Large Scale Central

Proprietary systems are better than everything else including DC

General Discussion
#21
TonyWalsham said:
Stanley.

The facts are, the BELTROL R/C system can operate a DCC compliant QSI sound decoder. Therefore the BELTROL R/C is compatible with said QSI sound decoder. I am quite within my rights to say it is compatible even though I KNOW that term can be misleading to the newcomers.
I did not say it was COMPLIANT with DCC. That would be simply untrue.

It is the use of misleading information by others to promote their “agendas” that I am trying to illustrate.


Illustration is fine but lets get the facts straight.

  1. The QSI sound decoder is not DCC compliant. QSI only claims compatible. It is close to being compliant but to be compliant you need to pass the complete tests and not a subset of the tests. Hopefully their next chip will allow them to be fully compliant.

  2. QSI supports multiple protocols. One is indeed DCC. A second is the Quantum DC reversal protocol.

  3. It is the Quantum DC reversal protocol you are using. If indeed you are using the complete protocol and can control the full features then indeed you are within your rights to say you are fully compatible with the QSI sound decoder. If you are only using a subset of this QSI unique protocol then saying you are compatible is just as misleading as some of Lewis’s recent statements.

Indeed you are also correct that saying that your system can control some of the with features of the QSI DCC sound decoder. Implying in any way that you are doing anything related to DCC would be deceptive and I am glad read that you agree.

Lewis has indeed said some rather stupid things of late. I suspect he does not realize just how silly some of his statements are. Myself I think the Revolution is a good system and after his engineers make a few generations of improvements it likely will be a great system.

DCC is a set of specifications for a protocol. It is clearly possible to have hard to use systems that implement DCC and it is also just as clear that you can have easy to use systems that implement DCC. The user interface is not part of the DCC specification so any statement about how hard or easy it is to use DCC is a statement about a particular implementation and not a statement about DCC.

As another example you can have excellent motor control in a DCC decoder or terrible motor control in a DCC decoder. Motor control is not covered in the specification so any statement of DCC motor control is just as silly as a statement about how hard or easy it is to use DCC.

Unfortunately there are more then a few that confuse an implementation of DCC with the protocol specification. Lewis has unfortunately put his foot in his mouth by his misstatements about DCC. Hopefully more then Lewis can learn from this experience.

Stan Ames

#22

Break them devil horns out and get wild Tony! Start with kickin’ it in the hood and have a spot of Yukon Jack while you rest in the place America has dubbed the Great Outback. Is that freakin’ poetry?
I’m thinkin’ boobs,perky ones
:wink:

#23

Stan,

With all due respect:

a) a lot of people digest whatever Lewis Polk says with a dose of salt.

b) most of the average users are less interested in how the BELTROL system communes with the QSI sound decoder, just as long as they can call up all the functions that they desire or require.

c) quite a few of the average LS users will be happy that QSI in combination with BELTROL offers a solution to the void that Soundtraxx left in their wake.

BTW if someone disses DCC on account of its functionality … well … I would put that down to a different set of requirements or a lack of experience with DCC or any other of many factors in between. As long as my ZIMO system fills all my requirements from N to LS … why should I worry? :confused: :smiley:

#24
David Russell said:
Break them devil horns out and get wild Tony! Start with kickin' it in the hood and have a spot of Yukon Jack while you rest in the place America has dubbed the Great Outback. Is that freakin' poetry? I'm thinkin' boobs,,,,perky ones ;)
David, :P

You have a one track, broad gauge mind! That’s the only way you manage to fit those perky ones! :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :lol: (BTW may take careful reading! :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: )

#25
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Stan,

With all due respect:

a) a lot of people digest whatever Lewis Polk says with a dose of salt.

b) most of the average users are less interested in how the BELTROL system communes with the QSI sound decoder, just as long as they can call up all the functions that they desire or require.

c) quite a few of the average LS users will be happy that QSI in combination with BELTROL offers a solution to the void that Soundtraxx left in their wake.

