 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / September 2004MTH HO
http://www.mthhotrains.com/news.asp Come visit my PRR Pages: Photos, Models, Historical Items and Art Work! PRR K4s Loco Pics: http://www.angelfire.com/film/prrpics/ PRR G5s, T1, J1 J1a, M1, M1a, N1s, etc. etc.: http://www.angelfire.com/film/prrpics/prr_loco_index.html and...... PRR Pics, P&LE Pics, PRR Memorabilia and Misc. Models: http://www.angelfire.com/film/prrpics/indexpics.html "Gary Mittner" <mittner@webtv.net> wrote in message news:8757-4151C1B7-91@storefull- > http://www.mthhotrains.com/news.asp Thanks for the link! I checked it out and it would seem that their ad in the latest MR has a typo - it says "prototypical rule 21 lighting" and the website says, "prototypical Rule 17 lighting", which still needs to be explained, but everything I've read about Rule 21 seems to contradict what I see in their photos.  SignatureFrank Eva DCC Models http://www.dccmodels.com MTH??? Overpriced junk that has runined o scale and now will do the same to HO > http://www.mthhotrains.com/news.asp > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://www.angelfire.com/film/prrpics/indexpics.html <<<MTH??? Overpriced junk that has runined o scale and now will do the same to HO>>>>>.. LOL ................. You know a lot. S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster" "Trains are a winter sport" The problem is that MTH is trying to push their own command control (DCS) and is only somewhat compatible with DCC. This alone should make them a no buy product. These people are tinplate and just don't get it! Don't underestimate them. They already caused Broadway Ltd to modify one of their recent offerings. They don't go along with the crowd they follow a different drummer. They have published a lengthy response on their web site about how they protect their intellectual properties. They have deep pockets and can easily overpower even some of the larger HO producers unless they form a cooperative and pool their resources. > Don't underestimate them. They already caused Broadway Ltd to modify > one of their recent offerings. They don't go along with the crowd > they follow a different drummer. > They have published a lengthy response on their web site about how > they protect their intellectual properties. They have deep pockets > and can easily overpower even some of the larger HO producers unless > they form a cooperative and pool their resources. Their website is a triumph of puff, spin, and hyperbole. As another poster already noted, they are a typical tinplate outfit. >They have published a lengthy response on their web site about how they >protect their intellectual properties. There is nothing other than the one QSI feature (and that is subject to debate) that would likely be protected in HO scale. >They have deep pockets and can easily overpower even some of the larger HO producers unless they form a cooperative and pool their resources. There is nothing other than the one QSI feature (and that is subject to debate) that would likely be protected in HO scale. As far as having deep pockets that means little unless they intend to sue the market into submission. I don't see any threat from them entering the market. IF (and that remains to be seen) they produce a viable product that folks want then they may be successful. Dave > There is nothing other than the one QSI feature (and that is subject to debate) > that would likely be protected in HO scale. I'm afraid not. I've been talking with their VP of Marketing on the MR forum, and there are two things MTH wants control of: their form of Bi-Directional Communication (whatever that is) and 1 scale mph increments to control loco speed. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* >two things MTH wants control of: their form of Bi-Directional Communication (whatever that is) and 1 scale mph increments to control loco speed.< Last first; as far as I can see this is just ad verbiage. It would go away with just not stating it as a feature! Anyway with which controller would it be applicable to anyway. The first is more important. What I understand is they want to control "any" Bi-Directional Communication. Of course in their case it's a paper tiger as I don't think they have any working Bi-Directional Communication, at least not as we in DCC think of. >tiger as I don't think they have any working Bi-Directional Communication, >at least not as we in DCC think of. They have it in their DCS system which is used in two and three rail O gauge and their patent covers it's use in other train control systems. That's why the letters were sent to all the HO manufacturers warning them that any infringement would be met vigorously. >there are two things MTH wants control of: their form of >Bi-Directional Communication (whatever that is) and 1 scale mph increments >to control loco speed. OK, let 'em have it. Then the mfrs can move on to half-mph increments, which is overkill, but gets around MTH's claim. <G> Jay All the world's a stage - and everybody's a critic. >I've been talking with their VP of Marketing on the MR >forum, and there are two things MTH wants control of: their form of >Bi-Directional Communication (whatever that is) and 1 scale mph increments >to control loco speed. See now that is just goofy. Perhaps they think they have a better control system then NCE, Digitrax, and Lenz but I personally not buying into that. Scale increments to control speed? Likely talking about the onboard "Odometer" I read on their site (that's about useless to most folks). I guess his goal is to litigate his way to number one status in model trains. Good luck with that. Dave >Don't underestimate them. They already caused Broadway Ltd to modify one of >their recent offerings. They don't go along with the crowd they follow a >different drummer. The only thing MTH had to do with Broadway Limited is the suit with QSI. Broadway limited has simply chosen not to implement the "cruise control feauture" (which I wouldn't ever use so I don't care). Unless you know of something other than that MTH has much to prove in how they implement HO engines. Personally I won't buy any for my shop as the last I looked MTH had way to much to say about becoming a dealer and how they will deal with you. Dave Dave > Don't underestimate them. They already caused Broadway Ltd to modify one of > their recent offerings. They don't go along with