@turkey_hollow_rr posted:EDIT: my apologies if I've confused Legacy and TMCC. MTH can only talk TMCC to Legacy base.
That's not accurate. The DCS App can send Legacy specific commands to Legacy locomotives through a SER2 connected to a BASE2 or BASE3. Not all Legacy commands are available, but most are.
MTH had to purchase a license from Lionel to gain this functionality with the DCS APP.
@H1000 posted:That's not accurate. The DCS App can send Legacy specific commands to Legacy locomotives through a SER2 connected to a BASE2 or BASE3. Not all Legacy commands are available, but most are.
MTH had to purchase a license from Lionel to gain this functionality with the DCS APP.
Thank you for that correction. I have no knowledge of the app, my reference is the remote and TIU.
"Lets not forget that this is "Mikes" ( a train guy)s control system. Legacy is owned by investors who have no interest in the products they sell outside of the profit in their portfolio.
Mike makes trains, Guggenheim makes money."
As far as I know this is incorrect and unfair. Legacy was developed by Neil Young, Lou Kovach and Jon Z, amongst others. These guys have their own layouts in most cases. To my knowledge, no one has ever reported Mike Wolf having a layout in his own home 
.
Amongst the current key players, Ryan K and Dave O are clearly train guys. Ryan is particularly knowlegeable about prototype, as you will have seen a huge library of train books in his office. To my knowledge, there is no equivalent amongst the current various MTH principals, although I'm not certain.
The inability of Legacy to control DCS/PS2-PS3 locos in command mode is a legal obstacle, not a technical obstacle. Prior to licensing DCS to Atlas, MTH had refused to license it to anyone else, and indeed had threatened legal action to anyone who wanted to develop emulation software/hardware. Maybe things have changed.
@RickO posted:Lets not forget that this is "Mikes" ( a train guy)s control system. Legacy is owned by investors who have no interest in the products they sell outside of the profit in their portfolio.
Mike makes trains, Guggenheim makes money.
LoL, I hope MTH DCS makes money as well!! Companies don't last long on pipe dreams and well wishes. In fairness, though Lionel has some great train folks working there. Just like I am sure , MTH Trains, MTH DCS and MTH parts has great train guys and gals as part of their team.
@Landsteiner posted:MTH had refused to license it to anyone else,
MTH Licensed DCS to Dave Hikel a number of years ago when the development of the DCS app first began. I think he may even had it before that as Dave developed some custom interface equipment & software to DCS.
@Landsteiner posted:As far as I know this is incorrect and unfair. Legacy was developed by Neil Young, Lou Kovach and Jon Z, amongst others. These guys have their own layouts in most cases. To my knowledge, no one has ever reported Mike Wolf having a layout in his own home
LOL, Neil Young Lou Kovac, and JonZ have as much involvement in 2021Lionel as JLC does.
But o.k.. You win. I don't want to muddy up this Mth R&D thread. Have a great weekend!
@Landsteiner posted:Amongst the current key players, Ryan K and Dave O are clearly train guys. Ryan is particularly knowlegeable about prototype, as you will have seen a huge library of train books in his office. To my knowledge, there is no equivalent amongst the current various MTH principals, although I'm not certain.
I've been to MTH's former HQ a few years ago, and saw his office (as well as the 'executive washroom' 
). While he did not have a library in his office space, a large collection of train books was in the room behind his, where most of the staff worked during the company's heyday. Many of these no doubt showed up in the warehouse auctions, as there were a lot of books put up for sale in them.
---PCJ
@turkey_hollow_rr posted:And this gets back to software. TMCC commands are open to the public. MTH was able to write software to issue TMCC commands to a Legacy base and have it transmit commands to Lionel engines.
Wrong. The "TMCC commands" are not "open to the public". The control interface to the command base is. That's all, and it doesn't support Legacy.
@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:Indeed. Not too long after introducing TMCC Lionel elected to open its communication protocol and a specific hardware connection for use by anyone, using any hardware and/or software, to control TMCC, and later Legacy using TMCC, locomotives. There are few restrictions, if any.
This is 100% patently false. The TMCC communications protocol is NOT open to the public. The connection/interface to the command-base however is. You can write software and/or make hardware that comms with the base to your hearts desire, but you STILL need a TMCC or Legacy base to communicate with the Locomotives and TMCC accessories.
MTH, on the other hand, has not done the same for DCS. The DCS protocol and hardware interface is considered proprietary, and so a formal license to use it must be negotiated with MTH before any party that wants to create or market a product to control MTH locomotives can do so.
