MTH R&D status

@RJR posted:

Skip the @sign. Shawn, I posted a like on your last post

Sorry I added more to my reply to you my computer went haywire.

@Madockawando posted:

For everyone else reading this. This is sincere question. I'm not trying to play stump the chump or start an emotional argument. 

Lol!! You wouldn't want to go and ruin your reputation around here, now would you??

Short answer:

No Lionel's system can't control DCS locomotives without a TIU because the 2 systems communicate differently.

Long answer:

TMCC/Legacy use one way radio communication. If you tell locomotive #2 to blow its horn the TMCC/Legacy base sends out the command "locomotive #2 blow your horn". Locomotive #2 sees the command and blows its horn. If it misses the command the TMCC/Legacy base has no way of knowing.

DCS is two way communication through the positive and negative rails. When you tell locomotive #2 to blow its horn the TIU sends the command out through the rails, the locomotive receives the command, it responds back to the TIU it got the command, and blows its horn.

The two systems operate differently, so without MTH electronics inside the Lionel Base 3 there's no way it's controlling a DCS locomotive. MTH has no incentive to do this, as they wouldn't sell any TIUs themselves.

A TIU can control a TMCC/Legacy locomotive if you hook the TIU to a Lionel TMCC/Legacy base using the proper MTH cable. The serial port on the Lionel base is designed to let a computer or something else input commands to the base instead of a Cab1, Cab1L, Cab2, etc. So basically the TIU is just sending commands to the Lionel base instead of the Lionel remote. I have all my PS2, PS3, TMCC, and Legacy locomotives programmed into my DCS remotes. I can run any of my locomotives from a DCS remote with my TIU connected to my TMCC base.

So long of the short is if you want to be able to operate a DCS locomotive from a Lionel Base3 Lionel and MTH would have to get together and develop a way for the Base3 to talk to a TIU and tell it what commands to issue to DCS locomotives.

@Lou1985 posted:

So long of the short is if you want to be able to operate a DCS locomotive from a Lionel Base3 Lionel and MTH would have to get together and develop a way for the Base3 to talk to a TIU and tell it what commands to issue to DCS locomotives.

And I don't see that happening anytime soon. Lionel would spend lots of time, money and R&D to add features to an app & base so that their customers can buy someone else's product.

Yep, it looks like a dumping match from where I sit. Kudos to MTH for their answer and  yes I am excited about it. I run Conventional, TMCC, Legacy and DCS all from the DCS Side via remote or app. Some people are die hard MTH and others are die hard Lionel and NOTHING is going to change the crying either side does. Nothing but a big DUMP FEST. Stop and enjoy the hobby. Be happy there is competition as it is great for the hobby. ENJOY your trains however you run them and be happy for ALL control systems whether you use them or not.

@Lou1985 posted:

Short answer:

No Lionel's system can't control DCS locomotives without a TIU because the 2 systems communicate differently.

Long answer:

TMCC/Legacy use one way radio communication. If you tell locomotive #2 to blow its horn the TMCC/Legacy base sends out the command "locomotive #2 blow your horn". Locomotive #2 sees the command and blows its horn. If it misses the command the TMCC/Legacy base has no way of knowing.

DCS is two way communication through the positive and negative rails. When you tell locomotive #2 to blow its horn the TIU sends the command out through the rails, the locomotive receives the command, it responds back to the TIU it got the command, and blows its horn.

The two systems operate differently, so without MTH electronics inside the Lionel Base 3 there's no way it's controlling a DCS locomotive. MTH has no incentive to do this, as they wouldn't sell any TIUs themselves.

A TIU can control a TMCC/Legacy locomotive if you hook the TIU to a Lionel TMCC/Legacy base using the proper MTH cable. The serial port on the Lionel base is designed to let a computer or something else input commands to the base instead of a Cab1, Cab1L, Cab2, etc. So basically the TIU is just sending commands to the Lionel base instead of the Lionel remote. I have all my PS2, PS3, TMCC, and Legacy locomotives programmed into my DCS remotes. I can run any of my locomotives from a DCS remote with my TIU connected to my TMCC base.

So long of the short is if you want to be able to operate a DCS locomotive from a Lionel Base3 Lionel and MTH would have to get together and develop a way for the Base3 to talk to a TIU and tell it what commands to issue to DCS locomotives.

Thank you for taking the time to write a well thought out explanation. It’s far more helpful then someone else who told me: “It’s Lionel’s problem.”

So it seems that the obstacle to being able to control a DCS locomotive with a CAB-3 is technological, not necessarily proprietary.

For me, although there is plenty of MTH premier rolling stock in my future, it doesn’t look like there will be many MTH locomotives.

The exception I will make is that I will definitely buy a Central Maine and Quebec AC4400 #1001 and or 1006 if MTH makes one first.

Again, thank you for taking the time to answer the question properly.

The Legacy system can already control MTH locomotives by using the Legacy PowerMaster.  I even think there's a way to control some of the advanced features using the MTH horn/bell sequences programmed into the Legacy CAB-2.

@rplst8 posted:

The Legacy system can already control MTH locomotives by using the Legacy PowerMaster.  I even think there's a way to control some of the advanced features using the MTH horn/bell sequences programmed into the Legacy CAB-2.

Do you mean conventional control changing track voltage? That would make if difficult to operate more than one locomotive on a block as well as Legacy locomotives on the same track.

How did this thread get turned around from MTH R&D Status to Lionel R&D Status?

Can we get back on track (pun intended)?

Mike

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

How did this thread get turned around from MTH R&D Status to Lionel R&D Status?

Can we get back on track (pun intended)?

Mike

I sure don’t know. @MTH RD invited me to join this thread so I asked a question. I wanted his perspective on  if it will become possible to operate DCS locomotives with the CAB-3 just like TMCC/ Legacy locomotives can be operated with a DCS remote. Lionel has already said that the Base-3 will allow Legacy control through DCS. My question is for MTH. A “yes” answer will make it easier for me to decide to purchase DCS locomotives in the future.

Unfortunately, a select few decided that instead of being helpful they told me to pound sand and say “it’s Lionel’s problem.”

The good news one person took the trouble to give me a detailed technical explanation of the obstacles involved.

@Shawn_Chronister posted:

He is wanting to be able to control the mth engines with the cab 3.

@Madockawando yes this is something lionel would need to develop and they could if they chose too the information to do so is readily available and others are doing it here on the forum with a cab 2.

https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...ing-lionchief-trains

MTH DCS has given everyone the ability to run TMCC/Legacy already and now you want them to develop away for to use with the cab3 thats rich.

If you have such a modest engine budget seems to me you backed the wrong horse in the hobby.

LoL!!    Okay

So disappointing to hear from MTH above in this thread that they don’t expect to have parts for new WTIU until fall. At least that seems to dispel all the April estimates that have been out there.  I am upset with myself that I have purchased any MTH engines while being unable to buy anything to run them with.  Ya I know I can get a TIU on eBay if I’m willing to lend over 800 bucks.

In the meantime I’m stuck trying to run with a DCS explorer manipulating delete and add only three engines at a time but only being able to run one at a time if I have lighted passenger cars because I am limited to 5 amps  I would run conventionally with supposedly comparable Lionel transformers I have but I and too afraid of blowing boards

Oh Well what are you going to do?

@Lou1985 posted:

So long of the short is if you want to be able to operate a DCS locomotive from a Lionel Base3 Lionel and MTH would have to get together and develop a way for the Base3 to talk to a TIU and tell it what commands to issue to DCS locomotives.

And this gets back to software. TMCC commands are open to the public. MTH was able to write software to issue TMCC commands to a Legacy base and have it transmit commands to Lionel engines.

DCS software is proprietary and protected. Not possible to write software to talk to a TIU without that knowledge so a Legacy base has no way to communicate with a TIU.

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

DCS software is proprietary and protected. Not possible to write software to talk to a TIU without that knowledge so a Legacy base has no way to communicate with a TIU.

It can be licensed just as MTH had to buy a license to use Legacy coding (this one is NOT open source like TMCC, you pay to play) for the DCS App.  I believe Dave Hikel & Atlas have both have licenses to use, develop and sell products with DCS coding.

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

And this gets back to software. TMCC commands are open to the public. MTH was able to write software to issue TMCC commands to a Legacy base and have it transmit commands to Lionel engines.

DCS software is proprietary and protected. Not possible to write software to talk to a TIU without that knowledge so a Legacy base has no way to communicate with a TIU.

