gobbleygook DCC

[rrinker]

That applies to Lenz and CVP - CV1 Short Address can be 1-127 for NCE and Digitrax. :mrgreen:

--Randy

[LFDRR]

That applies to Lenz and CVP - CV1 Short Address can be 1-127 for NCE and Digitrax. :mrgreen:

Not sure where you got that info from but I've just checked NCE and Digitrax decoder programming for CV01 and both state 2 digit addressing. 127 would be 3 digit addressing.

Angie

(EDIT) Ah, just seen it on the NCE one, despite saying features include 2 and 4 digit addressing. Seems they didn't update that part yet

[LFDRR]

And further reading of Lenz decoders shows they recognize 1-127 on CV01 too. Looks like it might depend on model of decoder too, not just make.

[rrinker]

This is where knowing something about bits and bytes would come in handy. The packet specification in the NMRA standards allows for 7 bits for the address field. 7 bits allows for any number from 0-127. Lenz's original pre-DCC system could only addres 99 locos. CVP just imitated that. Digitrax and NCE built theirs to use the entire 7 bits.
Then came the extended packet format and 'long' addresses using CV17 and 18. Rather than fix this discontinuity and possibly tick off one or more manufacturers, the NMRA just skirted the issue and left it open to wide interpretation. Most decoders don't care - the difference is in the command station.

Digitrax: 1-127 is short, 128+ is long, no exceptions
Lenz: 1-99 is short, 100+ is long, no exceptions
CVP - same as Lenz
NCE - 1-127 is short, 128+ is long but ALSO 1-127 can be long.

This can lead to issues when moving a loco between different systems - for example if I have loco 102 on a Digitrax system I cannot run it without reprogramming on CVP or Lenz. If I have 102 configured on a CVP or Lenz system, it won't run on DIgitrax. On NCE, I can have loco 50 and 050, one short, one long - and they are two different locos!

--Randy

[LFDRR]

Lenz: 1-99 is short, 100+ is long, no exceptions

Lenz show 1-127 on CV01. Wouldn't this be the short address?
(Edit, link added) http://www.digital-plus.de/pdf/GOLD_SILV...manual.pdf
Me thinks they're still constantly undating/upgrading. And with all the CV's available it's unimaginable what will be possible.

[rrinker]

Not the decoder, the command station. The decoders accept it any which way - even Digitrax decoders can work as 050 long address on an NCE system.

--Randy

[LFDRR]

Ok, think wires are crossed here or you're trying to make this more difficult than it is for Charlie B. I posted my cv settings for a lenz decoder with a max of 99 on cv01. You said:

That applies to Lenz and CVP - CV1 Short Address can be 1-127 for NCE and Digitrax. :mrgreen:

So I talk about CV01 on the different decoders with Lenz decoders now accepting 1-127 on CV01 having read their manuals, now you talk about the command stations:

Not the decoder, the command station. The decoders accept it any which way - even Digitrax decoders can work as 050 long address on an NCE system.

The NCE powercab has CV01 for 2 digit addressing and CV17&18 for 4 digit addressing and still does. The lenz decoder I have accepts up to 99 on cv1. If I had more than 99 locos I'd use 4 digit addressig and enter 127, or whatever, which the powercab then stores as 0127 in CVs 17 & 18 automatically.

[rrinker]

I always HAVE been talking about the command station - notice the comment at the end fo my second paragrpah of my second post on this page: "most decoders don't care - it's in the command station"

My main point is that an area of incompatibility exists despite all these manufacturers respecting the NMRA standards. You can set up a loco that works fine on your layotu but when you take it to a friend or club with a different DCC system it won't work. Your PowerCab will allow you to make a loco address 050 - long address using CV17 and 18. I wouldn't be able to run that on my Digitrax system, nor would anyone with a Lenz or CVP system.

I wouldn;t recommend anyone just number their locos sequentially. That why there are so many posisble addresses - use the cab number, unless it's 5 digits which is exceedingly rare in North AMerican practice. In Europe they have problems with that, which is part of why the newest systems use pictures of the loco for selection instead of numbers. I'll stick with just pressing the digits of the number on the side of the loco, simple and it works.

--Randy

[LFDRR]

Aha, ok, but I was talking about my decoder and made it clear that you should read the values allowed on your decoder etc.

It was merely an example to try to help Charlie B as easily as possible. As you say there are many different combinations despite NMRA specs.

[Charlie B]

I'm still reading fellows, and after we get this straight I'm going to ask Wayne to program one of my locomotives.
Charlie

[rrinker]

You don't need any of this to program the address. All the major systems handle it automatically. They even handle the CV29 business for you. We got off on a tangent.

--Randy

[Charlie B]

I have never had problems programing address, (even when you have to use 17,18, and 29),start voltage, top voltage, speed curves or anything like that, I just need good instructions, and Lok Sound is the guilty party that makes their decoders so hard to understand. My friend bought a Bachmann steamer with a Tsunami and no cam. all we did was read and followed the instructions and were able to synchronize the chuff rate almost perfectly at all speed ranges. Sure it took time, perhaps it should have been done by Bachmann, but it wasn't hard because the instructions were simple to read and understand. That is one of the things I'll be looking at when I buy decoders....easy to understand instructions. If I want a college education, I'll go back to school...In the meantime thanks folks for the great help.
Charlie

[Lester Perry]

My solution is K.I.S.S. as in keep it simple stupid. I put in the address set the volumes mess with the chuff rate a little and finished. But I will admit that I just got the MRC computer interface and I am playing around with some things a little now. But nothing major yet.

[Charlie B]

Les, let me know what you think of the interface. I think that is going to be one of my next purchases.
A lot of folks on the MRC forum keep harping about JMRI, and MRC isn't compatible, but I already have about 500 bucks in my PA, which I just had upgraded to the PA2, and I like it, and I'm not about to go with a different system.
Charlie

[rrinker]

It's not the interface, it's the software. I've tried it out - anyone can download it and it runs even without being connected to the system. It has easy stuff for programming MRC decoders, but when it comes to the other brands, it simply lists CVs, it doesn;t have all the nice plain ENglish descriptions for what the CVs mean, and nice dropdowns with the choices explained like JMRI does. Maybe if more MRC system owners complained they would give in and work with the JMRI team. They are the ONLY DCC system vendor to reject JMRI (and as a byproduct, any other commercial software like RR&Co, which is REALLY nice for adding automation, easier to set up than JMRI for stuff like that). I haven't heard a single coherent argument that makes sense from MRC as to why the refuse. They'd still have to sell you the interface to hook your ocmputer to the system, that doesn't go away. And they don't charge for their software, so if you used JMRI instead it's not like they would be loosing any money

--Randy