Welcome to the forum   
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages12>
Share
Options
View
Go to last post in this topic Go to first unread post in this topic
Offline Goofy  
#1 Posted : 20 August 2016 09:49:33(UTC)
Goofy


Joined: 12/08/2006(UTC)
Posts: 8,993
I was in another forum and did read somebody which do have Märklins sound locomotive and present with the DCC protocol too.
Is this correct?
Here is the models:
BR 18.5 (39030)
BR 50 (37835)
BR 95 (37095)
BR 144 (37443)

Any one tried to use DCC protocol with the locomotives?
H0
DCC = Digital Command Control
Offline Goofy  
#2 Posted : 21 August 2016 14:17:29(UTC)
Goofy


Joined: 12/08/2006(UTC)
Posts: 8,993
Nobody tried and tested?
H0
DCC = Digital Command Control
Offline kiwiAlan  
#3 Posted : 21 August 2016 15:01:31(UTC)
kiwiAlan

United Kingdom   
Joined: 23/07/2014(UTC)
Posts: 8,082
Location: ENGLAND, Didcot
Originally Posted by: Goofy Go to Quoted Post
Nobody tried and tested?


Why would we? we use the superior mfx system ... Laugh Laugh Laugh

thanks 1 user liked this useful post by kiwiAlan
Offline H0  
#4 Posted : 22 August 2016 08:16:06(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: kiwiAlan Go to Quoted Post
Why would we?
How could I? I have too many mfx locos, but 0 mfx+ locos. LOL

As I understand it you cannot disable mfx with those decoders, so DCC can only be used when mfx is not available on the track.

There are reports on Stummi's Forum that DCC works with some of them. Even without own experience, I trust that this reports are correct.

Undocumented DCC with Märklin locos has some negative side effects: on MM/DCC controllers the locos will ignore their MM addresses and will respond to DCC only.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
Offline sjlauritsen  
#5 Posted : 22 August 2016 09:02:30(UTC)
sjlauritsen

Denmark   
Joined: 18/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,081
Location: Denmark
I have to ask: Why does this matter?

I can understand that it would be nice that Märklin locos supported DCC, so they can be used with DCC-only controllers. This I get, and I agree, it should be possible.

What I do not understand is that when one's controller supports both mfx and DCC, then why does it matter what protocol the loco uses? The protocol is just the way messages are delivered across the track. Nothing else. How can that be of any significant importance? The end result is the same.
Søren from Denmark
Blog: https://railway.zone/ | Danish Model Railway Forum: https://baneforum.dk/
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by sjlauritsen
Offline Moritz-BR365  
#6 Posted : 22 August 2016 09:56:13(UTC)
Moritz-BR365

Germany   
Joined: 02/04/2013(UTC)
Posts: 682
Originally Posted by: sjlauritsen Go to Quoted Post
What I do not understand is that when one's controller supports both mfx and DCC, then why does it matter what protocol the loco uses? The protocol is just the way messages are delivered across the track. Nothing else. How can that be of any significant importance? The end result is the same.


There is an issue! When You use booster without mfx return channel (no mfx support) like the Delta Control booster, it makes a differenz. In this case, You will get an "mfx loco doesn't responde" message on the display, when You select an mfx loco. Furthermore, You can find several reports and help threads, where a mfx loco did't register itself on a MS2, CS2 or ESU ECoS.

With DCC, this doesn't appear! There is no respond expected from the controller. That's one reason, why I prefer the DCC protocoll and disable mfx in mSD or Esu M4 decoders. I don't need mfx, a loco card is much more comfortable, secure and works with MM, DCC, mfx and mfx+ protokoll.

It would be very interesting, if the mfx+ decoders can switch off mfx/mfx+ with CV50=0 option.
Offline sjlauritsen  
#7 Posted : 22 August 2016 10:40:24(UTC)
sjlauritsen

Denmark   
Joined: 18/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,081
Location: Denmark
Originally Posted by: Moritz-BR365 Go to Quoted Post
There is an issue! When You use booster without mfx return channel (no mfx support) like the Delta Control booster, it makes a differenz. In this case, You will get an "mfx loco doesn't responde" message on the display, when You select an mfx loco.

I can see why this is annoying, allthough fixable. When one is not using mfx-compatible equipment, I can understand why DCC might be the better choice for that person.

IMO: If I was a die hard Märklin collector, and knowing that Märklin is betting on mfx, I would make sure my equipment worked with mfx to avoid problems like the one above. Mfx cannot really be blamed here, as the equipment used is not compatible with mfx.
Søren from Denmark
Blog: https://railway.zone/ | Danish Model Railway Forum: https://baneforum.dk/
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by sjlauritsen
Offline clapcott  
#8 Posted : 22 August 2016 10:49:20(UTC)
clapcott

New Zealand   
Joined: 12/12/2005(UTC)
Posts: 2,433
Location: Wellington, New_Zealand
I have no first hand information to add

However, I do note the support files for the decoder updates available on the CS2 for the ...

mLD3 = 248244_247 variant - for Seriendecoder / Spielewelt=GamesWorld (as distinct from the variant for Nachrüstdecoder = RetroFit )
and
mSD3 = 259851_247 variant - for Seriendecoder / Spielewelt=GamesWorld

do state

Protokolle ...
Analog : AC, DC
Digital : MM, DCC, MFX+
Peter
Offline sjlauritsen  
#9 Posted : 22 August 2016 11:17:45(UTC)
sjlauritsen

Denmark   
Joined: 18/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,081
Location: Denmark
Originally Posted by: clapcott Go to Quoted Post
Digital : MM, DCC, MFX+

Interesting. For some reason Trix locos are never delivered with mfx+. I suspect that this is for marketing reasons. I would expect the decoder hardware to be the same though and the firmware in charge of what protocols are supported. Still, it must cost more to make these "which protocol to support" decisions than to just deliver the products with the same allround decoder.

