marklin-users.net community | Forum
»
General topics
»
General MRR
»
Why I dislike MFX and how we are not offered a functional alternative
Joined: 12/01/2002(UTC) Posts: 2,578 Location: Sweden
|
Originally Posted by: H0  I don't know what to blame (protocol, controller, decoder).
From your later posts you seem to know: Too bad/lazy approaches in the controllers when it comes to registration, re-registration and parameter readouts. Then of course it does not help the average user who does not build his/her own controller. The average user needs the whole system to work, not just the protocol. When it comes to decoders, I have never observed any directly mfx protocol related errors in them. There is some odd behavior in the automatic recognition of operation mode (mfx, MM or AC) in some decoders but that is not directly related to the mfx protocol. Originally Posted by: H0  Global re-registration of all locos occurs - after restoring a backup
- after deletion of a loco while controller was on STOP
The second point here is a clue to most of the reported problems with mfx. When you delete a loco while the controller is on STOP, the controller can not invalidate the address in the deleted loco only, since it would require a ping with wrong decoder ID, and the ping command can not go through when on STOP. So, instead it increases the sequence number. Now all locos have their addresses invalidated. The stupid controller now starts re-registration of all the other locos, instead of just re-assigning the addresses to them. Completely unnecessary, I think. The controller knows all the decoder IDs already. This is also a clue to another problem, where you no longer can reach a decoder. The controller thinks it must invalidate the address in the removed loco. Else, it would not have considered a change of the sequence number necessary after deletion of a loco when on STOP. But re-registration of all locos does not occur when the loco is deleted and the controller was not on STOP. This implies that the controller sends a ping to invalidate the address in the removed loco in that case. Now assume you have already removed the loco from the track. Then the loco will not see the ping, and its address is still valid. So it will not respond to a search. But the controller thinks the loco address is invalidated and will respond to search when it comes back on the track. Stupid controller. If it tries to invalidate the address in the decoder, it should check that it takes effect, by doing a search for the loco. If there is no response to that, the controller should suspect that the loco still has a valid address. (See my previous post for an explanation of how mfx works.)
|
 2 users liked this useful post by perz
|
|
|
Joined: 15/03/2003(UTC) Posts: 9,593 Location: Australia
|
I am assuming that the action of deleting a loco is removing the entry from the controller's database/cache. So why do you need to delete a loco? I understand that there is a limit for MS1 controllers, but I always thought that there was no limit in the eCOS (and by extension I assume this also applies to CS1 and CS2). You need to release the loco from the active control knob/wheel when you are no longer using the loco on the layout, but there should be no need to delete the loco from the controller. I have 67 locos. Of these, only six are still analogue locos. So I have 61 locos registered in my eCOS and in WindigiPet. Yesterday, I placed a mFx loco that has not been on my layout for 2 years and it started perfectly without registration. It is true that I only run a maximum of five locos on the current layout, but surely I should have come across this problem before now? Is WindigiPet hiding the problem from me? |
Adrian Australia flag by abFlags.com |
 1 user liked this useful post by xxup
|
|
|
Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC) Posts: 15,443 Location: DE-NW
|
Originally Posted by: xxup  So why do you need to delete a loco? Many of my locos had to be sent to Göppingen. Many came back with a new decoder, leaving an orphaned entry for the old decoder. This includes a few locos with Compact C Sine motor with the economized driver electronics. Sometimes locos go back to the dealer because you're not satisfied. Sometimes you upgrade a decoder and have to delete the old entry. Knowing that deletion leads to mass re-registration I tried to avoid deleting loco. Still I had mass re-registrations. Maybe the ESU documentation is not complete. |
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  |
 1 user liked this useful post by H0
|
|
|
Joined: 25/09/2003(UTC) Posts: 2,786 Location: ,
|
Originally Posted by: perz  [...] I would rather say that this is a policy of the controller, rather than inherent in the mfx protocol. On an MS1 this is not dependent on the time but rather on some other conditions (don't remember them exactly, since it was long time ago I did these tests). But I suspect there might be some kind of "timeout" in some other controllers. Please Perz, allow me some questions: when you have MFX machine, what is the interest of using the programming track ? Should we use the programming track with MFX machines ? I tend to think that the programming track is Not necessary with MFX .... Am I right ? (or wrong ?) the output for programming track is it available for DCC decoders and Motorola without DIP switches ONLY ? thanks everybody for those interesting contributions... PS1 reading those interesting topicS about MFX, it seems that those who complain the loudest & the most of the MFX and often criticize it mainly are Ecos/CS1/CS1-R owners.... PS2 : average registration time of a brand new MFX LOK with CS2 rarely exceed 15 sec. or so few, could be 20 seconds sometimes , or may be even less, .....
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/08/2006(UTC) Posts: 9,277
|
Originally Posted by: perz  The average user needs the whole system to work, not just the protocol.
When it comes to decoders, I have never observed any directly mfx protocol related errors in them. There is some odd behavior in the automatic recognition of operation mode (mfx, MM or AC) in some decoders but that is not directly related to the mfx protocol.