the crowd they follow a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > even some of the larger HO producers unless they form a cooperative and pool > their resources. Deep pockets could win in court if the court completely ignores prior art. BLI eliminated the Miles-per-hour feature, and that's it as far as I can tell. The BLI book says that they believe that QSI was using both features prior to the MTH patent grant. I don't know about that since I wasn't using QSI decoders until I got my BLI Hudson. At any rate, it is sure that Digitrax et al didn't have a correlation between the speed shown on a throttle and any scale speed; I still think that's a nifty feature especially for matching speeds while consisting locomotives. If QSI believes that they have prior art to show, they should challenge the patent. MTH clearly believes they invented it themselves first. Patents are important protections for inventors and other innovators, just as copyrights are for artists. If one spends the fiscal and intellectual capital to create something new, then one should be able to reap the benefits if desired. But is is likewise true that our patent system has become someone a theater of the absurd. Obvious things get patented (like "one click ordering" by Amazon and the Hyatt patent of the microprocessor). Sometimes the offended party has enough money to fight and win (Intel defeated the Hyatt patent); sometimes the little guy successfully enforces his patent against a big company (the interval wind shield wiper patent vs Ford, Chrysler et al), even if some of us think the patent was trivial. I don't know if MTH is just gaming the system by disguising prior art with obfuscating terminology or not; that what patent challenges are for. Is QSI actually challenging the MTH patent, or are they just whining via BLI? Anyone? Ed >> Don't underestimate them. They already caused Broadway Ltd to modify one of >> their recent offerings. They don't go along with the crowd they follow a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Deep pockets could win in court if the court completely ignores prior art. SignatureEd Oates http://homepage.mac.com/edoates DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com To help eliminate spam and scams, send it to FTC gov <uce@ftc.gov> (hee hee hee: Happy spam bot message) >Is QSI actually challenging the MTH patent, or are they just whining via BLI? Anyone?< In the case of the current group of HO engines QSI is a sub-contractor or vendor if you will of the sound decoder. My understand of the way it works is that MTH would need to initiate a lawsuit to defend their patent. This is what is happening in the case of MTH and Lionel (not the theft case folks). Lionel uses a QSI decoder in their HO engines and has not removed the features MTH doesn't like (patent claims). This forced MTH to sue Lionel or lose the patent rights. MTH sued Lionel! This is the lawsuit I would like to follow as it pertains to us model railroaders (and DCC group). I have no information on how to follow it! It is interesting the QSI et al waited to get sued. The other way is for QSI to challenge the patent after it was granted. Patent searches are notoriously incomplete, especially if the terminology is changes so that the search programs (and humans) don't find anything. Instead of "constant speed," say, "anti-force induced deceleration" or some such. The search won't pick up constant speed for either the examiner, other others trying to see if their innovation conflicts. But another poster had it correct when he said that we, the modeling public, will pay. Even if QSI wins and the MTH patent if voided, QSI will have expended money for attorneys and that expense will be passed along to us. The inclusion of the MPH feature, for example, in other decoders and systems will be delayed which other companies await the decisions. Ed >> Is QSI actually challenging the MTH patent, or are they just whining via > BLI? Anyone?< [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > would like to follow as it pertains to us model railroaders (and DCC group). > I have no information on how to follow it! SignatureEd Oates http://homepage.mac.com/edoates DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com To help eliminate spam and scams, send it to FTC gov <uce@ftc.gov> (hee hee hee: Happy spam bot message) http://www.qsindustries.com/MTHQSILawsuit%20(1F3).htm In 2001, QSI sued MTH (see the link above). The case is still pending. MTH sued Lionel not over patent issues, rather for improper use of production plans and engineering work. That case was found for MTH though final judgement has not been entered; supposedly due within a few weeks. >In 2001, QSI sued MTH (see the link above). The case is still pending.< This is correct. >MTH sued Lionel not over patent issues, rather for improper use of production plans and engineering work< This is correct! >That case was found for MTH though final judgement has not been entered; supposedly due within a few weeks.< Don't know when judgement will be interred. Understand the case is under appeal and will take years! The is another case in which MTH sued Lionel over the use of QSI sound decoders that they say violates their patent. As QSI is the sub in this case MTH had to sue Lionel which IMHO wanted them to. This is the case that bears watching and I wish someone would come up with a case number and location so we could at lease use the net and try and find out what is going on. >Understand the case [MTH v Lionel] is under appeal Sure, Lionel promises to appeal but they can't at this point. >another case in which MTH sued Lionel over the use of QSI sound decoders Never heard of that one. Probably just another ugly rumor. >Never heard of that one. Probably just another ugly rumor< You are right that it may be a rumor as no one has been able to give me a case number or location yet. However all the features that were taken out of the the BLI, Atlas, LL, etc. decoders were left in the Lionel decoders. I have been told that MTH has no choice but to sue or at least that's the way it was described to me. I'm always amazed how a product can be judged by so many before ever reaching the market. I may point out that Lionel is also a tinplate/hi-rail manufacturer and I did not read so many negative comments on their proposed and produced HO challenger and veranda turbine. HZ SignatureHoward Zane 5236 