and programming issues. 

Whether DCC is run from batteries or track power, the majority of the issues are the same. Same for the Revo and same for DCS. 

I like the arrangement, and I also believe it will make the DCS and the Revo users happy that they are not on a DCC forum, based on the complaints I have heard, both directly and indirectly. 

"More easily understood", I believe, will be facilitated by the commonality of the questions on forums that have similar control and installation issues. 


Regards, Greg


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Clockwork?


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Orange???


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

LOL!


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

I suggest we have two forums: 1) G-Scale Graphics, and 2) all others!


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm going to side with Tony on this one...I think all systems can fit into one or more of the three groups he suggests. 
Otherwise, if you really want more of a breakdown, why not just take the next step and create a separate section for every single system--there really aren't that many? 

Keith


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

If one builds their own control, that is proprietary? Regardless of type.......


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

no, of course not... 

Proprietary usually means, at least in this hobby, that only one manufacturer makes the equipment, whereas non proprietary would mean there are more than one manufacturer making equipment that works together, and at least part of the "system" is an "open standard".... 

I can tell where you are going... you are going to say that system so and so is proprietary since their throttles only work with their base station, etc... jeeze... 

DCC is not a proprietary standard, by reasonable definition, and by popular interpretation. 

While the interface between throttles and the command station is proprietary, the DCC signal, format, and commands are not. Yes there are extensions that are proprietary, but the extensions are part of the standard, command "space" reserved for unique use. 

The point is you can use virtually any DCC decoder on virtually any DCC system. 

This forum should be inhabited by mostly the Aristo Revolution (no other hardware will receive and interpret it's signal), the Aristo TE series (27 and 75 MHz) for the same reason, and the MTH DCS systems, again for the same reason and description. 

You could also include Tony's equipment here, as his wireless signal cannot be interpreted by receivers from other companies. 

I would guess that if there turns out to be a lot of "traffic" on DCS, for example, it would justify a separate forum, but by it's very nature, you are dealing with a limited set of hardware all made by the same manufacturer, and by design, users do not get down to the level of "CVs" like DCC does, so the system, in a way, is more trouble free, and there are virtually no "programming" questions, only linking and control issues. 

This same reasoning applies to Tony's equipment, to the Aristo equipment, and Locolinc, etc. There's just not as many "degrees of freedom", thus less questions on configuration issues. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

IMHO (as a user, not as a mod), some of you guys would argue over the color of the sky.









Based upon member feedback, the site owner saw a need for a new forum and created one. It isn't up to us to question the need for it, nor argue the validity of that need. While some of those commenting here may not see the need, they also didn't see the private member feedback that led to the decision. Why argue about it?

Again, just mho as a member who's seen this stuff going on for 10 years (with the additional insight of a mod having had to deal with it for that same 10 years







).


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

I would suggest three categories, analog track, analog battery, and digital control of either type.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Well, I think it's an interesting discussion. The suggestions presented gives me more insight on people's frame of reference. 

Todd, your suggestion would lump the Revo, AirWire, DCS, Locolinc, DCC all in one group... that definitely won't fly... the tension between DCS and the Revo and DCC is palpable. 

Regards, Greg 

p.s. what is analog battery? battery hooked right to motor leads? total loss propulsion system? ha ha, just pulling your leg, although what "analog battery" system is NOT digital?


----------



## rmcintir (Apr 24, 2009)

So if someone were to make an open source control system it wouldn't belong here?


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 11 Jun 2010 01:46 PM 
Well, I think it's an interesting discussion. The suggestions presented gives me more insight on people's frame of reference. 

Todd, your suggestion would lump the Revo, AirWire, DCS, Locolinc, DCC all in one group... that definitely won't fly... the tension between DCS and the Revo and DCC is palpable. 

Regards, Greg 

p.s. what is analog battery? battery hooked right to motor leads? total loss propulsion system? ha ha, just pulling your leg, although what "analog battery" system is NOT digital? 

Is there enough "traffic" to warrant different headings regarless of coexistance?

Analog battery could be any on-board battey system that does not offer/require "sophisticated user programming" (e.g., older on-board TE, RCS, etc.)


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Don't really thing there is enough traffic, but believe me there is enough angst by some people. 

I think the line of "analog" battery would be impossible to define. For instance, I have used AirWire (both Airwire and Gwire throttles), the Revo, and my NCE DCC. 

Counting keystrokes and what it takes to do the things I need... my NCE is the easiest, followed by the Gwire. The Revo is a real pain in the butt for me, because certain functions take much more work to accomplish, like in consisting and even selection of a loco. So my "take" on where the line is would be much different than someone who loves the Revo, or RCS or Airwire or DCS. 

You have to have "lines" that are easy and unambiguous to draw. It's a personal opinion on what is sophisticated. 

I have had a newbie get up and running on a new DCC system in 15 minutes with no sophisticated programming. Select loco 3, enter, and turn the speed knob. No programming involved and faster and easier than anything, no linking, no scrolling, no frequency setting. 

So, it depends on your perspective. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

I still think having the forums set up under the current titles, is wrong. 
By definition all on board control systems are a form of Command Control. 
To me the best way of opening up the forums is the way I have previously described. 
1. Traditional analogue track power. For all non Command Control applications. 
2. Track powered Command Control. By definition this would include all systems including track side or on board R/C that use a constant track voltage as the power source. 
2. Battery powered Command Control. By definition this would include all systems including on board R/C that use on board battery voltage as the power source. Automatic battery is a form of Command Control too, so it would fit here. 

To me the current forum headings favour DCC over any other control system. 
Why should DCC have its own forum when it could be easily argued that DCC is definitely not the predominant on board control system and, given the domination of the on board control market by REVOLUTION, is unlikely to ever be # 1. 

I personally don't care what would be discussed in a proposed Battery Powered Command Control forum as long as it was to do with battery power. 
Likewise, discussions in a Track Powered Command Control forum as long as it was to do with track power. 
Systems that cross over could be discussed in either forum.


----------



## Chucks_Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

So when DCS releases PS3 in largescale hopefully by years end then I wonder which forum that belongs in as ANY DCC system can operate it??


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

My point entirely Chuck.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

If memory serves, the DCC forum was created because the DCC guys and the battery/RC guys couldn't get along in one forum and constant arguments ensued with each jumping into the other's topics. Splitting them into their own two camps and instructing each to leave the other alone somewhat solved the problem. A similar situation now arises, and again a separate forums seems necessary. 

If you people could get along and stop harassing and arguing, building fences to keep the peace would be unnecessary. Funny how short people's memories are sometimes.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Dwight, I completely understand your point. 

The problem is that all of the control systems nowadays can cross over into one anothers "area". 