If you have older program,you cannot use mfx+ decoder with MS1 and MS2,by registration automatic. It result error. You must have at least version 1.83 to use mfx+ decoder. With older system like CU6021,there is no problem to use locomotivs with mfx+ decoder. The new mfx+ decoder do have some problems. |
H0 DCC = Digital Command Control
|
|
|
|
Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC) Posts: 15,443 Location: DE-NW
|
Originally Posted by: jeehring  PS2 : average registration time of a brand new MFX LOK with CS2 rarely exceed 15 sec. or so few, could be 20 seconds sometimes , or may be even less, ..... With a Märklin CS1 registration time is longer than a minute - with only one loco registering. With 10 locos registering at the same time, you may well wait 15 minutes until the last loco of the 10 can be controlled again. Different approaches. No Märklin upgrade available for the CS1. Using a CS2 is not an option for me - the system is too incomplete. |
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  |
|
|
|
Joined: 12/01/2002(UTC) Posts: 2,578 Location: Sweden
|
Originally Posted by: jeehring 
when you have MFX machine, what is the interest of using the programming track ? Should we use the programming track with MFX machines ? I tend to think that the programming track is Not necessary with MFX .... Am I right ? (or wrong ?) the output for programming track is it available for DCC decoders and Motorola without DIP switches ONLY ?
The whole concept of a "programming track" is only used in controllers I do not have. So I do not know exactly. I could see some benefits with a separate programming track with mfx, but it depends on how the controller makes use of it. Probably it is not so useful with the current controller implementations.
|
 1 user liked this useful post by perz
|
|
|
Joined: 12/01/2002(UTC) Posts: 2,578 Location: Sweden
|
Originally Posted by: Goofy 
If you have older program,you cannot use mfx+ decoder with MS1 and MS2,by registration automatic. It result error. You must have at least version 1.83 to use mfx+ decoder. With older system like CU6021,there is no problem to use locomotivs with mfx+ decoder. The new mfx+ decoder do have some problems.
I must admit I have not tested with "mfx+" decoders. You may be right, but how could you know? Have you recorded the command sequences? Unless you have done that (or have trustworthy information from someone who has done that) you are not able to tell whether it is the decoder or the controller that is the cause of the problem. Guessing does not become truth just because nobody knows.
|
 2 users liked this useful post by perz
|
|
|
Joined: 26/08/2012(UTC) Posts: 263 Location: Denver
|
Originally Posted by: jeehring  Please Perz, allow me some questions:
when you have MFX machine, what is the interest of using the programming track ? Should we use the programming track with MFX machines ? I tend to think that the programming track is Not necessary with MFX .... Am I right ? (or wrong ?) the output for programming track is it available for DCC decoders and Motorola without DIP switches ONLY ?
thanks everybody for those interesting contributions...
PS1 reading those interesting topicS about MFX, it seems that those who complain the loudest & the most of the MFX and often criticize it mainly are Ecos/CS1/CS1-R owners....
PS2 : average registration time of a brand new MFX LOK with CS2 rarely exceed 15 sec. or so few, could be 20 seconds sometimes , or may be even less, .....
The programming track is necessary to change the CVs (internal memory settings) of the decoders. Examples where this may be used is to change the maximum speed of the locomotive, the volume of the speaker, the non-mfx address, or the acceleration and braking delay. When changing these values on my mfx locomotives I always put the locomotive on the programming track. This ensures that even if there are other locos on my layout, only the variables of the locomotive on the programming track are changed. To the best of my experience it is only possible to change these values when the mfx locomotive is on the programming track. My programming track is part of my layout which is wired via a double pole switch that allows me to change the power source between 'programming' and 'normal running'. I am then able to program a loco by driving it to the programming section and throwing the switch. I am one of the fortunate users who have not had any problems with my mfx locomotives. This might be because I only have a few locomotives to test the track laying on my layout as it is under construction. I am also using a CS2 and it appears that there are fewer mfx problems when a CS2 is being used. |
Mike
Digital - C track with CS2 and Railroad&Co TrainController; feedback using LocoIO via a Locobuffer Analog - M track with solid centre rail (after C track layout is complete) Collect all Eras - especially Crocodiles Member of ETE Previously a member of the Marklin Modellers' Group Johannesburg |
|
|
|
Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC) Posts: 15,443 Location: DE-NW
|
Originally Posted by: MikeR  To the best of my experience it is only possible to change these values when the mfx locomotive is on the programming track. No, you don't need a programming track for mfx programming. You can do it on the main track, other locos won't be affected. |
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  |
|
|
|
Joined: 23/03/2012(UTC) Posts: 2,550 Location: Finland
|
Very interesting topic and good information about how mfx works or should work. I just wonder why I don't seem to have any re-registrations of my mfx locos even when they could have been in my display cases for very long time periods? I use CS2 60214 and I always have my locos on the loco list. I usually delete locos only when I sell them away or have some other peoples locos in my own CS2 loco list. There are anyway over 100 locos so I don't want that list to be any longer than what is really needed. Offtopic: To help finding a loco from CS2 loco list I always modify every loco name like this: I start loco name with D (diesel), E (electric) or S (steam) to find them faster and this way the loco type is found in alphabetical order. Next the railway company like DB, DRG, SNCF etc. and then the series and road number combo like BR 39 048, BR 41 356... Followed by the Märklin model number in these cases 39390 and 37927 and after that the decoder address like 39 or 41. It makes my life easier. Back to this mfx topic: I have not deleted a loco with track power off and without that loco on the track to be deleted. Now I will not ever do it that way in the future either when I read what can happen because of this. Should these mfx things work then like computers getting their IP addresses from DHCP server and with a limited or unlimited IP address release time? Computers have MAC addresses to identify them. As mfx decoders are unique they can be thought to have each a unique MAC address. Is the "DHCP server" or the thing which remembers how long the controller remembers that unique mfx decoder "address release time" in our controllers or in the decoders themself?  Somehow this mfx protocol works also similar to multicast, broadcast and unicast in computer world. Maybe not as well it could in some cases though. Just my thoughts... Regards, Janne |
Märklin H0 digital layout. I have analog and digital H0 Collection. Rolling stock mostly from era I, II, III and IV. Märklin 1 gauge beginner. |
 2 users liked this useful post by Janne75
|
|
|
Joined: 12/01/2002(UTC) Posts: 2,578 Location: Sweden
|
Originally Posted by: MikeR 
The programming track is necessary to change the CVs (internal memory settings) of the decoders.
