DCC has come a long way. From decoders that took up the entire engine compartment to upcoming chips that literally fit into the light socket of a pre-dcc Kato or Atlas (or LL). NCE has some great throttles out there that are ergonomic and easy to use as well as capable. Unfortunately, as with any explosion in technology things aren’t pretty under the surface. The DCC control systems use different system buses operating on antiquated technology. Throttles while easy to use are big and cumbersome and computer-interface can be a nightmare. What we need is a revision of the DCC codes and standards. Here are some ideas that I think might work well: 1. Standardize the system bus. This way you can use a Digitrax throttle on a NCE control box. More choices make us more likely to jump into the DCC revolution. If we see we aren’t constrained by a certain manufacturer's equipment, we would be more likely to buy. 2. Standardize on a USB 2.0 interface. This plug system is much more rugged then the phone jacks we currently use. Parts don’t break, connectors don’t fall off. Everything works with each other. This would also enable easy integration of a computer into the layout control. 3. Standardize on wi-fi. For radio control, I think wi-fi would work well. It has great reception, ease of setup, security from other RF devices and the manufactures can use commercially available wi-fi boards to avoid expensive FCC qualification. Again, everything would be compatible as the interface would be standardized. 4. Bluetooth equipped "puck" throttles. These are mini throttles that operate speed, direction, lights and a stop feature. They would be tied into your main wireless throttle via Bluetooth wireless connectivity. These little throttles would only operate the train currently programmed on the main throttle. The main use of this is to enable users to switch, use waybills or simply hold a bear while being able to control their train one handed. Currently, no fully featured throttle can do that. Since your full throttle is clipped to your belt, you can always add or drop a train when needed. 4. True, scalable dispatch software. I'm a Dispatcher for the local police and fire department. We have IMC Dispatch, one of the very best pieces of software on the planet. With back EMF, transponding and plug and play detection units there is no reason why we cant have software that not only designs a layout (like Atlas's right track), but also uses that floor plan to run trains. This is something we have not yet really started to explore, though there are a few computer-DCC interfaces. I'm not talking about running trains, but total layout control.
Total layout control? It's available for the last 15 years: ZIMO/STP. There is other software available but to my knowledge non that offers the flexibility ZIMO/STP does that lets anyone override computer commands for certain trains with the push of a cab key. Regars, Art Zimo Agency of North America http://www.mrsonline.net/
Imagine the computer industry if you could only use Dell products on Dells, HP products on HP, etc. You could only use a keyboard or monitor or mouse or hard drive, etc that your manufacturer made. I would venture to guess prices would be higher, the innovation behind what it is today and a smaller market. Unfortunately I think that is where we are at today with DCC. Just my opinion-I could be wrong.
Reactions to this suggestion: 1. Interopability is good. 2. Hitching the standard to current hardware & networking specifications is a VERY bad idea. We wouldn't have an Internet if the TCP/IP protocols had been hard-wired for DEC minicomputers. I don't think there's anything fatally wrong with the DCC specification -- it's inherently open and multi-vendor. It provides scope for independent contributors to add value (and therefore provides incentive for private-sector investment). The problem is, not enough value has been added.
Standardize on wi-fi? That's a moving target - they've nearly used the alphabet up with 802.11 variants in the last few years
In time a defacto standard may be hacked out if the user base is big enough. Think VCR's and well computers for that matter. Back in the 80's you had IBM and IBM clones, Apple and apple clones, Commodore, Tandy, Texas Instruments just to name some popular ones...oh yeah...and Atari (yes Atari was a big computer player at one time). The IBM clones one for the most part with Apple macintosh a distant second (based on volume not for certain quality...not trying to bash Apple here). In VCR's we had the BETA and VHS wars. BETA in my opinion was better but VHS won in the long run. It is very possible that some day a true universal standard will exist between the DCC players. Of course, things are moving much slower in the DCC world than say what they did in the computer world but the market is also much smaller. I agree a better computer interface would be a welcomed addition. I also agree while there are software solutions out there for computer layout control, there is much room for improvement. I am a big fan of DCC and is one of the main reason that I got back into the hobby. As I am a now former computer geek, the idea of adding computer technology to model railroading inspired me and still does. I just have to build a monster worthy of such an interface