Søren from Denmark
Blog: https://railway.zone/ | Danish Model Railway Forum: https://baneforum.dk/
Offline H0  
#10 Posted : 22 August 2016 20:59:09(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: sjlauritsen Go to Quoted Post
What I do not understand is that when one's controller supports both mfx and DCC, then why does it matter what protocol the loco uses?
DCC is a robust and reliable protocol.
mfx feedback is fragile, not robust and automatic registration is not reliable, not predictable.

If the decoder does not allow to disable mfx then the loco will always wait 2 seconds after power up before it responds to its DCC or MM address.

For decoders sold separately Märklin recommend to disable protocols you do not need.
With pre-installed decoders they prevent you from disabling unwanted protocols.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
Offline sjlauritsen  
#11 Posted : 22 August 2016 21:11:10(UTC)
sjlauritsen

Denmark   
Joined: 18/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,081
Location: Denmark
Originally Posted by: H0 Go to Quoted Post
mfx feedback is fragile, not robust and automatic registration is not reliable, not predictable.

But how is it "fragile"? How is it "not robust"? Smile

I cannot recognize the problems that you have. I have had years of problem free operation with mfx and DCC for that matter. I consider them equal in terms of reliability.
Søren from Denmark
Blog: https://railway.zone/ | Danish Model Railway Forum: https://baneforum.dk/
Offline clapcott  
#12 Posted : 22 August 2016 23:19:54(UTC)
clapcott

New Zealand   
Joined: 12/12/2005(UTC)
Posts: 2,433
Location: Wellington, New_Zealand
Originally Posted by: H0 Go to Quoted Post
DCC is a robust and reliable protocol.
mfx feedback is fragile, not robust and automatic registration is not reliable, not predictable.

May I presume you are referring to RailCom, as comparing the feedback aspect of mFX with base DCC is not a good one
Peter
Offline H0  
#13 Posted : 23 August 2016 08:55:19(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: clapcott Go to Quoted Post
May I presume you are referring to RailCom, as comparing the feedback aspect of mFX with base DCC is not a good one
No and yes.
I do not use RailCom. I assume you get less problems if DCC is used without RailCom.
RailCom uses unpowered cut-outs for feedback from the decoders and this should make the feedback more robust.

Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
Offline H0  
#14 Posted : 23 August 2016 09:03:45(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: sjlauritsen Go to Quoted Post
I cannot recognize the problems that you have. I have had years of problem free operation with mfx and DCC for that matter. I consider them equal in terms of reliability.
Don't worry, be happy.
At club meetings we disable mfx to get mfx locos running with MM protocol. Not every month, but typically a few times every year.
So MM is the reliable fallback when mfx failed again.

How many dozens of mfx locos do you use? One problem IMHO is that mfx does not scale well and problems grow rapidly when you got dozens of mfx locos.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
Offline biedmatt  
#15 Posted : 23 August 2016 12:33:18(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
Originally Posted by: H0 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: biedmatt Go to Quoted Post
If it won't run on MM due to MFX priority, can you turn off MFX in this decoder?
When the decoder was made they thought that mfx was the bestest protocol in the world and they couldn't think of any reason to disable it.

So MM is only an option if mfx is disabled in the controller.


I thought that might be the case.

So please help me out here guys, I'm a little slow. What makes MFX the "superior system"? Is it because you can't run your lokos? Personally, I do not see that as much of an asset.

With DCC you can just punch in the loko address and go. No dependency on auto registration, although I have never had a failed registration with RailCom+.

The dedication to this sunken ship is admirable and exactly why Marklin will never fix it.

Quote lifted from this thread: https://www.marklin-user...r-50-mfx-loco#post525345
Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
Offline kiwiAlan  
#16 Posted : 23 August 2016 14:25:22(UTC)
kiwiAlan

United Kingdom   
Joined: 23/07/2014(UTC)
Posts: 8,082
Location: ENGLAND, Didcot
Originally Posted by: biedmatt Go to Quoted Post

So please help me out here guys, I'm a little slow. What makes MFX the "superior system"?


If you are referring to my message, see who I was replying to ... Cool Cool Cool Cool
Offline Goofy  
#17 Posted : 23 August 2016 18:33:57(UTC)
Goofy


Joined: 12/08/2006(UTC)
Posts: 8,993
Originally Posted by: kiwiAlan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: biedmatt Go to Quoted Post

So please help me out here guys, I'm a little slow. What makes MFX the "superior system"?


If you are referring to my message, see who I was replying to ... Cool Cool Cool Cool


I use DCC protocol and did find out,that it works better than mfx.
I have ESU V 200 and can use this locomotive on the Märklin tracks and still use DCC protocol.
Märklin should offer customer same way by either use mfx or DCC by choice.

Someone did bought Märklins new BR144 and did confirm DCC protocol too in this decoder.

H0
DCC = Digital Command Control
Offline RayF  
#18 Posted : 23 August 2016 18:38:12(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,838
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
This constant bickering about the pros and cons of mfx vs railcom, MM vs DCC is tiresome and futile. Those who love DCC will never see the advantages of mfx, and those of us who are happy with mfx will not bother with DCC.

Why don't we just agree to disagree and leave the choice of system to each individual? Let's be thankful that we actually have a choice!

As a lifelong Marklin fan I have never looked beyond Marklin digital for my control needs, and when mfx came along I was impressed with it's self registration. Yes, with DCC or MM you can just enter the address and away you go, but which button was for what function, and what happens when you can't remember the address, or you have two locos on the same address?

At the same time I see that some users with large layouts seem to have difficulties with mfx re-registrations, something which is not a problem for the small to average user. For those "super-users" the choice of DCC might be better.

Of course if you are a Marklin basher or a Marklin lover you will have a different slant on the whole issue, irrespective of the actual properties of the respective systems.
Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by RayF
Offline biedmatt  
#19 Posted : 23 August 2016 19:43:33(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
Those who love DCC will never see the advantages of mfx...


I keep asking for one instance were MFX is better than DCC. I have never received an answer.

Why can't M just admit defeat and simply offer DCC in their decoders? Or give you an opportunity to turn off MFX by decoder? Instead they cram their crap format down your throat.