Ah, so that changes things bit. On one hand Lionel would have to do the engineering work in order to enable its CAB-3 to run SCS locomotives, BUT, while TMCC commands are open to the public, DCS commands are not, so if Lionel wanted to do the engineering work to run DCS with the CAB-3, MTH will not allow it for proprietary reasons. 

IMO, while MTH has every right to keep their software proprietary. However, I think it it would be in their interest to make their DCS commands public. Just looking at the history of the software platforms: Open source rules the world, proprietary software withers on the vine. If would be a win for everyone if MTH would make their DCS commands open to the public like Lionel has with TMCC.

- The hobbyist wins because now they can run all brands of trains with either DCS or Legacy or both.

- MTH would win because they would sell more locomotives to people like me and DCS would likely come into wider use.

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

And this gets back to software. TMCC commands are open to the public. MTH was able to write software to issue TMCC commands to a Legacy base and have it transmit commands to Lionel engines.

DCS software is proprietary and protected. Not possible to write software to talk to a TIU without that knowledge so a Legacy base has no way to communicate with a TIU.

Indeed.  Not too long after introducing TMCC Lionel elected to open its communication protocol and a specific hardware connection for use by anyone, using any hardware and/or software, to control TMCC, and later Legacy using TMCC, locomotives.   There are few restrictions, if any.

MTH, on the other hand, has not done the same for DCS.  The DCS protocol and hardware interface is considered proprietary, and so a formal license to use it must be negotiated with MTH before any party that wants to create or market a product to control MTH locomotives can do so.

Not requiring a license, MTH was free to add TMCC/Legacy support to it's control system.

Requiring a license Lionel was not free to add DCS support to it's control system.

Did Lionel ever conduct negotiations with MTH to license it's protocol and interface?  Very few, if any, of us know the answer to that question.  Would big money be necessary to secure the license if they did?  Most probably.

Or, it's possible that MTH simply said "Never".

And of course, it's also possible that Lionel never tried.

Mike.

It will be interesting too see what a new DCS -Wifi controller will look like.  Hopefully MTH will enhance the current controller.

Let's clear the air:

LEGACY Code is NOT free open source, you must get/pay for a license to use it in your own products. Lionel does have the code available online for anyone to look at but if you want to build your own products that use that code to control Legacy equipment through a Lionel BASE, you need get permission and pay for a license.

MTH DCS Code can be licensed to be used in your own products for a fee much like Legacy code, just ask Dave Hikel & Atlas.

@Madockawando posted:

Ah, so that changes things bit. On one hand Lionel would have to do the engineering work in order to enable its CAB-3 to run SCS locomotives, BUT, while TMCC commands are open to the public, DCS commands are not, so if Lionel wanted to do the engineering work to run DCS with the CAB-3, MTH will not allow it for proprietary reasons.

While MTH may have had access to the TMCC commands they still incurred considerable cost developing software to wrap those commands in some logical way.

Even with purchasing a license from MTH there is/would be considerable work required to produce a software package that works. That is two major costs.

The situation with MTH licensing and TMCC open source proves the adage that in business it is not always best to be first.

EDIT: my apologies if I've confused Legacy and TMCC. MTH can only talk TMCC to Legacy base.

Lets not forget that this is "Mikes" ( a train guy)s control system. Legacy is owned by investors who have no interest in the products they sell outside of the profit in their portfolio.

Mike makes trains, Guggenheim makes money.

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

EDIT: my apologies if I've confused Legacy and TMCC. MTH can only talk TMCC to Legacy base.

That's not accurate. The DCS App can send Legacy specific commands to Legacy locomotives through a SER2 connected to a BASE2 or BASE3. Not all Legacy commands are available, but most are.

MTH had to purchase a license from Lionel to gain this functionality with the DCS APP.

@H1000 posted:

That's not accurate. The DCS App can send Legacy specific commands to Legacy locomotives through a SER2 connected to a BASE2 or BASE3. Not all Legacy commands are available, but most are.

MTH had to purchase a license from Lionel to gain this functionality with the DCS APP.

Thank you for that correction. I have no knowledge of the app, my reference is the remote and TIU.

"Lets not forget that this is "Mikes" ( a train guy)s control system. Legacy is owned by investors who have no interest in the products they sell outside of the profit in their portfolio.

Mike makes trains, Guggenheim makes money."

As far as I know this is incorrect and unfair.  Legacy was developed by Neil Young, Lou Kovach and Jon Z, amongst others.  These guys have their own layouts in most cases. To my knowledge, no one has ever reported Mike Wolf having a layout in his own home .

Amongst the current key players, Ryan K and Dave O are clearly train guys.  Ryan is particularly knowlegeable about prototype, as you will have seen a huge library of train books in his office.  To my knowledge, there is no equivalent amongst the current various MTH principals, although I'm not certain.

The inability of Legacy to control DCS/PS2-PS3 locos in command mode is a legal obstacle, not a technical obstacle.  Prior to licensing DCS to Atlas, MTH had refused to license it to anyone else, and indeed had threatened legal action to anyone who wanted to develop emulation software/hardware.  Maybe things have changed.

@RickO posted:

Lets not forget that this is "Mikes" ( a train guy)s control system. Legacy is owned by investors who have no interest in the products they sell outside of the profit in their portfolio.

Mike makes trains, Guggenheim makes money.

LoL, I hope MTH DCS makes money as well!! Companies don't last long on pipe dreams and well wishes. In fairness, though Lionel has some great train folks working there. Just like I am sure , MTH Trains, MTH DCS and MTH parts has great train guys and gals as part of their team.

@Landsteiner posted:

MTH had refused to license it to anyone else,

MTH Licensed DCS to Dave Hikel a number of years ago when the development of the DCS app first began. I think he may even had it before that as Dave developed some custom interface equipment & software to DCS.

@Landsteiner posted:

As far as I know this is incorrect and unfair.  Legacy was developed by Neil Young, Lou Kovach and Jon Z, amongst others.  These guys have their own layouts in most cases. To my knowledge, no one has ever reported Mike Wolf having a layout in his own home .

LOL, Neil Young Lou Kovac, and JonZ have as much involvement in 2021Lionel as JLC does.

But o.k.. You win. I don't want to muddy up this Mth R&D thread. Have a great weekend!

@Landsteiner posted:

Amongst the current key players, Ryan K and Dave O are clearly train guys.  Ryan is particularly knowlegeable about prototype, as you will have seen a huge library of train books in his office.  To my knowledge, there is no equivalent amongst the current various MTH principals, although I'm not certain.

I've been to MTH's former HQ a few years ago, and saw his office (as well as the 'executive washroom' ). While he did not have a library in his office space, a large collection of train books was in the room behind his, where most of the staff worked during the company's heyday. Many of these no doubt showed up in the warehouse auctions, as there were a lot of books put up for sale in them.

---PCJ

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

And this gets back to software. TMCC commands are open to the public. MTH was able to write software to issue TMCC commands to a Legacy base and have it transmit commands to Lionel engines.

Wrong.  The "TMCC commands" are not "open to the public".  The control interface to the command base is.  That's all, and it doesn't support Legacy.

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

Indeed.  Not too long after introducing TMCC Lionel elected to open its communication protocol and a specific hardware connection for use by anyone, using any hardware and/or software, to control TMCC, and later Legacy using TMCC, locomotives.   There are few restrictions, if any.

This is 100% patently false.  The TMCC communications protocol is NOT open to the public.  The connection/interface to the command-base however is.  You can write software and/or make hardware that comms with the base to your hearts desire, but you STILL need a TMCC or Legacy base to communicate with the Locomotives and TMCC accessories.

MTH, on the other hand, has not done the same for DCS.  The DCS protocol and hardware interface is considered proprietary, and so a formal license to use it must be negotiated with MTH before any party that wants to create or market a product to control MTH locomotives can do so.

Not requiring a license, MTH was free to add TMCC/Legacy support to it's control system.

While MTH did use the open TMCC base serial communications to communicate with the base, the Legacy system is IN NO WAY open and had to pay for a license to make it work.  It requires (in addition to a Legacy command base) the SER2 interface and PDI power cable.

@Madockawando posted:

Ah, so that changes things bit. On one hand Lionel would have to do the engineering work in order to enable its CAB-3 to run SCS locomotives, BUT, while TMCC commands are open to the public, DCS commands are not, so if Lionel wanted to do the engineering work to run DCS with the CAB-3, MTH will not allow it for proprietary reasons.

It wouldn't matter if MTH made a command interface similar to the TMCC base serial port and opened it to the public.  DCS is a two way protocol and Legacy isn't capable of that.

