so you can read it here… http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/board/index.php/topic,5138.0.html here is what caught my eye–why is this Lenz "Gold Maxi Decoder"apparently mounted to a piece of “Perf Board” and haphazardly shown in a mis-aligned position on the K-board–does it mount that like that…or does it mount to the K Board at all-in real life? find this photo in above link under the Lenz install…
cale
Well, that doesn’t look like a hack
Another thing I noticed at that posting.
The exact same instructions for the Lenz DCC decoder are used twice.
Once for the DCC part and again in the Battery R/C part.
I wonder why?
Surely not wishful thinking that the Lenz can do both?
Tony, 
Lenz does everything 
;); funny part is that I read quite a few comments on the Euro fora bemoaning the fact that Lenz isn’t advancing - some opined that he’s too interested in his O scale stuff.
Of course if Mr. Ames looks after the progress in the Lenz line, there’s nothing to worry about.
TonyWalsham said:
Another thing I noticed at that posting.The exact same instructions for the Lenz DCC decoder are used twice.
Once for the DCC part and again in the Battery R/C part.I wonder why?
Surely not wishful thinking that the Lenz can do both?
cale
Congrats again Tony for bringing us the first Real PnP module for the K, Those types of innovative products are exactly what we’ve come to expect from RCS, and why I continue to buy said products!
cale
Thank you for your support Cale.
Many have thought that because Dave Goodson and I have approached the K-27 battery R/C installation from totally different directions we were at “war”.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I wanted to cover all bases and that is what we have done.
I could easily have jumped the gun and brought out a Plug’n’Play controller some time ago but chose not to.
I wanted to wait until the actual K-27 was available in real life. Mainly so that I could find out what if any “foibles” it had.
With the help of Dave these “foibles” were discovered and resolved so that the modeller does not have to make any changes to get reliable Plug’n’Play operation.
Dave has shown everyone how he thinks it should be done, and I certainly don’t disagree with his approach.
I have shown them how to successfully add battery R/C to what is in the field without any modifications to the existing Bachmann wiring.
Now Mr Ames is “suggesting” I supply a sample of the PnP-3 to Bachmann so that, in his words:
Quote:Now why Bachmann would even contemplate any changes at all to the socket, is a mystery to me. Especially as it is plug compatible with the AristoCraft Plug'n'Play socket fitted to most AC locos.
[b] The reason is simple. If they have a sample then it is more probable that any new locomotive that has the socket will also work with your board. We both know that if they do not have a sample then one way or another the board will not fit. One never knows why in advance but I am sure they will find a way.[/b]
Perhaps Mr Ames knows something the Bachmann engineers don’t know.
Maybe like an “agenda” for the implementation of a new mandatorily fitted dcc decoder control system with a Susi interface from a well known European manufacturer, which could possibly make the loco incompatible with any other control system.
I just hope they don’t actually mandate the use a piece of perf board to be the interface.
that is just it, they say it’s all PnP and only one has been proven to be true PnP…RCS
cale
Cale Nelson said:
that is just it, they say it's all PnP and only one has been proven to be true PnP...RCScale
-Brian
I’m not this guy, but found his posting intriguing!
From the One to Twenty Point Me:
"Chama Charlie said…
I see the thread on the Bachmann Forum.
The latest posting was of interest.
The Lenz page tells me I need to cut the tracks, solder the wires, mount the board, and use all black wiring one time, colored the next, and a piece of electronics perforated board to mount it?
AirWire hasn't gotten back to them, Aristo-Craft does not want to use the "older" 75 unit, but, lookie, ESU works!
I noticed the screw termnals on the Lenz unit.
I wonder aloud why they chose to "jumper" through the Ames Super Socket, when it would have been far easier just to cut the wires off the main board and connect directly.
An obvious attempt to demonstrate plug-and-play where none exists, and then we wonder what Stanley Lenz has in development to plug into that socket.
CC
April 7, 2008 8:00 PM"
cale
Ah, yes, Stanley Ames.
Someone show me where I go wrong here:
1.) Other than the QSI, the only thing that plugs into the socket and everything works is Tony’s device built expressly for that purpose. (And, the QSI requires you to use their auto chuff instead of the opti-chuff in the K.)
2.) Stan Ames own instructions, as posted on the Bachmann board discuss lengthy modification of the “dummy plug” unit including cutting runs, soldering wires, and attaching components to make a device that plugs into the socket.
3.) Stan has told Tony that they intend to change the socket so that his device will no longer function on the next run. That means the QSI won’t work anymore either since it DOES work now, as Tony’s does… and he’ll have to release a whole new “how-to” to fabricate a device that plugs into the socket for everything else.
So, the timeline is:
a.) Make a universal socket that works with one device only (without modification.)
b.) Make a lexicon of ways to modify devices so that they will plug into the socket.
c.) Deliberately then change the socket so that neither the modified devices, or ones specifically produced to work, will work anymore.
While I’m sure that if Tony said it wasn’t worth his while to build a new plug-n-play device not only for each locomotive produced, but each RUN of each locomotive produced, that there would be a universal outcry that he was driven only by a hatred of progress, and a personal vendetta, how long will Aristo, QSI, Lenz, and friends be willing to re-invent the wheel every time Stan changes something?