Sorry Ray, but as long as M doesn't address the concerns of their customers, you will get to hear about it. The ball is in their court, not mine.
Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by biedmatt
Offline RayF  
#20 Posted : 23 August 2016 20:03:45(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,838
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
Originally Posted by: biedmatt Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
Those who love DCC will never see the advantages of mfx...


I keep asking for one instance were MFX is better than DCC. I have never received an answer.

...



Matt, maybe you don't want to hear the answers!

It is a great boon to just put the loco on the track and have the controller have it available for running without having to remember a decoder address. Moreover the correct functions for the loco will be indicated beside each button, with little pictograms to tell you what it is.

Before MFX I had to have a list of addresses written down beside the layout, and I had to reprogram addresses of new locos to avoid conflicts. This was MM but also applies to DCC. MFX has no such concern. The loco registers with a unique address and runs.

What advantages does DCC have over MM that have not been addressed by MFX? The larger number of addresses available? The better number of speed steps? Greater number of functions? These are all improved with MFX.

DCC lovers always quote the "superior" qualities of Railcom, but most admit they prefer "straight" DCC to Railcom anyway so why go down that road?

The argument that Marklin forces you to use MFX is also not valid. All modern Marklin MFX controllers allow you to disable MFX and run the locos on MM or DCC, so if you really don't want to take advantage of the MFX facility you can do without it.

To say that you have never received an answer is a slur to those of us who have tried to explain why we see the MFX system as superior. I would prefer if you say instead that you are not convinced, or disagree, but certainly the answers are there.
Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by RayF
Offline Moritz-BR365  
#21 Posted : 23 August 2016 20:13:44(UTC)
Moritz-BR365

Germany   
Joined: 02/04/2013(UTC)
Posts: 682
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
This constant bickering about the pros and cons of mfx vs railcom, MM vs DCC is tiresome and futile. Those who love DCC will never see the advantages of mfx, and those of us who are happy with mfx will not bother with DCC.


Sorry, but I like the advantage of mfx with automated function assignment and this stuff. That was a great idea! But I hate, that a mfx loco can't be configured with the MS2. This was the basic fault from Märklin, that it isn't possible to access all CVs with the MS2.

And this is what I love with DCC, that I can configure all configurable CVs. And this is, why all my mSD decoders I bought, are running with DCC and not with mfx.

And while I'm using loco cards, I have no benefit from mfx. I have for each loco a loco card and the loco card works much faster then waiting for the MS2 to recognize the mfx decoder.


Therefore, I know both protocols very well, I use both protocols and I love both. But there is no advantage of mfx for me.
Offline sjlauritsen  
#22 Posted : 23 August 2016 20:38:26(UTC)
sjlauritsen

Denmark   
Joined: 18/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,081
Location: Denmark
Originally Posted by: biedmatt Go to Quoted Post
I keep asking for one instance were MFX is better than DCC. I have never received an answer.

I'll give you some reasons why I like mfx. First of all, for me, this is not at all about being the better or superior format. At the end of the day, both protocols do the same job and the end result is the same. I look at them as equally good, but mfx has some features that I find useful. Yes, these features are, for the most part, available in DCC in one way or another, but I like how Märklin implemented it. It does not make me a mindless M-lover, it just makes me one who prefer the one implementation over the other. Please keep that in mind.

My top reasons for putting mfx in all my locomotives:

- Auto registration. It works for me and always have (I have had the CS2 for a little over two years now). I have no experience with mfx before that, it may have been troublesome, I do not know - and I do not care.
- No need for a programming track. I like that I can just program the loco where it sits.
- Graphical speed curve in the CS programming interface.

That is it. Everything else is exactly the same as with DCC. At least for me.

With regards to mfx+ I love the idea of fuel consumption. I find it truly valuable that I can build a maintenance facility on my layout and have to actually prepare the loco before sending it off on its journey. I think this adds to the realism of my model railway. Having to actually service the loco in order for it to reach its destination is valuable when doing operating sessions. I have seen you argue that no real railway sends of their trains and hope they will make it, but that is not the case here, every railway prepare a loco before sending it on its way. Including servicing in operating sessions adds to fun because the dispatcher have to be creative if someone forgets to service the loco and it runs out of fuel. Smile

I hope Märklin will include mfx+ in their retrofit decoders in the future, because I would like to add it to my 2-rail locomotives as well. The cap ride stuff is not for me, so I have no real opinion on that. I just leave it alone and do not use it.

I used to have a Lenz LZV100 before changing to the CS2. I actually assumed I would continue to use DCC only, but when I accidentally got a decoder with mfx that registered automatically I was like: "This is actually quite useful!".

The above is my opinion, and not an attempt to convince you. I know you will never agree wink (given your colourful adjectives about mfx, Märklin and indirectly the people who like it), but as Ray says, let's agree to disagree! Smile I still have a lot of locos with DCC and they work fine as well. Part of the hobby for me is to try all sorts of digital systems. I have tried lots of digital systems and settled on mfx - for now - we never know what might happen in the future and I might change my mind some day.
Søren from Denmark
Blog: https://railway.zone/ | Danish Model Railway Forum: https://baneforum.dk/
Offline biedmatt  
#23 Posted : 23 August 2016 20:39:18(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
Matt, maybe you don't want to hear the answers!

It is a great boon to just put the loco on the track and have the controller have it available for running without having to remember a decoder address. Moreover the correct functions for the loco will be indicated beside each button, with little pictograms to tell you what it is.
DCC w/Railcom+ can do this.

Before MFX I had to have a list of addresses written down beside the layout, and I had to reprogram addresses of new locos to avoid conflicts. This was MM but also applies to DCC. MFX has no such concern. The loco registers with a unique address and runs.
DCC w/Railcom+ can do this. If there is a conflict with an existing DCC decoder in the control, the controller advises you and offers suggestions, including an immediate re-write to a different address. And away you go.