@Madockawando posted:

DCS will continue, virtually unchanged, for a while. Not because the hobby needs it but rather because some are emotionally invested in it to let it go. But my point it is that the release of of the CAB3 by Lionel may cause Atlas to reconsider how the Command and Control landscape has change and how they may have to change with it.

They might if they were allowed to use Legacy level technology, but Lionel has not licensed that, thus Atlas is using TMCC level. Lionel never licensed legacy technology, if they did then this statement would have some truth to it. PS 3.0 is more modern than TMCC, for sure, and Atlas has the ability to use that. If they want the most recent technology, they would switch totally to PS 3.0 *shrug*. I don't have a dog in this fight, I am not a Lionel fan boy or an MTH one, just pointing out the reality of what Atlas has available. 

@Landsteiner posted:

The inability of Legacy to control DCS/PS2-PS3 locos in command mode is a legal obstacle, not a technical obstacle.  Prior to licensing DCS to Atlas, MTH had refused to license it to anyone else, and indeed had threatened legal action to anyone who wanted to develop emulation software/hardware.  Maybe things have changed.

I will not even address the parts of your post that are conjecture and potentially libelous in the company of model train enthusiasts.

That said, the inability is not merely legal.  It is also technical and financial.  Technically DCS is a TWO WAY communications protocol.  Which is why MU consists and other positive ack commands work so well on it.  Legacy is a one way protocol.  It would likely take a lot of engineering on the part of Lionel to update their CAB-2 software (for a remote that is discontinued) to even deal with this, or potentially a separate module to communicate with the TIU properly.  Also for Lionel, what is the financial benefit?  Zero.  If they would add this functionality, they would just have opened the door for all of their "Lionel Only" fans to start spending money elsewhere on engines.  For MTH, what financial benefit could MTH receive from investing in creating a way to even control the TIU externally?

Lionel chose to open their system with the ability to control it via the serial port.  This option, no matter what, still requires purchasing their command base.  They also REVERSED that decision when they released Legacy, requiring MTH (or anyone else) that wanted to play in their sandbox to pay for a license.

@bigkid posted:

They might if they were allowed to use Legacy level technology, but Lionel has not licensed that, thus Atlas is using TMCC level. Lionel never licensed legacy technology, if they did then this statement would have some truth to it. PS 3.0 is more modern than TMCC, for sure, and Atlas has the ability to use that. If they want the most recent technology, they would switch totally to PS 3.0 *shrug*. I don't have a dog in this fight, I am not a Lionel fan boy or an MTH one, just pointing out the reality of what Atlas has available.

Lionel (to my knowledge) never licensed the use of Legacy in for use in another manufacturer's locomotives. They did however license a subset of the interface communications to MTH, which allowed MTH to add Legacy functionally to their WiFi smartphone/tablet app which is enabled through the purchase of a Lionel Legacy command base, a Lionel SER2 device, and a Lionel LCS PDI power cable.

@rplst8 posted:

Wrong.  The "TMCC commands" are not "open to the public".  The control interface to the command base is.  That's all, and it doesn't support Legacy.

I could write code using this. But like it says, retired.

The Legacy Protocol Spec

I agree that MTH probably did pay a fee to develop a commercial product so for them it was available but for a fee. Still, you and I can write our own software with Lionel's blessing.

"Using this document and an SER2 module, anyone can write code and send both TMCC and LEGACY commands to their train layout. "

My point was we can't do that with DCS since it is license only, and probably steep enough we can't afford it.

Amazing how long this has gone on.

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

I could write code using this. But like it says, retired.

The Legacy Protocol Spec

I agree that MTH probably did pay a fee to develop a commercial product so for them it was available but for a fee. Still, you and I can write our own software with Lionel's blessing.

"Using this document and an SER2 module, anyone can write code and send both TMCC and LEGACY commands to their train layout. "

My point was we can't do that with DCS since it is license only, and probably steep enough we can't afford it.

Anyone can write code and interact with the Lionel BASE unit as they please, but as soon as you develop a product to bring to market, you will be paying Lionel a big fee or royalties.

The MTH DCS code has been reverse engineered by someone on the forum. He has created and release software that will operate DCS engines using a TIU. No legal action has been brought against him because he is not selling anything and not making any money from MTH's proprietary work.  It's all free and available for anyone to download and use as long as you buy the needed off the shelf hardware that you need to build & program yourself.

@rplst8 posted:

Lumping DCC in with DCS and TMCC is a fools errand.  DCC is an open system.  External parties can bring their stuff to the party and nicely with others.  Bluetooth and WiFi, should be this way, but are only over the short term because of evolving standards and security issues.

The app stores are a whole other ball of wax. They are a closed system that Lionel and MTH don't control.

Bluetooth and Wifi are constantly evolving standards, that is true, but the thing is that for example WiFi 6 maintains backwards support for all the prior wifi standards, like n, ac, etc . Bluetooth does the same thing, it extends but if you have a bluetooth device connecting to one with a more modern version of bluetooth, it should work and usually does.

Yes, you can have problems with Apps and IOS/Android OS upgrades. While like any OS they try and maintain backwards capability to allow older apps to work, there will come a time when an older app may fail.  The other issue is there as well, there does come a time when an older device won't be able to run a new version of the app because it has an older ops system and can't upgrade. I realize some people keep old hardware and such and are happy with it, but you also can't expect it to run newer applications forever, it is the nature of how things move on. So someday, yes, you might have to buy a new Ipad or Iphone or android device, expecting something from 10 years ago to run something from today is kind of ridiculous IMO.

So a couple of points:

1)If we get to the point that the Lionel or MTH apps no longer work with the latest generation of OS's, then basically that means they have stopped supporting the product, which would be big problem because most people end up updating their iphones and ipad and android systems, either the OS or to a new device. Hopefully if they ever did get to that point, they might make it open source so others can update it to work or add new features, otherwise it will basically end up a brick.

I doubt this, for a lot of reasons, it seems like if and when the app no longer works, they will issue updates.

2)You have the same problem with proprietary systems using controllers, you are even more at their mercy with that. Sure, your 1997 TMCC command base and controller might work great, but for example, you are limited only to the TMCC command set. If the controller breaks, good luck trying to fix it....the key thing here being you lost support for what you have, and if it has a problem, like an App if you upgrade your os, it means you can be out of luck.

The nice part about the software approach is that it is relatively easy to fix an app to run under a new OS , it is a lot cheaper and easier than maintaining a physical remote, that if a part is defective they have to recall the unit and fix it, if it is a manufacturing process issue, even a bigger headache. Also very costly, something like keeping their app compatible with newer os's can be farmed out pretty easily (new features they may want to keep in house). And if let's say MTH or lionel ever 'goes out', they likely would release the technology to the public domain or sell it to someone who will maintain it IMO.

@H1000 posted:

Anyone can write code and interact with the Lionel BASE unit as they please, but as soon as you develop a product to bring to market, you will be paying Lionel a big fee or royalties.

The MTH DCS code has been reverse engineered by someone on the forum. He has created and release software that will operate DCS engines using a TIU. No legal action has even been brought against him because he is not selling anything and not making any money from MTH proprietary work.  It's all free and available for anyone to download and use as long as you buy the needed off the shelf hardware that you need to build & program yourself.

Well, I think they've managed a few commands. I applaud their fortitude but personally I'm not looking for that kind of a project. I believe I mentioned developing a commercial product would probably require a license fee.

@bigkid posted:

Bluetooth does the same thing, it extends but if you have a bluetooth device connecting to one with a more modern version of bluetooth, it should work and usually does.

Bluetooth 1.0 thru 2.0 devices are rapidly falling out of support with newer devices that have Bluetooth 5.0 hardware and protocol stacks installed. My trusty old Bluetooth 2.1 Headset worked just fine with my old Android phone that had Bluetooth 4 but has frequent connection problems and very unreliable with any phone that has Bluetooth 5.

On another note, the current Lionchief app (at least for android) has serious problems with older phones that do not support Bluetooth 5. The app store claims it works on phones with Android versions as old as 4.4 but none of those phones have Bluetooth 5 support and the app crashes when trying to detect an engine.

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

Well, I think they've managed a few commands. I applaud their fortitude but personally I'm not looking for that kind of a project. I believe I mentioned developing a commercial product would probably require a license fee.

If you are referring to the DCS control project, he has managed much more than just a few commands, you can pretty much run the whole system, modify sound files to your liking and customize the on-screen controls: http://www.silogic.com/trains/RTC_Running.html

Lionel is more than welcome to develop a commercial product to run DCS engines and pay licensing fees to do so but will they?

