RailPro > RailPro Specific Help & Discussion

Why is it so hard for us?

(1/6) > >>

G8B4Life:
This post is really just some pointless idle chatter; I have a cold but don't want to go to bed yet.  :-[ however.....

I was just over on the MRH forums for the first time in a month and read through the posts on the ProtoThrottle beta video thread. Link for those so inclined  to look if they have not read it. http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/30265.

While the thread goes on forever about Drive Hold (which I'm not debating here in this post) what I did take away from the thread is this.

The guys developing ProtoThrottle are:

* Actively on a major forum updating the development.
* Actively on a major forum explaining choices in the development.
* Actively on a major forum listening to ideas.
While we have:


* A product whose only contact with users or potential users is either phone or email
* A lot of times a generic "we're not going to tell you" response when asking about or for information.
* A list of requested features going back years that have not been fulfilled.
* A list of bugs going back years that have not been fixed.
The last new product, the CI-1, was released last September (nearly a year ago) and before that the LM-3 and last proper HC software update in July last year (for all practical reasons 1 year ago) so given that others can very proactive about their products and their user base and given the time past since Ring did something major why is it so hard for us?

- Tim

Alan:
It is worthy to note that it is Scott Thornton, not a DCC system manufacturer, collaborating on MRH to build the throttle stand.

You do bring up a good point. The rule of thumb is 10% of readers post on forums meaning the audience is 10x what it appears to be on any given forum. Considering the number of eyeballs one would think any manufacturer would benefit from engagement on the forums. Minus posting time it is free product awareness and free market research. Look how much goodwill Joe Fugate gets for MRH by being active on his own forum. With Bill being generous in setting up this forum dedicated to RP, without cost to Ring, it almost seems like a slap in the face that Tim doesn't at least pop in once in a while with a comment.

I bought RailPro because I didn't want to control my trains with the technology equivalent of a 1970's calculator. I am a satisfied RP customer. That said, I am less than impressed with Ring Engineering as a company. Not unhappy but not impressed. Kudos to Tim for being extremely responsive to email communication however the responses are always light on content. His responses leave me feeling like Tim isn't the one actually doing the work, as if he has only a superficial understanding of the product. His message phrasing doesn't give one the sense you are speaking to someone with a deep thorough understanding of the product's innards. Maybe I am expecting too much or maybe he doesn't want to reveal anything technical. The RP documentation clearly demonstrates the latter. It is so weak.

The inaction on reported software bugs supports my suspicions. I do a little PHP MySQL web app work myself for select clients of the company I work for. When someone reports a bug I fix it. Because I wrote every line of every script I have a complete understanding of where to look and what is likely the issue. Even if the problem is so tangled it will take considerable work to rectify it I at least temporarily fix it with an ugly collection of if else statements.  :-[  I can't understand why Tim doesn't do the same unless, as I suspect, he isn't actually writing the code himself and instead is reliant on someone else to get around to it. Perhaps at a cost. Or it could be the revenue is coming in so why bother! Another piece of evidence... consider Ring's first product was a blinking end-of-train device. The second product was a complete DCC replacement control system. That's one hell of a leap in product development. Not the course one expect an evolving product engineer to take. Unless, the leap was purchased instead of developed.

I'll stop rambling as I am starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.  :-X

G8B4Life:
I think those sentiments mirror many peoples feelings Alan however we can confuse it some more.

A look at the internet archive gives us this about us page http://web.archive.org/web/20070629083816/http://www.ringengineering.com:80/AboutUs.htm so TR does have the background for it and it seems the EOT came about because he wanted one (how many products come to market) so it's not far fetched that RailPro came about because the DCC system he got wasn't up to snuff for him.

All the FCC approvals for RailPro are dated 2009 so we can imagine considerable development time before then so it's possible that RailPro was being developed concurrently with the EOT's, at least in the EOT's latter stages of development anyway. BTW, you should see the photo's of the first HC, it's not like we know it now, and yes, the batteries were under the screen then too.

As to responses and documentation being weak, It can only think it must be paranoia that any technical details, no matter how small and regardless if it's something that people should know will leave RailPro exposed to the competition.

Getting back to the topic at hand, you are right on forum readers and posters etc and I don't understand why a manufacturer wouldn't use the best in the world marketing tool available to them (social interaction), considering I can't see the customers or money "rolling in" on the back of RailPro but I guess manufacturers have their reasons.

I find it more a slap in the face that TR doesn't even recognise us. I'd bet he's not ever pointed one person here. It seriously makes me wonder how we can promote this group better ourselves.

- Tim

Alan:
It is safe to remove my tin foil hat. As with all conspiracy theories, facts prove them wrong. Thanks Tim for supplying the facts and the follow-up PM info.

I think it is safe to conclude Ring Engineering is simply a bit weak when it comes to marketing and a bit slow with product development. I can live with both. My trains are running just fine.

nodcc4me:

--- Quote from: Alan on June 18, 2017, 09:25:59 AM ---
I think it is safe to conclude Ring Engineering is simply a bit weak when it comes to marketing and a bit slow with product development. I can live with both. My trains are running just fine.

--- End quote ---
I concur on all counts. Having spoken with Tim on several occasions, along with many emails, I believe he is a brilliant man. I also think that RP is basically a one man operation most of the time. Whenever I have called, Tim always answers the phone, and not someone else.

The fact that RP is so unknown in the industry supports the weak marketing statement. Because they have such a small segment of the market, there may not be much money to invest in marketing while trying to invent and manufacture new products or features. He has kept new features under the hat, most likely because they have not been patented as yet. He is very responsive to us loyal customers and will go out of his way to make something right, if possible. As of now, there are several new things in the pipeline that we can look forward to, but it all takes time and money.  ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page