Wow - must have been out to lunch. Only know HAG, BRAWA, FLEISCHMANN (sold), and ROCO ...
Can we have that looong list of all the other makers, please

Piko

Hi Lutz,

Ha ha... if that is your way to be funny referring to the ESU support page for the description of the PC Interface protocol. [}:)]

BTW. people can get it from my website 'without' being registrated. (URL was published in the LocCommander thread in this forum:
[http://users.telenet.be/loccomm...sPcInterfaceProtocol.pdf). I hope I don't get into problems with ESU now...[:I]

If Marklin will break/"has broken" with ESU then at some time in the future the PC Interface protocol you can find on the ESU support website will no longer be compatible to be used for controlling the CS. BTW. ESU is planning to release soon a newer version of this protocol, current version is 0.1. Will this be still usuable for the CS (new commands....keywords, values, etc.)? I don't think so.

Marklin does NOT want to give support to me as I also support the ECoS in LC. I don't know what the exact policy is in this matter by Marklin but a lot of people are disappointed.
Support was asked in German and English. I know my foreign languages are not that good but I think they should have got the message. And thus I got the answer.

Maybe LC is that bad that they think people will start complaining to them instead of to me for problems with LC software.

Another reason could be that they have agreements with commercial SW firms that support the CS and that they must block it any support towards other parties ... especially if it is freeware.

I really don't care anymore what Marklin wants to do or not to do.
I will continue with developments in LC but it will be based on the protocol ESU publishes. I have no other sources to depend on.

I myself find it a very stupid policy especially if you are only providing hardware.
I will no longer explicitly mention the CS on my website because I got a NO answer from M and people should not continue with a product that I will no longer be able ensure to work for the CS.

I don't benifit from it when I support a system that is not documented to me regarding this protocol. As I don't have myself a CS I rely on other people's feedback for my support of the CS in LC. Luckly until now most things are compatible but will not be anymore in the future... unless Marklin ....

That is my story on this PC interface protocol for the CS/ECoS...
and Marklin....

Lutz don't take it personal but I have some difficulties with M regarding this matter.

Best regards,
Frank

Hi Frank ,

being an old fossil [xx(] who's just glad to handle XP I understand only every other word ...
Doesn't matter at all since it seems to be a very competent post

BUT - since you're a Guru I wanna ask you what controller you would recommend
for our Grandkids (future) big layout where we definitely will be in need of a booster.
When layout is ready to go the Grandkids will be about 9 and 7 years old ...

Thanks,
John

Jim, it's a little "personal machine shop" for milling & drilling metal parts.
If memory serves it was made in the 1950s or '60s by some small European company.
A friend of mine had one when we were teenagers ...

Tivvy, Nev - thanks, know that link ...

But those few are no match compared with that myriad of DC makers ...
Thus the guy who brought this up can't tell us "most makers produce AC locos" [xx(]

Hi John,

I really have to disappoint you I'm really not a Guru.
I only try to write control software for some digital systems ...CS, ECoS, ... .
I publish it and so everyone is free to use it. If there are things not working I will try to fix them.
I have an ECoS and I'm happy with it. It does what it needs to do and also LC does what it needs to do.

Tonight, I will get the 'Senator' from my dealer I hope it performs better than my M39802 (but this is due to the ECoS controller according to my dealer, same problem with 6021 only it runs fine with CS).[}:)]

My opinion about controllers and Marklin Systems... well I have an ECoS and have Marklin digital equipped locs (a mix of deltas, MFX and FX locs). Until now I'm 'still' happy with all of my M locs except for a few. I started 30 years ago with Marklin. And yes there is a serious quality issue. But this is not only for Marklin. Electronics well, they should better stuck with only building locs(mechanics), electronics should be done by others. M should not just put a sticker on their CS system when it was orignally designed by ESU and then break with them.

Why I finally bought an ECoS? Well because of the good comments on this forum for the ECoS(thanks to DasBert33) and the bad comments(missing stuff, upgrade problems, etc.) for the CS (a few[}:)]).
And of course because ESU had published the PC interface protocol...
[:I]. I really can't help it...

Well the Viessmann Commander seems to be a good idea, all in one device, but...

Best regards,
Frank

For me neither... but what after protocol version 0.1 of course as Mr. Freiwald and Peterlin have connections with Marklin it will not be a problem for them.

You know I take care of what the near future will bring not only what is existing today.

I built in the stuff in a few months without any official help even having to wait before ESU published the protocol (MARKLIN DID NOT and will NEVER DO![}:)]), Mr. Freiwald and co who are professional developers took several months.

People were starting to complain when will there be SW that controls the CS...after the CS was on the market. Well it didn't take months but more than a year. I hope this will not be the case when Marklin starts supporting a new protocol or Mr Freiwald will get p... o... .


So please understand there are currently no big issues but what after 0.1. Or is that to difficult to understand for a firm as M.

Frank

To bad for him. Because the maker from the software programm koploper has get his information and his new version off koploper works fine with the Marklin CS.

Koploper is a free software programm and is populair in Holland.
We also used it for the club layout.

Hi all,

<u>This reply/message I got from Mafi:</u>

"Hello Frank,

sorry for the very late answer and thanks alot for your insider informations above.
When starting my own software project 5 years ago or so, I had a similiar
conversation via email with M. I was not allowed to use the name "M" or
related product names within my software, unless they had tested it ...
We found an agreement that I will not use any "M" related terms and they
will not disturb my software development. So we are living apart
from each other since this time, and I bought an Intellibox...