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

No offense, but the consequences of a screwup in development in the toll industry is a traffic jam.  The consequences of a screwup in my working career in avionics developing flight critical electronics is being featured in a headline about an airplane crash where a couple hundred people died!

Not to mention that every software project has different criteria around it, or any kind of critical project. When the Challenger disaster happened, they talked to range safety officers and they mentioned that the fail rate on unmanned shots was like 5%, and on manned it was about 1. There are different standards when it comes to critical and relatively non critical systems, and GRJ is right. My dad worked for Bendix, they did work with Avionics with McDonnell Douglas and others, and the standards were much higher than for normal software development, always has been, it was a lot more rigorous.  I also will add that software development itself has changed a lot, the languages being used, the tools available, especially robust test suites and the procedures for building and testing are light years from back then...and even then, the number of catastrophic failures you mention were very small; they make big headlines.

The big problem often isn't reliance on software, it is bad management, the 737Max is the classic example, they rushed the project through, they had to redo the software involved because of a radical change to flight characteristics, it was tested, and both software engineers and test pilots flagged a major problem, that was basically ignored, and one feature that should have been a basic safety inclusion with the plane, was sold as an expensive add in by marketing geniuses.

Has technology made us vulnerable? It always does, if we have a burst of EMF we are all screwed. When we switched to cars we were dependent on gasoline being available, when we switched to electricity more and more of our daily lives are based on it, lose it, and it isn't pleasant.

"I will not even address the parts of your post that are conjecture and potentially libelous in the company of model train enthusiasts."

You've been on the forum since 2018 according to your profile.  The events I'm referring to go back 20 years .  And are in no way libelous in the least. Just statements of events discussed widely in the hobby.  Perhaps these individuals were making it up, but I recall people posting letters from MTH's lawyers telling them clearly not to consider interfering with their intellectual property.  Perhaps these letters were phoney, but given the litigious state of the hobby in the late 1990s and early 2000s, these reports seem credible as evidence that MTH did not, in the early 2000s at least,  want anyone messing with their DCS system, with or without licensing.

"That said, the inability is not merely legal.  It is also technical and financial. "

There is no technical obstacle, because no one is suggesting making their own TIU, but simply mapping Legacy/TMCC/etc. commands to TIU inputs, which has been demonstrated as feasible by various people, at least according to them. The obstacle is also not wanting to spend millions on another lawsuit, so it is financial in that sense.

Personally, it's not a big deal.  If you look at the Lionel catalog and the Atlas catalog, one definitely has the impression that they own or are leasing more MTH tooling than MTH is using.  If MTH R&D or whatever they are going to call the DCS company doesn't want to allow anyone (Lionel included) to build a Legacy handheld or cab3 app to issue commands to the DCS WTIU, I doubt anyone is going to go to the mattresses with them about it.  It's clearly legal to do that, but who wants to spend time and money in potential court battles?  Been there, done that, Lionel has the T-shirt .

Allowing third parties to develop remotes, apps, etc. to talk to the WTIU will likely increase MTH and Atlas PS3  loco sales, not decrease them.  So by not allowing this all along, they likely have hurt no one but themselves, in my view.  This refusal to license DCS initially has discouraged individuals like myself  (who were invested in TMCC beginning in 1994-96) buying any significant number of PS2/3 locos and DCS when it  hit the market in 2000-2002 for simple reasons of convenience.  In case you are interested, Mike Wolf was publicly negative about command control when TMCC was initially marketed and said there was no need for MTH to develop such capabilities.  He soon changed his mind, which is a sign of adaptability and to his credit.  But in my opinion, they should open up access to the DCS system with minimal charge.  It will help their and Atlas's sales of PS3 locos and, of course, any TIU related products they make going forward.  Not exactly rocket science.

@H1000 posted:

If you are referring to the DCS control project, he has managed much more than just a few commands, you can pretty much run the whole system, modify sound files to your liking and customize the on-screen controls: http://www.silogic.com/trains/RTC_Running.html

Lionel is more than welcome to develop a commercial product to run DCS engines and pay licensing fees to do so but will they?

Can you say with certainty that MTH DCS would be happy to license DCS? I am asking because the one person who could have answered many questions about this @MTH RD has gone AWOL from the discussion. So to be clear, someone at MTH DCS told you that they would be willing to license DCS to Lionel?

@Landsteiner posted:

"I will not even address the parts of your post that are conjecture and potentially libelous in the company of model train enthusiasts."

Good thing since you've been on the forum since 2018 according to your profile.  The events I'm referring to go back 20 years .  And are in no way libelous in the least. Just statements of events discussed widely in the hobby.

That said, the inability is not merely legal.  It is also technical and financial. "

There is no technical obstacle, because no one is suggesting making their own TIU, but simply mapping Legacy/TMCC/etc. commands to TIU inputs, which has been demonstrated as feasible by various people, at least according to them. The obstacle is not wanting to spend millions on another lawsuit, so it is financial in that sense.  Personally, it's not a big deal.  If you look at the Lionel catalog and the Atlas catalog, one definitely has the impression that they own or are leasing more MTH tooling than MTH has left.  If MTH R&D or whatever they are going to call the DCS company doesn't want to allow anyone (Lionel included) to allow a Legacy handheld or cab3 app to issue commands to the WTIU, I doubt anyone is going to go to the mattresses with them about it.  It's clearly legal to do that, but who wants to spend time and money in potential court battles?  Been there, done that, everyone has the T-shirt .

Frankly, allowing third parties to develop remotes, apps, etc. to talk to the WTIU will increase MTH loco sales, not decrease them.  So by not allowing this all along, they have hurt no one but themselves, in my view.  It has stopped individuals like myself who were heavily invested in TMCC in 2002 when DCS hit the market from buying any significant number of PS2/3 locos for simple reasons of convenience.

I agree. It has shown time and time again in software that "Frankly, allowing third parties to develop remotes, apps, etc. to talk to the WTIU will increase MTH loco sales, not decrease them."

@Madockawando posted:

Can you say with certainty that MTH DCS would be happy to license DCS? I am asking because the one person who could have answered many questions about this @MTH RD has gone AWOL from the discussion. So to be clear, someone at MTH DCS told you that they would be willing to license DCS to Lionel?

They already have licensed it to other parties, like Dave Hikel & Atlas.

Why wouldn't MTH be willing to sell Lionel a license?? as you said earlier "MTH would win because they would sell more locomotives to people like me and DCS would likely come into wider use."

I don't see how it benefits Lionel much, They have to develop updated software for their remotes and apps, probable release a new LCS hardware module to handshake with the TIU and pay MTH a licensing fee just so that their customers can buy someone else's product.

@H1000 posted:

Lionel is more than welcome to develop a commercial product to run DCS engines and pay licensing fees to do so but will they?

I don't see why they would at this point. MTH coming in as the unknown needed to be able to sell it as a bit more than just another proprietary system in an attempt to create market share. Lionel doesn't need to care about controlling MTH engines.

Anyway, I don't now any more that anyone else and I don't like mixing hobbies and business. I'm glad we have the choices we have to have some fun.

All of this kind of reminds me of the candy wars on the history channel.   Hershey was selling chocolate to Mars and after a few years turned onto Hershey's biggest competitor.

@H1000 posted:

They already have licensed it to other parties, like Dave Hikel & Atlas.

Why wouldn't MTH be willing to sell Lionel a license?? as you said earlier "MTH would win because they would sell more locomotives to people like me and DCS would likely come into wider use."

So you really don’t know for sure but are making an educated guess. But I do agree that licensing DCS to Lionel would be a win for everyone, to include MTH DCS. But are they willing to license DCS to Lionel so that the CAB-3 could control DCS? We need to hear from MTH DCS company to know for sure.

@Madockawando posted:

So you really don’t know for sure but are making an educated guess. But I do agree that licensing DCS to Lionel would be a win for everyone, to include MTH DCS. But are they willing to license DCS to Lionel so that the CAB-3 could control DCS? We need to hear from MTH DCS company to know for sure.

When these deals get made, the public is the last to know and much is hidden in NDA's that prevent prospective licensees and current licensees from discussing the details. Last year our firm wanted to get a license to use a popular auto steering system found in the automotive industry, unfortunately that's about all I can disclose because we had to sign NDA before negotiations even began and I can't even confirm or deny that we were granted a license from REDACTED.

MTH doesn't have to tell us anything. Why can't Lionel confirm or deny that they attempted to acquire a license from MTH and were denied?

@H1000 posted:

When these deals get made, the public is the last to know and much is hidden in NDA's that prevent prospective licensees and current licensees from discussing the details. Last year our firm wanted to get a license to use a popular auto steering system found in the automotive industry, unfortunately that's about all I can disclose because we had to sign NDA before negations even began and I can't even confirm or deny that we were granted a license from REDACTED.

