General > General Discussion

RailPro... Do we now have real competition? Where to from here?

(1/5) > >>

G8B4Life:
RailPro... Do we now have real competition? Where to from here?

This is supposed to be a thought provoking piece.

Being somewhat slack this week, I only just got around to watching Ken Patterson's What's Neat This Week podcast. One of the 50 or so people Ken had in his house while the podcast was being recorded was Matt Herman from ESU, who had with him the ESU Cab Control system and he gave a brief talk about it. While I knew of the ESU Cab Control system, and what it grew from (the ESU ECoS system) I never bothered to read up on it before so with Matt Herman's specs in mind off I went to read up on it and what I discovered was pretty astounding, with ESU DCC control has essentially caught up to RailPro.

I don't know who had some of the features we love in RailPro first, Ring with RailPro or ESU with their ECoS (I believe Ring did) however ESU's ECoS system was not aimed at the North American market while their new Cab Control system is, so that's where the comparison will be as it's the competitor to RailPro. So what do both systems have in common?


* Both wireless systems support at least 30 throttles in use at once. +1 to both systems.
* Both systems feature a touch screen (RP 320 x 240px at 116 ppi, ESU 480 x 800px at 280 ppi) so +1 to ESU for the higher quality screen there though RailPro's screen is larger.
* Both systems have a knob for speed control. +1 to both systems.
* Both systems feature a locomotive picture with an alias to the decoder ID. +1 to both systems.
* Both systems feature an icon for function buttons. +1 to RailPro to be able to add text to the buttons.
* Both systems feature bi-directional communication. +1 to RailPro as this was built into the system from the start (not an add-on like DCC) and is more comprehensive as far as I can tell.
* Both systems feature unrestricted "function mapping". +1 to RailPro apparently for being able to pretty much assign any picture to any function whereas with ESU this may not be the case.
* Both systems are upgradable via software download from the manufacturer. +1 to both systems.
Now, looking at some of the capability between the two systems:


* Cab Control has 2 user defined physical buttons on the controller. RailPro has none. +1 to ESU.
* RailPro has 16 function "slots" available. Cab Control has 28. +1 to ESU.
* At this time, RailPro seems to have much more comprehensive system and fault information available to the user. +1 for RailPro.
* Cab Control can contain 16,000 locomotives in the system. RailPro can only contain a fraction of that. +1 to ESU.
* Cab Control can control over 1,000 accessories. RailPro can only control a fraction of that. +1 to ESU.
* Cab Control has 2 gigabytes of flash memory and 512 megabytes of RAM. There are no published specs for the HC-2 but current research has revealed only 16 megabytes of flash memory and half a megabyte of RAM. +1 to ESU.
* IMO Cab Control has a more pleasing to the eye UI, so that's a personal +1 to ESU from me.

There are probably more comparisons to make but it's getting late. Overall I think RailPro may be the more comprehensive system insofar as user freedom is concerned but I've never played with the Cab Control system so I don't know it's full capabilities.

I don't think RailPro has much to fear in the short term from the 2 / 3 predominant DCC system manufacturers in the US (DigiTrax, NCE, MRC) but ESU has squarely aimed their product into RailPro's space. While it doesn't have the one thing that sold nearly all of us on RailPro (automatic load sharing) it seems to have everything else RailPro and a greater capacity to do all those things.

While I'm not figuring to abandon RailPro and I think it can hold it's own in this (currently) two horse touchscreen and knob race I think it's need a shot in the arm to bring it up to a better level playing field. While not much can be done in the way of hardware capability until the next generation of hand held is developed a more modern UI and opening up more function slots would be a good step in the right direction.

What do other think?

- Tim

Alan:
Nice comparison list.

It goes without saying, system selection should be made based on your specific needs and likes. As such I can only speak for myself. RP has more than enough capability/capacity to run my layout. I am out of basement space so the layout won't get any bigger, no worries of outgrowing RP. Even if RP never advances beyond where it is now I will still be a satisfied user. Your statement "the one thing that sold nearly all of us on RailPro (automatic load sharing)" is absolutely true for me. It was the slam dunk deciding factor. In the marketing world they call it a Market Differentiator. Until load sharing appears in competitive products I think RP's market differentiator will continue to draw customers. Should RP lose this sole differentiator then Tim Ring had better get real busy real fast.

One can dream, right? Add an Alexa-like AI driven voice control. Put it in inside a ProtoThrottle-like case. Then you have buttons and levers for things that should have buttons and levers and voice control for all the functions normally done on screens. That would be cool.

KPack:
Agree that the load-sharing is what drew me to Railpro initially, and so far it's something that no one else has been able to do.  Some of the things that the ESU system does can easily be changed with Railpro, some not so easily.

Adding additional function buttons should be very easy, and I'm not quite sure why Tim hasn't done that yet.  Granted, I've found myself fine with having 16 buttons.  Rarely have I had a need for more.  All of my most used functions are on the first page (horn, bell, load, brake, dynamic brake, coupler, etc) and all my lights and the prime mover are on the second page.

Changing the UI would be easy I think.  I really liked the dark gray scheme we had toyed around with here.  I would love to have that implemented.

I'm not concerned about Railpro having the capability to store the information for 16,000 locomotives.  I mean, really, that's a completely useless number.  Same with the number of accessories.  And quite honestly I don't care to control accessories from a controller anyways.  That's one function on Railpro that I've never used.

I would like to see more hardware upgrades though.  One or two physical buttons that can be user-defined would be great.  Larger memory should be easy to add (flash memory is cheap) and would be very welcome.  That way we wouldn't have to keep deleting files off the controllers.  Increasing the memory alone would change Railpro for the better.  More RAM would mean faster navigation and load times, more storage memory would mean more stored files, and probably larger files.

Honestly, there is no DCC system that could draw me away from Railpro.  Any video I've ever watched regarding DCC systems (including well-made ones by TrainMaster's TV) bore me within 2 minutes.  It's a great way to fall asleep.

-Kevin

G8B4Life:

--- Quote from: Alan on July 27, 2018, 10:45:54 AM ---One can dream, right? Add an Alexa-like AI driven voice control. Put it in inside a ProtoThrottle-like case. Then you have buttons and levers for things that should have buttons and levers and voice control for all the functions normally done on screens. That would be cool.

--- End quote ---

It's funny you should mention that Alan, the Cab Control throttles have a 3.5 mm stereo headset port (headphone and microphone) and as was mentioned in the podcast, technically you could Skype other throttle users. Wouldn't be hard for them to add voice recognition (given it's an Android system there would probably be many libraries they could choose from), though I don't want to give them any ideas. On that, one other comparison I didn't put in was just that, Cab Control is Android based, and they even mention that "Due to the open platform design you may add further apps for the Google Play Store at any time".

Kevin,

That's some good feedback.

The load sharing is protected by a patent. I'm not knowledgeable on anything patent so I guess that either no one has come up with a different way of implementing load sharing or nobody sees it as a better way.

Extra function slots would be easy, and the different UI would be ridiculously easy. There would be some limitation on what the UI could do in relation to having a whole button change background colour like in some of the mockups but it'd still be a ridiculously easy change.

- Tim

jjwdadof4:
I also saw this on what's neat this week and was thinking the same thing but it looks like it is wifi not two way radio

Josh

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page