Just setting CVs via mfx should not require a programming track. Writing CVs to a decoder with mfx is done using the assigned decoder address. This should be safe even if there are other locos with other addresses on the same track. However, the controller probably wants to read back the CVs before and after the CV change to check that everything is OK. This read back is more likely to be disturbed if you have a bunch of other locos running at the same time. I think this is why you need the programming track. Someone else with fewer/other locos might not need it.
|
 1 user liked this useful post by perz
|
|
|
Joined: 26/08/2012(UTC) Posts: 263 Location: Denver
|
Originally Posted by: H0  Originally Posted by: MikeR  To the best of my experience it is only possible to change these values when the mfx locomotive is on the programming track. No, you don't need a programming track for mfx programming. You can do it on the main track, other locos won't be affected. Thanks very much Tom. I have not been successful in reading the CV values to verify the update when on the main line. I will try again. |
Mike
Digital - C track with CS2 and Railroad&Co TrainController; feedback using LocoIO via a Locobuffer Analog - M track with solid centre rail (after C track layout is complete) Collect all Eras - especially Crocodiles Member of ETE Previously a member of the Marklin Modellers' Group Johannesburg |
|
|
|
Joined: 26/08/2012(UTC) Posts: 263 Location: Denver
|
Originally Posted by: perz  ... However, the controller probably wants to read back the CVs before and after the CV change to check that everything is OK. This read back is more likely to be disturbed if you have a bunch of other locos running at the same time. I think this is why you need the programming track. Someone else with fewer/other locos might not need it.
Hi Perz I like to check what I have done so I probably need the programming track for the way I program my mfx loco decoders. |
Mike
Digital - C track with CS2 and Railroad&Co TrainController; feedback using LocoIO via a Locobuffer Analog - M track with solid centre rail (after C track layout is complete) Collect all Eras - especially Crocodiles Member of ETE Previously a member of the Marklin Modellers' Group Johannesburg |
|
|
|
Joined: 12/01/2002(UTC) Posts: 2,578 Location: Sweden
|
Originally Posted by: Janne75  Is the "DHCP server" or the thing which remembers how long the controller remembers that unique mfx decoder "address release time" in our controllers or in the decoders themself?
There is no timeout in the decoders at least. The decoder looks for changed controller ID and sequence number. and for ping commands with wrong decoder ID. Only these two events cause the decoder to invalidate its assigned address. And it is the controller who is responsible for causing these events.
|
 2 users liked this useful post by perz
|
|
|
Joined: 26/08/2012(UTC) Posts: 263 Location: Denver
|
Originally Posted by: Janne75  ... Back to this mfx topic: I have not deleted a loco with track power off and without that loco on the track to be deleted. Now I will not ever do it that way in the future either when I read what can happen because of this. ...
Using the same logic of not deleting a loco when track power is off, is it necessary to save the CS2 configuration after a loco is registered? If this is not done, and there is a power outage, the mfx decoder will think it is registered for the CS2 but this information in the CS2 will have been lost as it will not have been saved. |
Mike
Digital - C track with CS2 and Railroad&Co TrainController; feedback using LocoIO via a Locobuffer Analog - M track with solid centre rail (after C track layout is complete) Collect all Eras - especially Crocodiles Member of ETE Previously a member of the Marklin Modellers' Group Johannesburg |
|
|
|
Joined: 23/03/2012(UTC) Posts: 2,550 Location: Finland
|
Thanks for your fast reply. Why some people then have these re-registrations if their locos have been on unpowered sidings for long periods of time? Is this caused then by their controllers? They are not using CS2 controllers if I remember correctly. If mfx decoders don't have this kind of "memory" then the problems must be in the different controllers.
Regards, Janne |
Märklin H0 digital layout. I have analog and digital H0 Collection. Rolling stock mostly from era I, II, III and IV. Märklin 1 gauge beginner. |
|
|
|
Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC) Posts: 15,443 Location: DE-NW
|
|
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  |
|
|
|
You have been a member since:: 03/08/2011(UTC) Posts: 1,571
|
Programming track is designed to be used for MM protocol (e.g. a fx decoder). If you try and change an fx decoder address with other loco on the same track you will mess up the other loco's as well. One of Marklin's sales argument for Mfx was that you are able to program on the main track (POM). I so far had no issues with Mfx, but I also use a newer controller (CS2) By the way if you have issues with registering when putting a new Mfx loco on the track, try and add manually a new loco and in the newer software version we now have a menu where you can trigger a new search. As a last option try wiring some cables direct from track to the red/brown cable inside the loco. A faulty ground connection will never get the loco going... Brgds Lasse |
Digital 11m2 layout / C (M&K) tracks / Era IV / CS3 60226 / Train Controller Gold 9 with 4D sound. Mainly Danish and German Locomotives. |
 1 user liked this useful post by Danlake
|
|
|
Joined: 12/08/2006(UTC) Posts: 9,277
|
Originally Posted by: perz  Originally Posted by: Goofy 
If you have older program,you cannot use mfx+ decoder with MS1 and MS2,by registration automatic. It result error. You must have at least version 1.83 to use mfx+ decoder. With older system like CU6021,there is no problem to use locomotivs with mfx+ decoder. The new mfx+ decoder do have some problems.