BTW if someone disses DCC on account of its functionality … well … I would put that down to a different set of requirements or a lack of experience with DCC or any other of many factors in between. As long as my ZIMO system fills all my requirements from N to LS … why should I worry? :confused: :smiley:


I agree completely, well said

Stan

#26

Digest with a grain of salt Ha, more like throw up. Later RJD

#27
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
David Russell said:
Break them devil horns out and get wild Tony! Start with kickin' it in the hood and have a spot of Yukon Jack while you rest in the place America has dubbed the Great Outback. Is that freakin' poetry? I'm thinkin' boobs,,,,perky ones ;)
David, :P

You have a one track, broad gauge mind! That’s the only way you manage to fit those perky ones! :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :lol: (BTW may take careful reading! :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: )


Don’t really care about political venues personally…Will purchase what attracts me and if doesn’t I make my own as many have done before me…
Sorry H.J. I have a multi track ADHD mind, but currently still thinkin’ boobs and perky ones!
Look up Tannery’s in the US phone book then look them up in the Canadian Providences phone book. Measure comparisons…talk to me H.J…Ever called a bowling alley and asked the guy if he has 10# balls? If you get a women “Hang up” as it won’t work!

:wink:

#28

Stanley.
I stand corrected that QSI is not DCC Compliant.
You have describe QSI as being DCC compatible. Therefore, as my BELTROL is compatible with a DCC compatible decoder, then logically to the layman, and if I wanted to, I would be quite within my rights to describe the BELTROL as DCC compatible. Even though I know it does not use any actual compliant DCC protocols. Other than when DCC first came into being, the ability to run a DCC decoder on analogue was considered part of the DCC system.
That is an example of how others often twist words to suit their own agendas. Not something I ever do.

If you bother to read my very first post you will see that to cover myself I added, “It IS the truth. Just not all of the truth.”

#29
TonyWalsham said:
Stanley. I stand corrected that QSI is not DCC Compliant. You have describe QSI as being DCC compatible. Therefore, as my BELTROL is [b]compatible[/b] with a DCC [b]compatible[/b] decoder, then logically to the layman, and if I wanted to, I would be quite within my rights to describe the BELTROL as DCC compatible. Even though I know it does not use any actual compliant DCC protocols. Other than when DCC first came into being, the ability to run a DCC decoder on analogue was considered part of the DCC system. That is an example of how others often twist words to suit their own agendas. Not something I ever do.

If you bother to read my very first post you will see that to cover myself I added, “It IS the truth. Just not all of the truth.”


Tony should you ever “describe the BELTROL as DCC compatible” you would clearly be in just as much hot wated and just as guilty of spreading false information as some of the other statements that started this thread.

Why not stick to the facts. It causes a lot less confusion.

Stan Ames

#30
Stan Ames said:
Tony should you ever "describe the BELTROL as DCC compatible" you would clearly be in just as much hot wated and just as guilty of spreading false information as some of the other statements that started this thread.

Why not stick to the facts. It causes a lot less confusion.

Stan Ames


Stanley.

Nowhere in my review of the GP-40 + QSI I published at MLS, did I state that the BELTROL was compatible with DCC.

I do not need to be lectured by you, or anyone else for that matter, on what I may or may not say in my comments about my control systems, and I would especially thank you to not make any threats about me being in “hot wated” (sic).
I do know the difference between what is acceptable and what is the wrong thing to do.

Unlike you, I never deny the undeniable with weasel words to try and wriggle out of stuff ups with projects I am involved in.
If I stuff up, I cop it on the chin.
I don’t have an ego that needs massaging, or an agenda that needs supporting.

#31

sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-it.

"Why not stick to the facts. It causes a lot less confusion.

Stan Ames"

When did that ever stop you?

I am certainly glad that I saved that.
It MIGHT come in handy someday.

sonofabuckminsterfuller.

You produce that BS all by yourself, or does your “working group” help?

#32
Stan Ames said:
TonyWalsham said:
Stanley.

The facts are, the BELTROL R/C system can operate a DCC compliant QSI sound decoder. Therefore the BELTROL R/C is compatible with said QSI sound decoder. I am quite within my rights to say it is compatible even though I KNOW that term can be misleading to the newcomers.
I did not say it was COMPLIANT with DCC. That would be simply untrue.

It is the use of misleading information by others to promote their “agendas” that I am trying to illustrate.


Illustration is fine but lets get the facts straight.

  1. The QSI sound decoder is not DCC compliant. QSI only claims compatible. It is close to being compliant but to be compliant you need to pass the complete tests and not a subset of the tests. Hopefully their next chip will allow them to be fully compliant.