Not requiring a license, MTH was free to add TMCC/Legacy support to it's control system.
While MTH did use the open TMCC base serial communications to communicate with the base, the Legacy system is IN NO WAY open and had to pay for a license to make it work. It requires (in addition to a Legacy command base) the SER2 interface and PDI power cable.
@Madockawando posted:Ah, so that changes things bit. On one hand Lionel would have to do the engineering work in order to enable its CAB-3 to run SCS locomotives, BUT, while TMCC commands are open to the public, DCS commands are not, so if Lionel wanted to do the engineering work to run DCS with the CAB-3, MTH will not allow it for proprietary reasons.
It wouldn't matter if MTH made a command interface similar to the TMCC base serial port and opened it to the public. DCS is a two way protocol and Legacy isn't capable of that.
@Madockawando posted:DCS will continue, virtually unchanged, for a while. Not because the hobby needs it but rather because some are emotionally invested in it to let it go. But my point it is that the release of of the CAB3 by Lionel may cause Atlas to reconsider how the Command and Control landscape has change and how they may have to change with it.
They might if they were allowed to use Legacy level technology, but Lionel has not licensed that, thus Atlas is using TMCC level. Lionel never licensed legacy technology, if they did then this statement would have some truth to it. PS 3.0 is more modern than TMCC, for sure, and Atlas has the ability to use that. If they want the most recent technology, they would switch totally to PS 3.0 *shrug*. I don't have a dog in this fight, I am not a Lionel fan boy or an MTH one, just pointing out the reality of what Atlas has available.
@Landsteiner posted:The inability of Legacy to control DCS/PS2-PS3 locos in command mode is a legal obstacle, not a technical obstacle. Prior to licensing DCS to Atlas, MTH had refused to license it to anyone else, and indeed had threatened legal action to anyone who wanted to develop emulation software/hardware. Maybe things have changed.
I will not even address the parts of your post that are conjecture and potentially libelous in the company of model train enthusiasts.
That said, the inability is not merely legal. It is also technical and financial. Technically DCS is a TWO WAY communications protocol. Which is why MU consists and other positive ack commands work so well on it. Legacy is a one way protocol. It would likely take a lot of engineering on the part of Lionel to update their CAB-2 software (for a remote that is discontinued) to even deal with this, or potentially a separate module to communicate with the TIU properly. Also for Lionel, what is the financial benefit? Zero. If they would add this functionality, they would just have opened the door for all of their "Lionel Only" fans to start spending money elsewhere on engines. For MTH, what financial benefit could MTH receive from investing in creating a way to even control the TIU externally?
Lionel chose to open their system with the ability to control it via the serial port. This option, no matter what, still requires purchasing their command base. They also REVERSED that decision when they released Legacy, requiring MTH (or anyone else) that wanted to play in their sandbox to pay for a license.
@bigkid posted:They might if they were allowed to use Legacy level technology, but Lionel has not licensed that, thus Atlas is using TMCC level. Lionel never licensed legacy technology, if they did then this statement would have some truth to it. PS 3.0 is more modern than TMCC, for sure, and Atlas has the ability to use that. If they want the most recent technology, they would switch totally to PS 3.0 *shrug*. I don't have a dog in this fight, I am not a Lionel fan boy or an MTH one, just pointing out the reality of what Atlas has available.
Lionel (to my knowledge) never licensed the use of Legacy in for use in another manufacturer's locomotives. They did however license a subset of the interface communications to MTH, which allowed MTH to add Legacy functionally to their WiFi smartphone/tablet app which is enabled through the purchase of a Lionel Legacy command base, a Lionel SER2 device, and a Lionel LCS PDI power cable.
@rplst8 posted:Wrong. The "TMCC commands" are not "open to the public". The control interface to the command base is. That's all, and it doesn't support Legacy.
I could write code using this. But like it says, retired.
I agree that MTH probably did pay a fee to develop a commercial product so for them it was available but for a fee. Still, you and I can write our own software with Lionel's blessing.
"Using this document and an SER2 module, anyone can write code and send both TMCC and LEGACY commands to their train layout. "
My point was we can't do that with DCS since it is license only, and probably steep enough we can't afford it.
Amazing how long this has gone on.
@turkey_hollow_rr posted:I could write code using this. But like it says, retired.