MTH doesn't have to tell us anything. Why can't Lionel confirm or deny that they attempted to acquire a license from MTH and were denied?

You right that "MTH doesn't have to tell us anything" But given the level of interest this question has generated why wouldn't they just tell us? As for Lionel, I am going to the Big E train show next week so I will ask Ryan if I get a chance.  I will post what Lionel has to say about it. However, wouldn't MTH want to get their story out first?

@Madockawando posted:

You right that "MTH doesn't have to tell us anything" But given the level of interest this question has generated why wouldn't they just tell us? As for Lionel, I am going to the Big E train show next week so I will ask Ryan if I get a chance.  I will post what Lionel has to say about it. However, wouldn't MTH want to get their story out first?

Please stop trolling.  Really just stop!

@Madockawando posted:

You right that "MTH doesn't have to tell us anything" But given the level of interest this question has generated why wouldn't they just tell us? As for Lionel, I am going to the Big E train show next week so I will ask Ryan if I get a chance.  I will post what Lionel has to say about it. However, wouldn't MTH want to get their story out first?

IDK, Maybe a NDA was signed that prevents either party from talking about it regardless of the outcome?

@MichRR714 posted:

Please stop trolling.  Really just stop!

Sigh... I'm not trolling. I asked a simple question and I was invited to this conversation.

@Madockawando posted:

You right that "MTH doesn't have to tell us anything" But given the level of interest this question has generated why wouldn't they just tell us? As for Lionel, I am going to the Big E train show next week so I will ask Ryan if I get a chance.  I will post what Lionel has to say about it. However, wouldn't MTH want to get their story out first?

Be sure to also ask Ryan is there anyway to develop the technology so that I will be able to operate Lionel engines with a DCS tiu without having to buy a lionel CAB1/2/3 base.  If there is an obstacle to this is it technical? Or is it a proprietary issue in that neither Lionel nor MTH will not allow this capability? I would be far more open to purchasing an Lionel locomotive if I could run it with the DCS TIU without the CAB-1/2/3 base right out of the box.

For everyone else reading this. This is sincere question. I'm not trying to play stump the chump or start an emotional argument.

Definitely report back to us what he says.  Thanks!

@Strap Hanger

You forgot the eye wink face... 

"I would be far more open to purchasing an Lionel locomotive if I could run it with the DCS TIU without the CAB-1/2/3 base right out of the box."

Ain't happening is my educated guess.  What possible motivation would Lionel have for doing this?  Not to mention the cost to MTH of developing the hardware and software to enable the TIU or WTIU to talk directly to TMCC/Legacy locos.  I suspect MTH could make it so that future generations of TIUs could talk to Bluetooth Lionel locos, since that is a non-Lionel protocol.

Lionel appears to be perfectly happy to allow the MTH TIU to talk to the command base for TMCC/Legacy locos. Contrarily,  that's what MTH has not allowed for the 20 years of existence of DCS.  I cannot buy a device that allows my command base for TMCC to talk to a TIU because MTH wanted it that way, presumably.  Unless they change their mind .

@Madockawando posted:

Sigh... I'm not trolling. I asked a simple question and I was invited to this conversation.

You were invited thats funny I went back through all the posts and never once saw @Madockawando please come join us so you can tell us how great lionel is and how it all mth's fault you cannot run there engines with the Cab3. Just saying!!!!

OP again... here's what I've learned asking about MTH R&D in Michigan:

1. They live!
2. App updates on the way
3. Interesting product pipeline
4. We can't have nice things immediately: Re-organization, staffing, Covid and supply chain melt-down
5. Any simple question leads to a thousand other (sometimes unrelated) answers and more questions
6. DCS app will be able to control some Legacy features (I did not know that)
7. Pretty sure everybody want a universal remote controller of everything, and all the good/bad that goes with that
8. We're all going to miss Midge in MTH parts - she hasn't been mentioned on this thread yet, but nearly everything else has, so I'll give her a shout out

@Tim B posted:

OP again... here's what I've learned asking about MTH R&D in Michigan:

1. They live!
2. App updates on the way
3. Interesting product pipeline
4. We can't have nice things immediately: Re-organization, staffing, Covid and supply chain melt-down
5. Any simple question leads to a thousand other (sometimes unrelated) answers and more questions
6. DCS app will be able to control some Legacy features (I did not know that)
7. Pretty sure everybody want a universal remote controller of everything, and all the good/bad that goes with that
8. We're all going to miss Midge in MTH parts - she hasn't been mentioned on this thread yet, but nearly everything else has, so I'll give her a shout out

DCS already does control most Legacy features provided you have a Legacy Base and the TIU connect via the SER2 module.  Works great!

@H1000 posted:

They already have licensed it to other parties, like Dave Hikel & Atlas.

Why wouldn't MTH be willing to sell Lionel a license?? as you said earlier "MTH would win because they would sell more locomotives to people like me and DCS would likely come into wider use."

I don't see how it benefits Lionel much, They have to develop updated software for their remotes and apps, probable release a new LCS hardware module to handshake with the TIU and pay MTH a licensing fee just so that their customers can buy someone else's product.

And to add, if Lionel wanted to control most, and all future MTH and Atlas engines, they could just implement DCC in their LCS system somewhere, and update the app.  You don't even need DCS to operate MTH DCS PS 3.0 locos!  Every PS 3.0 locomotive made supports DCC out of the box.  DCC is an open standard!

@H1000 posted:

@Strap Hanger

You forgot the eye wink face... 

LOL! I didn't want anyone to ever get the impression that my copy and paste was nothing more than a deeply sincere question, so I dropped Mr. Winkie.   Now its unquestionably sincere.

@Strap Hanger posted:

LOL! I didn't want anyone to ever get the impression that my copy and paste was nothing more than a deeply sincere question, so I dropped Mr. Winkie.   Now its unquestionably sincere.

I about spit the coffee I was drinking half way across the room when I read this!  You can say just about anything you want as long as Mr. Winkie or Mr. Smiley emojis are somewhere in your post!

@Shawn_Chronister posted:

You were invited thats funny I went back through all the posts and never once saw @Madockawando please come join us so you can tell us how great lionel is and how it all mth's fault you cannot run there engines with the Cab3. Just saying!!!!

Yes Shawn, If you refer back to the first post made by @MTH RD, Jon includes my quote so I would be automatically notified of his post. He didn't have to to that when he posted but he did. @ is how you notify people of a thread or post and its a way of inviting someone to the thread. I asked a sincere question and gave clear reasons why I was asking it. Instead of seeing it as an opportunity to inform me more about DCS or swing me over to your way of thinking you have been unwelcoming and called me a troll. You and the other "Anti-Ambassadors" here have made a poor impression on behalf of your favorite train company. 

Please see below:

By the way I don't think that MTH R&D post was made by Jon, but perhaps it was made by Dave Kriebel (sp?), the initial designer behind DCS.  It would not be surprising if he is the driving force behind the spinoff company that controls DCS.

Maybe someone who knows him, or Mike W., Rich F. or Andy E. can ask one of them about whether third parties will be allowed to develop apps or handheld remotes that can talk with the existing TIUs and forthcoming WTIUs? Or maybe even Mike R., the parts tsar.  Seriously.

No emoticons were harmed in the crafting of this post.

@Madockawando posted:

Yes Shawn, If you refer back to the first post made by @MTH RD, Jon includes my quote so I would be automatically notified of his post. He didn't have to to that when he posted but he did. @ is how you notify people of a thread or post and its a way of inviting someone to the thread. I asked a sincere question and gave clear reasons why I was asking it. Instead of seeing it as an opportunity to inform me more about DCS or swing me over to your way of thinking you have been unwelcoming and called me a troll. You and the other "Anti-Ambassadors" here have made a poor impression on behalf of your favorite train company.

First off I am not an ambassador for any train company. I do how think people should think before they post things such you asking MTH to make a control function more than they already have for a product for one not even released and the fact no way they can add the proprietary hardware to their system to do that....

The same could said for you Mr Fanboy.... In the way you come off on this forum I think @RickO said it best when he stated "You would not want to ruin your reputation on the forum". So I am not the on one who sees it.

I think both companies make great products and I choose which ones I support.

I chose DCS because I needed one unit to run DCS and conventional. Where with TMCC/Legacy I needed a powermaster two brick cables that exceeded the cost of the DCS system to do the same thing. I did use DCS with a TMCC base to control my TMCC engines awesome product feature that again MTH took into account. I am sorry Lionel chose not to and still chose not to do that.