I suggest not to support officially any central unit!
Just support it officially this way: "The software is intended to support digital central units
connected to the PC via an Ethernet port." Internally (in the manual, on further report sites of your homepage,
in the forums ...) you can report that a successfull connection under cewrtain circumstances
was made to: E##S, CS, Dyn. Use abbreviations, and all insiders will understand.

Feel free to post my text and your own text of this conversation at the forums"

Probably he was also not that lucky with M [}:)].

I must say I understand their point of view when it commes to support and reputation but I don't ask them to give development support I only want to be sure that I sent the right commands to the CS.

Indeed Lutz you are right () the "MFX" protocol and the "PC Interface" protocol are two different things and a lot of people are confused about it.

I'm sorry that Mafi no longer develops his MR software although I didn't use it as I don't have a Mac.
But it is nice and good if you can exchange experiences especially when things are not that well documented you want to support.

But no problem for me I will not longer offically support the CS in LC, I will only mention LC supports devices that are compatible with the PC Interface protocol published by ESU for the ECoS.

It is up to the CS users themselves if they want to use LC or not as you know there are a lot of other software programs that can be used.

Now my weekend will start in peace.

Frank

There is absolutely nothing wrong with mfx. In fact, it would be possible to make it work just as bad with MM or DCC, if you just try hard enough. Please remember that mfx is only a track protocol. It is a clean, simple and quite sane protocol. If it fails anyway, the problem is not with the protocol but with the implementation.

I am wondering how we could build back our precious machines to simple 16 V AC. I have not converted any of my really old machines.
Would be a market for mechanical or electronic controllers of the simple 16v/24v analog system? Let's call it ASystem! AntiSystem would be OK too!

Please don't laugh, Henk - sometimes I begin to think about this ... [:I]
Yep, I too left my analog beauties untouched. Have built even 5 tracks for them on my layout.

You're right, Matt. M's bad decoders are an insult for their beautiful locos ...

Of course I do mix-up (got no idea about your chinese, sorry) [:I]
An average user like me can never distinguish such fine differences ...
I can only state: this type of decoder works, this one not ...

Oh well. You say the old ones (FX) are "properly designed" - then I say they are <u>good</u>.
Equals: The new ones (MFX) are "NOT properly designed" - then I say they are NO good.

Simple, huh ... (but then again, I'm only a user and no rocket scientist)

Is there any information who made the FX- and who makes those MFX-decoders for M
Are FX-decoders (mouse piano) still available

Mine are.

No clue

If they were sensibly priced, I'd buy them. I need more pure mechanical locos for my 6600-controlled end to end layout, which would fry decoders. The 3042 is getting lonely!

One of those all-metal Br 141s is definitely on my wish list, the problem is finding a good one at a sane price.

It doesn't have to be expensive - I have a large scale ESU decoder that just has a couple of terminals to connect a suitable capacitor to. The component cost me a few pence and made a noticable difference.

It is same decoder from the 60760, I think so.

I consider the original C-sinus the "Perfect Engine", and the choice to abandon it "the mistake of the century" [xx(].
Everybody wich have a loco equipped with this jewel can understand.
The secrets is that the inertia of the loco is bi-directional, as the analog model, the loco's mass can move the rotor.
Now they are searching to imitate its perfect running via a software solution. Could we build an electronic woman that seems a woman, but the real model will be ever the best [:p].
To criticize the "System" is the same to shoot a man seriously injured.
Too much hurry in the leaving of the old but honest "digital".
I'm a lucky man, I've two 6021, one interface, one intellibox with infrared control, and two switchborad, one CS and some MS from startset.
A part the "game" to test a loco with a lot of sound by the CS the best system for me at now is the intellibox + IBcontrol + 2 switchboard + infrared + interface included, all via loconet (really plug and play).
Sorry mum, but I must be sincere.
In a space of 80 cm. I have a lot of buttons to control directly 4 loco simultaneously, 80 turnouts, a lot of routes.
And via loconet (a telephone cable) I can add other device everywhere I need. (without any problems)
And last but not least, in a moment switch on the system, connect the plug, wait 1-2-3 second, ready .

Thanks, Bob - so true !!! (I did the very same ...)

And when we do criticize M's newest digital system here we do this for them to learn ...
Since by getting their paying customers feedback they have a chance to improve & survive [:p]

But they won't accomplish this without keeping at least some of M's true classic
engines <u>left in their original state</u> (E94, NOHAB, F7) in an own MARKLIN CLASSIC LINE
(thus the only marklins I'll buy this year is the NOHAB loco set ...)

Since when scrapping also these last pieces of heritage & identity they will loose
huge parts of their conservative (and darn nostalgic) collectors community [}:)]

Just two examples of companies who know how to care about the traditional values
of their conservative customers (those with the money ): GENERAL MOTORS (with the
CADILLAC brand) and DICKIE-SIMBA (with revived SCHUCO) sell more than they can make ...

Thanks, Al. That's the very point, Sir
And nobody so far has described the characteristics of the BIG C-SINUS that perfectly

David, Sir - to put this clearly:
I never changed my mind on the CS. It is one excellent controller, definitely [^]

What I'm fighting are three things:
That missing booster, the horrible quality of new loco decoders, and the demise of loco classics [xx(]