Thunder Hill Road Columbia, MD 21045 410-730-1036 > The problem is that MTH is trying to push their own command control > (DCS) and is only somewhat compatible with DCC. This alone should make them > a no buy product. These people are tinplate and just don't get it! > I'm always amazed how a product can be judged by so many before ever > reaching the market. I'm not judging the product. My comments refer specifically to their website. It appears to be a triumph of form over content. > I'm always amazed how a product can be judged by so many before ever > reaching the market. I may point out that Lionel is also a > tinplate/hi-rail manufacturer and I did not read so many negative > comments on their proposed and produced HO challenger and veranda > turbine. I'll wait until I see more info on how their own (why? why? why?) control system is incompatible with DCC to develop an opinion on that, but I doubt it's a necessary thing. As for another of their claims, "authentic Doppler" in their sound system, that's just complete and utter BS. Or is it only authentic when you stand in front of the MTS patented passenger station, or milk can car unloading track, or US Army guided Missile car re-arming station, or [yeah, you got it - I think tinplate sucks]. SignatureSteve Purple Heart Veterans against BuSh and the Chickenhawks * Ya Hadda Be There To Get One * Re-defeat Bush in 2004 >I'm always amazed how a product can be judged by so many before ever reaching the market.< I emailed them about their HO product and they assured me it would be at the national. It wasn't there and they didn't talk about it, at least not to me. Based on the chaos MTH has produced I think the DCC crowd just plain doesn't like them and will label anything they produce as junk. Just goes to show what good advertising lawsuits are! > Based on the chaos MTH has produced I think the DCC crowd just plain >doesn't like them and will label anything they produce as junk. If it is not as compatible as I hear then the DCC crowd is more than justified. The NMRA and DCC manufacturers have gone to a lot of trouble developing specs to make products compatible. IF MTH has a unique system then they will likely have a hard sell. I'm going to trade shows in Chicago (14 Oct) and Las Vegas (7 Oct). Dave > If it is not as compatible as I hear then the DCC crowd is more than justified. > The NMRA and DCC manufacturers have gone to a lot of trouble developing specs > to make products compatible. IF MTH has a unique system then they will likely > have a hard sell. > I'm going to trade shows in Chicago (14 Oct) and Las Vegas (7 Oct). The VP - Marketing guy for MTH on the MR forum said that DCC will operate DCS locos. So far, no answer to the question, will DCC engines work on a DCS system. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* >The VP - Marketing guy for MTH on the MR forum said that DCC will operate DCS locos< What I have heard is that _yes_ these engines will run on DCC _but_ run means going forward and backward at some kind of controllable (we hope) speed. What I have read is that not all features will be available with DCC, only with DCS. What not all features means I don't know but I use DCC and if all the engines features are not available (and compatible with) DCC it's of no use to me as a sound engine and especially at the cost of a sound engine. I again state that MTH just doesn't get it! > >The VP - Marketing guy for MTH on the MR forum said that DCC will > operate DCS locos< > What I have heard is that _yes_ these engines will run on DCC _but_ run > means going forward and backward at some kind of controllable (we hope) > speed. This, again, is the VP of Marketing for MTH: "Below are the features you will have access to when using a DCC controller: - Operate Locomotive At Scale Speeds - Activate Whistle/Horn or Bell Sounds - Hear Squeaking Brakes - Enjoy Synchronized Puffing Smoke Timed To Driver Revolutions - Activate Passenger Station or Freight Yard Sound Effects - Activate Doppler Sound Effects - Control Smoke Operation - Control Locomotive Master Volume - Adjust The Locomotive Chuff Rate" > What I have read is that not all features will be available with DCC, > only with DCS. What not all features means I don't know but I use DCC and > if all the engines features are not available (and compatible with) DCC it's > of no use to me as a sound engine and especially at the cost of a sound > engine. Again, more quoting: "Next, are the features you will have access to when using a DCS system: - 22 Independent Volume Control Settings - 16 Adjustable Chuff Rate Settings - 3 Adjustable Smoke Intensity Settings - Adjustable Brake Sound Effects - Adjustable Wheel “Clickity-Clack” Sounds - 15 Selectable Custom Sounds - 4 Adjustable Diesel Engine Ditch Lighting Effects - 120 Adjustable Engine Speed Settings - 3 Adjustable Locomotive Direction Start-up Engines - Simple Lash-up Creation - Simple Route Creation - Simple Scene Creation - Record/Playback 90 Minutes of Operation - Downloadable Locomotive Sounds Sets - Independent Locomotive Chronometer - Independent Locomotive Odometer - Independent Locomotive Trip Odometer - Track Signal Quality Test - Linear Track Length Meter - Trip Odometer - 2 Independent Engine Reset Features - Doppler - Broadcast Your Voice Through The Train's Speaker - Independent Whistle & Bell Sounds - 120 Speed Steps – Control engines speed in increments of 1 smph. - 42 Levels of Programming Option - Labor/Drift Chuffing Sound Control - Diesel Rev Up/Down Sound Control - Speed Boost & Brake Control - One Touch Smoke On/Off Control - One Touch Volume Level Control - Engine Sounds Mute Button - One Touch Headlight On/Off Control - One Touch Proto-Cast™ Control - One Touch Engine Startup Control - One Touch Engine Shutdown Control - One Touch Passenger or Freight Sound Activation - Sound Packages Downloadable from MTH Website" > I again state that MTH just doesn't get it! That is true. They seem to be pushing their DCS system as a replacement for DCC when it sounds like to me all they are is another DCC provider (like Lenz, Digitrax, Zimo, etc.). Sure it has more features, just like Digitrax has more features than MRC, but it's all the same basic technology (IMHO). Corrections welcome, but even if only some of the functions of DCS locos work under NMRA DCC standards, wouldn't that make it a DCC system? Paul A. Cutler III ************** Weather Or No