I tend to Agree Joe...

Dear Chris, I ... wonder

Dear Chris,

Simple answer, it will take serious-quantity of "average US Model RRers" to demand they want it,
and be willing to put down some cold-hard-cash to prove it...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS IMHO there's a few relevant insights to be gleaned from LokSound's release of the Select decoder,
suffice to say that the "average user" market (mindset/acceptance) drives the product development/releases...

PPS Is Reynaulds of any help? http://www.reynaulds.com/products/Roco/10820.aspx

Nothing new here ...

... these forums are filled with threads making the same arguments ... in the end, it seems the majority of model railroaders have become "comfortable" with what they have and do not wish to transitiion to something new.  Granted, they have a lot of time and money invested in their current systems; but for those who are just starting out, there are some bright prospects on the horizon.  

Agreed!

Joe, thanks for presenting a compelling case for a DCC uplift...while the hardware has shown encouraging improvements with sub-miniaturization, etc., the information architecture and user interfaces for DCC systems is very outdated. Those of us used to working with our relatively primative interfaces put up with it, but it is a barrier to newcomers...including those enjoying the hobby but avoiding the complexity of current DCC systems.

I remember as a kid reading about the flying cars and robots we would all see by 2000...and here we are a decade and a half later, with no flying cars! And we're still encoding CV settings manually, or using Decoder Pro. I want to simply customize a profile and 'flash' my locomotive with the settings while on my layout, and easily modify them using a graphic interface on an iPad or tablet. I want sound and power functions integrated but separate, making it easy to incorporate battery power options...making Dead Rail a plug and play choice easy for modelers to make. It strikes me as odd that we are still using the basic power solution used for model trains in the 1930s.

I hope this discussion helps as a catalyst for change, and that manufacturers take notice.

Why am I hearing...

Dear MRHers,

Why am I hearing strains of Seth Sentry's "Dear Science"?
(YouTube search is a thing, language warning)

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Prof...wish granted!

RailPro cannot be a "next generation DCC system"...

RailPro cannot be a "next generation DCC system" because, simply put, it's NOT DCC at all.

DCC is a registered trademark, and has a specific meaning. Railpro ain't it, and it will never be, no matter how much they spend on advertising.

The Z21 system IS DCC, and that's more the proper direction to look for the future of DCC. The ability to use several different throttles and the integrated Loconet are aspects of the Z21 that is appealing. It means your existing equipment doesn't become instantly obsolete, but you still get the advantages of a "DCC v2" system.

RailPro Cannot...

For the record, Joe did not say RailPro was DCC.

No argument here

I've clearly stated (on perhaps far too many occasions) pretty much exactly what Joe has said in this article.  Perhaps having this in the #2 Model Railroad magazine will spur on discussion on more than just the forum.  I think there are a few factors in play of why we still sit where we are at:

1. Manufacturers are still small businesses and don't have a lot to invest in innovation, nor can they afford to have "too many" products out there to support.

2. A good chunk of Model Railroaders (like it or not), tend to be comfortable where they are at and change can be difficult.  It took a long time to change to DCC from DC (and many still haven't for a few different reasons), but once they go through figuring out all those CV's and stuff, they are comfortable with it and would rather have other features than a simpler interface that they are comfortable with, so manufacturers look at other improvements.

3. New model railroaders are far less likely to speak up about their concerns with existing DCC, for many reasons, including, a) looking like a "noob" or looking foolish - nobody likes to feel like they don't know anything, and there are a few "old hands" that are less than tactful to point out what they don't know,b) thinking they will just figure it out anyway as others seem to be happy with it (my position for a long time), c) thinking it won't make a difference anyway, among other reasons.

4. No real challenge from competition to improve (until very recently) the interfaces.  Just think if Digitrax came out with a RailPro like interface and new people started flocking to them.  It would force the competition to step up.  Hopefully systems like the Z21, EcOS and RailPro will force others to step up.

5. I suspect also that, given the entrenched views of some vocal folks, a lot of the feedback from those that are happy with their current DCC system to the manufacturers paints an unbalanced picture of customer satisfaction.  Perhaps if each one of us that is unhappy with the current offerings of interfaces contacted the manufacturers and politely told them of our concerns and wishes, things would quickly swing as the manufacturers see an opportunity.  Seems like I should practice what I preach here, too.

2nd Gen DCC?

I think it may be a good idea to define what a 2nd gen DCC system is:

1. Multi Protocol (contains a sniffer port and/or various on board buses for backward compatibility)
2. Utilizes feedback in a way that makes usage quicker and easier
3. No 120 slot ceiling
4. Integrated TCP/IP
5. Anything else?

I think I am most excited about the multi protocol support. This NCE/Digitrax/Lenz throttle protocol shootout has gone on way too long; 20+ years?! I'm so over having to get 3 or more different throttles to participate in different ops sessions on dif DCC manufacture based layouts. One device to rule them all!!!

Chris

Sound

I must be missing something?

I have my Digitrax DCS100 command station which I purchased in 1998 with a DT100R wireless throttle all still in service.  While my command  station is old DCC technology, through JMRI my operators use the new Iphone and Android throttle apps to operate trains on the layout, along side the DT100R throttle which is still in  use.  Many of my operators prefer the Digitrax UT4D throttles with a speed control knob and direction switch as they are uncomfortable with the touch screen devices. (I believe I have the best of both worlds.)

While I still have a small Loconet for communication between the Command Station, Boosters,  Wireless receivers and the PR3/JMRI; my  layout is 100% wireless.

I have used JMRI Decoder Pro for years and don't remember how to program using a throttle.

I am wondering what the "Second Generation" DCC would do to enhance my operations?  What I have works well for myself and my operating crew.  One of the reasons I selected Digitrax is the system can be upgraded by adding onto the existing system.