What advantages does DCC have over MM that have not been addressed by MFX? The larger number of addresses available? The better number of speed steps? Greater number of functions? These are all improved with MFX.
Like MM and unlike MFX, DCC does not require autoregistration to run a loko. Punch in the address and go. MFX will not work until registration is complete. DCC has 128 speed steps. I think they are equal with quantity of functions.

DCC lovers always quote the "superior" qualities of Railcom, but most admit they prefer "straight" DCC to Railcom anyway so why go down that road?I can't speak for the Ludites in the DCC world. I can't answer to their preferences. They have an option that makes them happy for some strange reason. MFX does not provide an equal option to its users. You can operate MFX in only the manner Marklin prescribes. I can state Railcom+ has autoregistered a loko 100% of the time. MFX has not.

The argument that Marklin forces you to use MFX is also not valid. All modern Marklin MFX controllers allow you to disable MFX and run the locos on MM or DCC, so if you really don't want to take advantage of the MFX facility you can do without it.The example I copied from another thread is a user who can't run his MFX loko. He must now either run all his lokos in MM or replace the decoder in his loko. If he could turn off MFX in that one loko, he could run it. So his choice is either MM or do not run that loko. Seems pretty restrictive to me.

To say that you have never received an answer is a slur to those of us who have tried to explain why we see the MFX system as superior. I would prefer if you say instead that you are not convinced, or disagree, but certainly the answers are there.


So, I am still waiting of a situation or feature where MFX is better than DCC. Anything MFX can do, DCC can do better. No one but Marklin uses MFX. If it was better, some OEM would have licensed it's use from M.

Edit: Here is an example where DCC destroys MFX: https://www.marklin-user...h-LeoSoundLab#post492676
Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by biedmatt
Offline sjlauritsen  
#24 Posted : 23 August 2016 20:54:30(UTC)
sjlauritsen

Denmark   
Joined: 18/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,081
Location: Denmark
Originally Posted by: sjlauritsen Go to Quoted Post
I used to have a Lenz LZV100 before changing to the CS2. I actually assumed I would continue to use DCC only, but when I accidentally got a decoder with mfx that registered automatically I was like: "This is actually quite useful!".

Thinking about it: I can almost guarantee that if I have had an ECoS and experienced auto registration with Railcom+ I would probably have felt the exact same way and gone with that. It is the concept of auto registration that I fell in love with, not necessarily the system or its maker, which to me does not really matter.

I have tried the ECoS and I like it, is has a lot of useful features and a nice interface. But this is how it always is with these systems. We can't have it all and have to decide. Smile
Søren from Denmark
Blog: https://railway.zone/ | Danish Model Railway Forum: https://baneforum.dk/
Offline Moritz-BR365  
#25 Posted : 23 August 2016 21:06:28(UTC)
Moritz-BR365

Germany   
Joined: 02/04/2013(UTC)
Posts: 682
Originally Posted by: biedmatt Go to Quoted Post
[b]So, I am still waiting of a situation or feature where MFX is better than DCC. Anything MFX can do, DCC can do better.

No, I don't think so. Because DCC can nearly nothing what mfx can. DCC needs RailCom+ and RailCom+ cause much trouble because of the big blanking interval. Many older DCC decoders doesn't run well when RailCom+ is active.

DCC has no autorecognition. It is RailCom+ which enables this. And that is a big difference.

But, as i said: Because I use loco cards, there is nothing I need from mfx for driving the loco. I use mfx for comfortable programming with the CS2 or CS2.exe + Banana Pi + MS2.

thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Moritz-BR365
Offline RayF  
#26 Posted : 23 August 2016 21:30:58(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,838
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
I haven't seen any arguments that overrule my statements above.

I think the best thing is just for me to not read argumentative opinions to do with different systems any more. It's a pity, because logical and fair discussion should always be an advantage, but some people seem to lose their reason when arguing anti-Marklin.

Everyone please just use what you prefer and try not to slag off what you don't use!

Previous threads like this one almost made me decide to leave the forum. Such negativity is a huge spoiler for this excellent hobby of ours.
Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
thanks 4 users liked this useful post by RayF
Offline biedmatt  
#27 Posted : 23 August 2016 22:22:16(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
I haven't seen any arguments that overrule my statements above.


I asked for an example where MFX is better than DCC. You provided several examples where you felt MFX was better. I supplied responses where DCC at least meets and in many ways exceeds those examples. You do not provide a counter point, but merely claim you "haven't seen any arguments that overrule my statements above". I linked a post that demonstrates a feature DCC supports and MFX can't come close to equalling. DCC can also provide specific loko occupancy feedback based on the loko's address and electrical distance from the controller or booster. MFX can only tell you if the block is occupied, but it cannot tell you by what loko and that requires additional hardware.

I guess the sky is green.

I was actually keen to just let this thread go, but when I saw MFX described as a "superior system", I had to respond.
Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
Offline biedmatt  
#28 Posted : 23 August 2016 23:03:21(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
Hello Moritz, Agreed, what I am describing is DCC with RailCom+. That is what makes it so good. I can enable or disable RailCom in my controller or enable or disable RailCom by loko decoder. I have the ability to configure it anyway that I desire, including w/o RailCom as some have chosen. With MFX your only choice is yes or no by ticking or unticking a box on your controller. If you do not enable MFX, then your only way to run a Marklin loko is MM with a maximum 255(?) addresses. Since MM only supports four functions per address, to operate all 16 functions most Marklin decoders support, each loko assumes four addresses. That leaves you with 63 lokos before you have to start duplicating. Then that controller with all those known loko icons Ray is so proud of is useless since some are now duplicated. You use MFX as Marklin deems or you do not use it at all. Some may say "yeah so", well I have provided an example where a user cannot run a loko unless he turns off MFX in his controller, forcing his use of only MM with all of his lokos or MFX and one dead loko. Marklin's locked decoders prevent any workaround. The re-registration problems that Tom likes to describe as "scaleability issues" with MFX is well documented.
Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
Offline RayF  
#29 Posted : 23 August 2016 23:42:57(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,838
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
Getting defensive are we?

