Having just been burned in a PM for my defence of Marklin's policy of developing MFX technology instead of adopting DCC, I'm now wondering if I'm in a very small minority in actually liking MFX.

I would be interested to know if there are any others who feel as I do. Please answer the poll, and by all means give your reasons, but I don't want this to become another argument.

Anything MFX can do, DCC can do better. The open platform means advances are made by the input of many companies. With MFX you have the input of just one model railroad oriented company's R&D department. Many like the auto register of MFX. That feature was developed by ESU when they created MFX for Marklin. ESU has included it in their current version of DCC. With only Marklin developing MFX, it is destined to become a relic just like MM.

Edit: After reading post 9, no need to re-register with DCC.

Juhan, I take your point. I'll rephrase the question.

I found that the automatic mfx registration does not work reliably and predictably with the way I run my home layout. Since there is no mfx without automatic registration (except with Tams Easy Control), I decided to disable mfx in my controller.

I don't mind that locos by ESU, Piko, HAG, and others now support mfx beside DCC. I regret that Märklin locos do not support DCC beside mfx.

I understand that many are happy with mfx.

why I like Mfx?
I think because I have a CS2.......Mfx or M4 decoders are so easily managed......
Don't like that you have to 're-register a loco that haven't being used for a while....but wtf.....
Also, 16 functions are more than enough for me...

Meanwhile, CS2, MS2, and even CS1 reloaded have functions that search for mfx locos that failed to register automatically.

Hi,

I voted for " I want Marklin to follow both systems equally". I use myself mfx, but in my opinion it is not good practise to disable DCC protocol by locking the decoder. Many users wants to use DCC anyway, so why to limit this possibility by locking this protocol? I am happy with mfx and I use CS2 to control my trains .

Janne

I edited the poll and added another option around liking DCC and enabled the ability to vote for multiple items, simply because I'm happy to be able to use both protocols where needed.

My controllers (CS2, CS1R and Ecos) are set to auto detect protocols, so they will automatically use mFX if a loco supports it. As many of my locos are mFX, that is what gets used. I think I only have 2 locos that are DCC (both non Marklin), and as I have Marklin braking modules on my layout, I will most likely use those locos with MM instead.

I like the auto registration of mFX locos, and as yet I haven't run into issues with having to re-register any of them. Maybe mFX runs better in the upside down Way Down Under places of the earth. DCC auto registration is practically useless for me as I only have one loco that supports it, but I can confirm that it does work well.



Thankfully Marklin does not do this with their 1 Gauge locos. Our club's large G1 layout uses Intelliboxes as controllers, and all locos including mine are run with DCC.

Hi Ray,

I use MFX on my home Marklin layout, DCC on my club layout (2 rail), and DC analogue on both an old Hornby Dublo layout, and another club (2 rail).

I use them all with equal satisfaction.

I believe MFX is a superior system (thanks Marklin) due it its auto-registration, which causes me no more problems than I have with my other toys.

What a marketing coup it will be for Marklin, the day they suddenly re-release all their 3 rail locs with DCC enabled.
All those people who did not purchase before, or who modified their locos, will be able to spend up on new DCC Marklin locos.
Maybe that will provide new Marklin customers, and perhaps increased spending from existing customers!

The reality is their major market is Western Europe, who generally follow Marklin without blinking.
Hard working Europeans do not have time to worry about what system is "best", they just purchase what they are used to.

By the way, I did not vote, because there is no category that suits my situation.

regards
Kimball

Edited by user 15 April 2014 01:22:21(UTC)  | Reason: Deleted extraneous icons which did not contribute to the sense of the post.

No, it isn't my option because I don't dislike mFX. I like (or love if that describes it better) the auto registration feature of mFX, which means I don't have to manually set up all the functions in my controller like I would for DCC locos without auto registration (none of my G1 locos have DCC auto registration). mFX is my preferred protocol, as my locos are 99% Marklin. I run my G1 locos with mFX when I'm at home.

I also like the fact that I can run my G1 locos in DCC mode on our club's G1 layout, and that I can use more than 4 functions, unlike MM (which on some layouts I visit I have to run with as the owner only has a 6021 controller), and that the locos run just as well as they would with mFX.

The modified poll allows you to find those who dislike mFX and prefer DCC, and those who don't mind using either protocol.