I do not wish to start an argument or suggest that my current Digitrax system/technology is better than any new DCC technology, but it works for me.

RailPro Sound

It's true - Sound for RailPro is currently weak, but lots of improvements are on the way!

Jim

You prove my point.  DCC is working just fine for you the way it is, so you don't feel the need for anything else.  But if you really sat back and thought about how convoluted it is to set up and install JMRI, and get it working with your system, not to mention that JMRI makes it easier to change CV's, but there is very little description of what the different settings actually do.  I've played with all kinds of settings in JMRI and found it to be a challenge just understanding what the settings actually do.  

A lot of guys just want to buy a system, plug it in and figure out how to use it in an hour or two, if not less.  Anything they do should be intuitive and require very little documentation.  RailPro comes as close as anything I've seen to that, but has been pointed out, the sound is their current weak point that will hopefully be rectified sooner than later.  

For some of us, we get to our layout once a month or less for maybe a couple hours.  With so little time to learn all that stuff, then forget in between sessions, it is quite annoying and detracts from the hobby.  Many times I just didn't bother going to the layout because making a small programming change like I wanted was going to potentially take up all my limited hobby time.  With my RailPro, I just go downstairs, turn it on and test out my programming tweak in seconds with the ease of use.  All of my current DCC decoders are still at factory settings because I'd prefer to run a train than sit there and try and figure out how to change a few settings.

Don't get me wrong - JMRI is great, but my way of thinking is that it shouldn't be necessary.  The easiest way to take something to the masses is to make it as simple, yet powerful as possible.

Digital control

DCC is only ONE version of digital control for model trains.

Rich

My digital control system...

.....is where I use my digits to turn the knob on my DC controller. When guys start talking DCC using all these words containing both upper and lower case letters with numbers and no vowels, my eyes glaze over. There will always be some degree of market for whatever level(s) of control sophistication is available.

Messinwithtrains

So, if a DCC system was as simple to use as your DC system (or easier, as you'd have no blocks and could run multiple locos without concern for blocks), would you be more inclined to switch?

DCC architecture

As one who is 'newer' into the hobby I can relate to the arguments made in the article.  I got back into the hobby about 4 or 5 years ago after not touching or seeing trains since I was a kid.  I'm very familiar with computer technology, gaming systems, touch screens, etc.  When I first saw DCC my immediate thought was "this looks like a 1980's TV remote".  After learning more about CV's and how it all worked, I couldn't shake the feeling that the whole thing was incredibly over-complex and non-intuitive.  Using JMRI (though it helped immensely) seemed like a band-aid fix and still couldn't propel me past the "I feel like I'm working on an old MS-DOS system" attitude.  The final nail in the coffin was spending hours upon hours trying to get locomotives to perfectly speed match with only limited success.  Don't get me wrong, DCC does some very awesome stuff, but the path it takes to get there turned me off completely.  

I now use Railpro and feel much more at home with it.  Yes it is not perfect (what system is), but with the ability to easily update software and sounds it has enormous potential.  I can say that I haven't missed messing around with CV's at all.

I hope the DCC manufacturers do something to update the architecture or the GUI.  I can say from my own experience that the ancient look of the components and archaic nature of CV's (at least to me) was a huge turn-off.  Established members of the DCC community may not care whether or not things are updated or improved, but it may be the thing that seals the deal for those entering the hobby.

-Kevin

Kevin, well said

touch phone control

At the last PCR convention I saw several modular and home layouts controlled by a cell phone. Their technique was to use a laptop computer as the receiver and interface with the existing DCC system on the tracks. It was elegant to watch and the "apps" they were using seemed to offer a lot of variation and customization. Who needs all those CR variables if you can't figure out which one to use next. With the cell phone, they simply preset the variables once for any particular locomotive and ran that "app" until changing engines. Simple, Smart.

Seems to me....

that the first step  that companies like Digitrax  and NCE should take is developing more "modern looking" throttles with touch screen interfaces that will work with there current systems. Something like a Rail Pro throttle. My experience with model railroaders is that they are a lot like amateur (ham) radio ops and you are going to have to drag them kicking and screaming towards anything that doesn't have knobs.

Michael, W4HIJ

Some first steps

Why is there this urge to get rid of a throttle knob?

I don't know about anyone else, but any throttle that does not have a knob and physical buttons that allow me to use the throttle WITHOUT looking at it will NOT be purchased by me!  And I know several other modelers who agree with me on that point.

Ken L

...

You know exactly where I stand on this, Joe...your column is 5 years past in bennytime!  But I dare say this is a message that cannot be repeated loud enough or often enough.

Why must the next generation even be DCC in the first place?  What if we updated to a true computer language where your cell phone is talking directly with the engine, no command station in-betweens period?

Yes, that would take a monumental change in decoder architecture, but it's not impossible.  If anything, it has already been done everywhere else, it's the model railroad community where this is still a "too cutting edge" of an idea to gain wide traction...

Or maybe they need to stop wasting their money on designing throttles [lots of R&D expense] and start doing what Railpro did: find a touch face controller already on the market and program software for that control device to interact with a control module.  Or simply focus on coding better software apps for smart phones, because right now, the phones are eons ahead of where DCC throttle architecture is.  To duplicate the effort, our community wouldn't ever even be able to approach the patents covering the technology in these new devices.

Indeed, it should appear on the screen what decoder type is in the locomotive, if you touch the "About" tab.  Heck, the software version and the locomotive it's installed in with all of it's hard details should be in there too...or maybe it's time to move to a true computer protocol, where we have driver files that handle all of this for us.

Or as in Ring's instance, there are no speed tables; the units speed balance themselves automatically.  Shocking, but feasible.