I agree that MTH probably did pay a fee to develop a commercial product so for them it was available but for a fee. Still, you and I can write our own software with Lionel's blessing.
"Using this document and an SER2 module, anyone can write code and send both TMCC and LEGACY commands to their train layout. "
My point was we can't do that with DCS since it is license only, and probably steep enough we can't afford it.
Anyone can write code and interact with the Lionel BASE unit as they please, but as soon as you develop a product to bring to market, you will be paying Lionel a big fee or royalties.
The MTH DCS code has been reverse engineered by someone on the forum. He has created and release software that will operate DCS engines using a TIU. No legal action has been brought against him because he is not selling anything and not making any money from MTH's proprietary work. It's all free and available for anyone to download and use as long as you buy the needed off the shelf hardware that you need to build & program yourself.
@rplst8 posted:Lumping DCC in with DCS and TMCC is a fools errand. DCC is an open system. External parties can bring their stuff to the party and nicely with others. Bluetooth and WiFi, should be this way, but are only over the short term because of evolving standards and security issues.
The app stores are a whole other ball of wax. They are a closed system that Lionel and MTH don't control.
Bluetooth and Wifi are constantly evolving standards, that is true, but the thing is that for example WiFi 6 maintains backwards support for all the prior wifi standards, like n, ac, etc . Bluetooth does the same thing, it extends but if you have a bluetooth device connecting to one with a more modern version of bluetooth, it should work and usually does.
Yes, you can have problems with Apps and IOS/Android OS upgrades. While like any OS they try and maintain backwards capability to allow older apps to work, there will come a time when an older app may fail. The other issue is there as well, there does come a time when an older device won't be able to run a new version of the app because it has an older ops system and can't upgrade. I realize some people keep old hardware and such and are happy with it, but you also can't expect it to run newer applications forever, it is the nature of how things move on. So someday, yes, you might have to buy a new Ipad or Iphone or android device, expecting something from 10 years ago to run something from today is kind of ridiculous IMO.
So a couple of points:
1)If we get to the point that the Lionel or MTH apps no longer work with the latest generation of OS's, then basically that means they have stopped supporting the product, which would be big problem because most people end up updating their iphones and ipad and android systems, either the OS or to a new device. Hopefully if they ever did get to that point, they might make it open source so others can update it to work or add new features, otherwise it will basically end up a brick.
I doubt this, for a lot of reasons, it seems like if and when the app no longer works, they will issue updates.
2)You have the same problem with proprietary systems using controllers, you are even more at their mercy with that. Sure, your 1997 TMCC command base and controller might work great, but for example, you are limited only to the TMCC command set. If the controller breaks, good luck trying to fix it....the key thing here being you lost support for what you have, and if it has a problem, like an App if you upgrade your os, it means you can be out of luck.
The nice part about the software approach is that it is relatively easy to fix an app to run under a new OS , it is a lot cheaper and easier than maintaining a physical remote, that if a part is defective they have to recall the unit and fix it, if it is a manufacturing process issue, even a bigger headache. Also very costly, something like keeping their app compatible with newer os's can be farmed out pretty easily (new features they may want to keep in house). And if let's say MTH or lionel ever 'goes out', they likely would release the technology to the public domain or sell it to someone who will maintain it IMO.
@H1000 posted:Anyone can write code and interact with the Lionel BASE unit as they please, but as soon as you develop a product to bring to market, you will be paying Lionel a big fee or royalties.
The MTH DCS code has been reverse engineered by someone on the forum. He has created and release software that will operate DCS engines using a TIU. No legal action has even been brought against him because he is not selling anything and not making any money from MTH proprietary work. It's all free and available for anyone to download and use as long as you buy the needed off the shelf hardware that you need to build & program yourself.
Well, I think they've managed a few commands. I applaud their fortitude but personally I'm not looking for that kind of a project. I believe I mentioned developing a commercial product would probably require a license fee.
@bigkid posted:Bluetooth does the same thing, it extends but if you have a bluetooth device connecting to one with a more modern version of bluetooth, it should work and usually does.
Bluetooth 1.0 thru 2.0 devices are rapidly falling out of support with newer devices that have Bluetooth 5.0 hardware and protocol stacks installed. My trusty old Bluetooth 2.1 Headset worked just fine with my old Android phone that had Bluetooth 4 but has frequent connection problems and very unreliable with any phone that has Bluetooth 5.