Go New Haven ************** > "Jon Miller" <atsf@inow.com> wrote in message >> I again state that MTH just doesn't get it! > > That is true. They seem to be pushing their DCS system as a > replacement for DCC when it sounds like to me all they are is another > DCC provider (like Lenz, Digitrax, Zimo, etc.). Sure it has more > features A great many of which are stupid gimmicks, IMO. Their claim to "revolutionise" model railroading is ludicrous, if this is the product it's based on. According to their web site, their "DCS" decoders in the announced HO locomotive will operate with other DCC control systems. If that is true, and you get all the functionality (value of many of which are debatable), then it I suspect no one will replace their DCC command stations. If DCS command stations provide extra functions, and can also run regular DCC decoders, then someone in the market for a new command station might consider it. If their is no compatibility between the two (DCS and DCC), then MTH is probably DOA in the HO and N worlds. There are a couple of features in the announced HO loco which are intriguing: 1. synchronized chuff and smoke puffing. I assume that the DCS decoder knows how fast the motor in turning and can convert that into drive wheel RPM. Regular DCC decoders can know the back EMF, but haven't a clue as to how fast the actual engine is rotating. So we have all kinds of cams, etc. on the drive wheels to coordinate the chuffing sounds. If MTH has build all that in, cool. 2. Coordinating the "speed" which the throttle shows and the actual scale speed of the loco (whether in MPH or KPH or warp speed ;) is likewise nifty. The DCS system probably uses whatever it uses in #1 above to determine drive wheel RPM and some simple calculations convert that to scale speed. It would be much easier to MU locomotives if the throttle speed indicator means something other than a fraction of full voltage. If when you set "25" on the throttle, all DCS locos are going the same speed +- only 1 MPH, bye-bye weird speed curves, starting voltages, etc. 3. No "tether" between loco and tender. Those wires are always stiff and lead to various derailments in my experience until you get them adjusted just right. Bachmann does it the worst. The Consolidation 2-8-0 wires were just toooooo long and hand down / up and generally get in the way. And they are way to colorful. The downside seems to be that all the power pickups must be in the loco. Not too bad for diesels, but steam is nice to have the tender pickup power, too. On the intellectual property stuff (NOT the Lionel lawsuit: apparently, someone at Korean Brass really did lift the drawings and plans which belonged to MTH; at least convincingly enough for a jury to really slap Lionel!), if MTH really is using some sort of tachometer on the motor and NOT just back emf, and communicating that info with the throttle to control actual speed, that is pretty new-ish. At least, I'd not heard of it before I got my early BLI Hudson with that feature. Back EMF is good at keeping a loco going at a constant speed up and down hill (not very prototypical, but can make life easier), but that has nothing to do with making the throttle speed setting relate to speed rather than voltage. If someone else invented it (like QSI) or has some other prior art, then it is not that costly to challenge the patent with your own information if you want to void it. You don't have to build it and sell it and then get sued to challenge the patent. MTH might be a little heavy handed, but if they invented the thing, they have every right to profit from it. Ed <I suspect this continues a war of words among us non-lawyer types. Oh well> >> "Jon Miller" <atsf@inow.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "revolutionise" model railroading is ludicrous, if this is the product > it's based on. SignatureEd Oates http://homepage.mac.com/edoates DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com To help eliminate spam and scams, send it to FTC gov <uce@ftc.gov> (hee hee hee: Happy spam bot message) > According to their web site, their "DCS" decoders in the announced HO > locomotive will operate with other DCC control systems. If that is > true, and you get all the functionality (value of many of which are > debatable), then it I suspect no one will replace their DCC command > stations. I tend to agree. Having just upgraded from EasyDCC to NCE, I'm not about to scrap it all for a proprietary system which offers no apparent improvement over what I have now. > If DCS command stations provide extra functions, and can also run > regular DCC decoders, then someone in the market for a new command > station might consider it. Yes, they might. I think if I were just starting out, I would probably investigate the competing products. I think my final choice would be heavily influenced by compatibility between equipment from different DCC manufacturers. I'm also very wary of committing myself to just one manufacturer's product line. If their business goes pear-shaped, you are buggered. Look at the folks who adopted Hornby's Zero-One... > If their is no compatibility between the two (DCS and DCC), then MTH > is probably DOA in the HO and N worlds. I think this too, plus their reputation in HO circles seems rather poor. That can't be good for business. > There are a couple of features in the announced HO loco which are > intriguing: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have all kinds of cams, etc. on the drive wheels to coordinate the > chuffing sounds. If MTH has build all that in, cool. The synchonised exhaust beats are a good idea. As for smoke - yuk! Looks fake, smells bad, leaves an oily deposit on everything it touches. I gave up smoking tobacco so it wouldn't clag up my layout! (Or me...) There is also the fact that real steam locos don't constantly produce a visible exhaust. A good fireman can stay financial without making much more than a light haze for each shovelful he puts on. There are so many different exhaust effects that smoke generators cannot hope to simulate, I'd rather accept the compromise and do without them. > 2. Coordinating the "speed" which the throttle shows and the actual > scale speed of the loco (whether in MPH or KPH or warp speed ;) is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > throttle, all DCS locos are going the same speed +- only 1 MPH, > bye-bye weird speed curves, starting