I have lots of both companies products but that is going to change with the new pricing I am still buying form the new catalog just not near as much and I am tech junkie.

I think Atlas has great opportunity here and I hope they seize it.

@Landsteiner posted:

By the way I don't think that MTH R&D post was made by Jon, but perhaps it was made by Dave Kriebel (sp?), the initial designer behind DCS.  It would not be surprising if he is the driving force behind the spinoff company that controls DCS.

Maybe someone who knows him, or Mike W., Rich F. or Andy E. can ask one of them about whether third parties will be allowed to develop apps or handheld remotes that can talk with the existing TIUs and forthcoming WTIUs? Or maybe even Mike R., the parts tsar.  Seriously.

No emoticons were harmed in the crafting of this post.

Yes, it was Dave Krebiehl.  Not me!  I’m just the messenger.

@Madockawando posted:

In terms of other development, we have, at last count, about 18 new product ideas in the queue.  It seems obvious to add voice control.  This is a relatively simple one from where we are so, book it Danno.  A few that are not quite as easy are a new WZ4K.  Yes, you read that right, a Wi-Fi Z4K. How about an updated Wi-Fi DCS remote for those of you that prefer the dedicated tactile hand-held?  It will be compatible with the existing WIU, the new WTIU, and the WZ4K (way down the line).  There are more but, that’s enough for now.  Of course, these are substantial development efforts and are down the road a spell but, these are the kinds of things that are in the hopper.

There are a lot of other points in the thread that I could address but, alas, every minute I spend here is a minute I’m not spending getting these products developed and built.  So, please keep that in mind when you experience the deafening silence to new questions or posts.  I would really like to be readily available but, I just cannot be so, forgive me.  But, the fact is, we’re here and investing dollars.  On that note, I will respond to one poster who mused that MTH hasn’t invested enough in DCS and technology.  I think I can say with certainty that MTH has invested more in technology over the past 20 years than any other model train manufacturer.  I just think there is a general underestimation of what it takes to get this stuff done.  Our MIT engineers are expensive and in high demand.

Again, please be patient with us.  We’ll try to provide updates a little more often.

Thank you, @MTH RD.  I appreciate your time in making this response.  I look forward eagerly to these developments.  As an aside I'm a software engineering professions, well versed in testing with a manufacturing background - if you anticipate a need for Alpha Testers and Beta Testers, put my on your list.  I've also been subject to an NDA or 2 over the years.Good luck and good profits.

@Rob Johnston posted:

Thank you, Madickawando.  I appreciate your time in making this response.  I look forward eagerly to these developments.  As an aside I'm a software engineering professions, well versed in testing with a manufacturing background - if you anticipate a need for Alpha Testers and Beta Testers, put my on your list.  I've also been subject to an NDA or 2 over the years.

Good luck and good profits.

Rob, just to clarify, that's not @Madockawando's post. He re-posted this content from MTH R&D who is actually making these developments.

@Jon G

Jon, while you are here... I always wondered if the DB9 port on the Z4000 receiver could be used to control the Z4000 in some capacity? Perhaps that's not possible, any insight is appreciated.

@H1000 posted:

@Jon G

Jon, while you are here... I always wondered if the DB9 port on the Z4000 receiver could be used to control the Z4000 in some capacity? Perhaps that's not possible, any insight is appreciated.

Not a clue.  I was the O gauge and tinplate guy at MTH.  Don did all the electronics.  Dave does R&D.

@H1000 posted:

Rob, just to clarify, that's not @Madockawando's post. He re-posted this content from MTH R&D who is actually making these developments.

Pretty sure that Madockawando isn't doing any DCS development.

@Shawn_Chronister posted:

First off I am not an ambassador for any train company. I do how think people should think before they post things such you asking MTH to make a control function more than they already have for a product for one not even released and the fact no way they can add the proprietary hardware to their system to do that....

The same could said for you Mr Fanboy.... In the way you come off on this forum I think @RickO said it best when he stated "You would not want to ruin your reputation on the forum". So I am not the on one who sees it.

I think both companies make great products and I choose which ones I support.

I chose DCS because I needed one unit to run DCS and conventional. Where with TMCC/Legacy I needed a powermaster two brick cables that exceeded the cost of the DCS system to do the same thing. I did use DCS with a TMCC base to control my TMCC engines awesome product feature that again MTH took into account. I am sorry Lionel chose not to and still chose not to do that.

I have lots of both companies products but that is going to change with the new pricing I am still buying form the new catalog just not near as much and I am tech junkie.

I think Atlas has great opportunity here and I hope they seize it.

That does not excuse your behavior. I asked a legitimate question for a legitimate reason. And @MTH RD tagged me in his post. People should be able to ask questions.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Pretty sure that Madockawando isn't doing any DCS development.

No, but I might have a suggestion or two.

@Madockawando posted:

No, but I might have a suggestion or two.

Do you at all understand that after nearly a year of your negative posts concerning MTH that it seems a bit disingenuous to some that you have legitimate questions concerning MTH products?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps you do have interest in running both Lionel and MTH motive power like I do.  If that's the case you should jump in and get yourself a DCS command set and try out the system.  I tend to run my Lionel with the Cab2 and MTH with the DCS controller.  That's what works well for me right now.  As technology evolves I'll be trying out the other available options.  Both of these system have strengths and weaknesses.  Would probably be more productive for all if we discussed these rather than pledging ourselves on one side or the other.

I think it's great news that both Lionel and MTH are moving their control products forward and developing new products for us to enjoy.  As a side note, I'll be running Legacy and DCS tonight on the same tracks... If the systems can get along maybe we should try to do the same.

@MichRR714 posted:

Do you at all understand that after nearly a year of your negative posts concerning MTH that it seems a bit disingenuous to some that you have legitimate questions concerning MTH products?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps you do have interest in running both Lionel and MTH motive power like I do.  If that's the case you should jump in and get yourself a DCS command set and try out the system.  I tend to run my Lionel with the Cab2 and MTH with the DCS controller.  That's what works well for me right now.  As technology evolves I'll be trying out the other available options.  Both of these system have strengths and weaknesses.  Would probably be more productive for all if we discussed these rather than pledging ourselves on one side or the other.

I think it's great news that both Lionel and MTH are moving their control products forward and developing new products for us to enjoy.  As a side note, I'll be running Legacy and DCS tonight on the same tracks... If the systems can get along maybe we should try to do the same.

Hold on, I don’t make “negative” posts about MTH. I post about quite a few different subjects.  And yes, I do buy “from all manufacturers”. I even posted that if MTH made the Central Maine and Quebec AC4400 I would buy two.

I most likely would not have thought about coming  back to the thread except I was tagged. But in any case, stop trying to make it about me,  Take my question at face value. If you can’t answer it, then don’t snark on it. Do you realize that you and others have created a hostile perception that makes people intimidated from asking any questions about MTH?

All I wanted to know was: Is is possible that the capability to run DCS through the Base-3 can be developed? It’s a simple , honest question.

@Madockawando posted:

That does not excuse your behavior. I asked a legitimate question for a legitimate reason. And @MTH RD tagged me in his post. People should be able to ask questions.

You are right I have been a complete *** and I can say it takes one to know one.

As far as you having a suggestion or two.

How is it you can have a suggestion about a product you do not operate because its more complexity than you could handle I believe you said?

The above question is sincere and not trying to stump the chump...

@MichRR714 posted:

Do you at all understand that after nearly a year of your negative posts concerning MTH that it seems a bit disingenuous to some that you have legitimate questions concerning MTH products?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps you do have interest in running both Lionel and MTH motive power like I do.  If that's the case you should jump in and get yourself a DCS command set and try out the system.  I tend to run my Lionel with the Cab2 and MTH with the DCS controller.  That's what works well for me right now.  As technology evolves I'll be trying out the other available options.  Both of these system have strengths and weaknesses.  Would probably be more productive for all if we discussed these rather than pledging ourselves on one side or the other.

I think it's great news that both Lionel and MTH are moving their control products forward and developing new products for us to enjoy.  As a side note, I'll be running Legacy and DCS tonight on the same tracks... If the systems can get along maybe we should try to do the same.

Well said! And to ad to this comment, the animosity between MTH & Lionel exists way more between their respective customers and these online forums.  In the real world, these two companies have been getting along with each other quite well for some time now and the hard feelings from years ago is now water under the bridge.

@Madockawando posted:

Hold on, I don’t make “negative” posts about MTH. I post about quite a few different subjects.  And yes, I do buy “from all manufacturers”. I even posted that if MTH made the Central Maine and Quebec AC4400 I would buy two.