I must admit I have not tested with "mfx+" decoders. You may be right, but how could you know? Have you recorded the command sequences? Unless you have done that (or have trustworthy information from someone who has done that) you are not able to tell whether it is the decoder or the controller that is the cause of the problem. Guessing does not become truth just because nobody knows. I do have Märklins BR64 with mfx+ decoder and use MS2 with version 1.83. When i did bought locomotiv,i did had older version 1.64 in my MS2 and locomotive did not registration automatic and confused to been accepted. It failed to error. Yours attitude are sick Perz! However...my locomotive did start react strange in speed up when the sounds is on,so my locomotive is at factory to been repair. It´s now soon 9 weeks ago i did lefted my model. Guessing!? |
H0 DCC = Digital Command Control
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/11/2005(UTC) Posts: 3,528 Location: Mullerup, 4200 Slagelse
|
Quote:Yours attitude are sick Perz! Please Goffy, stop these outbursts. It is possible to discus and debate without such. Per. I agree.. Behave Goofy!I agree as well. I've said it before, Goofy, I'll say it again! Be nice! /BDNZEdited by moderator 05 October 2014 00:14:43(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
If you can dream it, you can do it! I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.  |
 5 users liked this useful post by Purellum
|
|
|
Joined: 23/03/2012(UTC) Posts: 2,550 Location: Finland
|
Originally Posted by: H0  Hi Tom and all, I don't want to say that all CS2 users are completely happy with mfx. But in the links you posted the one was mostly about some function buttons configuration things when in some registered mfx locos (Senator?) the functions show to wrong buttons or don't show at all depending of the controller used. I can't really see the connection to this loco re-registeration problem itself in that? If such a problem happens it can be quite easily fixed by user if he or she knows what to do in the settings page to the function button mappings. But if some user don't even know that there should be a function like sound under a function button it could then get easily unnoticed. It should not be like that and it is a fault in my opinion from Märklin. Maybe many parents who bought these things to their children as a present for example can be in this group of people who don't even know there should be such a sound under a function button... unless they read the instruction manual and see there are some errors! In the other link there was some issues with two CS2 controllers and a booster. When only one CS2 60214 was used it worked ok but when using that other CS2 60215 problems with locos re-registrations started. If I understood all what I read from in that topic the major cause for the error was that CS2 60215 controller? I can be wrong with this as it is too late to be awake really and I have maybe misunderstood something. But it seems like it is the controllers which cause mostly these re-registrations one way or another don't they? Decoders themself registerers mostly like they should. But mfx decoders CV values and running charasteristics is then another story  . Regards, Janne |
Märklin H0 digital layout. I have analog and digital H0 Collection. Rolling stock mostly from era I, II, III and IV. Märklin 1 gauge beginner. |
 2 users liked this useful post by Janne75
|
|
|
Joined: 12/08/2006(UTC) Posts: 9,277
|
Originally Posted by: Purellum  Quote:Yours attitude are sick Perz! Please Goffy, stop these outbursts. It is possible to discus and debate without such. Per. I agree.. Behave Goofy! And Perz has no right,by writing "Goofy" is guessing... So i wonder who discus and debate with such. |
H0 DCC = Digital Command Control
|
|
|
|
Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC) Posts: 15,443 Location: DE-NW
|
Originally Posted by: Janne75  Decoders themself registerers mostly like they should. But mfx decoders CV values and running charasteristics is then another story  . For the mfx protocol to work, the decoder must do the right things at the right time, the controller must do the right things at the right time, the user must do the right things at the right time - and still it doesn't always work as I expect. In the beginning the MS2 didn't work right and needed an upgrade to cope with ESU V4 M4 decoders. Then came mfx+ and the MS2 needed another upgrade. There was a time when the CS2 forgot F3 when new mfx locos registered. A simple bug, easy to work around it ... In the first thread I linked two users complained about frequent re-registrations with CS2. One was using two CS2s in a Master/Slave configuration and probably one CS2 was defective. We don't know for sure if any of them solved the problem. Problems may come when the layout grows. |
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  |
 1 user liked this useful post by H0
|
|
|
Joined: 12/08/2006(UTC) Posts: 9,277
|
The problem with mfx decoder is Märklins attitude. They sucks! I did learn my mistakes about locomotivs with mfx and mfx+ decoder and it´s never more shopping with Märklins decoder. I wish Märklins analog locomotivs with 21 pole schnittstelle,so we customer can choise another sound decoder instead. Mfx and mfx+ decoder=  |
H0 DCC = Digital Command Control
|
|
|
|
You have been a member since:: 03/08/2011(UTC) Posts: 1,571
|
No Anders, I don't agree with you. From above posts you will find some users are not having issues with mfx. It's not Marklin's attitude. I reckon they have been pretty straight forward in communicating that Mfx and Mfx+ is their strategy which IMHO is to make trains more plug and play (maintenance free motors and no need to configure CV). You can disagree with this strategy, but there can only be one Captain at the helm. Some years ago users where crossing fingers Marklin would avoid bankruptcy. I think it's time that we should realise that Marklin is now owned by a toy brand. And if you want specialised functions and abilities then be prepared to do your own modifications/workaround or buy another brand. As far as I can see there is still plenty of old analogue loco available on the second hand market. Buy them, install a engine and decoder of your liking and play with that Brgds Lasse Edited by user 04 October 2014 21:14:37(UTC)
| Reason: Flapper removed. |
Digital 11m2 layout / C (M&K) tracks / Era IV / CS3 60226 / Train Controller Gold 9 with 4D sound. Mainly Danish and German Locomotives. |
 4 users liked this useful post by Danlake
|
|
|
Joined: 12/08/2006(UTC) Posts: 9,277
|
Originally Posted by: Danlake  No Anders, I don't agree with you. From above posts you will find some users are not having issues with mfx. It's not Marklin's attitude. I reckon they have been pretty straight forward in communicating that Mfx and Mfx+ is their strategy which IMHO is to make trains more plug and play (maintenance free motors and no need to configure CV). You can disagree with this strategy, but there can only be one Captain at the helm. Some years ago users where crossing fingers Marklin would avoid bankruptcy. I think it's time that we should realise that Marklin is now owned by a toy brand. And if you want specialised functions and abilities then be prepared to do your own modifications/workaround or buy another brand. As far as I can see there is still plenty of old analogue loco available on the second hand market. Buy them, install a engine and decoder of your liking and play with that Brgds Lasse You are truly staunchest Märklinist. The real captain are Märklin,who teels to you,you are forcement to buy ours locomotivs WITH mfx decoder. Possible to buy analog is zero.  |
H0 DCC = Digital Command Control
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC) Posts: 1,343 Location: Southwest Ohio
|
Originally Posted by: Danlake  It's not Marklin's attitude. I reckon they have been pretty straight forward in communicating that Mfx and Mfx+ is their strategy which IMHO is to make trains more plug and play (maintenance free motors and no need to configure CV). You can disagree with this strategy, but there can only be one Captain at the helm.