I'm not playing any more....
Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
Offline biedmatt  
#30 Posted : 24 August 2016 00:08:35(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
Soren, I agree that basically the features of both are the same, but there are some differences and those differences favor DCC w/RailCom+. When automatic braking is compared, Marklin's formats don't even come close to the ABC system DCC supports. Even you stated you'd like ABC but couldn't justify the cost to include the feature into all your lokos. It would be nice if it came with Marklin's lokos.

I have also found the operation reliability of DCC w/RailCom+ far superior to MFX. Quite frankly, if MFX had worked reliably for me and as Marklin states it would, I wouldn't have swapped out all those decoders. I believe you and I are the only users here who have actually tried both systems. Many offer opinions on what DCC can and cannot do, but have never ever used DCC. Pretty damn presumptious when they know not what they speak. More than once someone has stated MFX can do X and DCC can't, only to be corrected by me. You just seem more willing than I to tolerate MFX's "eccentricities" and functional weaknesses. Whereas I believe Marklin will not improve the product unless their customers "coax" them to do better.

https://www.marklin-user...ignal-Marklin#post490401

Edited by user 24 August 2016 05:06:48(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
Offline biedmatt  
#31 Posted : 24 August 2016 00:21:36(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
Getting defensive are we?



Not really Ray. I answered your post and you decided to ignore my responses and make the blanket statement you see no argument that overruled your previous statements. Soren describes the formats as essentially equal, I agree in principle, but offered examples where DCC meets all MFX features and exceeds others. If you choose to ignore the arguments, then there really is no way forward. Have you actually used both systems? I have. You seem to be of the opinion you know DCC, I do not believe you do.
Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
Offline kiwiAlan  
#32 Posted : 24 August 2016 00:37:40(UTC)
kiwiAlan

United Kingdom   
Joined: 23/07/2014(UTC)
Posts: 8,082
Location: ENGLAND, Didcot
Originally Posted by: Moritz-BR365 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
This constant bickering about the pros and cons of mfx vs railcom, MM vs DCC is tiresome and futile. Those who love DCC will never see the advantages of mfx, and those of us who are happy with mfx will not bother with DCC.


Sorry, but I like the advantage of mfx with automated function assignment and this stuff. That was a great idea! But I hate, that a mfx loco can't be configured with the MS2. This was the basic fault from Märklin, that it isn't possible to access all CVs with the MS2.


I think you are missing the point of the ms here, and you are not the only one. I had to keep pointing this out to people when the original ms was introduced and they moaned about its lack of features - it is the entry level controller, designed to be cheap to put in a start set, simple enough that little Hans isn't going to mess up the decoder in the loco by pressing the wrong buttons or getting into the wrong menu, and yet has sufficient features to give Hans some wow factor when he is playing with his trains as he can turn the headlights and sounds off and on, with a reasonable number of functions available. Now Marklin have expanded this more than somewhat with the ms2 to the full 16 functions and the capability to operate points and signals - but it is still the entry level controller. If you want to go play with the CVs then be a professional and get the professional level controller, i.e. cs2 etc.

But the other problem that people see, the reliability of mfx - now that I suspect has to do with the same problem that people have with DCC where they get places on layouts that become dead spots - not through shorts or anything but because the DCC signal gets corrupted through ringing of the signal. There are recommendations on several forums about putting a snubber network consisting of a capacitor and a resistor across the track at the end furthest from the booster connection to control the signal waveform shape. The problem is that you need an oscilloscope and some electronics knowledge to know what the cause is and how to fix it. I have a suspicion that some of the mfx problem is related to this, but the symptoms are more obvious because locos don't get recognized when people expect them to be, whereas the DCC symptoms are much more hidden until a train runs away until it gets to a place where it can recognize the signal again.
Offline Goofy  
#33 Posted : 24 August 2016 06:58:43(UTC)
Goofy


Joined: 12/08/2006(UTC)
Posts: 8,993
Originally Posted by: Goofy Go to Quoted Post
I was in another forum and did read somebody which do have Märklins sound locomotive and present with the DCC protocol too.
Is this correct?
Here is the models:
BR 18.5 (39030)
BR 50 (37835)
BR 95 (37095)
BR 144 (37443)

Any one tried to use DCC protocol with the locomotives?


It seems Märklin did start add DCC protocol too in theirs new models.
When somebody do have this locomotives model,it shows the result what Märklin do take next step by advance in the digital and offer to the customer by choice protocol.
Märklin knows byself what DCC can do and much more!

H0
DCC = Digital Command Control
Offline sjlauritsen  
#34 Posted : 24 August 2016 07:21:07(UTC)
sjlauritsen

Denmark   
Joined: 18/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,081
Location: Denmark
Originally Posted by: biedmatt Go to Quoted Post
Soren, I agree that basically the features of both are the same, but there are some differences and those differences favor DCC w/RailCom+. When automatic braking is compared, Marklin's formats don't even come close to the ABC system DCC supports. Even you stated you'd like ABC but couldn't justify the cost to include the feature into all your lokos. It would be nice if it came with Marklin's lokos.

Yes, the ABC system is by far the most interesting braking system we currently have. I love the concept.

And to be fair, ABC is not a feature of DCC, it is a feature of the decoder (just as Brake-on-DC is not limited to Märklin) and could just as easily be built into the Märklin decoders. Currently only Lenz and ESU decoders (as of version 4.0) supports true ABC with both stopping and slow passing. AFAIK Zimo only supports stopping. Even when doing only DCC, getting these decoders would be an expense for me because I have loads of LokPilot 3.0 decoders. It would be possible to pop LokPilot 4.0 decoders in all locomotives and run mfx (m4) with ABC. The only thing stopping me is the expense. If I were to adopt ABC, I want all my trains to work in the exact same way (at this point in time meaning only LokPilot 4.0. I am not a fan of Lenz decoders, just a personal preference).

Another problem with this would be if a buddy brings a loco that does not support ABC, I will not be able to run it on my layout. That is kind of a show stopper at the moment, because my friends and I often take our locos to visit each other. So there are a few things I need to sort out there as well.