I most likely would not have thought about coming  back to the thread except I was tagged. But in any case, stop trying to make it about me,  Take my question at face value. If you can’t answer it, then don’t snark on it. Do you realize that you and others have created a hostile perception that makes people intimidated from asking any questions about MTH?

All I wanted to know was: Is is possible that the capability to run DCS through the Base-3 can be developed? It’s a simple , honest question.

This question has been answered multiple times by people who understand what your asking but you refuse accept this is up to your Big L manufacturer extraordinaire to accomplish for you and not MTH.

They may not be outright negative posts but alot of people see the intended bias in them.

@breezinup posted:

Well, you're very up to date! What's old is new again. Tube amps are still being made, and among the newer ones there are many high dollar brands which are some of best amps there are. Many audiophyles prefer the smooth sound of tube amps over solid state. And vinyl has become very hot over recent years, with many companies designing and building extremely nice turntables to meet the demand. Many prefer the sound of vinyl. It's interesting to see the similarity, in that, there are many model railroaders who prefer trains - and their operating systems - from an earlier time.

Very true, and if people think their trains are expensive.......the audiophile end of this is mind boggling expensive, specially built 15k turntables, People buying silver wire for speakers that is like the price of a cheap car, just amazing *lol*. I have a modern tube amp, love it to death, just cause it is cool to look at, and I like vinyl, too.

I am just glad to hear MTH DCS is alive and well, and it is kind of unfortunate that the changes with MTH happened in the middle of a pandemic that has disrupted so much, doesn't surprise me at all the the MTH folks are having a hard time getting components when the auto industry is literally at half production because of shortage of chips and other electronics devices are having issues as well, they are having trouble getting chips in china for the cars made there.

Fortunately time isn't a consideration for me, given how slowly my layout build is going along, and unlike MTH I don't have all that many good reasons so by the time they are ready with DCS the next generation, I might have something to hook it to

@bigkid posted:

Very true, and if people think their trains are expensive.......the audiophile end of this is mind boggling expensive, specially built 15k turntables, People buying silver wire for speakers that is like the price of a cheap car, just amazing *lol*. I have a modern tube amp, love it to death, just cause it is cool to look at, and I like vinyl, too.

Guilty as charged! I've settled into a system I love the sound of so I just buy the occasional album.

Now my money goes to trains.

@Shawn_Chronister posted:

This question has been answered multiple times by people who understand what your asking but you refuse accept this is up to your Big L manufacturer extraordinaire to accomplish for you and not MTH.

They may not be outright negative posts but alot of people see the intended bias in them.

I think you have a very active imagination.  I thanked people who gave me a legitimate answer, then responded when someone had an additional comment.  That is how a discussion forum works.

Wow, where to begin?  First, thanks for the kind words of appreciation and support.  I truly appreciate it.

I am compelled to try and provide some insights from, well, the inside.  As you all know, it is so easy for these topics to go full mushroom cloud.  There is just a lot of misinformation out there.  It's understandable.  When there is a void, some people try to fill it.  And, just for housekeeping, I'm not Jon or Mike.  I’m Dave.

• MTH DCS controls TMCC and Legacy engines using TMCC and Legacy commands.  These commands are published by Lionel. TMCC commands are in the back of the first manual ever shipped and Legacy commands are available on their website today.  No license required.
• Atlas has a license for DCS.  They are purchasing DCS hardware to install into their engines with our support.  Also, they will be retailing DCS equipment which, only makes sense given some of their models will contain the system.  Go Atlas!
• As I always say, nearly anything is possible with enough time and money.  We are able to run TMCC/Legacy engines because these systems provide simple serial access and do not require a response from the engine or base.  DCS is bi-directional.  Many features require communication from the engines.  The effort required for Lionel to integrate DCS control is commercially untenable.  I don’t think this is something we will ever see.  Lou1985 did a fine job clarifying this.
• DCS runs conventional, PS2&3, TMCC, Legacy, TAS, in any gauge available.  A one-stop solution is already available.  Further, the WTIU will run conventional DC engines as well.  So, something for the G ga and 2-rail folks as well.  Sorry, I had to.
• TMCC/Legacy can control MTH DCS engines in conventional mode.  You need to make some equipment investments.  Also, it gets interesting integrating all of those pieces of gear for such a limited amount of functionality.  Not a common use case.
• Dave Hikel had a DCS license in exchange for app development.  That didn’t work out and we moved on.
• To my knowledge, Lionel has never approached MTH requesting a license for DCS technology.  Nailed it Mellow Hudson Mike.  And, please tell Ryan and Dave (Lionel Dave) hi from me.  They are both good guys I enjoy hanging out with.
• For MTH to develop the hardware required to apply Lionel’s signaling scheme directly to the rails is certainly doable, assuming no patent issues or obtaining a license, but, we have no intention of doing so.  We passed on enhancing DCC back in 1998 when DCS development started because one-way communication is too limiting for what we intended to do.  It still is.  You wouldn’t have track signal quality feedback, firmware updating, odometer, chronometer, music down the rails, simple adding of engines with unique features to the system, or a host of other features without bi-directional DCS.
• A new Wi-Fi DCS Remote would, like all DCS equipment, be upgradeable via commonly available means.  The original TIU has this capability and it was released 20+ years ago.  Man, I’m getting old!
• Oh, and yes, the RJ connector on the Z4K can absolutely be used for communication and control.  We made a product years ago called the Z4K Remote.  A pager sized box (showing my age again) connects to the Z4K port and a hand-held remote talks to it.  This is also true of the existing DCS remotes.  That is, the DCS remote can talk to the Z4K remote receiver.  The issue is, finding one.  Hang tough, we’re heading back that way.  https://mthtrains.com/40-4001

Please forgive me for not elaborating further on any of these topics.  It’s Friday evening after a long week and it's time for quaffing a chilled beverage.  So, thanks again to all of you for your interest and support of MTH.  I will sincerely try to be more communicative with you all.  You are the hearts and souls of DCS.  You are who we had in mind when developing DCS.  It’s been and continues to be my pleasure.   

Have a great weekend.

@MTH RD

Thank you for the update and corrections!!!

In to your comment of the Z4K receiver:

Oh, and yes, the RJ connector on the Z4K can absolutely be used for communication and control.  We made a product years ago called the Z4K Remote.  A pager sized box (showing my age again) connects to the Z4K port and a hand-held remote talks to it.  This is also true of the existing DCS remotes.  That is, the DCS remote can talk to the Z4K remote receiver.  The issue is, finding one.  Hang tough, we’re heading back that way.  https://mthtrains.com/40-4001

I was referring to the DB9 port located on the Z4K Receiver (Pager) box itself.

Thanks again!

@MTH RD posted:

Wow, where to begin?  First, thanks for the kind words of appreciation and support.  I truly appreciate it.

I am compelled to try and provide some insights from, well, the inside.  As you all know, it is so easy for these topics to go full mushroom cloud.  There is just a lot of misinformation out there.  It's understandable.  When there is a void, some people try to fill it.  And, just for housekeeping, I'm not Jon or Mike.  I’m Dave.

• MTH DCS controls TMCC and Legacy engines using TMCC and Legacy commands.  These commands are published by Lionel. TMCC commands are in the back of the first manual ever shipped and Legacy commands are available on their website today.  No license required.
• Atlas has a license for DCS.  They are purchasing DCS hardware to install into their engines with our support.  Also, they will be retailing DCS equipment which, only makes sense given some of their models will contain the system.  Go Atlas!
• As I always say, nearly anything is possible with enough time and money.  We are able to run TMCC/Legacy engines because these systems provide simple serial access and do not require a response from the engine or base.  DCS is bi-directional.  Many features require communication from the engines.  The effort required for Lionel to integrate DCS control is commercially untenable.  I don’t think this is something we will ever see.  Lou1985 did a fine job clarifying this.
• DCS runs conventional, PS2&3, TMCC, Legacy, TAS, in any gauge available.  A one-stop solution is already available.  Further, the WTIU will run conventional DC engines as well.  So, something for the G ga and 2-rail folks as well.  Sorry, I had to.
• TMCC/Legacy can control MTH DCS engines in conventional mode.  You need to make some equipment investments.  Also, it gets interesting integrating all of those pieces of gear for such a limited amount of functionality.  Not a common use case.
• Dave Hikel had a DCS license in exchange for app development.  That didn’t work out and we moved on.
• To my knowledge, Lionel has never approached MTH requesting a license for DCS technology.  Nailed it Mellow Hudson Mike.  And, please tell Ryan and Dave (Lionel Dave) hi from me.  They are both good guys I enjoy hanging out with.
• For MTH to develop the hardware required to apply Lionel’s signaling scheme directly to the rails is certainly doable, assuming no patent issues or obtaining a license, but, we have no intention of doing so.  We passed on enhancing DCC back in 1998 when DCS development started because one-way communication is too limiting for what we intended to do.  It still is.  You wouldn’t have track signal quality feedback, firmware updating, odometer, chronometer, music down the rails, simple adding of engines with unique features to the system, or a host of other features without bi-directional DCS.
• A new Wi-Fi DCS Remote would, like all DCS equipment, be upgradeable via commonly available means.  The original TIU has this capability and it was released 20+ years ago.  Man, I’m getting old!
• Oh, and yes, the RJ connector on the Z4K can absolutely be used for communication and control.  We made a product years ago called the Z4K Remote.  A pager sized box (showing my age again) connects to the Z4K port and a hand-held remote talks to it.  This is also true of the existing DCS remotes.  That is, the DCS remote can talk to the Z4K remote receiver.  The issue is, finding one.  Hang tough, we’re heading back that way.  https://mthtrains.com/40-4001