Or, was that the point in the first place? I suppose at that point he could claime he’d “tried” and since no one wanted to play, he was just going to develop his own complete system. But that doesn’t make any sense either, particularly since I’ve heard him say several times he’s not furthering any particular interest, but is working for “The Good Of The Hobby.” (dramatic chord.)
I’m confused. Someone help me!
Matthew (OV)
PS. While you’re helping me understand, see if you can help me clear this one up: If Stan’s program goes ahead unfettered by uncomplimentary magazine reviews, and unchallenged by vocal technical experts, since no other manufacturer seems to be “playing ball” (Aristo? USA? Hartland? LGB/Marklin? Piko? Someone else?) isn’t the best anyone can hope for is a new Bachmann, that, like MTH is incompatible with anything else in the world without major headache and dramatic surgery? I know there are a lot of MTH trains out there, but between the control and the scale, it’s pretty much it’s own circle, and a lot of “mainstream” large scale forgets even to list them when talking about large scale trains. Is that the direction that Bachmann now intends to go? Why would they do that, if so?
Matthew (OV) said:*REALLY* ?? I must have missed this. Amazing...
3.) Stan has told Tony that they intend to change the socket so that his device will no longer function on the next run. That means the QSI won't work anymore either since it DOES work now, as Tony's does.... and he'll have to release a whole new "how-to" to fabricate a device that plugs into the socket for everything else.
Read Tony’s post in this thread, and his quote from an e-mail from Stanley.
Hi Matthew.
Quote:
. 3.) Stan has told Tony that they intend to change the socket so that his device will no longer function on the next run. That means the QSI won’t work anymore either since it DOES work now, as Tony’s does… and he’ll have to release a whole new “how-to” to fabricate a device that plugs into the socket for everything else.
Stanley never actually said they would definitely change anything. What he wrote I quoted above. As is usual with Stanley his comments are ambiguous and can be taken to mean all sorts of things. That is how users of weasel words operate. They cover their backside by saying what they said has been “misread” and isn’t what they meant. EG: This “poster” sums it up perfectly.
(http://www.rcs-rc.com/pics/Miscellaneous/obfuscation.jpg)
Now I have received this from Stanley in reference to that quote above:
Quote:
One email I got indicated that somehow there has been some confusion by a poorly written email I sent you. Somehow there is a rumor around that I am trying to change the socket specification in some way make it impossible for the RCS product to work. I have no idea where that one came from but it is absolutely totally false.
For a change that seems to be totally unambiguous. Dontcha just love the “poorly written” bit?
TonyWalsham said:
.....................................For a change that seems to be totally unambiguous.
Dontcha just love the “poorly written” bit?
You know how it is, we all have bad days. Some people just more often than others.
BTW what some of them hate most:
Direct verbatim quotes
A distinct paper trail
People with very good and long memories
But it happens everywhere, including the infamous, oft quoted “constructive criticism” requirement.
BTW nothing wrong with weasels, at least not the four legged variety.
PS A friend had me listen to the QSI analogue features of the K27 (over the phone), I was impressed.
I can’t decide which one is more appropriate…
Well, while we’re doing it, I rather like this one:
(http://www.lscdata.com/users/slatecreek/poster70776967.jpg)
Matthew (OV)
So here are the two quotes together:
“One email I got indicated that somehow there has been some confusion by a poorly written email I sent you.
Somehow there is a rumor around that I am trying to change the socket specification in some way make it impossible for the RCS product to work.
I have no idea where that one came from but it is absolutely totally false.”
“The reason is simple. If they have a sample then it is more probable that any new locomotive that has the socket will also work with your board.
We both know that if they do not have a sample then one way or another the board will not fit. One never knows why in advance but I am sure they will find a way.”
The fault may be mine. When I read “If they have a sample then it is more probable that any new locomotive that has the socket will also work with your board” and "one way or another the board will not fit " I interpreted it to mean that (since the socket in THIS locomotive works with the board) if it didn’t work with a NEW locomotive that they must have changed the board, My mistake. Perhaps he instead meant that the device is so large that unless new locomotives are at least as large as the K-27 that the socket might not fit inside with the RCS unit plugged into it.
I am glad that he’s now on record as saying that he has no plans to make any changes to the socket that will make it so the RCS plugin will not work. That may present some distress to users of anything else, because with the possible exception of the QSI, that means it still won’t have anything that will plug into it unless someone follows in RCS footsteps and makes something specifically designed for that purpose.
Of course I may have misread that one too. He may have meant that while he’s not making any such plans that someone else is. Or that he’s merely serving in an advisory capacity to the people who are planning to make such changes. I really cannot tell from what’s written what he means. Perhaps he should fire his writer.
I’m no longer certain of anything… except that something sure stinks.
Matthew (OV)
Matthew.
I don’t think for one minute you are at fault.
Now you know why I said what I said and gave the example of “obfuscation”.
Hans.
Quote:
. BTW what some of them hate most:
Direct verbatim quotes
A distinct paper trail
People with very good and long memories