Brgds Lasse
I do not have a problem with the strategy. My problem is with how reliably MFX works. I have stated from the beginning of this thread my desire is that they fix it or offer another alternative. I did not say they need to scrap MFX. It works for many, perhaps most, but it does not work for a very large quantity of users. I have also given reasons why just running the loko in the other format supported by the decoder, MM, is not an alternative. Using his own data plus that of others, Perz feels the problems can be corrected. Is Perz an expert? I do not know. He has offered interesting insight in how MFX works. He also suggests it can be fixed. If it can be fixed, why won't they fix it? If it can not be fixed, why can't they simply offer DCC in the decoders for us? There is no technical reason they can't, their replacement decoders offer what we want. I still can't get why this is so unreasonable. No one has offered and answer to that, my original request. It will not affect Marklin's beloved plug and play. Edit: My only conclusion is that Marklin want to control how we will operate their lokos. Some say MFX works fine with CS2 (60215). Great. But, it does not work with CS1. This too is a Marklin product. I know ESU built it for them, but it was offered exclusively through Marklin. Do they not care for those folks who supported them and purchased their product in the past? I know they want to increase sales, but are they now doing this to the severe detriment of their product (CS1) users? If so, I can only consider this a forced switched. Forced switches do not sit well with the very people who supported Marklin in the past. Flapping tongues: https://www.marklin-user...miticons.aspx#post469325 |
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. |
|
|
|
Joined: 12/08/2006(UTC) Posts: 9,277
|
Originally Posted by: biedmatt  Originally Posted by: Danlake  It's not Marklin's attitude. I reckon they have been pretty straight forward in communicating that Mfx and Mfx+ is their strategy which IMHO is to make trains more plug and play (maintenance free motors and no need to configure CV). You can disagree with this strategy, but there can only be one Captain at the helm.
Brgds Lasse
I do not have a problem with the strategy. My problem is with how reliably MFX works. I have stated from the beginning of this thread my desire is that they fix it or offer another alternative. I did not say they need to scrap MFX. It works for many, perhaps most, but it does not work for a very large quantity of users. I have also given reasons why just running the loko in the other format supported by the decoder, MM, is not an alternative. Using his own data plus that of others, Perz feels the problems can be corrected. Is Perz an expert? I do not know. He has offered interesting insight in how MFX works. He also suggests it can be fixed. If it can be fixed, why won't they fix it? If it can not be fixed, why can't they simply offer DCC in the decoders for us? There is no technical reason they can't, their replacement decoders offer what we want. I still can't get why this is so unreasonable. No one has offered and answer to that, my original request. It will not affect Marklin's beloved plug and play. Edit: My only conclusion is that Marklin want to control how we will operate their lokos. Some say MFX works fine with CS2 (60215). Great. But, it does not work with CS1. This too is a Marklin product. I know ESU built it for them, but it was offered exclusively through Marklin. Do they not care for those folks who supported them and purchased their product in the past? I know they want to increase sales, but are they now doing this to the severe detriment of their product (CS1) users? If so, I can only consider this a forced switched. Forced switches do not sit well with the very people who supported Marklin in the past. Flapping tongues: https://www.marklin-user...miticons.aspx#post469325 You did start topic,by present "Why i dislike mfx..." In this case,you must either accept by saying:Yes with mfx or No. Mostley of Märklinist do like ESU decoder which are multiprotocol that i see better possible to decides what protocol customer want to use. I don´t like registration automatic with mfx and mfx+. I want to control byself to choise by start new locomotiv to reprogram adress and the name of locomotiv. I want to change byself protocol of the mfx decoder,but it´s not possible because Märklin don´t like it when customer use other digital system with DCC protocol too. |
H0 DCC = Digital Command Control
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC) Posts: 1,343 Location: Southwest Ohio
|
Anders, you missed the term "functional" in the title. Whether that is DCC, or MFX made to function as advertised, I do not care. I just want something that works. I did not pick one format exclusively over the other. You also missed where I said "I hope they can fix it". |
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. |
|
|
|
Joined: 12/08/2006(UTC) Posts: 9,277
|
Originally Posted by: biedmatt  Anders, you missed the term "functional" in the title. Whether that is DCC, or MFX made to function as advertised, I do not care. I just want something that works. I did not pick one format exclusively over the other. You also missed where I said "I hope they can fix it". Why should Märklin fix it,since they have same functionals year 2006...? When you buy Märklin loco with mfx,you cannot change protocols. If you buy Märklins competitors locomotivs 2 or and 3 rail,you have possible to choise protocols. When you now write "functional",i suppose you don´t excuse by saying...it´s not that i meant! Even 128 speed steps are totally unnecassary to use on the tracks. But AUNT MÄRKLIN don´t care... |
H0 DCC = Digital Command Control
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/01/2002(UTC) Posts: 2,578 Location: Sweden
|
Originally Posted by: biedmatt  Anders, you missed the term "functional" in the title. Whether that is DCC, or MFX made to function as advertised, I do not care. I just want something that works. I did not pick one format exclusively over the other. You also missed where I said "I hope they can fix it". My take on this is that controller manufacturers can fix the mfx support so that it works, if they just spend the effort to do it.