Edited by user 12 April 2014 08:04:13(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

There should be another option. "I use both". Which I do for different applications.

Roger

the reason I don't like MFX it is and was a closed protocol, the concept itself isn't the reason ESU introduced M4 I assume to counter act MFX with an open protocol, the latest decoders From ESU have RailComPlus another improved version of MFX or M4.
the interesting part is running my locos with an ECoS and using Märklin braking modules, the latest ESU decoders (Märklin locos) can be run on DCC with the ability to operate the Märklin braking modules older decoders e.g. V 3 and 3.5 so far I've established it, don't work under DCC incorporating the Märklin braking module but work within the Märklin protocol under decoder numbers from 1- 255.
In a nutshell, I do like the automatic registration system but not mfx but as one can tell I had to make choices not because I wanted but I had to.
I didn't vote either because none of the options put me into any of the categories.
maybe someone else can explain or it may not be an issue because of the closed MFX protocol but with ESU RailcomPlus every time you change a CV the decoder re-registers itself and unless you pre-program all data into the decoder before hand the decoder comes up blank such as a sound decoder.
another issue could be if you don't use a mobile station 1 or CS 1,2,3 all the sound slot icons which are predetermined under the MFX protocol can't be changed, if I would like to increase or decrease the brightness of lights, increase the telex off duration, change Aux functions or add them to another function outlet with other words customize your Aux or sound slot functions. increase or decrease the voltage input for a smoke generator while the loco is idle or running, can you change the Swiss light configurations when running more than one loco ?, can you increase or decrease the sound volume ?

asking a question about do you like MFX technology, its like asking do you like a house without doors, you can't get in to enjoy the inside or you have a refrigerator which runs constantly and automatically at 0°C, I like my meat at 0°c my vegies at 2 °C and everything else at 4°C, I can have automatic window roller shutters the technology works with electricity only, so if there is a power cut and an unforeseen fire in the house suddenly this technology becomes obsolete, what does technology mean when it comes to user friendly applications ? Märklin MFX has its good points but I feel the restrictions outweigh the technology which is inside the decoder but you don't have access to it and when it comes to automatic registrations e.g. M4 or RailComPlus, these are better and consumer friendly options for me.

John

I like DCC. But I wonder if we all mean the same when we say DCC.
Märklin write about the CS2: "Now with complete DCC functionality too."

DCC supports 16384 functions per loco address, the CS2 supports 16 functions per loco address only. Is that complete?
To me it looks as if they treat DCC like a step child. The CV programming with the CS2 is very uncomfortable and does not support paged CVs (paged CVs are part of the NMRA specification and ESU use them with the V4 decoders).

mfx has the highest priority, DCC is a step child and DCC is not allowed to shine brighter than mfx.

The CS 60212 allows you to choose between Motorola 14, Motorola 27, and Motorola 28 to get the best performance for MM locos. No choice with MS2 or CS2.

I bought an Intellibox before the Central Station 60212 was even announced. I had DCC locos before I bought my first mfx locos.
While I had an Intellibox and a CS1, I used the CS1 for mfx and MM programming only but used the Intellibox for DCC programming and to run the layout.
Now I have CS1 reloaded and Intellibox and the CS1R controls the layout. For years I used MM, DCC and mfx. About one year ago I was bored by the unreliability of mfx and turned it off.
DCC CV programming is much more comfortable with Intellibox and CS1R than with CS2. I mostly use the Intellibox because a) boot time is only few seconds and b) a physical keyboard is a bit quicker than tapping on the screen.
I used DDW before I bought the Intellibox, but was bored by the boot time. Now I have to live with the boot time of the CS1R (but it's worth it because of the comfortable UI).
CS1 became much faster with version 3.0.1. They say version 4.0 makes it faster again, but I haven't tried it yet.

Long story short: CS2 users cannot use all advantages of DCC (Railcom and Railcom+ are additions for DCC). It's obvious that CS2 users do not prefer DCC (unless they got bored by the unreliability of the automatic registration and the re-registrations). For locos that support DCC and MM they should use DCC.

Märklin 1 gauge locos support mfx and DCC, Trix H0 locos support mfx and DCC - no DCC for Märklin H0 locos.

Many current Märklin locos allow up to 16 functions to be used even with the CU 6021. They do not advertise this, they do not even document this. They want to sell the CS2. They might sell more locos to CU 6021 owners if those knew how many functions they could use ...