You are correct when you say that the arguments that caused the creation of the DCC forum were in reality a differing of points of view as to the method of powering locos rather than which type of system is superior to the other. 
There are DCC systems that can be run exclusively on battery power as well as track power. 
Likewise there are non DCC systems such as REVOLUTION that can be also powered by either means. 
I have always contended that as every on board control system is by definition a form of Command Control, the separation should be by the method of powering said systems inside the locos. 

Rather than solving a problem by creating a forum for non DCC command systems, all that will happen is the DCS and REVOLUTION fans will object to what they will perceive as favouritism being shown to one particular Command Control technology. 
Still, it is not my website and I appreciate the opportunity MLS offers me to express my point if view. All I am doing is offering an opinion.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The DCS and Revo fans have already complained about favoritism long ago. 

Let them have their own forums. 

If one gets big enough to have it's own dedicated forum, great.. 

This gets just as nasty as a battery guy coming on a track powered thread and saying "why don't you go battery"? 

And DCS running under DCC would be welcome in a DCC forum I would think... as long as it wasn't "my DCC is better than your DCC" 

Funny, there's very few arguments in the DCC forum about whose DCC system is the best. Read the forum. 

But there's plenty of arguments in the RC forums and elsewhere about which RC system is best. Read those forums. 

Honestly, there's a little of the pot calling the kettle black here. 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg. 

I maintain that the reason why there are very few claims as to the superiority of one DCC system over another in the DCC forum is because there are so few DCC systems around when compared to R/C systems. 
If you think the previous TE's and the new REVOLUTION do not dominate the control system market, either singly, or definitely as a combined total, you are deluding yourself. 

Don't get me wrong, I am definitely not saying anything is superior to something else, but the evidence I see of what in reality is selling, leads me to believe that REVOLUTION is doing exactly what Mr Polk wanted it to do. Dominate the market.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Chuck, didn't Sony already introduce the PS3?  Not sure I'd trust Mario or Luigi at the controls of my locomotive... (Sorry, couldn't resist) 

Anymore, there's so much product overlap that breaking things out at all seems a bit antiquated. So many systems can run under different methods that the means of getting power to the control board seems to be the least problematic part of the equation. Can someone running brand X under track power really claim any philosophical difference from someone running it on battery RC? The big talking points of the systems aren't how they're powered, it's how they're programmed and interact with other products. I don't foresee the track/battery debate ending any time soon, but the one piece of ammunition that's been taken out of the mix is the control system. Now, that debate is squarely centered on whether you want to spend your money on wires and rail clamps or batteries and chargers. I suppose the debate has to shift somewhere, and perhaps command protocol is the next frontier. For my part, I've learned enough about all the various systems over the past year or two to realize it really doesn't matter. At the core level, they all do the same thing. If you want to do this, that, or the other above the common features, or if you like this feature or that of the user interface, perhaps that will shape your decision on system, but there's no end-all-be-all system. There's just too many subjective aspects of each system for it to ultimately be anything but personal preference. 

As for the forum titles, they are what they are. You can't change them unless you lock and archive them and start anew. (And we all know how much we love change on this board.) The simple fact is that control systems used to be far more segregated in concept, and could be broken out cleanly. Now they can't, but while the technologies have merged, the forums are "written in stone." We can only add new ones. Personally, I think things are fairly clear cut as categorized. DCC generates enough conversation in terms of programming and products that it definitely merits its own forum. The non-DCC protocols should have the same. I see the battery R/C forum becoming centered specifically around issues of powering your trains with batteries, regardless of the command protocol you're using. With the myriad battery types, and numerous issues dealing with fitting batteries into this or that locomotive, I don't see traffic in that forum dying off any time soon. 

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

My point is, that I firmly believe that even if all the various brands of DCC were totaled up, DCC is not even as popular or numerous as REVOLUTION on its own. Let alone all the competing Command Control technologies. 

So why should DCC have a forum to itself and all the others have to be lumped together? 

In fact DCC can have two bites of the cherry, so to speak. When DCC is battery powered, it is quite proper to discuss it in the battery R/C forum. 
In my opinion, to be fair, any other Command Control technology that happens to be track powered should also be able to be discussed in the DCC forum.


----------



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Tony,

Does your board for the K27 work with the revolution?? If not do you plan on making one that will work with it?? Seems to me it would be a good move buisness wise for you.

Chuck


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Do you mean the PnP ESC or the installation kit for a K-27 I also make? 

The ESC = No. The PnP ESC I make definitely does not work with the REVOLUTION. If I wanted to make my ESC's compatible with any other control system it would probably be DCC. I consider the way my systems work, with Digital proportional speed control and not pushbuttons, superior to any other control system on the market. 

The installation kit = Yes. It will work with any PnP system including the REVOLUTION.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

So why should DCC have a forum to itself and all the others have to be lumped together? In fact DCC can have two bites of the cherry, so to speak.Perhaps - if one is looking for reasons to feel persecuted. Otherwise it's a non-issue. And the creation of a new forum for other specific technologies indicates that all the others are NOT being "lumped together" but treated independently as demand requires.


----------



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

Tony,

I ment the board that plugs into the B-man socket. If the revo is dominating the controll market, your post above, and Bachman has put out 6,000 K's, I was told that at the ECLSTS maybe a board to work with the revo might be something to consider. I would be interested in one.

Chuck


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

For any non AristoCraft R/C system to be able to work with REVO it would require access to the AristoCraft codes and procedural protocols that control the the REVO system. 
I cannot imagine for one minute Mr Polk would make them available as an open architecture system. 
Then, of course I could be wrong. 

In the meantime I do offer a PnP system for the K-27 already. It was the first battery R/C one on the market for the K-27 and remains the only one that can translate the optical chuff timer signal without adding any other parts.


----------



## Chucks_Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

Kevin, I recall seeing a pic or two in GR that showed a MTH Challenger on your rr??!!


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

And the beat goes on.







Later RJD


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Kevin, I recall seeing a pic or two in GR that showed a MTH Challenger on your rr??!! 
That wasn't my railroad. I enjoy standard gauge railroading vicariously through others. Much easier on the wallet.  

Later, 

K


----------



## Bill Swindell (Jan 2, 2008)

This is really funny reading all of the arguments. I agree with Dwight. Just use what you have for forums. If you feel another is needed, send Shad a note and tell him about it.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Eouugh of this BS. Argumentative posts have been deleted. Further posts of that sort will result in this topic being locked.


----------



## rreiffer (Jan 14, 2009)

Dwight,

Do you feel like you are herding cats? 

Actually, I think we should have the following forums:








Argumentative Forum (for those that like to argue, discuss, rant, rave, etc. - the only downside is that these might get extremely long) 







Pacifists Forum (for those that never argue anything - probably would be very short posts)







I Really Don't Care Forum (for those of us left over from the 60's - dude - probably would have posts like this one!)

Rich


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Add a forum for totally worthless comments designed to increase post count. It's already popular!









Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Just found out through a phone call that this forum had been created.