|
 1 user liked this useful post by perz
|
|
|
Joined: 03/10/2010(UTC) Posts: 1,294 Location: Cape Town, South Africa
|
Originally Posted by: MikeR  Originally Posted by: jeehring  My programming track is part of my layout which is wired via a double pole switch that allows me to change the power source between 'programming' and 'normal running'. I am then able to program a loco by driving it to the programming section and throwing the switch. .
Mike, I have done the same as you - a double pole switch - to switch between programming and normal on the mainline. I actually found that I had to switch both the Red and the Brown wires in order to avoid a short-circuit between my 6021 and CS1 while programming if the loco had wagons at the rear. Regards, John
|
 1 user liked this useful post by Johnvr
|
|
|
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC) Posts: 15,870 Location: Gibraltar, Europe
|
Originally Posted by: Johnvr  Originally Posted by: MikeR  Originally Posted by: jeehring  My programming track is part of my layout which is wired via a double pole switch that allows me to change the power source between 'programming' and 'normal running'. I am then able to program a loco by driving it to the programming section and throwing the switch. .
Mike, I have done the same as you - a double pole switch - to switch between programming and normal on the mainline. I actually found that I had to switch both the Red and the Brown wires in order to avoid a short-circuit between my 6021 and CS1 while programming if the loco had wagons at the rear. Regards, John I'm looking at doing the same. At the moment I have to isolate all locos on the track every time I want to programme one. Being able to create a programming track at the flick of a switch would save a lot of hassle. |
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.
|
 1 user liked this useful post by RayF
|
|
|
Joined: 23/03/2012(UTC) Posts: 2,550 Location: Finland
|
There should also be some warnings included in the instruction manuals of the controllers and mfx locomotives (or mfx decoders) how to avoid locomotive re-registrations. Like don't ever delete a mfx locomotive when it is not on the track and track power is off. This way many frustrating re-registrations could be avoided for other mfx locomotives that user has. With CS1, CS2 and MS2 at least some SW update to be able to delete a mfx loco without the need to have it on the track or on powered track section before this. Afterwards only this loco would automaticly re-register if needed when put back on track and not all mfx locos...  Maybe it is totally impossible to bring up such an update if this is not "right way to do it with mfx protocol itself". Sorry my bad English  ... Perz has described very well how mfx protocol works and in my opinion there is nothing that Märklin could do to fix it to better except to have an update to fix that re-registration problem like described above if it is even possible. Some mfx locos and decoders have bad running charasteristics, but I mean the mfx protocol otherwise than that. It just needs to be used "correctly" and these things should be really described better from Märklin. It seems like mfx protocols functionality depends strongly of the controller used. This mfx protocol should be possible to disable and have instead DCC enabled instead if needed because of this for example. Also individual sound file and sound level adjustments should be possible. It's unfair in my opinion if some controllers support mfx and a user then buys mfx locos and gets into trouble with them because the controller used is not "the right one" to work like it should with Märklin mfx decoders. I think Märklin may just be too careful to avoid many messed up mfx decoders by users who don't know what they are doing to decoder CV settings etc. They have at least more open adjustment possibilities in their digitalising sets mfx decoders. That 60945 mSD steam locomotive sound decoder is like that. Regards, Janne |
Märklin H0 digital layout. I have analog and digital H0 Collection. Rolling stock mostly from era I, II, III and IV. Märklin 1 gauge beginner. |
 1 user liked this useful post by Janne75
|
|
|
Joined: 12/01/2002(UTC) Posts: 2,578 Location: Sweden
|
Originally Posted by: Janne75  There should also be some warnings included in the instruction manuals of the controllers and mfx locomotives (or mfx decoders) how to avoid locomotive re-registrations. Like don't ever delete a mfx locomotive when it is not on the track and track power is off. This way many frustrating re-registrations could be avoided for other mfx locomotives that user has.
Yes, such a warning would be appropriate, I agree. Originally Posted by: Janne75  With CS1, CS2 and MS2 at least some SW update to be able to delete a mfx loco without the need to have it on the track or on powered track section before this. Afterwards only this loco would automaticly re-register if needed when put back on track and not all mfx locos...  Maybe it is totally impossible to bring up such an update if this is not "right way to do it with mfx protocol itself". Sorry my bad English  ... Perz has described very well how mfx protocol works and in my opinion there is nothing that Märklin could do to fix it to better except to have an update to fix that re-registration problem like described above if it is even possible. In my opinion it would be possible to come up with such an update. Of course they could, and should, also fix the problem with locos that get unreachable. Originally Posted by: Janne75  Some mfx locos and decoders have bad running charasteristics, but I mean the mfx protocol otherwise than that. It just needs to be used "correctly" and these things should be really described better from Märklin. It seems like mfx protocols functionality depends strongly of the controller used. This mfx protocol should be possible to disable and have instead DCC enabled instead if needed because of this for example. Also individual sound file and sound level adjustments should be possible. It's unfair in my opinion if some controllers support mfx and a user then buys mfx locos and gets into trouble with them because the controller used is not "the right one" to work like it should with Märklin mfx decoders.
