[dwb]

>"designed to be NMRA compatible "
To pluck a random quote from a film - "I have a bad feeling about this"

The hierarchy for interoperability is "Compliant" then "Compatible".

David

 

[dwb]

>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

 

[dwb]

>And as for those on a steep DCC learning curve surely the best thing to do is to purchase a budget Hornby or
Bachmann digital system and try DCC for yourself!

It all depends on where you think DCC might take you. If you can't imagine having more than say 50 locos and you will only run Hornby then go ahead buy the Hornby. The company is making money and so will remain in business for years to come.

If your way ahead is not so clear and you fancy a Bachmann or two, I would suggest waiting a couple months until the dust has settled and we find out exactly what the Hornby system can and can't do.

As for Bachmann, I don't recall reading of any compatibility problems with their digital system, but then they bought in the technology from Lenz rather than giving a design company the spec and a load of dosh. So testing the water with Bachmann is a more conservative route.

David

 

[dwb]

>Would those who trumpet systems that meet these higher requirements like to indicate exactly the scale of their operations so that we can all judge what the position is when looking at possibly rather more modest plans?

That's a fair question, but can we put it in another thread please?

David

 

[dwb]

>And in terms of the CV values and the Gaugemastwer unit it is not clear precisely how those values were written onto the Hornby decoder.

>His email is not clear on this.
And that's why an objective review would be so welcome. Feverish speculation is just that - speculation. "Facts, facts, facts" - wasn't that Mr. Gradgrind's motto? (Accuracy may be slightly dodgy since it's about 30 years since I actually read the book)

David

 

[dwb]

>I actually did wonder if that was Hornbys strategy.
I don't think so. My opinion is that they decided to do it themselves (by proxy) and it's a version 1.0. Anyone coming into an established market with their "version 1.0 take" on a standard is going to take a while to get it right.

It's not an uncommon problem. Sony don't seem to have quite as much backwards compatibility on the PS3 as many users would like.

David

 

[dwb]

>Have you not considered that the issue might be with the TCS decoder and the Gaugemaster Console?
Given the relative market exposure of Hornby vs TCS and Gaugemaster, the balance of probabilities goes against Hornby on this one. What we really need is objective independent verification.

David

 

[dwb]

>Why cannot DCCers simply suggest that railway modellers spend £50 and try out the DCC experience. If they don't like it then they have only lost £50 less whatever they get for their system on eBay. If they do like it then they take it a stage further. This to me is so blindingly obvious but not to DCCers apparently! :mad.gif:

I think that's exactly what experienced DCC users want to suggest BUT if it turns out that the budget system chosen has limited or no compatibility with more advanced units, users who want to upgrade are forced to start all over again. Their "DCC on board" locomotives must be stripped and re chipped which will be a harder task than fitting a DCC module to a "DCC Ready" loco and the control unit is either "eBayed" or junked. Some may even consider that they have been conned. So who in all conscience could suggest such a route?

David

 

[dwb]

>Again the DCCers are making assumptions that everybody who tries a budget digital console will want to upgrade to another system

No. My response was to the question why, when asked for their advice, experienced DCCers might be reluctant to recommend some budget systems. I was careful not to name names because we don't have enough hard facts on what some of these are capable of.

The only person making assumptions round here is Gary - "Brian and David are anti budget".

David

 

[dwb]

>Can anybody say precisely why they consider Hornby Digital to not be designed to a "standard" when the above statement is made by Hornby?

All MMaD said was "concerns about compatibility", he didn't say it was not designed to be compatible. You are confusing two issues here - one is a system that can never be compatible, the other a version 1.0 that is about to be subject to a much larger variety of decoders and setups than it is possible to test in the confines of the design house and QA at the factory.

If we knew that Hornby had a controller software field upgrade plan in place, then we could all be confident that even if problems are discovered then they can be sorted out on the units already sold. The ECoS is already on version 1.01 and they have a lot more experience in DCC than Hornby.

I don't think anybody is doubting Hornby's intent; it's just that it is difficult for any manufacturer to get version 1.0 exactly right.

David