[Beerhunter]

QUOTE (neil_s_wood @ 19 Nov 2006, 06:56) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>This is an interesting development. There has been a bit of discussion about the merits of cheap decoders recently. Maybe this is why they are so cheap.
I thought that the previous discussion was about Hornby decoders not the Select Controller.

I'm new to all this (but I am a Systems Engineer and so I understand buses) so who is Adrian Hall? Is he a DCC specialist?

 

[Beerhunter]

QUOTE (dwb @ 19 Nov 2006, 20:57) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>>but I am a Systems Engineer and so I understand buses)
Then why don't you behave like an engineer, gather some evidence and present it objectively? At present you're coming across as "My Hornby, right or wrong".

David
My applogies for coming across in that way, it is not meant.

However what I have tried to do is mainly ask questions and have only quoted my own experience.

 

[Beerhunter]

QUOTE (neil_s_wood @ 19 Nov 2006, 21:37) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The problems seem to be with the Select and the deocders if you take the trouble to read the opening item.
My applogies and you are correct that only I know Horby from experience and am on a steep DCC learning curve.

However there is no need to be so rude!

 

[Beerhunter]

Just to stir things up a little.

I looked at the Hornby DCC loco service sheets last night in order to to get ideas on wiring up my Hornby decoders - when they get here. It appears that 'Set Locos' are wired in a non-NMRA 8-pin socket standard. I confirmed this by looking at Gary's extremely comprehensive review of the Mixed Goods Set. You can see that the Jinty has four jumper plugs ands sockets rather than an 8-pin pug and socket.

Non-'Set' DCC Ready Locos have 8-pin sockets.

So it seems that anyone with ideas of moving the decoders from 'Set Locos' to locos with NMRA 8-pin sockets can forget it, unless you hard wire them or do some conversions.

It would also suggest that because the 'set loco' decoders only have four wires they may be limited in function or deliberately crippled (Or slugged as we use to say in the old mainframe days.) so as to keep to a price point.

I guess that it is a marketing strategy by Hornby so that they can ring fence the cheap 'Set Locos'.

BTW. PLEASE don't attack me or patronise me or make offensive remarks about me as usually happens when I put a post here that someone disagrees with.

 

[Beerhunter]

QUOTE (Gary @ 23 Nov 2006, 14:35) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>My DCC experiance is that I am a busy person wanting to set a layout up, plug in a console, put a few locos on the track, and have a bit of fun. I have absolutely no interest in the technology and how it works. As long as it does what I want it to do then I am very happy. From this perspective I have had 100% success to date with both the el cheapo Bachmann and Hornby systems and they are all I am ever likely to need.
Well said, I completely agree - apart from the no interest in technology bit. I am quite intrested in the technology and as I said earler I do understand buses quite well and, when I get some time, I'm going to look at the protocol and addressing scheme used in DCC. Address decoding is always fun. The early IBM PCs didn't decode the Address Bus properly because IBM did't see the need for 640KB in a PC but that, as they say, is another story.

However this is all going to have to wait for some spare time......

 

[Beerhunter]

QUOTE (IKB47484 @ 25 Nov 2006, 16:42) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It's all quite simple. The Hornby Select is DCC COMPATIBLE in that it will run others decoders, for example (have tried it, and it will - TCS and NCE) but it does not COMPLY with the relevant standards.

The words are inportant - "compatible" should only be used to say, "this loco is DCC Compatible because it has a decoder complying with NMRA-standards fitted"
regards

Rick
I'd be interested what NMRA standard the Hornby Select does not comply to as well?

 

[Beerhunter]

QUOTE (Mark Thornton @ 26 Nov 2006, 14:10) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>NMRA conformance requires compliance with both the standards and all applicable reccomended practices. I rather doubt that the Select complies with RP 9.2.1 in respect of address partitioning..

I'm afraid that this looks like here we go again It seesm like an assertion with no evidence. Why do you "rather doubt that the Select complies with RP 9.2.1 in respect of address partitioning"?

Is anyone going to answer Gary's simple question?