Don't worry, I'm not going to argue one way or the other which forums Shad should or should not create - that's his business and in my opinion somewhat irrelevant in any case, but one statement by Tony really floored me:




> My point is, that I firmly believe that even if all the various brands of DCC were totaled up, DCC is not even as popular or numerous as REVOLUTION on its own. Let alone all the competing Command Control technologies.{/QUOTE]
> 
> Do you have any credible data to back this up?
> 
> ...


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Knut,
I am saying that in Large Scale, there are more REVOLUTION systems in use than all DCC systems combined.


Just ask Mr Polk. I am sure when asked a direct question he will not deny it.


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By ShadsTrains on 10 Jun 2010 11:48 AM 
It has become apparent that some other proprietary control systems are gaining in popularity, but don't really fit in with DCC, traditional track power, or traditional RC-battery operated systems. I've created a separate forum for these systems. 

Discussion about the Aristocraft Revolution, MTH DCS, Scale Command, and other proprietary systems should happen in this new forum. It is in the Power & Sound Forums group. 

Thanks!


Well, I'm not MTH DCS, I've never even heard of Scale Command, but I am definitely a proprietary system, and pretty much an "other". I'm confused... I guess I will consider G-Scale Graphics products to be Traditional R/C, but feel free to consider them as "Other" if you wish!


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 12 Jul 2010 08:23 PM 


Hi Knut,
I am saying that in Large Scale, there are more REVOLUTION systems in use than all DCC systems combined.


Just ask Mr Polk. I am sure when asked a direct question he will not deny it.










Ahhh..........that's your source of information.

Thanks.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Knut.


I didn't actually say that.
You only need to read the blurbs that keep coming out to realise that World domination (of that market) is the aim of his Company.
I am only extrapolating on the available information to see what the likelihood of that actually happening in the future, really is. 
If it hasn't already happened.

You need to confirm with Mr Polk on the validity of the hypothesis.


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

OK Tony - I think I got it.

This is more complicated than Jerry's installation of the Revolution into a USA Trains NW-2.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Knut,

If you put your tongue firmly in your cheek, along with any reality that could possibly be associated with the utterings from AristoCraft, you will definitely get it.


Got it??


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Yep - got it Tony


----------



## Jerrys RR (Jun 28, 2010)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 12 Jul 2010 09:21 PM 


World domination (of that market) is the aim of his Company.

I am only extrapolating on the available information to see what the likelihood of that actually happening in the future, really is. 

If it hasn't already happened.




I seriously doubt that any company will ever dominate the large scale market but in reality I would expect that it would be the intention/hope of every company that they could achieve the domination of whatever market they happen to be in. I don't see anything wrong with domination being the intention of any company. Its just a marketing plan after all and what manufacturer would ever think or suggest that they don't want or hope to dominate the market they are in?

In the few instances where it happened to some point such as IBM Personal Computers and LGB toy trains, the domination was fleeting as competitors came up and used that domination as a stepping stone to introduce competitive products that eventually redefined the market.

About the only domination I see of the Revolution is becoming the preferred control choice for those buying Aristo-Craft locomotives with the Plug and Play interface. I see nothing wrong with the manufacturer of a locomotive attempting to dominate the control of that locomotive. MTH does it with DCS and LGB did it with MTS. In the end neither of them gave the buyer a choice in that MTH came with DCS installed and LGB came with MTS decoders installed. In my opinion that was a good thing both for MTH and LGB customers. Why should we fault Aristo-Craft for doing the same thing? Perhaps Aristo may some day start furnishing the locomotives with the Revolution and a sound system pre-installed. If they do they will be saving customers the work of having to install control and sound systems and again it would be nothing new to the industry.

Aristo-Craft has gone one step further than others. They have made battery operation as easy as a plug in battery car opening the market more than MTH or LGB ever did.

There will always be those who choose the alternative of pulling out the existing control wiring and replacing it with their preferred choices which is where the after market manufacturers have always been found. 

Most people I know don't want to take their locomotives apart and install anything. I have friends ask me frequently to install things for them and I don't have time for my own installations - plus I really hate to take any locomotive apart.

One might suggest the old Train Engineer dominated the track power market but that was pretty much by default. No one else (to my knowledge) offered a competitive product that ever gave the Train Engineer any serious competition.

Whether it is the Revolution or the Train Engineer, Aristo-Craft will only get whatever portion of the market where buyers feel there are no better choices that meet their personal expectations. I think Aristo-Craft, by spending their money to build Aristo-Craft locomotives, is entitled to attempt to dominate the market for control of the locomotives they manufacture. 

That leaves a free-for-all for the control of USA Trains, Bachmann, Accu-Craft, Hartland, Marklin/LGB and every other manufacturer. That is not a world domination by Aristo-Craft or anyone else.

In a free market society, domination can only be accomplished with the free will of the buyers. For me personally I have more Revolution receivers on order but I also have LGB, Massoth and MRC decoders to be installed, I may buy more MTH someday, and most of my trains run on track power where I occasionally bring out a Train Engineer to run them but most of the time I use a plain old throttle. 

Domination of the market reminds me of:

"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." 
Mark Twain [/b]

I wish Aristo-Craft well just as I wish USA Trains, Marklin/LGB, Bachmann, Accu-Craft, MTH, Hartland and the rest well. We need them all.

Jerry


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Jerry, 
The subject was control systems. Not the Large Scale market in general. 
My comments are not derogatory. Although others may choose to see them that way. 
AristoCraft (AC) has stated publicly that the REVOLUTION is superior to anything else, including DCC, and they want to dominate the control system market. 
If they can of course. 
AC have now announced a fitting service for installing the REVOLUTION in non PnP locos. Which by definition must include every other brand. I can only assume this is to assist in that aim. 

Not only are they are after domination in Large Scale, but other scales as well. Why else would they have announced an H0 size system for the future? 

This is by no means a criticism of either the product or the Company. Just stating facts.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Every company wants to increase market share... world domination has such an evil connotation... makes it sound sinister! 

"AC have now announced a fitting service for installing the REVOLUTION in non PnP locos. Which by definition must include every other brand." 
I don't see that 'must', I see it as on their locos before the socket. All brands is your assumption. The very broadest definition, not a 'with in' the company definition. 

Economy shrank, so they need to spread their talents to similar markets... 
Tony I bet you'd be thrilled if the O ga. market started using your products... would that lessen your G reputation? I doubt it, might even better it as more people can use your goods and share their successes... 

In the end, it isn't the 'aim' of the company, it's the quality of their products and the consumers that will or won't accomplish that Domination. 

I can 'see' where they can advetise the Revo as being better than DCC, only because for me, I am overwhelmed by what I don't really undestand...electronics! Plug and play! What a concept! 