At IMA last year I was told by a Märklin staff member that the ABC feature actually is in the mld3/msd3, it just isn't activated. Perhaps one day... Smile

I am currently reluctant to buy braking modules. All though I like the concept of automatically stopping trains, the braking modules are expensive and I am still not sure how I want this to work on my layout. The ABC system is currently in the lead. I am thinking of testing the M4 decoder because of that. Smile

I could build a computer control that would render both ABC and Brake-On-DC redundant, but one of my ideas is not to have computer control other than a "digital box" (in my case the CS). That is a challenge I have given myself. For the fun of it.

Originally Posted by: biedmatt Go to Quoted Post
Quite frankly, if MFX had worked reliably for me and as Marklin states it would, I wouldn't have swapped out all those decoders. I believe you and I are the only users here who have actually tried both systems. Many offer opinions on what DCC can and cannot do, but have never ever used DCC.

My experiences with mfx goes only two years back and only with the MS2 and CS2. I have a friend who has experience with mfx from "back in the days" when it was brand new and he has told me about problems like the ones we hear about. It is my understanding though that the majority of these problems have since been corrected. Especially because I do not see them on my CS2.

In my book: If there is a fault with a system, and that fault is corrected, I no longer use that fault to talk down a system. I am just glad that the problems are over.

It may very well be that the majority of problems lies with outdated systems. The problems seems to occur to people with the CS1, the ECoS or an outdated CS2. At least it seems to me that the people asking for help - for the most part - have one of these boxes. From ESUs point of view I can understand if they do not see any advantages in making mfx look great. After all they have their own competitor, RailCom+, which AFAIK is limited to only the ECoS. Buying any other DCC controller will not give the user the advantage of RailCom+.
Søren from Denmark
Blog: https://railway.zone/ | Danish Model Railway Forum: https://baneforum.dk/
Offline clapcott  
#35 Posted : 24 August 2016 07:53:10(UTC)
clapcott

New Zealand   
Joined: 12/12/2005(UTC)
Posts: 2,433
Location: Wellington, New_Zealand
Originally Posted by: H0 Go to Quoted Post
One problem IMHO is that mfx does not scale well and problems grow rapidly when you got dozens of mfx locos.


I am aware of the following mfx(+) overheads ...

Operationally
- broadcast poll to discover new decoders (approx every 30 secs - not a scalable factor as such)
- regular ping (low payload and only to active decoders - not the whole roster)
- mFX+ resource retrieve ( 4 packets - approx every 10 seconds per eligible loko )
Manually
- Lok configuration read/write (excludes firmware and sound loading which is done on the programing track
- Acc (signal) configuration

Have I missed anything?

What do (where may I find) references to RailCom that indicate
- if it does or does not to automatically v manually triggered registration
- regular pinging
Peter
Offline H0  
#36 Posted : 24 August 2016 08:24:39(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,254
Location: DE-NW
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
It is a great boon to just put the loco on the track and have the controller have it available for running without having to remember a decoder address. Moreover the correct functions for the loco will be indicated beside each button, with little pictograms to tell you what it is.
My Central Station remembers the pictograms for me. I just type in the DCC address to select the loco - and the CS pulls the pictograms from the database. I can even do that before I put the loco on the track.

Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
Before MFX I had to have a list of addresses written down beside the layout, and I had to reprogram addresses of new locos to avoid conflicts.
New locos all have address 3. I use address 3 to test the loco, then I assign a free address.
Yes, I have to keep a list of addresses. I like it that way.

Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
The loco registers with a unique address and runs.
I had to send two mfx decoders to Märklin. They would always register with the same address and could not be controlled individually. Quality control had failed.
And I lost hours trying to figure out what was going wrong.


Long story short: I will not use my layout working around the mfx quirks to avoid problems - I turned of mfx to avoid problems.


You also are a special case as you have more locos than your MS2 can hold. You put up to 8 locos on your layout, reset your MS2 and wait for registration. In this situation mfx will work OK.
I have a Central Station that can hold all my locos and I don't have to delete anything. I can have more than 8 locos on my temporary layout.
I have less than 25% mfx locos. So with most locos I have to type the address anyway. Since disabling mfx I type the address for 100% of my locos - no special case, no need to remember the protocol of any loco.


My point is: why is the automatic mfx registration compulsory and not optionally? RailCom+ is optionally, can be disabled per loco or in the controller, allowing to use DCC with or without automatic registration.
mfx without compulsory automatic registration? That would be the solution. Maybe I should check the Tams controller (but that one does not support pictograms).
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
Offline RayF  
#37 Posted : 24 August 2016 08:45:56(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,838
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
Originally Posted by: biedmatt Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
Getting defensive are we?



Not really Ray. I answered your post and you decided to ignore my responses and make the blanket statement you see no argument that overruled your previous statements. Soren describes the formats as essentially equal, I agree in principle, but offered examples where DCC meets all MFX features and exceeds others. If you choose to ignore the arguments, then there really is no way forward. Have you actually used both systems? I have. You seem to be of the opinion you know DCC, I do not believe you do.


Matt,

I'm not ignoring your arguments, I just don't feel I need to say any more, and it's pointless to repeat my statements. I put forward my case about how I see that MFX is at least as good as DCC but has more features. DCC only has similar features when Railcom is added in, but that is extra and I believe not available on all DCC controllers or decoders. I only have a MS2 controller, so I don't make extensive use of all the features of either system, but I do use DCC to control some of my locos.

Apart from a couple of teething problems related to early software versions my MFX locos work reliably and easily and I couldn't wish for more. Please don't try to convince me otherwise because you (obviously) have no knowledge of how I run my trains.

...and I would ask you to refrain from calling a system which is much loved and admired by many people "crap". You have to accept that, although you don't like it for all the reasons you have given, many people do like MFX and are very happy with it.
Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by RayF
Offline RayF  
#38 Posted : 24 August 2016 08:52:47(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,838
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
Originally Posted by: H0 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
It is a great boon to just put the loco on the track and have the controller have it available for running without having to remember a decoder address. Moreover the correct functions for the loco will be indicated beside each button, with little pictograms to tell you what it is.
My Central Station remembers the pictograms for me. I just type in the DCC address to select the loco - and the CS pulls the pictograms from the database. I can even do that before I put the loco on the track.

Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
Before MFX I had to have a list of addresses written down beside the layout, and I had to reprogram addresses of new locos to avoid conflicts.
New locos all have address 3. I use address 3 to test the loco, then I assign a free address.
Yes, I have to keep a list of addresses. I like it that way.

Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
The loco registers with a unique address and runs.
I had to send two mfx decoders to Märklin. They would always register with the same address and could not be controlled individually. Quality control had failed.
And I lost hours trying to figure out what was going wrong.


Long story short: I will not use my layout working around the mfx quirks to avoid problems - I turned of mfx to avoid problems.


You also are a special case as you have more locos than your MS2 can hold. You put up to 8 locos on your layout, reset your MS2 and wait for registration. In this situation mfx will work OK.
I have a Central Station that can hold all my locos and I don't have to delete anything. I can have more than 8 locos on my temporary layout.
I have less than 25% mfx locos. So with most locos I have to type the address anyway. Since disabling mfx I type the address for 100% of my locos - no special case, no need to remember the protocol of any loco.


My point is: why is the automatic mfx registration compulsory and not optionally? RailCom+ is optionally, can be disabled per loco or in the controller, allowing to use DCC with or without automatic registration.
mfx without compulsory automatic registration? That would be the solution. Maybe I should check the Tams controller (but that one does not support pictograms).


Hi Tom,

Thanks for that. As you say MFX works for me.

I have said before that I accept that the system might be too cumbersome when you have many locos on the layout all at the same time. I have to accept the word of others for this as I have no room for that many locos on the track and no experience of the more advanced controllers that can cope with them. What do you do if you lose the database from your controller? It must be a pig to have to enter all those locos again.

Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
Offline Goofy  
#39 Posted : 24 August 2016 09:20:18(UTC)
Goofy


Joined: 12/08/2006(UTC)
Posts: 8,993
I have decides to shop K tracks and testing ESU locomotive by use DCC protocol.
Next step is to buy an Märklin locomotive which also support DCC protocol,but i must be sure that mfx+ decoder do have DCC too.
H0
DCC = Digital Command Control
Offline Angus  
#40 Posted : 24 August 2016 10:03:22(UTC)
Angus

South Africa   
Joined: 27/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 202
Location: Johannesburg
I cannot comment on the pros & cons of DCC as I try to avoid the Dark Side - that is purely tongue in cheek, I see it as the Dark Side because I know nothing about it.

I like my MS2 and my Mfx loco's. My MS2 did an auto-reset back to factory settings recently. When I connected it back to my track, all my Mfx loco's registered themselves and I was able to run any of those 8 loco's within 5 to 10 minutes. Yes my other non Mfx loco's now need to be reloaded into the MS2 but that can happen when I have time. At least I could play trains within minutes of the reset.

As a general rule if I don't like something or think it is 'crap' I won't bother spending my hard earned money on it.
Offline Moritz-BR365  
#41 Posted : 24 August 2016 10:47:53(UTC)
Moritz-BR365

Germany   
Joined: 02/04/2013(UTC)
Posts: 682
Originally Posted by: kiwiAlan Go to Quoted Post
I think you are missing the point of the ms here, and you are not the only one.

No, I didn't!

Originally Posted by: kiwiAlan Go to Quoted Post

I had to keep pointing this out to people when the original ms was introduced and they moaned about its lack of features - it is the entry level controller, designed to be cheap to put in a start set, simple enough that little Hans isn't going to mess up the decoder in the loco by pressing the wrong buttons or getting into the wrong menu, and yet has sufficient features to give Hans some wow factor when he is playing with his trains as he can turn the headlights and sounds off and on, with a reasonable number of functions available. Now Marklin have expanded this more than somewhat with the ms2 to the full 16 functions and the capability to operate points and signals - but it is still the entry level controller. If you want to go play with the CVs then be a professional and get the professional level controller, i.e. cs2 etc.


That's the point! With DCC, I can be an expert with a low level controller, without paying 500€ to map the functions and AUX ports like I want. With mfx, I have to spend much money to be an expert user.

That's the big advantage of DCC!


OK, in meantime I spend 50€ to be able to program mfx decoders with CS2.exe: https://www.marklin-user...-Box-and-mfx-programming
Offline RayF  
#42 Posted : 24 August 2016 10:54:53(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,838
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
Originally Posted by: Moritz-BR365 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: kiwiAlan Go to Quoted Post
I think you are missing the point of the ms here, and you are not the only one.

No, I didn't!

Originally Posted by: kiwiAlan Go to Quoted Post

I had to keep pointing this out to people when the original ms was introduced and they moaned about its lack of features - it is the entry level controller, designed to be cheap to put in a start set, simple enough that little Hans isn't going to mess up the decoder in the loco by pressing the wrong buttons or getting into the wrong menu, and yet has sufficient features to give Hans some wow factor when he is playing with his trains as he can turn the headlights and sounds off and on, with a reasonable number of functions available. Now Marklin have expanded this more than somewhat with the ms2 to the full 16 functions and the capability to operate points and signals - but it is still the entry level controller. If you want to go play with the CVs then be a professional and get the professional level controller, i.e. cs2 etc.


That's the point! With DCC, I can be an expert with a low level controller, without paying 500€ to map the functions and AUX ports like I want. With mfx, I have to spend much money to be an expert user.

That's the big advantage of DCC!


I've played around quite a bit with my son's entry level Bachmann DCC controller and I don't see that it has any of these "expert" features. In fact it is quite a bit more basic than a MS2.

Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
Offline Moritz-BR365  
#43 Posted : 24 August 2016 11:04:28(UTC)
Moritz-BR365

Germany   
Joined: 02/04/2013(UTC)
Posts: 682
Originally Posted by: Angus Go to Quoted Post
My MS2 did an auto-reset back to factory settings recently. When I connected it back to my track, all my Mfx loco's registered themselves and I was able to run any of those 8 loco's within 5 to 10 minutes. Yes my other non Mfx loco's now need to be reloaded into the MS2 but that can happen when I have time. At least I could play trains within minutes of the reset.


I do the same with DCC, because I use loco cards! And the advantage is, I don't have to wait, until the mfx loco is recognized! I just put the loco card into the MS2 and I'm raedy to run. This works with MM2, mfx, DCC! Therefore, no advantage of mfx.

Yesterday, a friend called me, because his mfx loco wasn't recognized from the MS2 anymore! Finally, I recommended to reset the MS2. Then, he used the loco cards, I prepared for him last weekend and he was able to use all locos. After reset, the mfx loco was recognized again, too. But this needs more time then to register the other 5 locos with the loco cards!

UserPostedImage

Offline RayF  
#44 Posted : 24 August 2016 11:07:36(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,838
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
I use loco cards for all my non-MFX locos. There's no need for the loco card if the loco registers by itself. That's a saving of 5 euro per loco!
Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by RayF
Offline Moritz-BR365  
#45 Posted : 24 August 2016 11:34:17(UTC)
Moritz-BR365

Germany   
Joined: 02/04/2013(UTC)
Posts: 682
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
That's a saving of 5 euro per loco!


You mean a saving of 0,80€ to 1,20€ per loco! BigGrin

Offline Angus  
#46 Posted : 24 August 2016 12:44:55(UTC)
Angus

South Africa   
Joined: 27/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 202
Location: Johannesburg
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
I use loco cards for all my non-MFX locos. There's no need for the loco card if the loco registers by itself. That's a saving of 5 euro per loco!


As pointed out a loco card costs me more per loco and these cards work out being quite expensive by the time they reach my train room in South Africa. I have no problem having to go add the non mfx locos.

I am fairly sure my MS2 recognised all 8 loco's quicker than it would've taken me to 'load' them using a card. Knowing me I would end up spending more time finding the cards BigGrin

My point was that I was able to 'play' within minutes with locos & a controller that is off the shelf.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Angus
Offline biedmatt  
#47 Posted : 24 August 2016 13:13:31(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
Originally Posted by: sjlauritsen Go to Quoted Post
In my book: If there is a fault with a system, and that fault is corrected, I no longer use that fault to talk down a system. I am just glad that the problems are over.


I agree 100%. When a problem or bug is fixed, it is over. Re-registration remains an endemic problem and the locked decoders prevent simple work arounds that could allow a user to quickly and simply fix any problems. Marklin prevents your ability to configure as you wish. I have no idea why they feel they should micro manage my hobby. Alan describes Hans and his unfamiliarity with the system. I feel the restrictions are too sever. If you get a decoder all messed up from playing with the CVs, just reset back to factory program. Little Hans probably understands it better than most adults anyway.

Edit: I agree 100% with Alan's comparison between the MS2 and the CS2. One is a simple entry level controller likely perfect for most. If Moritz want more features and programmability, then he needs to buy the controller that offers those features. One is built to a price point, the other essentially is not.
Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
Offline RayF  
#48 Posted : 24 August 2016 13:21:12(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,838
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
Originally Posted by: Moritz-BR365 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
That's a saving of 5 euro per loco!


You mean a saving of 0,80€ to 1,20€ per loco! BigGrin



I guess you are talking about aftermarket cards. Marklin cards cost about 20-25 euro per pack of 5.
Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
Offline biedmatt  
#49 Posted : 24 August 2016 13:28:13(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
Originally Posted by: RayF Go to Quoted Post
I'm not ignoring your arguments, I just don't feel I need to say any more, and it's pointless to repeat my statements. I put forward my case about how I see that MFX is at least as good as DCC but has more features. DCC only has similar features when Railcom is added in, but that is extra and I believe not available on all DCC controllers or decoders. I only have a MS2 controller, so I don't make extensive use of all the features of either system, but I do use DCC to control some of my locos.

Apart from a couple of teething problems related to early software versions my MFX locos work reliably and easily and I couldn't wish for more. Please don't try to convince me otherwise because you (obviously) have no knowledge of how I run my trains.

...and I would ask you to refrain from calling a system which is much loved and admired by many people "crap". You have to accept that, although you don't like it for all the reasons you have given, many people do like MFX and are very happy with it.


You state MFX has more features. I ask you to list them. When you do I supply info demonstrating DCC w/RailCom+ also has that feature. My exasperation is that you do not acknowledge the equality. I am not the only poster in this thread that recognizes that equality.

Originally Posted by: sjlauritsen Go to Quoted Post

Thinking about it: I can almost guarantee that if I have had an ECoS and experienced auto registration with Railcom+ I would probably have felt the exact same way and gone with that. It is the concept of auto registration that I fell in love with, not necessarily the system or its maker, which to me does not really matter.

I have tried the ECoS and I like it, is has a lot of useful features and a nice interface. But this is how it always is with these systems. We can't have it all and have to decide. Smile




My aromatic metaphor is based on my own personal experiences and mine alone. When I post links to comments and experiences posted by others it is to demonstrate that I am neither inaccurately describing the situation nor the only one who has had that experience. Evidentiary information provided to support my position or arguments. I will grant you your wish if you grant me one simple wish in return. Stop describing MFX as "superior" to DCC w/RailCom+. I have demonstrated it is not. Your description will prejudice someone's opinion who may be deciding between the two systems. All I want is a direct head-to-head comparison without any preconceptions.

Edited by user 24 August 2016 20:17:07(UTC)  | Reason: Added Søren's quote supporting the existance of autoregistration in RailCom+

Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
Offline RayF  
#50 Posted : 24 August 2016 13:39:09(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,838
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
I do wish you would stop badgering me!

I am unconvinced by your arguments, no matter how many times you write them. Please respect that I have my opinion too!

I have nothing to add to this futile thread!
Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by RayF
Users browsing this topic
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

| Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2024, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 1.276 seconds.