voltages, etc. Yes, that is also a feature that has considerable appeal. > 3. No "tether" between loco and tender. Those wires are always stiff > and lead to various derailments in my experience until you get them [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be that all the power pickups must be in the loco. Not too bad for > diesels, but steam is nice to have the tender pickup power, too. I haven't experienced any problems with the wires on any of my Bachmann 2-8-0s, or indeed any of my steam-outline locos. But I will agree, they <are> very brightly coloured! > On the intellectual property stuff (NOT the Lionel lawsuit: > apparently, someone at Korean Brass really did lift the drawings and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > MTH might be a little heavy handed, but if they invented the thing, > they have every right to profit from it. Indeed, and I have no comment or opinion on this subject, since I have no knowledge of the matter and even less interest. If MTH, Lionel, etc. want to slug it out in the courts, then good luck to them. As you say, <IF> they invented the thing - but one could make the observation that a courtroom may not be the ideal place to resolve such issues. What I do believe is that MTH, or at least their marketing people, are having themselves on if they believe that the features claimed for their HO scale K-4s are going to "revolutionize" HO scale model railroading, as they claim. As one poster noted, it's very much a tinplate approach to the market. While it is no doubt appropriate in that part of the market, it is not neccessarily good for HO. As another noted, they seem to be describing existing DCC features in different ways, as if to help establish the legitimacy of their claim to priority. At any rate, I'm one of those people who react badly to marketing hyperbole - the breathless style and content of their website alone are sufficient to put me off their products. And in all fairness, I think the HO scale market is saturated with PRR K-4s. Now an L-1 would have been nice. Even I'd buy one of those. Read all four pages on the MR site. By carefully reading the comments by the MTH rep it appears to me he knows nothing about DCC or even what it does. If he does understand anything he seems to want to invent new wording for a feature to make it appears as if MTH invented it. I believe most of the comments to be smoke and mirrors and that old 1884 term, double speak. >> What I have heard is that _yes_ these engines will run on DCC _but_ run >> means going forward and backward at some kind of controllable (we hope) >> speed. >> What I have read is that not all features will be available with DCC, >> only with DCS. What not all features means I don't know but I use DCC and >> if all the engines features are not available (and compatible with) DCC it's >> of no use to me as a sound engine and especially at the cost of a sound >> engine. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > - Control Locomotive Master Volume > - Adjust The Locomotive Chuff Rate" This sounds like a lot more than the "going forward and backward" that Jon said it involves. This list looks like pretty standard, albeit high-end, DCC functions. > Again, more quoting: > "Next, are the features you will have access to when using a DCS system: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ... > - Sound Packages Downloadable from MTH Website" Wow! So it looks like they are trying to take digital control to places that standard DCC may not be set up to handle. > Corrections welcome, but even if only some of the functions of DCS locos > work under NMRA DCC standards, wouldn't that make it a DCC system? Not to MTH's detractors. If even one function isn't DCC compliant, the whole system is no use to them. >> - 22 Independent Volume Control Settings > - 16 Adjustable Chuff Rate Settings< While some of this sounds neat it's just the way it's presented. Remember many DCC decoders have 8 bits controlling sound volumes, that's 255 independent settings. 1, 2, 3, etc. 16 rates would be 4 bits used. Chuff rate setting _could_ fall into the same category. But what is a chuff rate setting. Chuff rate should be synced to the drivers, not a setting. Anything that says control or activate is just an F key function! The only thing that sounds really interesting is "Sound Packages Downloadable from MTH Website". QSI has a 142 page manual, Soundtraxx also has a large manual, as do most/all of the other sound decoder manufactures. Until I can get an MTH manual and compare apples to apples all I see so far is smoke and mirrors. MTH DCS has been on the market for a couple years, albeit in O Gauge and Large Scale trains. Patents were issued almost a year ago. If there were prior art somebody should have come up with a response by now. DCS patent http://www.protosound2.com/dcs/Patent.pdf Speed Control Patent http://www.protosound2.com/dcs/scp.pdf > MTH DCS has been on the market for a couple years, albeit in O Gauge and Large > Scale trains. Patents were issued almost a year ago. If there were prior art [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Speed Control Patent > http://www.protosound2.com/dcs/scp.pdf That's a laugh. One of the current complaints about the US Patent Office is that their prior art searches are piss-poor, mostly on account of underfunding. They can't afford the expertise required (and that's a lot of expertise these days, grad level and post doc, a lot of it), nor can they afford the time. The poor sods working there are undertrained and overworked. No wonder so many stupid patents are granted. For more on this, read Scientific American. It now has a monthly column on dumb patents. As for sound chips etc - that's all prior art**, unless MTH found a way of interfacing DCC prorocol with sound that nobody else thunk of, which is unlikely. The NMRA DCC Recommended Practice is remarkable in its anticipation of what could be done as soon as chips got small enough, e.g., its assumption that CVs would be needed for many more functions than were feasible at the time it was drafted. MR was only among many hobby/craft publications that published ciruits for using sound chips such as those marketed by Radio Shack for toys/models. What's MTH done that's so different? I don't know. If you or anybody knows claims of prior art then do something about it. I was responding to request for info on MTH