I blue smoked my first install (posted that here) and got a terse letter from the maker stating it was my fault and would cost me. Well I knew that and hadn't asked for anything for free. If I had the money I'd chuck all his stuff and get the Revo! Instead I have a new expansion that has never seen a train. A second install waiting and a big feeling of helplessness! 

If AC came out with a simplified Revo; fewer bells and whistles and a cheaper price I would have bought them, but now I've already gutted the socket! 
My closer to scale On3 is calling me.... 

John


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Totalwrecker on 13 Jul 2010 09:20 AM 
I can 'see' where they can advetise the Revo as being better than DCC, only because for me, I am overwhelmed by what I don't really undestand...electronics! Plug and play! What a concept! 


John,

You would just "love" the LGB locos, well not all of them but a good number.

Just "play" no "plug" required. Both DCC and analog operation is built in when they come from the factory - all you do is place them on the track and run them either with your DCC System if you have one or with a regular analogue power pack. Nothing to plug in or to adjust or to select. OK - for the second and third loco you need to change the loco address..............


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Aristo wants to battle DCC for the sophisticated control market, and in HO where DCC is firmly entrenched. 

The company sees DCC not only as a competitor, but the enemy, you only have to read the advertisements and posts to see all the false information that is presented about DCC, and the areas of poor quality and operation glossed over on the Revo. 

The Revo is, in terms of reliability and software "maturity" about where DCC was 10-15 years ago, extremely sensitive to voltage variations, resetting and losing link often. This problem was solved years ago in DCC and it does not take a bank of capacitors as large as the boiler of a steam loco to do it. 









The "system" concept of the Revo is where it cannot compete with DCC or DCS, where the "system" is aware of all the locos, and consists, etc. That means the "system" is aware of the components. The Revolution is a one to one setup, cab to loco. To get another cab to know about locos requires loading all the information in that cab now. This is because there is no "system" controller. 

Does everyone want a "system" - no. 

Does everyone need a "system" - no. 

Does everyone want all the power and flexibility and freedom of multiple suppliers of products like in DCC - no. 

So the Revo has a market, and if you limit your expectations to what it does, it does them OK... not great (when it stops losing link and needs no caps, then it will be great).... 

BUT, will it replace DCC, ha ha ha ha! In HO??? I am rolling on the floor laughing my a** off.... it's almost sad, it's so funny. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Revo, I'm anti deception, anti misleading, anti untruths. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Big dreams and a small budget! 

When I entered this Gauge, I was unaware of the used market and shelf prices of LGB weren't in my range. 

I'm not saying DCC may not be the best there is, I did say that the associated wiring (as I pereceive it) is daunting... So the plug and play concept is great, if it works. For me.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes, plug and play makes it simple. I can also show you how to add any decoder Revo (or DCC) to a non plug and play loco quickly. Basically you interrupt the power pickup wires and "insert" the decoder in series... In a usat loco, it can be done with 4 connectors and no soldering or wire cutting, and the loco can be returned to stock in about 40 seconds once you have the shell off. 

It's not as daunting as the detractors want you to believe. You can get "into" it in stages. 

For non plug and play locos, the USAT are easiest for the Revo in my opinion. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

I dunno...fried my board adding an on/off switch to sound and lights off board...think that's not daunting? Worked fine until I put the shell back on.... Puff 

Whether you believe it or not, I'm daunted! ha ha.... no detractors other than my lack of success. 

2 locos.... not many ... very small budget, smaller hands to hand off to, simplicity. A 2 stick Tx and canned sound. Confident let's add a dpst! OH Vey! 

John


----------



## rmcintir (Apr 24, 2009)

I enjoy reading how railroaders on a small budget get things done far more than the big guys. Keep us posted on your two loco progress John. I've pinched a few wires putting the shell back on a few locos. fortunately no smoke yet but it can and does happen. russ


----------



## Jerrys RR (Jun 28, 2010)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 13 Jul 2010 10:19 AM 
Aristo wants to battle DCC for the sophisticated control market, and in HO where DCC is firmly entrenched. 

Greg 

Hi Greg,

I think you are right and I think it is a good strategy for Aristo to be following.

From my viewpoint, while I like some things about MTS/DCC, there are two issues that had the greatest effect on my buying the Revolution rather than expanding with more MTS/DCC decoders.

First are the Central Stations. While my LGB MTS is admittedly outdated it remains what I use and like but all MTS/DCC track power requires a Central Station to put the DCC signal on the rails and then limits the power available to everything running on that block or layout.

The Revolution eliminates the expensive Central Station and its limitation on the power available to the trains.

Second is the need for at least some (such as my LGB) MTS receivers having to be positioned outside to receive signals from the transmitter since without them the DCC signal distance is much shorter than the Revolution signal distance. No such receivers/repeaters are needed with the Revolution.

On the negative side the Revolution receiver is much larger than most decoders (but much less expensive than many decoders). The size difference will make it easier to fit decoders into smaller locomotives.

Then too there are quite small sound decoders but (as yet anyway) there are no sound Revolution receivers.

For me the "awakening" was when I put four 8 amp MRC sound decoders into an Aristo-Craft FA/FB-1 ABBA set only to realize that I now had 32 amp decoder capability in 4 locomotives (with lights and sound) that I could never conceivably run within the limits of my 5 amp LGB MTS system. 

My "fix" with the Revolution would amount to two Revolution receivers (one per two FA/FB-1's) and nothing else since I bought the Revolution transmitter for other Aristo locos. An alternative fix with DCC (bearing in mind that I could have run two FA/FB-1's also from a single MRC sound decoder which only cost about $10) would have meant buying a new 15 amp Central Station and matching transmitter (plus various accessories). For me it was a no-brainer as the Aristo Revolution was by far the cheapest solution.

I don't mean to suggest that the Revolution is better than MTS/DCC since it certainly does not have near as many features as DCC has and I cannot imagine ever changing a single LGB decoder equipped loco to the Revolution but I think Aristo-Craft deserves recognition for a very smart strategy in competing with DCC by changing the rules of the game entirely.

There have been debates for years about how well DCC is suited for outdoors applications. A lot has been said about the DCC signal strength on extended rails outside. I don't know how valid such comments are and the newer wireless DCC systems have addressed the issue. 
Since Aristo-Craft already had such a large following with the regular Train Engineer it was a natural progression for them to come up with the Revolution. I think it has changed the marketplace and given owners another good choice to pick from. It may have its flaws but so do my MTS serial and parallel transmitters. One thing about all electronics is that a better version will be coming and then one better than that one etc.

It will probably take a few years for the Revolution to establish a record for dependability, durability and most important for service when needed. Short term problems can be expected. Long term (kind of an extended short term) will establish a history that will make or break the future of the Revolution. I am betting my money (no kidding there) that the future will prove to be a good one.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

This forum is not to bash Aristo. 

But YOU are inviting a comparison, and Jerry, your viewpoint and experience with DCC is severely limited. 

