General > General Discussion
Article for MRH
AlexW:
--- Quote from: KPack on April 03, 2023, 08:50:56 AM ---You mentioned large scale and batteries. I feel that large scale might end up being Railpro's larger market, if it isn't already. Their large-scale hardware seems to be very popular. It works great in HO, but really shines in O and G scale.
--- End quote ---
RailPro is largely pointless in HO, as it's using track power, in which case you can just use DCC. Battery power is more practical in O scale, but as an indoor scale, it's largely pointless, as you can easily implement DCC. O scale is both a small niche and a weird scale, it still has a shocking number of DC users, as well as people doing battery power. Outdoor large G and F scales is where battery radio makes a lot more sense. This probably should have been RP's market to begin with, instead of trashing DCC and going against DCC when using track power. It's quite possible that they could do well in outdoor G and F scales, especially if they clean up their act and get rid of the anti-DCC drivel, and position themselves as a radio system for battery power.
--- Quote ---One last point regarding space in HO locomotives. Sound is important to me, and one of my requirements when building my battery locomotive was dual speakers. That was my main reason for using the fuel tank for a battery. Having it down there left the entire shell open to speakers, Railpro module and lighting. It really made the rest of the install a breeze. If I was going to do a smaller 4-axle hood unit then I would for sure mill out the fuel tank to leave the shell open.
--- End quote ---
That's part of the challenge for battery power in HO scale. Most people don't have access to a milling machine, and talk of milling things out reminds me of N scalers installing DCC decoders.
William Brillinger:
Alex, Are you a RailPro user? Do you own the product?
AlexW:
--- Quote from: William Brillinger on April 03, 2023, 07:41:13 PM ---Alex, Are you a RailPro user? Do you own the product?
--- End quote ---
No. I wouldn't buy anything from Ring Engineering since they are anti-DCC and spew anti-DCC drivel. I find the technology intriguing, and would consider Blunami or CVP AirWire, both of which embrace the DCC standard in offering direct radio control.
KPack:
--- Quote from: AlexW on April 03, 2023, 08:21:24 PM ---
--- Quote from: William Brillinger on April 03, 2023, 07:41:13 PM ---Alex, Are you a RailPro user? Do you own the product?
--- End quote ---
No. I wouldn't buy anything from Ring Engineering since they are anti-DCC and spew anti-DCC drivel. I find the technology intriguing, and would consider Blunami or CVP AirWire, both of which embrace the DCC standard in offering direct radio control.
--- End quote ---
So why are you here? On this forum we discuss Railpro. Conversations about Blunami and AirWire should be had at other forums where you will find people who may use those systems. No one here uses them, and likely never will.
Railpro is anti-DCC and proud of it. The reason it was designed in the first place was to be an alternative to DCC. There are enough DCC offerings out there to satisfy those who wish to use DCC. Even though Railpro is DCC-compatible, it will never limit itself to DCC-only protocols. If people want the features that Railpro has in a DCC system then they need to design it and offer it.
Those who have Railpro on their layouts (either exclusively or in conjunction with DCC) have done so for various reasons. The majority of users have enjoyed the system and continue to do so. It will likely remain small portion of the total model railroaders, the vast majority of which use DCC. So DCC will always be around and Railpro will continue to be used. There is no threat of DCC going away. I don't understand why people get so upset that Railpro is not DCC.
Anyways, the great thing about model railroading is that there is no one way to enjoy it. Everyone is free to model what they want, how they want, and enjoy the hobby in their own way.
-Kevin
AlexW:
--- Quote from: KPack on April 03, 2023, 08:50:24 PM ---So why are you here? On this forum we discuss Railpro. Conversations about Blunami and AirWire should be had at other forums where you will find people who may use those systems. No one here uses them, and likely never will.
--- End quote ---
The battery power aspect of it is interesting.
--- Quote ---Railpro is anti-DCC and proud of it. The reason it was designed in the first place was to be an alternative to DCC. There are enough DCC offerings out there to satisfy those who wish to use DCC. Even though Railpro is DCC-compatible, it will never limit itself to DCC-only protocols. If people want the features that Railpro has in a DCC system then they need to design it and offer it.
--- End quote ---
That's the problem. They are trashing the DCC standard, and their comparison chart with DCC is hilariously bad, and reads like a caricature of DCC myths and misunderstandings, or invented "features" that are a solution looking for a problem. RailPro doesn't offer any advantage over DCC for track power-based systems, has extensive disadvantages, and their marketing is dishonest.
They would have been much better off to position themselves as a dead rail system that's different from DCC and doesn't compete directly with it.
--- Quote ---Those who have Railpro on their layouts (either exclusively or in conjunction with DCC) have done so for various reasons. The majority of users have enjoyed the system and continue to do so. It will likely remain small portion of the total model railroaders, the vast majority of which use DCC. So DCC will always be around and Railpro will continue to be used. There is no threat of DCC going away. I don't understand why people get so upset that Railpro is not DCC.
--- End quote ---
Of course DCC isn't going to go away, RP usually uses DCC power on the rails or operates with battery power over the top of it anyway, it just rectifies it. Which points out the pointlessness of a closed, proprietary system duplicating (in terms of a DCC signal) and triplicating or quadruplicating (in terms of the RF interfaces) the control infrastructure already in place.
If RP hadn't been so obnoxiously anti-DCC, they would probably have an interesting product for large scale battery-radio users by combining everything together into one receiver and providing a physical throttle.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version