It seems rather pointless having this forum if the topics keep being closed before anyone can come back with a comment.
I can only participate during lunchtimes, and to find a topic I raised closed by the next time I can get to see it is very annoying and frustrating.
All I was suggesting was that manufacturers ought to publish which aspects of the standards their products support so that people with sufficient knowledge could make a judgement. So what if the majority of the public don't understand how to interpret specifications? Some of us do, and those who don't can choose to ignore them. If manufacturers are reluctant to provide this information it might imply they feel they have something to hide. Just a list of supported features would be better than nothing if they are reluctant to state what they have left out - we can work that out for ourselves.
It is not merely a matter of stating whether a piece of kit is compatible with NMRA standards - we need to know which aspects of the standards are included (or not) because some are mandatory and some are not. For example, taking the standards literally, any system which does not include baseline addressing ('2 digit' as most will know it) is not compatible with the standard because that capability is mandatory (or at least it was last time I looked). Same applies to certain CV programming modes.
Waiting for a particular exhibition isn't really going to clarify matters much either - we need the information in advance so that relevant questions can be asked at the event.
No doubt my comments here might appear to some to put me into the category of what some people would call a 'self-appointed expert'. Just for the record then, my active involvement with DCC started back in 1998 when I designed my own Command Station from scratch, just using the NMRA Standards and RP documents. Come and see me using it on the MERG stand at Warley if you like, this weekend.
Having gone through the process myself of deciding which of the available features to include in my system, I respectfully suggest that I am in a rather better position than most to interpret what other manufacturers have implemented - if only they'd tell us!

I can only participate during lunchtimes, and to find a topic I raised closed by the next time I can get to see it is very annoying and frustrating.
All I was suggesting was that manufacturers ought to publish which aspects of the standards their products support so that people with sufficient knowledge could make a judgement. So what if the majority of the public don't understand how to interpret specifications? Some of us do, and those who don't can choose to ignore them. If manufacturers are reluctant to provide this information it might imply they feel they have something to hide. Just a list of supported features would be better than nothing if they are reluctant to state what they have left out - we can work that out for ourselves.
It is not merely a matter of stating whether a piece of kit is compatible with NMRA standards - we need to know which aspects of the standards are included (or not) because some are mandatory and some are not. For example, taking the standards literally, any system which does not include baseline addressing ('2 digit' as most will know it) is not compatible with the standard because that capability is mandatory (or at least it was last time I looked). Same applies to certain CV programming modes.
Waiting for a particular exhibition isn't really going to clarify matters much either - we need the information in advance so that relevant questions can be asked at the event.
No doubt my comments here might appear to some to put me into the category of what some people would call a 'self-appointed expert'. Just for the record then, my active involvement with DCC started back in 1998 when I designed my own Command Station from scratch, just using the NMRA Standards and RP documents. Come and see me using it on the MERG stand at Warley if you like, this weekend.
Having gone through the process myself of deciding which of the available features to include in my system, I respectfully suggest that I am in a rather better position than most to interpret what other manufacturers have implemented - if only they'd tell us!