Comparing LGB MTS and the Revo, sure, MTS handhelds, programming, limitations, sure... it's prehistoric compared to current DCC systems. 

So comparing ALL of DCC to the Revo based on MTS is just like saying that ALL Chevys are better than ALL Fords because you had a Pinto that blew up. 

Do yourself a favor, realize that MTS is an example of an old, limited, expensive, early DCC system... not the representative of any modern systems. Using it as an example for modern DCC is going to get you in an argument every time.

Just promote the Revo on it's positives. If you are going to contrast it with a specific system, that's fine, make it clear. If you want to go "Polk Mode", and take on all of DCC, then you need to make a fair, complete, and current comparison. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Jerry -

When I read your last post, it seems that you seem to have some misconceptions about the electrical aspects related to DCC and the Revolution.

For instance:
_From my viewpoint, while I like some things about MTS/DCC, there are two issues that had the greatest effect on my buying the Revolution rather than expanding with more MTS/DCC decoders.

First are the Central Stations. While my LGB MTS is admittedly outdated it remains what I use and like but all MTS/DCC track power requires a Central Station to put the DCC signal on the rails and then limits the power available to everything running on that block or layout.

The Revolution eliminates the expensive Central Station and its limitation on the power available to the trains._

The Revlution does eliminate the Central Station (which is actually not really a benefit since it limits the Revolution system capabilities) but the point I wanted to make is that the power available to run trains if you use track power as you do is the same for DCC as for the Revolution. With the Revolution you still need to provide enough power through the rails to run all locomotives, exactly the same as for DCC.


_Second is the need for at least some (such as my LGB) MTS receivers having to be positioned outside to receive signals from the transmitter since without them the DCC signal distance is much shorter than the Revolution signal distance. No such receivers/repeaters are needed with the Revolution._

I don't really understand what you mean - you say the DCC signal distance is much shorter than the Revolution signal distance.
The DCC signal is transmitted over the rail, there is no distance limitation of the DCC signal over the rail that I have ever heard of - at least not in a practical sense.



_On the negative side the Revolution receiver is much larger than most decoders (but much less expensive than many decoders)._

The Revolution receiver is much larger *and* much more expensive than any DCC decoder I have ever come across.

We just discussed that in a European forum, for a typical loco, the basic cost there is around $100 Euros for the Revolution receiver and capacitor board, an equivalent DCC decoder sells for 30 Euros plus *one* electrolytic.

If you compare receiver with sound, the cost difference is even greater. 

On a system basis, the higher cost of the Revolution receiver is offset by the cost of the DCC central station where you don't need an equivalent with the Revolution, so the start up costs of the Revolution is less but f you have more than just a small number of engines, the system costs will be higher.



_For me the "awakening" was when I put four 8 amp MRC sound decoders into an Aristo-Craft FA/FB-1 ABBA set only to realize that I now had 32 amp decoder capability in 4 locomotives (with lights and sound) that I could never conceivably run within the limits of my 5 amp LGB MTS system._

The comment about "32 Amp capability" is meaningless. The motors in the engines draw a certain amount of current based on the motor type and load - that has nothing to do with the maximum current each decoder can handle.
You have the equivalent of a 5 amp power supply with the MTS system. You would have the exact same limitations if you used a 5 amp power supply with the Revolution. On DCC you can expand the power by adding power districts, I don't know if you can even do that with the Revolution - typical DC power supplies don't like having their outputs shorted to another power supply - DCC boosters are designed to allow for that.



_My "fix" with the Revolution would amount to two Revolution receivers (one per two FA/FB-1's) and nothing else since I bought the Revolution transmitter for other Aristo locos. An alternative fix with DCC (bearing in mind that I could have run two FA/FB-1's also from a single MRC sound decoder which only cost about $10) would have meant buying a new 15 amp Central Station and matching transmitter (plus various accessories). For me it was a no-brainer as the Aristo Revolution was by far the cheapest solution._

Also not true - if you're happy with the MTS capabilities you could have just added a 15-amp booster to your MTS system and kept and reused everything else.


_I don't mean to suggest that the Revolution is better than MTS/DCC since it certainly does not have near as many features as DCC has and I cannot imagine ever changing a single LGB decoder equipped loco to the Revolution but I think Aristo-Craft deserves recognition for a very smart strategy in competing with DCC by changing the rules of the game entirely._

I don't understand that statement either. Systems like the Revolution have been available for years. Maybe a bit less sophisticated, but controlling the loco using a direct wireless link and picken up power from either on-board battery or the track is nothing new at all.



_A lot has been said about the DCC signal strength on extended rails outside_

Again - I have no idea where this comes from. The DCC signal strength doesn't get less just because the track is extended. 



The Revolution is certainly a good system for certain types of layouts, I'm not questioning that - but quite a few of your comments caused me to raise my eyebrows................


----------



## Jerrys RR (Jun 28, 2010)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 14 Jul 2010 10:56 AM 
This forum is not to bash Aristo. 

But YOU are inviting a comparison, and Jerry, your viewpoint and experience with DCC is severely limited. 

Regards, Greg 


Hi Greg,

I totally agree that my viewpoint and experience is severely limited. That is why I was careful to point out that I was comparing it with my old LGB MTS system and I made no reference to any other DCC systems. 

It is of no importance to me what someone else buys with their money and I was/am not trying to convince anyone to do anything.

The only point of my comments was to share why I personally chose to buy a Revolution based on my personal environment and current equipment.

I have made no effort of any kind to educate myself on advances of MTS/DCC beyond my LGB Central Stations I, II and III and Massoth Navigator. Certainly my DCC capabilities are very limited but they fully meet what I personally wanted with my LGB MTS equipment.

My use for the Revolution is for Track Power just as my use for MTS/DCC is also based on track power. Both systems are based on manufacturer provided electronics - LGB locos with factory installed decoders and LGB or Massoth controls or Aristo-Craft locos (having Plug and Play interfaces) with Aristo-Craft with Revolutions. That still leaves most of my trains (including some LGB and some Aristo as well as other brands) running on plain old analog track power - usually with a throttle and sometimes with Train Engineers.

Since most of my locos are LGB they have the limitations of the way LGB handled their decoder electronics (serial or fast serial/parallel). 

Then too my situation is perhaps different in that I am happy with the Dallee sound systems. If someone wants something different from what my personal choices happen to be they would naturally make different choices.

In effect I look for easy to install, easy to learn, easy to operate and minimum net cost. I have no idea what someone else's priorities happen to be so I have no idea what would be the right choice for someone else.

The simple facts are:

1. I am perfectly happy with my LGB/MTS
2. I am perfectly happy with my Aristo-Craft Revolution
3. I am perfectly happy with my MTH DCS
4. I am perfectly happy with my Aristo Live Steam Mikado
5. I am perfectly happy with my Aristo Battery Capability
6. I am perfectly happy with my Analog Track Power
6a. with a Manual Throttle or
6b. with a regular Train Engineer

I like them all relatively equally for the purposes I bought them for and use them for. I don't consider any one of them to be the best. They all just represent different ways of enjoying large scale trains.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Jerry, PLEASE stop saying MTS/DCC....... MTS is not really completely equivalent to DCC... 