Why support the system of a rival? ESU makes an adaptor that allows LocoNet devices to be used with ECoS and CS1R. They get money for the adaptor, but may lose money for controllers and accessories. Or maybe sell ECoS to people who already have many LocoNet accessories.
The CS2 CAN bus is a closed system, the CS1/ECoS CAN bus is a closed system - I'd avoid both when there are open standards I can use alternatively.

Hi Tom,

You have highlighted the point I raised in my previous post, about the possibility of Marklin's long term marketing plans.
I have qualifications in this area, and I can see from afar, that Marklin could (I am not saying should) one day re-release some or any of their current MFX loco offerings, with DCC enabled.
This makes sense to me from a business point of view.

I have worked for a multi-national with industrial electronics -they lock functions on one model, unlock them on a more expensive one.
Apple do it, Panasonic do it, Sony does it - lock up functions, until one day they release a "new model" with those functions enabled.
Of course, you may pay more, or find the item more desirable! One way or the other, the consumer gets to pay.

regards
Kimball

I think you're missing the point John......

I realise that you have strong opinions regarding mFX, but for many of us it works, and does what it says and I think that was what Ray was interested in finding out!

Hello Kimball, let me help. Sarcasm in a discussion shows contempt, not regards for the participants in the discussion.

Webster's:
sar·casm noun \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
: the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really want to say especially in order to insult someone (my emphasis, Webster's placed it before the following two), to show irritation, or to be funny

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

I think it's a bit difficult to draw any conclusion from the current poll. Like most other polls, it's largely inconclusive.

We basically only have 1 selection for members to choose to like MFX (the first option);

whereas the pro-DCC members are split into 2 camps;
"I dislike MFX and prefer DCC" AND "I like DCC technology and use it myself"

... and the last 3 selections are fairly neutral.

Such overlaps are normal in numerous other surveys that tried to ask their opinion in a single subject manner.
Be it "National Asset sales" or "Should we continue to use Nuclear power?"

Quite often, the choices provided overlap with each other, and depending on the organizer's own preference in the matter,
may offer a few selections that split the position of members of opposing groups.

Exactly!
When you buy Märklins locomotivs with mfx,you are forcement to use only mfx.
In this case...it´s wrong.
That´s way mostley prefer ESU decoder with better choise.
When i did used BR64,i did noticed that mfx did worked worse than ESU decoder in my Brawas locomotivs.
I suggest Märklin must change mfx decoder.

I voted that I like M locos to have MFX and DCC. I would prefer a bit more than that, specifically I would like they also were compliant to RailCommPlus. It is not a must, but a plus.

We are not talking about MFX+ here, and although I am not using it and I don't think it will be a must for me, I think it brings some added fun for use sometimes. (In my case it will as at the moment I don't have any MFX+ machine yet).

At the moment, MFx does all I need, so it is ok. A big number of my locos have MFX, so i will have to live with it and I don't think it will be a problem. In case Märklin decided to stop producing MFX locos and start produce only DCC+RailCommPlus locos, it would be a problem either.

Marklin Formula X-men.

What does MFX stand for?

Hi Matt,
I meant what I said, no sarcasm intended. I always say what I mean.
Please see my following post about marketing.


regards
Kimball

Hi Tim,

Your assertions do not, I believe, tell the true story.

Marklin is a company of 800 working people.
Can you imagine the day-to-day machinations of that organisation?
There would be amongst the decision makers, continual discussion and differences of opinion about what technology is needed, and how to produce it.
Following on from that, how to market and sell it.
Marklin is not some god-like creature, to whom we do obeisance, or whom we learn to hate, it is simply a group trying to earn a living.

The reality is their major market is Western Europe, who generally follow Marklin without blinking.
Hard working Europeans do not have time to worry about what system is "best", they just purchase what they are used to.

I may be wrong, but I believe that current criticisms of Marklin (with which I don't agree) are too small in numbers, to influence their production and marketing decisions.

regards
Kimball

Edited by user 13 April 2014 03:54:03(UTC)  | Reason: edited last line to be more explanatory

Hi Matt,

Let's bury the hatchet.

You are likely a decent fellow.
I am imperfect. I certainly don't like causing angst to another, and have no reason to be insulting.

We disagree about MFX - that is OK.
Our hobby means different things to different people.

regards
Kimball