Assume that it instead were DCC support that were implemented in a crappy way in the controllers. Would the remedy then be to allow us to disable DCC in DCC-only decoders? No, the remedy would be to fix the controllers.
|
 2 users liked this useful post by perz
|
|
|
Joined: 17/09/2006(UTC) Posts: 18,771 Location: New Zealand
|
Originally Posted by: Goofy  And Perz has no right,by writing "Goofy" is guessing... Perz also said "You may be right, but how could you know?" His point is that you haven't used a scope or a protocol analyser to view all of the command structures to compare it against what should be happening, so your answer can only ever be conjecture. There was no abuse directed at you by Perz, so you were not provoked in any way and should not have responded in the way you did. For goodness sake, this is a Model Train forum, we are talking about Model Trains, not life and death issues. We should all act like adults and not get all upset when someone makes a comment we don't like!
|
 15 users liked this useful post by Bigdaddynz
|
xxup, foumaro, DV, Purellum, H0, sjlauritsen, Danlake, MikeR, biedmatt, Janne75, RayF, PJMärklin, Nielsenr, NZMarklinist, dickinsonj
|
|
Joined: 25/09/2003(UTC) Posts: 2,786 Location: ,
|
Originally Posted by: Goofy  [....] ...(...).... The real captain are Märklin,who teels to you,you are forcement to buy ours locomotivs WITH mfx decoder. Possible to buy analog is zero.  Sanders, You are forgetting one important thing: Here in Europe, thanks to industrial and organizational factors, the selling price of most Marklin models equipped with MFX decoder was not higher than the price of analog models sold by most of the other manufacturers without decoder ... The two highlights of Marklin were : 1/metal castings 2 / Digital models ready to roll Now, nothing prevents you to replace the Factory installed decoder, just do it like for any other analogic model from other brands : buy a Marklin mSD decoder where you will have everything you want (or any decoder from another brand ). PS: for me, comparing to other systems Marklin Digital is OK. Actually I'm more worry about the problems of finishing, lower quality of varnishes & paints (or way of varnishing/painting) and some of the plastics too ... This is another thread
|
 2 users liked this useful post by jeehring
|
|
|
Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC) Posts: 15,443 Location: DE-NW
|
Originally Posted by: jeehring  Now, nothing prevents you to replace the Factory installed decoder, just do it like for any other analogic model from other brands : buy a Marklin mSD decoder where you will have everything you want (or any decoder from another brand ). ESU decoders cannot be used with many recent MäTrix locos because MäTrix locos do not have a NEM decoder socket. I won't buy an mSD to replace the factory-installed crippled mSD. |
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  |
 1 user liked this useful post by H0
|
|
|
Joined: 12/08/2006(UTC) Posts: 9,277
|
Originally Posted by: Bigdaddynz  Originally Posted by: Goofy  And Perz has no right,by writing "Goofy" is guessing... Perz also said "You may be right, but how could you know?" His point is that you haven't used a scope or a protocol analyser to view all of the command structures to compare it against what should be happening, so your answer can only ever be conjecture. There was no abuse directed at you by Perz, so you were not provoked in any way and should not have responded in the way you did. For goodness sake, this is a Model Train forum, we are talking about Model Trains, not life and death issues. We should all act like adults and not get all upset when someone makes a comment we don't like! Perz did wrote:"You may be...and how could you know" seems like trying to provocation to me. As i did wrote before about mfx+ decoder,with older version you cannot registration automatic with MS2 and CS2. With old CU6021 you need just call up with number as ID. So mfx decoder do sometimes mess work. I don´t believe mfx system,so i repeat what i like about mfx and Märklins digital system,it sucks! Trust me,i did had first generation mfx system and CS1,it was horrible and still of today mfx and mfx+ do have cripple mess like first generation. Trust me again, AUNT MÄRKLIN DON´T CARE AND WILL NOT CHANGE SYSTEM LIKE MFX SYSTEM. |
H0 DCC = Digital Command Control
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/08/2006(UTC) Posts: 9,277
|
Originally Posted by: H0  Originally Posted by: jeehring  Now, nothing prevents you to replace the Factory installed decoder, just do it like for any other analogic model from other brands : buy a Marklin mSD decoder where you will have everything you want (or any decoder from another brand ). ESU decoders cannot be used with many recent MäTrix locos because MäTrix locos do not have a NEM decoder socket. I won't buy an mSD to replace the factory-installed crippled mSD. Exactly Tom! Also an good point about to have analog locomotivs with NEM decoder socket,so customer decides byself to buy an sound decoder,in this case ESU. But Märklin hates competitors and make sure to only produce digital locomotivs with pre install sound decoder. I dislake mfx system,so long there is no possible to change protocols,speed step and map functions with MS2. Also possible to use doubleheaded locomotivs with MS2 are missing too. |
H0 DCC = Digital Command Control
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/04/2013(UTC) Posts: 683
|
Originally Posted by: H0  ESU decoders cannot be used with many recent MäTrix locos because MäTrix locos do not have a NEM decoder socket. I won't buy an mSD to replace the factory-installed crippled mSD. I don't understand! Most recent Märklin Locos have a mtc21-decoder interface. Where is the problem, to replace the Märklin mtc21 decoder with an Esu mtc21 decoder? |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 17/09/2006(UTC) Posts: 18,771 Location: New Zealand
|
Originally Posted by: Moritz-BR365  Where is the problem, to replace the Märklin mtc21 decoder with an Esu mtc21 decoder? I'm not 100% sure, but it has been suggested that there are some incompatibilities.