patent. > Chuff rate should be synced to the drivers, not a setting. According to the MTH web site, the chuffing *IS* timed to driver revolutions at a rate of 4 chuffs per wheel revolution... http://www.mth-railking.com/newsdetail.asp?artid=187 >According to the MTH web site, the chuffing *IS* timed to driver revolutions at a rate of 4 chuffs per wheel revolution< Ok, that's good but then what do they mean about "16 Adjustable Chuff Rate Settings"? >>According to the MTH web site, the chuffing *IS* timed to driver >revolutions >at a rate of 4 chuffs per wheel revolution< > Ok, that's good but then what do they mean about "16 Adjustable Chuff >Rate Settings"? Each wheel can have its own chuff rate ???? Alan in beautiful Golden Bay, Western Oz, South 32.25.42, East 115.45.44 GMT+8 VK6 YAB ICQ 6581610 to reply, change oz to au in address >>According to the MTH web site, the chuffing *IS* timed to driver >revolutions >at a rate of 4 chuffs per wheel revolution< > Ok, that's good but then what do they mean about "16 Adjustable Chuff >Rate Settings"? It means that since you are too lazy to investigate it yourself, that you can vary how many chuffs per wheel revolution if you want to change the rate for some strange reason. From all the noise that I've seen here lately, I'm surprised that someone hasn't complained that the dcs hand control isn't offered in 128 optional colors... fl@liner >From all the noise that I've seen here lately, I'm surprised that someone hasn't complained that the dcs hand control isn't offered in 128 optional colors...< I was going to complain that it's almost an identical to the NCE hammerhead except Jim forgot to patent the design<VBG>. >I was going to complain that it's almost an identical to the NCE >hammerhead except Jim forgot to patent the design<VBG>. Actually I spoke to someone from NCE at their booth at the East Coast Hobby Show. They were awaiting the outcome of the Lionel and QSI suits. They may not have a patent but perhaps a trademark. >They were awaiting the outcome of the Lionel and QSI suits. They may not have a patent but perhaps a trademark.< That exchange was of course in humor but Jim's hammerhead is way before the drawing shown in the MTH patent. I really wish JIm would send a cease and desist letter to MTH, it would serve them right! Again<VBG>. >> They were awaiting the outcome of the Lionel and QSI suits. They may >> not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > send a cease and desist letter to MTH, it would serve them right! > Again<VBG>. depends.. does Jim have the original design or was it Wangrow that designed the handheld and had him build to spec.... with permision to use in future..... remember.. Jim did not sell much directly to begin with. It was a joint project LOL, Alan! MTH engines chugging "I think I can, I think I can, ..." >Wangrow that designed the handheld and had him build to spec.... with permission to use in future.....< As Don died I don't think the company really exists anymore. Maybe on paper (meaning one could maybe buy the name) but no hardware or software available. You do bring up an interesting point but I think Jim probably has it all simple by default. snip > The only thing that sounds really interesting is "Sound Packages >Downloadable from MTH Website". Especially for you, to rhythm of train. MTH is great, MTH is great, MTH is great, MTH is great, MTH is great, MTH is great, MTH is great, MTH is great, MTH is great, MTH is great, MTH is great, MTH is great, MTH is great, MTH is great, MTH is great, MTH is great, ad infinitum Alan in beautiful Golden Bay, Western Oz, South 32.25.42, East 115.45.44 GMT+8 VK6 YAB ICQ 6581610 to reply, change oz to au in address > The VP - Marketing guy for MTH on the MR forum said that DCC will >operate DCS locos. So far, no answer to the question, will DCC engines work >on a DCS system. > >Paul A. Cutler III I noted that they avoided answering that on their site as well. Sheesh, everyone else does DCC and they have to invent a new name (DCS). Dave > > The VP - Marketing guy for MTH on the MR forum said that DCC will > >operate DCS locos. So far, no answer to the question, will DCC engines work > >on a DCS system. > > I noted that they avoided answering that on their site as well. If they have real Bi-Directional comms, then it may very well be a problem. I remember that the NMRA's (Lenz's) original Bi-D required an "inductor" to be added to all previously decodered engines in order for Bi-D to work. If MTH did the same kind of thing, then no, DCC engines would not work on DCS, or rather, cause the DCS to stop workign (same thing). Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* >I'm always amazed how a product can be judged by so many before ever >reaching the market. Actually has more to do with prejudging the manufacturer based on prior "exploits". I say the assessments are fair so far. Dave > http://www.mthhotrains.com/news.asp Just noticed that BLI is also coming out with an all diecast HO PRR K4s in their "Paragon Series Platinum Product" line: http://www.broadway-limitedwest.com/prrk4.htm Is this a coincidence or do you think the MTH and this BLI are using the same Far East manufacturer? Jim >Just noticed that BLI is also coming out with an all diecast HO PRR K4s in >their "Paragon Series Platinum Product" line: >http://www.broadway-limitedwest.com/prrk4.htm > >Is this a coincidence or do you think the MTH and this BLI are using the >same Far East manufacturer? MTH will probably be using it's own factory in China to produce it's HO line-- BLI is the USA name of Korea Brass, the same company that was found guilty of intellectual property theft,etc,etc. If you take the time to read the website,an MTH HO engine is fully capable of DC, DCC, or DCS operation. One mode will not interfere with the other. >BLI is the USA name of Korea Brass, the same company that was found guilty of intellectual property theft,etc,etc< Well that's a bunch of crap!!!!! BLI has engines made in both China and Korea. My ATSF for example was made in China. > >BLI is the USA name of Korea Brass, the same company that was found guilty > of intellectual property theft,etc,etc< > Well that's a bunch of crap!!!!! BLI has engines made in both China and > Korea. My ATSF for example was made in China. Um, "Korea Brass" is the name of the company, not necessarily where it was made. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* >Um, "Korea Brass" is the name of the company, not necessarily where it was made< Korea Brass was Samhongsa which we all know went out of business. They had a few of their employees go to jail for the Lionel/MTH theft problem. This then resulted in the MTH law suit against Lionel which resulted in a MTH win with a 40 mil judgement against Lionel. The case is being appealed. I still say that an address for Korea Brass (a.k.a. Samhongsa) and BLI being the same is hogwash! People keep getting the above lawsuit and a different lawsuit involving the same parties (MTH and Lionel) which is about Lionel using QSI decoders with features MTH thinks they shouldn't. This is a current ongoing suit which I would like to be able to track but don't know how! <snip> > I still say that an address for Korea Brass (a.k.a. Samhongsa) and BLI > being the same is hogwash! Oookay dokay. But before I go, allow me to quote from Andy Edleman, V.P. Marketing - M.T.H. Electric Trains on the Model Railroader web Forum: "I appreciate your concern about guilt by association. The fact however is that Mr. Yang and Korea Brass operate out of the same residential home as Broadway Limited in Charlottsville, Virigina. This makes them associated in some manner and both Yang and Korea Brass were found liable in our suit. You are certainly entitled to believe that no association exists but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it may very well be a duck." Paul A. Cutler III ************** Weather Or No Go New Haven ************** >"I appreciate your concern about guilt by association. The fact however is that Mr. Yang and Korea Brass operate out of the same residential home as Broadway Limited in Charlottsville, Virginia< This Andy from MTH is full of more BS than a Christmas turkey. First off Tony (the owner of BLI) used to live in ID until very recently. That's where Oriental Limited (importing) was "technically" located. Many/all American brass importers used Korea Brass/Samhongsa as brass builders at one time or another! While BLI is in VA it's not in the quoted town or is it a residential home. It's a business location and while I've never been there would guess it to be a warehouse. Containers come in with product and are unloaded, checked, and sent to buyers from the address shown below. Hard to put a few containers in your drive way! This address is from their web site. Broadway Limited Imports, LLC 601 Shenandoah Village Drive, STE 9E/F Waynesboro, VA 22980 For your information the address for Korea Brass is; Korea Brass Co Ltd Att. Cho, Sung oh Hagye Technotown B-201 250-3 Hagye-dong, Nowon-ku, Seoul, Korea 139-231 Tel. 82 2 971 6714 This information took about ten seconds to obtain and indicates your Andy character is in a need of a reality check. I would suspect he is probably trying to spread misinformation as the web shows this as the latest on that MTH/Lionel lawsuit. [a victory for Lionel when a District Court in Michigan denied MTH's request that Lionel not be allowed to distribute several steam locomotives made for them by Korea Brass] Also Korea Brass/Samhongsa are the same builders that MTH uses and was the reason for the lawsuit. Picture one company Korea Brass (Samhongsa) ddoing work for many customers; MTH, Lionel, many HO brass importers, and a whole host of others. The suit was about some individuals in this company sharing data received from one customer with another competing customer (a no-no in any business of this type)! Now who is Mr. Yang supposed to be? > This information took about ten seconds to obtain and indicates your > Andy character is in a need of a reality check. I would suspect he is > probably trying to spread misinformation as the web shows this as the latest > on that MTH/Lionel lawsuit. My Andy character? I didn't make him up. Lookit, why don't go on over and post these accusations on the MR Forum? It's free, just sign up with a throwaway e-mail account and be done with it. This VP of MTH seems to be answering questions there. Heck, here's the thread link: http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=21838 Paul A. Cutler III ************** Weather Or No Go New Haven ************** Hard to respond to "Andy's" comments with 100 characters but will try to figure something out! Apparently I misread the 100 character thing as it let me post as long as I wanted. I questioned Andy for links or references to his quotes and will see what he says if anything. One Item I find to be a problem is that he says, quote; "This statement has been present on Broadway’s website for many months and has allowed consumers to mistakenly assume that M.T.H. is suing DCC manufacturers in the HO community" It's my understanding that MTH is suing Lionel for including the features that the note on the BLI site says they removed. How that is not suing a DCC manufacture in the HO community? Most all I have talked to say that they have the paper (prior art) to disprove most/all of the MTH patents. The problem is cost! > Most all I have talked to say that they have the paper (prior art) to >disprove most/all of the MTH patents. The problem is cost! You can just go to the US patent office and read these MTH patents for yourself. So far as I can see they cxontain nothing technical at all but claim to have invented 'concepts' which have been public domain for years, there is no detail given of any novel technique to realise these concepts which a patent would normally be issued to protect. Its like some new start up company took out a patent on flying machines and then started to demand Royalties from Boeing and Airbus. Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. >You can just go to the US patent office and read these MTH patents for yourself.< I have downloaded the patent and shown it to persons I know who have looked it over. Your comment is correct as they have said it's all BS. > Most all I have talked to say that they have the paper (prior art) to >disprove most/all of the MTH patents. The problem is cost! It may not cost that much to challenge a patent unlike the cost of defending it. Perhaps those with the information should make a formal request for a review by the Patent Office. >Perhaps those with the information should make a formal request for a review by the Patent Office.