Please forgive me for not elaborating further on any of these topics.  It’s Friday evening after a long week and it's time for quaffing a chilled beverage.  So, thanks again to all of you for your interest and support of MTH.  I will sincerely try to be more communicative with you all.  You are the hearts and souls of DCS.  You are who we had in mind when developing DCS.  It’s been and continues to be my pleasure.   

Have a great weekend.

Thank you very much for taking the time to put this response together. It’s what I was looking for earlier when I asked about the potential to run DCS locomotives through the CAB-4 app. It looks like I will not be running DCS soon. However, as a I stated earlier, if MTH can squeeze into their busy special runs a Central Maine and Quebec AC4400 #1006 and #1001 I will purchase them. And, in the spirit of goodwill, if MTH makes the Central Maine and Quebec locomotives, I will buy the DCS system to run them. They are beautiful locomotives!

Again thank you!

@H1000 posted:

Rob, just to clarify, that's not @Madockawando's post. He re-posted this content from MTH R&D who is actually making these developments.

Thanks H1000, edited the post

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Pretty sure that Madockawando isn't doing any DCS development.

H1000 prompted me to edit my post and thank the right author.

Thanks MTH RD for the updates.  DCS is a outstanding product and it has my full support.  And please ignore the very biased L fanboy comments as they have been unfortunate.

@H1000 posted:

@MTH RD

I was referring to the DB9 port located on the Z4K Receiver (Pager) box itself.

Sorry, I misunderstood.  The DB-9 is there for updating the firmware.  As you can tell, I am big on products coming forward with firmware updates.  I don't know if we left hooks in there to communicate via PC but, maybe.  It's been too long.  OTOH, the receiver (pager sized box) runs critical UL code that prevents combining the outputs.  We may have deliberately disabled taking over the box through the DB-9 except for programming.

@Madockawando posted:

Thank you very much for taking the time to put this response together. It’s what I was looking for earlier when I asked about the potential to run DCS locomotives through the CAB-4 app. It looks like I will not be running DCS soon. However, as a I stated earlier, if MTH can squeeze into their busy special runs a Central Maine and Quebec AC4400 #1006 and #1001 I will purchase them. And, in the spirit of goodwill, if MTH makes the Central Maine and Quebec locomotives, I will buy the DCS system to run them. They are beautiful locomotives!

Again thank you!

Once you go DCS, you won't go back....especially after we expand and enhance Legacy control.  Regardless, enjoy....

@MTH RD Dave if you ever need assistance evaluating or testing product the Detroit 3 Railers would be happy to assist in whatever way needed.

@mth r&d. you are so spot on. due to the way both systems send out their respective signals. there is no hope for legacy to control dcs. on the other hand dcs controlling lionel tmcc and now legacy. that is truly almost a one remote fits all trains system. with a newly redesigned wifi remote comming down the pipe line. plus the new legacy control features in the works. this is truley a great time to be a dcs user.

btw if you havent already discussed it. please include a whistle slider on the new wifi remote if possible. that alone is the best feature of the cab2 remote. plus I have seen dcs quillable whistles that smoke you out of the room. this would make your product perform as well if not better than lionels. it works great with the app I realize,but for the dcs remote as you know its clunky at best.

we are truly living in the best time in the oguage hobby. thanks for all you do.

@Lionelzwl2012 posted:

btw if you havent already discussed it. please include a whistle slider on the new wifi remote if possible. that alone is the best feature of the cab2 remote.

Or...

How about a module that connects to the TIU (or over Wi-Fi) that has a spring loaded lever on it that is connected to a rotary encoder.  It could be mounted on the ceiling with a big rope and a handle - just like the real thing!

@MTH RD

Thank you so much for this Info!! The silence was deafening, the items you are describing and the collaboration with atlas sounds fantastic 😃

@MichRR714 posted:

@MTH RD Dave if you ever need assistance evaluating or testing product the Detroit 3 Railers would be happy to assist in whatever way needed.

Thanks much and be careful what you ask for!  Ha, ha..  Seriously, I appreciate the offer and may very well take you up on it.  As all of you out here know, layouts are dynamic.  What works, or doesn't, in once configuration can be very different on another.  It's a challenge emulating all of the variation out there.

Thanks again.

Same here. If you'd like for an engineer from a certain fruit company to be available with a grease gun, so to speak, feel free to PM me.

@Lionelzwl2012 posted:

@mth r&d. you are so spot on. due to the way both systems send out their respective signals. there is no hope for legacy to control dcs. on the other hand dcs controlling lionel tmcc and now legacy. that is truly almost a one remote fits all trains system. with a newly redesigned wifi remote comming down the pipe line. plus the new legacy control features in the works. this is truley a great time to be a dcs user.

btw if you havent already discussed it. please include a whistle slider on the new wifi remote if possible. that alone is the best feature of the cab2 remote. plus I have seen dcs quillable whistles that smoke you out of the room. this would make your product perform as well if not better than lionels. it works great with the app I realize,but for the dcs remote as you know its clunky at best.

we are truly living in the best time in the oguage hobby. thanks for all you do.

Good idea to add the slider.  I agree, when driving a nail, use a hammer.  The quillable whistle benefits from the slider.  It's the right way to do it.  We were limited with the remote as you know but, when we reboot, a slider is certainly doable.  I can think of a few other features that may benefit from it as well.  Also, we nearly added the Legacy brake feature.  Their implementation is arcane and even their head tech guy at the time we were writing code struggled to help us understand how to implement it.  We may give it another go as I think this is a pretty cool feature and I know it's important to the Legacy operators.

Thanks for the thanks.  It means a lot.

@rplst8 posted:

Or...

How about a module that connects to the TIU (or over Wi-Fi) that has a spring loaded lever on it that is connected to a rotary encoder.  It could be mounted on the ceiling with a big rope and a handle - just like the real thing!

Ha, ha.... I like it!  And, of course, it's doable.  Not sure the volume is there to support the effort but, hey, it would be cool. 

Good morning R&D

Long time DCS here   I like to operate Lashups and having to adjust all the DCS sound and operating features on every locomotive each time I make one up is a pain !!  Why can't the features stay the same once I set each locomotive once.  If I'm running one locomotive with minimum smoke and 20% sound volume I'm darn sure not going to want 5 locomotives running at full bore  

Thank you

I'll quit complaining now

Clem

@clem k posted:

Good morning R&D

Long time DCS here   I like to operate Lashups and having to adjust all the DCS sound and operating features on every locomotive each time I make one up is a pain !!  Why can't the features stay the same once I set each locomotive once.  If I'm running one locomotive with minimum smoke and 20% sound volume I'm darn sure not going to want 5 locomotives running at full bore  

Thank you

I'll quit complaining now

Clem

If you save the lashup configuration using the FSV key, it should remember all the settings each time the lash-up is started.

@rplst8 posted:

If you save the lashup configuration using the FSV key, it should remember all the settings each time the lash-up is started.

I now that, but you get one power interruption and its back to square one, and five locomotives or more that's a lot of button pushing, and then hope it takes.   I run on average 3 different lash- ups at the same time on a single loop. Most of them are 3 units a piece.  The best way to run lash-ups of more than 3 is just use the ALL command.  I set my parameters where i want them, they should stay that way until I change them.

I’d have to double check, but that’s never been the case for the consists I’ve made.  After I hit FSV all I need to do is select it and hit start-up and it resets everything.