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/04/2013(UTC) Posts: 683
|
Originally Posted by: Bigdaddynz  I'm not 100% sure, but it has been suggested that there are some incompatibilities.
In the past there have been some models with amplified AUX3/4 and others with not amplified AUX3/4. This could cause problems. But these models were equipped originally with Esu decoders. Since Märklin doesn't use Esu anymore, the mtc21 is fully compatible with mLD/mSD and Esu, ... mtc21 decoders. |
|
 1 user liked this useful post by Moritz-BR365
|
|
|
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC) Posts: 15,870 Location: Gibraltar, Europe
|
Originally Posted by: Moritz-BR365  Originally Posted by: Bigdaddynz  I'm not 100% sure, but it has been suggested that there are some incompatibilities.
In the past there have been some models with amplified AUX3/4 and others with not amplified AUX3/4. This could cause problems. But these models were equipped originally with Esu decoders. Since Märklin doesn't use Esu anymore, the mtc21 is fully compatible with mLD/mSD and Esu, ... mtc21 decoders. That's what I thought. These waters are muddy enough already, let's try to not add to the confusion.... |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: 17/09/2006(UTC) Posts: 18,771 Location: New Zealand
|
From memory, it may have been Tom (H0) that made that suggestion (forgive me if I'm wrong Tom). Maybe he can elaborate.
I'm interested in the answer, as I fitted a mSD decoder to my 34021 Br53, only to find that out of the box, the decoder would only go in 1 direction (forwards) (no, I didn't veryfried it with my wiring, as another mLD decoder worked fine in the loco). I was thinking of fitting an ESU 21 pin mtc decoder, as authentic sounds for the Br53 (if there is such a thing) is available for the ESU decoders.
|
|
|
|
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC) Posts: 15,870 Location: Gibraltar, Europe
|
Originally Posted by: Bigdaddynz  From memory, it may have been Tom (H0) that made that suggestion (forgive me if I'm wrong Tom). Maybe he can elaborate.
I'm interested in the answer, as I fitted a mSD decoder to my 34021 Br53, only to find that out of the box, the decoder would only go in 1 direction (forwards) (no, I didn't veryfried it with my wiring, as another mLD decoder worked fine in the loco). I was thinking of fitting an ESU 21 pin mtc decoder, as authentic sounds for the Br53 (if there is such a thing) is available for the ESU decoders. So a mLD decoder worked, but a mSD didn't, both in the same MTC21 socket? Was this socket on a Marklin adapter board? I wonder where ESU get the sound for a Br53? Synthesized from two 2-cylinder locos perhaps? |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC) Posts: 15,443 Location: DE-NW
|
Originally Posted by: Moritz-BR365  Where is the problem, to replace the Märklin mtc21 decoder with an Esu mtc21 decoder? Märklin make the mSD Spezial (compatible with NEM 660) and they make mLD and mSD (not compatible with NEM 660 - compatible with a deprecated NMRA specification that should not be used for new locos). ESU make their decoders compatible with NEM 660 - and they won't work in MäTrix locos that require amplified AUX3 or AUX4. NEM 660 requires AUX3 and AUX4 to be logic level outputs without amplification. ESU decoders will work in some locos, but won't work in some others. With mLD or mSD in a NEM 660-compatible loco you risk damage of the loco PCB. With ESU decoder in a MäTrix loco you risk damage of the decoder. 21MTC is more than just a specification - it has two incompatible specifications. |
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  |
|
|
|
Joined: 17/09/2006(UTC) Posts: 18,771 Location: New Zealand
|
Originally Posted by: RayF  [Was this socket on a Marklin adapter board? Yes, it was on the 21 pin mtc board that came with the mSD decoder. The mLD decoder worked fine when plugged into the same board. The mSD decoder, being faulty out of the box, only ran in a forwards direction. All sounds on the decoder worked fine, just reverse did not work.
|
|
|
|
Joined: 17/09/2006(UTC) Posts: 18,771 Location: New Zealand
|
Originally Posted by: H0  Märklin make the mSD Spezial (compatible with NEM 660) and they make mLD and mSD (not compatible with NEM 660 - compatible with a deprecated NMRA specification that should not be used for new locos). ESU make their decoders compatible with NEM 660 - and they won't work in MäTrix locos that require amplified AUX3 or AUX4. NEM 660 requires AUX3 and AUX4 to be logic level outputs without amplification.
ESU decoders will work in some locos, but won't work in some others. With mLD or mSD in a NEM 660-compatible loco you risk damage of the loco PCB. With ESU decoder in a MäTrix loco you risk damage of the decoder. 21MTC is more than just a specification - it has two incompatible specifications. So, I guess the question being specifically asked is whether an ESU Loksound 4.0 decoder with 21 pin socket will work in the 21 pin mtc interface board that came with a mSD decoder that is fitted into a loco with a DCM motor (not in a later loco with a locked mSD decoder)?
|
|
|
|
marklin-users.net community | Forum
»
General topics
»
General MRR
»
Why I dislike MFX and how we are not offered a functional alternative
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.