Again Pinto/Ford...... the pinto sucks, but not all Ford. 

MTS by itself is a product... DCC is a technology with many products. 

Otherwise I will start saying that the Revo/Aristo sucks... when all I really mean is that the Revo sucks. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg, MTSIII is certainly full blown DCC...what part of NMRA compliance doesn't it have? Any 3rd party decoder will work with it. MTS1&2 and the older LGB decoders may be a different story as they are more limited without a parallel upgrade, but the MTSIII with a wireless navigator is capable of holding it's own against any other full blown DCC system out there in my opinion. Anyway, not trying to stir the pot, just pointing out there are variations even within the "MTS" designation. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the current MTS & LGB decoders etc. being sold today are full DCC, one in the same--I just didn't want readers to get the impression that isn't the case. 
When Massoth begins shipping their DRC-300 wireless receiver capable of running any NMRA DCC decoder via track or battery power then we will have a system that adds flexibility to someone already running DCC, or competes more head to head with the Revo. I can hardly wait for the Polkspeak disinformation machine to start rolling once that happens! 

Keith


----------



## Jerrys RR (Jun 28, 2010)

Posted By krs on 14 Jul 2010 12:28 PM 
Jerry -

When I read your last post, it seems that you seem to have some misconceptions about the electrical aspects related to DCC and the Revolution.

The Revolution is certainly a good system for certain types of layouts, I'm not questioning that - but quite a few of your comments caused me to raise my eyebrows................ 





Hi Knut,

Actually you are probably quite right about some of my numbers. I did not actually put a pencil to it and mentally I was thinking about my recent cost of LGB/Massoth 55026 & 55027 decoders (the main ones I use) compared with around $70 for a Revolution receiver but I did not think to add the cost of the smoke unit or the capacitor pack and if I did the cost would have been comparable. On the other hand an Aristo Everest 15 amp power supply is less than $150 and no Central Station or Booster is needed with it plus the Aristo Revolution Transmitter is around $150 including bi-direction control and a graphics display.

In my case I never really made any sort of comparison between the Revolution and what it would have cost to expand further into DCC. I was (and still am) somewhat frustrated with putting sound and decoders into a few LGB Forneys and Moguls with the DCC interface and into those FA/FB-1's. 

Along came a friend with a SD-45 with a Revolution Receiver and Transmitter. When I realized it had a plug and play interface I stopped working on the Forneys, Moguls and FA/FB-1's and bought some SD-45's, GP-40's and E-8's along with Revolutions to put in them.

LGB never sold me on MTS/DCC. They just made it too easy for me not to buy into it when they started including factory decoders and sound. Aristo did pretty much the same thing. I was never sold on the old on-board receivers but the new diesels with a plug and play interface made it too easy for me not to buy into it as well.

I probably do have a lot of misconceptions about DCC. I had become very frustrated with it and the Revolution came along at just the right time for me. I focus on what is important to me and as a result some things I say may be outdated or based on misconceptions. If that happens I am happy to accept updated information as I would not wish to mislead anyone. I am not and never have been a DCC expert of any kind.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Jerrys RR (Jun 28, 2010)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 14 Jul 2010 01:25 PM 
Jerry, PLEASE stop saying MTS/DCC....... MTS is not really completely equivalent to DCC... 

Again Pinto/Ford...... the pinto sucks, but not all Ford. 

MTS by itself is a product... DCC is a technology with many products. 

Otherwise I will start saying that the Revo/Aristo sucks... when all I really mean is that the Revo sucks. 

Regards, Greg 

Hi Greg,

I say MTS/DCC to highlight that fact that I am not knowledgeable about the DCC world and my DCC world is limited to the capabilities of my LGB MTS system. For me to say MTS many would not know what I was talking about and for me to say DCC would suggest that I am including things I know nothing about.

While I admit that I am probably in the minority, I happen to really like the LGB MTS system. It is the extended capability that DCC offers that tends to make it more complex than I want to deal with. Additionally there are specific incompatibilities between MTS and DCC (such as how the F1 key functions) that make most decoders incompatible as a plug in interchangeable replacement for LGB/Massoth decoders. For me MTS and DCC are synonymous with LGB as I only use DCC components that work with my LGB Central Stations I, II and III. I am obsolete but that is perfectly OK with me because I don't have to learn anything new to continue to use MTS.

It is the very limitations of MTS that appeal to me that also make the Revolution appeal to me. All I want from a locomotive and control system is:

1. stop, go 
2. forward, reverse
3. horn/whistle
4. bell

it is all of the things that make DCC "better" that make me prefer the Revolution and MTS because they only work if I make an effort to learn how to make them work and I do not want to make the effort to learn anything beyond the above. The Revolution includes a few extra things but they are pretty much intuitive in terms of remembering what they are and what they do. The biggest advantage over MTS is that I don't have to remember the locomotive number (yes I know most DCC does that now).

The difference between you and me is that you are like the old me. You want to know everything about everything (which is perfectly good and OK) but* the* *new me only wants to know the bare minimum* and to get by with the simplest of installations. I no longer care about fastest, newest, best or anything else.

The day may come when you think the same but for now you will wonder (as I used to) why that old guy doesn't want to learn anything new.

I'll probably keep saying MTS/DCC for my stated reasons and you are welcome to say whatever you like as well. You are entitled to voice your opinion about the Revolution just as I am (it seems to me you just did). I never do what anyone wants me to do - that's one of the big priveleges of being retired.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Keith, you are certainly right about the technical capabilities of MTSII, but my point was that using an old MTS system to represent ALL of DCC, and (I know it was headed here) to contrast the "ease of use" and the hardware components and backlighting and throttle size and cost, etc is not right. Like I said, you want to compare the Revo to ONE model of ONE brand of hardware... OK... But to use his MTS experience to characterize ALL of DCC is blatantly wrong. I did not mean to denigrate the MTSIII system, or even LGB in general. Just saying if you are going to compare systems, use apples to apples. Seems Massoth is taking up the technological successorship. Regards, Greg Posted By Cougar Rock Rail on 14 Jul 2010 01:52 PM 
Greg, MTSIII is certainly full blown DCC...what part of NMRA compliance doesn't it have? Any 3rd party decoder will work with it. MTS1&2 and the older LGB decoders may be a different story as they are more limited without a parallel upgrade, but the MTSIII with a wireless navigator is capable of holding it's own against any other full blown DCC system out there in my opinion. Anyway, not trying to stir the pot, just pointing out there are variations even within the "MTS" designation. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the current MTS & LGB decoders etc. being sold today are full DCC, one in the same--I just didn't want readers to get the impression that isn't the case. 
When Massoth begins shipping their DRC-300 wireless receiver capable of running any NMRA DCC decoder via track or battery power then we will have a system that adds flexibility to someone already running DCC, or competes more head to head with the Revo. I can hardly wait for the Polkspeak disinformation machine to start rolling once that happens! 