< I believe even to do this requires an attorney and a patent attorney at that. I also need to add this comment and by it I think one can easily see the difference between two companies, at least when it comes to sound units for HO engines. Remember that BLI is the engine maker/importer and they just purchase QSI sound units. QSI opened a Yahoo Group hosted by Mr. Pat Quinn (the Q in QSI). Usually the discussion goes on and Pat doesn't do much commenting _but_ if a question makes sense and is directed at him he will answer. If he doesn't quickly know the answer he queries his technical people and then he responds. Where is MTH's group with a person of knowledge (not this Andy character) answering question? >I still say that an address for Korea Brass (a.k.a. Samhongsa) Korea Brass and Samhongsa are not the same company. Some Samhongsa employees left and formed Korea Brass. If they were the same than the recent MTH lawsuit would have been moot. My understanding was that Samhongsa made MTH locomotives, Korea Brass mad Lionel. Some former Samhongsa employees gave Korea Brass the information to copy some of MTH features. Roger Aultman >>Um, "Korea Brass" is the name of the company, not necessarily where it > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > with features MTH thinks they shouldn't. This is a current ongoing suit > which I would like to be able to track but don't know how! I will have to correct myself in that Korea Brass and Samhongsa appear to be separate companies but apparently outsource business to each other (or at least had business ties, similar to the ties American companies have). Interesting interrogation of some of the Korean suspects at the end of the following information; http://www.toytrainrevue.com/korea.htm > If you take the time to read the >website,an MTH HO engine is fully capable of DC, DCC, or DCS operation. One >mode will not interfere with the other. From their site as you suggested: http://www.mthhotrains.com/ Quote: " Already Have A DCC System? Proto-Sound 3.0 equipped locomotives can be controlled in command mode with any DCC compliant command control system. While the user won't have access to all of the incredible features of Proto-Sound 3.0, independent control over the locomotive is possible. This means you can continue to use your existing DCC controller to independently control your other DCC equipped locomotives in addition to your Proto-Sound 3.0 locomotive on the same track at the same time. When using a DCC controller, the following Proto-Sound 3.0 locomotive features are accessible: * Operate At Scale Speeds * Activate Whistle or Bell Sounds * Hear Squeaking Brakes * Enjoy Synchronized Puffing Smoke Timed To Driver Revolutions * Activate Passenger Station or Freight Yard Sound Effects * Doppler * Smoke on/off * Master volume * Chuff Rate " It has limitations as per the line, "While the user won't have access to all of the incredible features of Proto-Sound 3.0, independent control over the locomotive is possible." Therefore it seems that the DCC crowd has some legitimate concerns. I really like the hype that they can control "hundreds of features" with their system as opposed to what is currently on the market. The control looks awkward in my opinion. I likely take a look and do some comparison if possible at the October Trade shows but likely will not be getting any MTH HO scale into my store anytime soon. Dave > * Doppler As I recall, at least one apge on their site calls it "authentic" doppler. While they don't describe the operation, I got the impression it is something the user can trigger as the locomotive approaches their position alongside the layout. But for the doppler effect to be authentic, the decoder would have to know the height and distance of your ears from the locomotive. Tinplate toy stuff, from an outfit that seems to be venturing into new frontiers of innovation through litigation. Wonder if they have Uncle Pervert's law firm? SignatureSteve You know, this is the midst of the disillusionment and heartbreak season and, with the recent outbreak of that suicidal strain of despair up in Boston, well, you'd better keep a close watch on your emotions. So remember the seven danger signals of depression; that's a general and lasting feeling of hopelessness, inability to concentrate, loss of self-esteem, fear of rejection, feelings of guilt, misdirected anger, and extreme dependency on others. At the first sign of these symptoms, friends, follow these simple rules: keep working, drink as much as possible, and... take your television's advice. And y'know more TV's recommend an amazing new psychic breakthrough than any other, and that's... Confidence in the System. Fast, safe, and guaranteed through constant Federal control, Confidence in the System will keep THEM in power longer, longer, longer, and tend to calm and obscure the miseries of disillusionment and despair. In easy-to-swallow Propaganda form or new fast-acting Thought Control, that's Confidence in the System. So have some... today. >Is this a coincidence or do you think the MTH and this BLI are using the >same Far East manufacturer? More coincidence than anything. This happens from time to time. Look at how many F units were out at one time. Dave Somebody allegedly stole plans from Samhongsa (MTH) and sold them to Korean Brass (Lionel, Broadway). I say allegedly but the case was already settled in Korea in MTH's favor, while the US case is ongoing. Lionel brought products based on the stolen plans to market so they were sued. Broadway is holding back, it seems a wise move. >Somebody allegedly stole plans from Samhongsa (MTH) and sold them to Korean Brass (Lionel, Broadway). I say allegedly but the case was already settled in Korea in MTH's favor, while the US case is ongoing. Lionel brought products based on the stolen plans to market so they were sued< First BLI is an HO engine importer and not involved in _any_ of the above. Second the case was in an American court for damages and MTH was awarded 40M from Lionel. However there is an appeal in place and best guess is it will take years to settle. Third one of the latest court decisions allows Lionel to sell all the engines made from these plans. Fourth the Korean result was that 3 or 4 people went to jail. On a totally separate matter MTH is suing Lionel over the use of QSI decoders which they claim violates their patent on sound decoders. While I know the suit is active I have not been able to find out any additional information. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.