  2. QSI supports multiple protocols. One is indeed DCC. A second is the Quantum DC reversal protocol.

  3. It is the Quantum DC reversal protocol you are using. If indeed you are using the complete protocol and can control the full features then indeed you are within your rights to say you are fully compatible with the QSI sound decoder. If you are only using a subset of this QSI unique protocol then saying you are compatible is just as misleading as some of Lewis’s recent statements.

Indeed you are also correct that saying that your system can control some of the with features of the QSI DCC sound decoder. Implying in any way that you are doing anything related to DCC would be deceptive and I am glad read that you agree.

Lewis has indeed said some rather stupid things of late. I suspect he does not realize just how silly some of his statements are. Myself I think the Revolution is a good system and after his engineers make a few generations of improvements it likely will be a great system.

DCC is a set of specifications for a protocol. It is clearly possible to have hard to use systems that implement DCC and it is also just as clear that you can have easy to use systems that implement DCC. The user interface is not part of the DCC specification so any statement about how hard or easy it is to use DCC is a statement about a particular implementation and not a statement about DCC.

As another example you can have excellent motor control in a DCC decoder or terrible motor control in a DCC decoder. Motor control is not covered in the specification so any statement of DCC motor control is just as silly as a statement about how hard or easy it is to use DCC.

Unfortunately there are more then a few that confuse an implementation of DCC with the protocol specification. Lewis has unfortunately put his foot in his mouth by his misstatements about DCC. Hopefully more then Lewis can learn from this experience.

Stan Ames

#33

Compatible

Definitions of ‘compatible’
(kəm-păt́ə-bəl)
Dictionary.com · The American Heritage® Dictionary - (6 definitions)

[Middle English, from Medieval Latin compatībilis, from Late Latin compatī, to sympathize; see compassion.]
(adjective)

  1. Capable of existing or performing in harmonious, agreeable, or congenial combination with another or others: compatible family relationships.
  2. Capable of orderly, efficient integration and operation with other elements in a system with no modification or conversion required.
  3. Capable of forming a chemically or biochemically stable system.
  4. Of or relating to a television system in which color broadcasts can be received in black and white by sets incapable of color reception.
  5. Medicine Capable of being grafted, transfused, or transplanted from one individual to another without rejection: compatible blood.

(noun)

A device, such as a computer or computer software, that can be integrated into or used with another device or system of its type.

(derivatives)

com·pat́i·biĺi·ty
noun
com·pat́i·bly
adverb

Synonyms
accordant
agreeable
conformable
congenial
congruous
consistent
consonant
correspondent
corresponding
harmonious

Compliant

Definitions of ‘compliant’
(kəm-plī́ənt)
Dictionary.com · The American Heritage® Dictionary - (1 definition)
(adjective)

Disposed or willing to comply; submissive.

(derivatives)

com·plíant·ly
adverb

Synonyms
amenable
biddable
conformable
docile
obedient
submissive
supple
tractable

#34

received/found in an anonymous spam email titled “Webster” thought it pertained to this post?

Quote:
. . . So, compatible gets along well with others, and compliant is willing to be bossed around by others.

It all makes perfect sense now.
.
.
.

#35

I like that!!!

#36
Curmudgeon said:
sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-it.

"Why not stick to the facts. It causes a lot less confusion.

Stan Ames"

When did that ever stop you?

I am certainly glad that I saved that.
It MIGHT come in handy someday.

sonofabuckminsterfuller.

You produce that BS all by yourself, or does your “working group” help?

Please don’t confuse the issue with facts and logic, that has been Frustrating liberals since 1789.

#37

Let’s all go back to the start.

I think we should all chip in and get young Louie Polk, a new script editor, so that we wouldn’t need to go on for 3 pages or more, trying to figure out what, and why he says these things in the first place. Even just to correct his spelling mistakes…!!

#38

Dear Padre, after all this time you still haven’t worked out why he says what he says?

Or why he words it exactly the way he does.

Mr Polk has goods to sell and that requires publicity. Any publicity is better than none. Even controversy, which doesn’t matter if you have all those tame shills to defend you to the bitter end.

What is that old adage in show business? “Better they something about me, even if it isn’t nice, than they say nothing at all”.

#39

Good point, Tony…and everyone jumps in like a flock of sheep…including me…!!

He has won, hands down......!!!
#40

Me too. Jump in that is.

But then I am simply refusing to allow hyperbole and cant to become the dominant forms of communication in the commercial World of today.