Keith


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Jerry, 

If you open an Aristo loco, plug in a QSI, connect the speaker, and use an NCE throttle, it will take FEWER keystrokes to operate it than a Revo, and you can live your ENTIRE life without programming anything. The horn and bell work by pressing a button that says "Horn" and "bell"... 


See the clearly marked buttons? Horn, bell, headlight direction (and shows "FWD" on the screen too? no guessing. Oh the emergency stop works immediately too.










Here's your Revo:
Where is the horn button? Bell? Headlight? Momentum? Consisting?... 










Man, you want easy? You want no programming?.... I'll take the clearly labelled buttons and no programming or guessing where the bell or the horn or the lights are, thanks.

In the NCE example, locomotive #3 is going forwards, but at zero speed, the headlight is on and functions 3 and 5 are also on.

What direction is the Revo going? To the right? Is the headlight on? What button do I press for the horn? Bell? 


Greg


----------



## Jerrys RR (Jun 28, 2010)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 14 Jul 2010 02:26 PM 
using an old MTS system to represent ALL of DCC, and (I know it was headed here) to contrast the "ease of use" and the hardware components and backlighting and throttle size and cost, etc is not right. 

I was not heading anywhere and I happen to agree 100% with your comment.

If I made any actual comparisons based on my experiences it would have to be to compare the Revolution with the LGB Central Station III using a Massoth Navigator or to MTH's DCS .

The Revolution would lose to both when it came to any sort of technical comparison. I just would not try to put a Revolution into a LGB Mogul or MTH Challenger or a decoder into a E-8. That's a personal choice and not a suggestion or recommendation for what anyone else should do.

Apples, oranges and pears. I like them all.

I never talk about other DCC systems simply because I know nothing about them.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Jerry, you're a funny guy--I think you underestimate your understanding of all the various systems. There are probably very few people in the hobby with as many control variations as you, and I can tell by having read your posts over the years that you have gained a pretty darn wide understanding of all the various systems out there, despite you saying you only want to know the bare minimum. Usually you only want to take one step along the path but your curiousity ends up taking you for quite a walk along the way...and that's what this hobby is really all about and what keeps it interesting. The ever-increasing abilities of the modern control systems we're all talking about just create more paths for us to take and thus more potential to get lost along the way as the paths sometimes run parallel but often intersect. But the more time we spend exploring the woods the less chance any of us will be misled by a Big Bad Wolf who likes to huff and puff.


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 14 Jul 2010 02:32 PM 
... The horn and bell work by pressing a button that says "Horn" and "bell"... 



Here's your Revo:
Where is the horn button? Bell? Headlight? Momentum? Consisting?... 












That's interesting Greg, as my one time experience with the Revo (last week) was "Which buttons do I push for the the horn and bell? The manual doesn't even tell you! I also think all the arrows are backwards, but that's another minor gripe.


----------



## Jerrys RR (Jun 28, 2010)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 14 Jul 2010 02:32 PM 
Jerry, 

If you open an Aristo loco, plug in a QSI, connect the speaker, and use an NCE throttle, it will take FEWER keystrokes to operate it than a Revo, and you can live your ENTIRE life without programming anything. The horn and bell work by pressing a button that says "Horn" and "bell"... 

Greg 



Hi Greg,

I have never suggested that the Revolution is the best. I'm perfectly happy to say that I never made the slightest effort to look at anything else.

I bought the Revolution for the simple reason that a friend bought one, showed it to me and I liked it. If he had showed me something different and I liked that I may have bought it instead and I'd probably be talking about it rather than the Revolution.

Years ago I would probably have researched the market and looked at all the options before I bought something. If anyone but Aristo-Craft made the Revolution I probably would not have bought it - not because the Aristo-Craft brand guaranteed it would be the best or anything else but simply because I did not want to make any effort at looking at anything else.

The fact it was made and sold by Aristo-Craft and I had already purchased a couple of chrome E-8's when they were first released (and I own several Train Engineers) and a fellow club member already had a loco with the Revolution installed in it made it too easy for me to decide to buy it.

The problem with NCE and every other brand is that there is not a large scale dealer within 100 miles of here so I bought what I could see, touch and play with.

If anyone was going to run out and buy a Revolution just because of something I said I would suggest they should first try one along with anything else that is available and decide for themselves what appeals to them the most.

I don't have a clue where I could have found a NCE/QSI system to have tried. Aristo won my business by default because of where I live and the fact that there are no large scale manufacturers who have any representation here.

The bottom line for me is that with no local dealers to back up products they sell it would cost me as much to ship a defective loco with a QSI/NCE system in it to a dealer as it would to ship it to Aristo-Craft. I could not expect Aristo to fix a defective QSI/NCE product just because it was in an E-8 but I could and would expect Aristo to fix a defective E-8 with a Revolution receiver in it regardless of whether the problem was in the loco or in the receiver (just as they did for another club member who had a problem with a FA-1 he tried to put a Revolution receiver into).

Everyone has their own reasons for buying or not buying something. With me QSI/NCE (no matter how good their products are) never had a chance because Aristo had them beat by the convenience of one source for service.

I keep a spare power supply, throttle, transmitter and receiver so if something fails I can box it up and ship it in for service (just as I do with my LGB electronics). Convenience wins over features with me. Others need to determine their own priorities.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

And not trying to tell you which is better, but when you say/imply: 

"I made my decision because I only need direction, speed, bell, whistle".... If you had been exposed, or even just ordered one and tried it... you would have seen that the NCE would have answered your needs. 

But, of course, it's harder to buy on faith than when it's in your hands. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Jerrys RR (Jun 28, 2010)

Posted By Cougar Rock Rail on 14 Jul 2010 02:46 PM 
Jerry, you're a funny guy--I think you underestimate your understanding of all the various systems. There are probably very few people in the hobby with as many control variations as you, and I can tell by having read your posts over the years that you have gained a pretty darn wide understanding of all the various systems out there, despite you saying you only want to know the bare minimum. Usually you only want to take one step along the path but your curiousity ends up taking you for quite a walk along the way...and that's what this hobby is really all about and what keeps it interesting. The ever-increasing abilities of the modern control systems we're all talking about just create more paths for us to take and thus more potential to get lost along the way as the paths sometimes run parallel but often intersect. But the more time we spend exploring the woods the less chance any of us will be misled by a Big Bad Wolf who likes to huff and puff. 

Hi Keith,

You got me.

