Holy smokes, folks have been busy today on the LionChief front!
In the back and forth a lot has already been cleared up, but I figure I'll address everything I saw that I had something to say on. Credit to those above that may have said the same thing. I think some of this may be covered in posts before today, as well, but since it came up again, here goes:
As Landsteiner said, the primary fault with comparing the Remote Commander with the LionChief remote is that you can only run one engine. I like the work around with placing two receivers at opposite ends of the layout, but even that still only lets you run two. LionChief, on the other hand, lets you run as many engines as you like independently.
JC624 said “Like Legacy and DCS, They are all wireless infrared between the remote and their base units.” I think it worth pointing out that DCS does not use Infrared for anything but the Remote commander. Lionel Does use it, but only for the track sensor devices, and I thing that both companies use Infrared sensors for their trackside sensors. The remote commander, however is the only product that uses Infrared transmission as part of the data transmission in the control system it's self. Tmcc uses the 455KHz(just below AM radio) track signal to talk between engines and the base, and a 27MHz radio signal (just below A bit below FM radio, I think CB radios are right in this range.) to talk between the remote and the base. Legacy uses the same 455KHz track signal between base and engines/devices, and uses a 2.4GHz digital signal between the remote and base (Wifi, bluetooth, etc. radio band). The DCS system I've been unable to find the exact data on, though i've seen several varying figures posted. I've seen 900MHz reported, but do not know if this was the track signal or remote signal. (late 90's early 2000's cordless home phones) LionChief/Plus uses digital 2.4GHz communication directly from the remote to the engine with no base in the middle.
When it really comes down to it, Infrared is just as good, or better for sending massive amounts of information as the 2.4GHz radio, after all it is just another step in the electro-magnetic spectrum. 300Ghz-430THz. The issue is only that in that range between 2.4Ghz and 300Ghz, you've moved from what we call radio into what we call light. Low frequency radio such as the TMCC track signal is omnidirectional, and also cares little for obstructions. This is why AM radio is still very popular in mountainous areas, as it will travel further with the obstructions. With the low frequency you give up how much information you can send. The 2.4GHz band is right in the sweet spot for short distance radio. It is omnidirectional, and will travel through minor obstructions like house walls and floors. The low power versions in most consumer electronics have an effective range guaranteed to be at least 10 meters, but even low quality radios are usually good for 20-30 meters without obstructions. The high power versions start at 100 meter range. When we get up in frequency to the Infrared spectrum, we start to lose that omnidirectional transmission, and in the area of the spectrum that is used in IR remotes, the transmitter and receiver do not have to be perfectly aligned, but they do have to be pretty close. We also lose the ability to send signals through solid objects. In addition the IR LEDs used in consumer electronics are pretty dim. Effective, hassle free, range is about 3 meters. There are Higher power versions out there, but when folk want long distance, super high speed data transfers, they tend to move into Lasers, rather than Infrared LEDs. The other side of this is that some pretty smart folks figured out that you can use just the right types of plastics to make a beam of light follow the contours of the plastic to make cables that can transfer data at the speed of light. Fiber-optics is incredible if you want to send massive amounts of data at lightning speeds, but alas, it is “wired” and doesn't help us any in wireless communication.
Point of all this is, between 2.4Ghz radio and IR light, one isn't really better than the other as far as the technology, they both send digital data very well. Each has it's limitations, for the radio it is the speed of data transfer, for the IR it is Line of sight. Now when it comes to model trains, Requiring Line of sight is a drawback, and sending data at lightning speed is not needed at all. So I have to give the point here to the 2.4GHz team, as for model trains, 2.4GHz IS better.
Moving on, the Remote Commander IS command control, it does put the signal on the track and issue honest to goodness DCS commands. I don't have any problems with this product, for what it is, but I do find the downside to be the single engine control. Picking my brain at how the electronics would have to work for this device, I can't think of any reason that MTH could not offer multiple SKU numbers of the remoter commander set to operate say address 2, 3, 4 etc. This has the problem that you may as well just buy a full DCS system for the same cost as 4 such remotes. MTH could also have easily added 3 or 4 little buttons to switch between several engines. Both of these still have one big problem, there is no way to program the engine's ID. So, what you have is just being stuck with being able to offer a product that will only run the ID set at the factory, in order to make it work for folks. We are stuck with single engine operation with the Remote commander... but that one engine will run very nicely with great sounds and such.
JC642 Said “Unlike MTH, expensive LC+ engines are anchored to a limited function closed system. In the future, will it be be an albatross to others or an asset?”
My simple answer here, look at the video game market. Playstation and Xbox are built on being closed systems with ZERO ability to upgrade the system. Computers, for gamers, are built around the principal that the system will be constantly upgraded. In the world of video games it is clear to even the biggest fan boys that computers always offer a better product, but that the closed system of the game console is a better value for casual consumers, and reaches a much larger audience for the companies making games.
A little more on the subject I think Joe is really getting at, resale value. I do not know if these engines will hold their value. They already start out pretty darn inexpensive. On the other hand, I don't see any of the products in this market holding their value. As has been discussed so many times here on the forums, people generally return 40-60% on selling used engines. Often even less. When it comes to a starter set level locomotive, I think that anyone that even bothers considering resale value years later is a fool. Humm... I wonder what this MPC scout engine will be worth in 3o years... the answer? It will be worth about 2 pounds of extra weight in the bottom of a box. I actually expect LC starter set locomotives to hold much more value than their starter set counterparts form 30-40 years ago. With the Plus engines, I do think there will be a time when they hit a wall, as improved systems replace them. I expect the next generation of high end command control from Lionel to have native support for LC/+ engines, but even with out that, and even if a LionChief Plus Plus is introduced, there will always be a market for hundred dollar strong runners in the aftermarket.
When it comes down to the bottom line here, as I stated in my first reply in this thread, for a similarly priced locomotive, it will come down to personal preference. If there is no intention to use any of the command systems, I think LC offers more value. If you are going to run a lionel TMCC/Legacy system I still think the LC offers more value. If on the other hand, you are going to run a DCS system, I think the RailKing engine will offer more value. This is speaking as an adult user. If you want to put something in the hands of a child, I have no personal experience, but will take the word of others on the forum that the LC remote is perfect for this.
JGL