It is the journey that is more interesting to me than the destination. As you said, I like to try them all but some things make me want to discover more about them and others lose my interest so I move on to something else. Often projects sit unfinished for months until I get a brain storm about how I want to finish them. 

It is because I realize that my interests are unique to me that I do not wish to suggest that anyone else should do something just because I did it (I try a lot of things just because someone tells me it is impossible or I should not do it). I don't have goals. I just have "I wonder what ifs." Additionally the less I say about what I do the fewer fiefdoms call their troops to arms. 
"the paths sometimes run parallel but often intersect." Interesting choice of words. Well said.


Your words make it clear that you too have been over the hills and through the woods and know how to recognize the BBWs.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Jerrys RR (Jun 28, 2010)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 14 Jul 2010 03:16 PM 
But, of course, it's harder to buy on faith than when it's in your hands. 

Regards, Greg 

Hi Greg,

You have put your finger on it.

Faith:

belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence

Take your choice. I believe "when it's in your hands."

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I thought you lived in Arkansas, not Missouri! 

ha ha! 

Greg


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

But Greg, Arkansas is right next to Missouri!!!









Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

So part of the "show me state" rubbed off? 

I see you got my drift! 

Greg


----------



## Jerrys RR (Jun 28, 2010)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 14 Jul 2010 03:16 PM 
If you had been exposed, or even just ordered one and tried it... you would have seen that the NCE would have answered your needs. 

Regards, Greg 

Hi Greg, 

Why one person makes his/her buying decisions will often make no sense to someone else with different values/things that are important to him/her.

I spent a large amount of my professional life selling "systems" with products that were interdependent on each other. To sell the system concept well, one has to really believe in it and I did (and do).

I look at my trains (at least the locomotive's control, power and sound) as interdependent systems. My belief is that no one will understand LGB electronics as well as LGB and Massoth who made them and no one will understand DCS as well as MTH who makes it and no one will know how to get the most compatible results from Aristo-Craft locomotives as well as Aristo-Craft who built them. 



I buy LGB and Massoth controls to run my LGB decoder equipped locomotives; I buy MTH's DCS controls to run my MTH locos (in both O and G gauges) and I buy Aristo-Craft controls to run my Aristo-Craft locos.

I make no pretense that there are no better DCC systems than LGB (I don't care because I am satisfied with my LGB and Massoth equipment) or better systems than DCS (again I don't care because I like DCS); and I never looked at any alternative controls to the Revolution because I liked and I am happy with the Revolution.

Before I would buy an alternative to LGB/Massoth or MTH or Aristo-Craft, those brands would have to first let me down and either fail to meet my expectations or fail to provide satisfactory service if and when I need it.

I am not looking for the best, most versatile or the most features. First the manufacturers were successful in offering products (trains) I wanted above competitive products and then they got the control systems by default.

It may not be the best or most logical way to make buying decisions but I suspect it is true more often than not.

The challenge QSI/NCE has is to find a way to break this cycle but that is their problem and not mine. I would not break my purchasing cycle to try something on faith no matter how good it sounded because as you can see by the above I may go for variety in the trains I buy but I go for standardization when it comes to controls for those trains.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 14 Jul 2010 09:26 PM 
Dear Mr McColgan.
I came back to this thread too late to make any changes to my last posting. The edit facility had expired.

I would respectfully suggest that you would get greater co-operation from fellow MLS posters by talking politely instead of shouting and then yelling at them to cease using your "real" name.
That you choose not to use your real name is your right. However, ceasing to use your name would seem to me to be a rather pointless exercise anyway, as your name is already plastered all over the Net.

I would also respectfully suggest that to improve your "security" you do not draw attention to your multitude of Large Scale possessions quite so much, as doing so no doubt might entice some nefarious character to threaten your security.


Dear Mr. Walsham,

I fully expected you to calculatingly wait until it was conveniently too late to make any changes to your last posting. That is exactly what I would have expected from the kind of person I found you to be long ago.

There is nothing respectful about you and your continuous disrespect for others typically followed by a smiley attempting to pretend to have been misunderstood in a so called attempt at humor fools nobody but foolish people who do not know you as well as anyone who has been here on MLS for a long time.

You are a manufacturer of a product line of remote controls who viciously attacks anyone and everyone who ever speaks of a product that competes with you. I think you are a perfect example of the worst kind of behavior of anyone I have ever run across on MLS with perhaps a single exception.

I do not like you. You do not like me. I have attempted to treat you with respect even though you do not deserve it. I give up.

Instead I will simply state that in my opinion you are the most malicious, viperous, disrespectful, obnoxious and hateful person I know of on MLS and I would never ever buy a product of your manufacturer if for no other reason than the way you are totally disrespectful of your competition and anyone who prefers your competition's products over yours (and this absolutely includes me).

You have once again shown your true colors by once again posting my name. Anyone dumb and foolish to be even slightly inclined to believe your moronic response should at least have a high enough IQ to see this.

You do not own MLS and you are not a moderator for MLS. You have not the slightest right to tell me what I should or should not do on MLS. 

Regarding my personal security you have displayed arrogance, maliciousness, harmful intent and then you presume to think you somehow have the right to make suggestions on how I should manage my personal security.

To make myself perfectly clear I would rather share a room with a rattlesnake than with you. Both you and a rattlesnake are viperous and venomous. The only difference is that a rattlesnake shows himself for what he is while you pretend to be anything but what you really are.

Your posts had no purpose other than to do what you did which was to post my name. As far as I am concerned that was nothing more or less than a personal attack on me.

I doubt that you have ever posted the name of another MLSer who uses an alias and I hope that every MLSer who uses an alias will see this and realize that a viper is deadly and never to be trusted because tomorrow you might turn and strike at them just as you have done with me.

Don't bother with future attempts to portray yourself (with regard to me) as anything other than a person I highly despise. 

Just so there can be no misunderstanding between us:

Definitions of despise (vt) 
de·spise [ di spz ] 
regard with loathing and contempt: to dislike somebody or something intensely and with contempt
Synonyms: loathe, scorn, look down on, hate, spurn, deride, feel contempt






Jerry


Oops, I almost forgot to add -


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 15 Jul 2010 05:45 AM 


No comment. 
But, perhaps someone could show me a posting anywhere Mr McColgan had requested that, for whatever reason, we no longer use his "real" name.




I guess they do not teach all Australians manners, courtesy and respect. Every other Australian I know I respect.

Here is an American Flag that explains my position:
























Some people are unconsciously incompetent while others just pretend to be.

Jerry


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Take your personal feuds to email gents. Your posts have been deleted.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Thank you Dwight.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 15 Jul 2010 07:02 AM 
Take your personal feuds to email gents. Your posts have been deleted. 

Thanks Dwight,

Jerry


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Thanks Dwight,
I think most of us have grow very tierd of the [ SELL JOB ] once again Thanks for putting an end to it.


----------