On another note, the current Lionchief app (at least for android) has serious problems with older phones that do not support Bluetooth 5. The app store claims it works on phones with Android versions as old as 4.4 but none of those phones have Bluetooth 5 support and the app crashes when trying to detect an engine.
@turkey_hollow_rr posted:Well, I think they've managed a few commands. I applaud their fortitude but personally I'm not looking for that kind of a project. I believe I mentioned developing a commercial product would probably require a license fee.
If you are referring to the DCS control project, he has managed much more than just a few commands, you can pretty much run the whole system, modify sound files to your liking and customize the on-screen controls: http://www.silogic.com/trains/RTC_Running.html
Lionel is more than welcome to develop a commercial product to run DCS engines and pay licensing fees to do so but will they?
@gunrunnerjohn posted:No offense, but the consequences of a screwup in development in the toll industry is a traffic jam. The consequences of a screwup in my working career in avionics developing flight critical electronics is being featured in a headline about an airplane crash where a couple hundred people died!
Not to mention that every software project has different criteria around it, or any kind of critical project. When the Challenger disaster happened, they talked to range safety officers and they mentioned that the fail rate on unmanned shots was like 5%, and on manned it was about 1. There are different standards when it comes to critical and relatively non critical systems, and GRJ is right. My dad worked for Bendix, they did work with Avionics with McDonnell Douglas and others, and the standards were much higher than for normal software development, always has been, it was a lot more rigorous. I also will add that software development itself has changed a lot, the languages being used, the tools available, especially robust test suites and the procedures for building and testing are light years from back then...and even then, the number of catastrophic failures you mention were very small; they make big headlines.
The big problem often isn't reliance on software, it is bad management, the 737Max is the classic example, they rushed the project through, they had to redo the software involved because of a radical change to flight characteristics, it was tested, and both software engineers and test pilots flagged a major problem, that was basically ignored, and one feature that should have been a basic safety inclusion with the plane, was sold as an expensive add in by marketing geniuses.
Has technology made us vulnerable? It always does, if we have a burst of EMF we are all screwed. When we switched to cars we were dependent on gasoline being available, when we switched to electricity more and more of our daily lives are based on it, lose it, and it isn't pleasant.
"I will not even address the parts of your post that are conjecture and potentially libelous in the company of model train enthusiasts."
You've been on the forum since 2018 according to your profile. The events I'm referring to go back 20 years . And are in no way libelous in the least. Just statements of events discussed widely in the hobby. Perhaps these individuals were making it up, but I recall people posting letters from MTH's lawyers telling them clearly not to consider interfering with their intellectual property. Perhaps these letters were phoney, but given the litigious state of the hobby in the late 1990s and early 2000s, these reports seem credible as evidence that MTH did not, in the early 2000s at least, want anyone messing with their DCS system, with or without licensing.
"That said, the inability is not merely legal. It is also technical and financial. "
There is no technical obstacle, because no one is suggesting making their own TIU, but simply mapping Legacy/TMCC/etc. commands to TIU inputs, which has been demonstrated as feasible by various people, at least according to them. The obstacle is also not wanting to spend millions on another lawsuit, so it is financial in that sense.
Personally, it's not a big deal. If you look at the Lionel catalog and the Atlas catalog, one definitely has the impression that they own or are leasing more MTH tooling than MTH is using. If MTH R&D or whatever they are going to call the DCS company doesn't want to allow anyone (Lionel included) to build a Legacy handheld or cab3 app to issue commands to the DCS WTIU, I doubt anyone is going to go to the mattresses with them about it. It's clearly legal to do that, but who wants to spend time and money in potential court battles? Been there, done that, Lionel has the T-shirt .
Allowing third parties to develop remotes, apps, etc. to talk to the WTIU will likely increase MTH and Atlas PS3 loco sales, not decrease them. So by not allowing this all along, they likely have hurt no one but themselves, in my view. This refusal to license DCS initially has discouraged individuals like myself (who were invested in TMCC beginning in 1994-96) buying any significant number of PS2/3 locos and DCS when it hit the market in 2000-2002 for simple reasons of convenience. In case you are interested, Mike Wolf was publicly negative about command control when TMCC was initially marketed and said there was no need for MTH to develop such capabilities. He soon changed his mind, which is a sign of adaptability and to his credit. But in my opinion, they should open up access to the DCS system with minimal charge. It will help their and Atlas's sales of PS3 locos and, of course, any TIU related products they make going forward. Not exactly rocket science.
@H1000 posted:If you are referring to the DCS control project, he has managed much more than just a few commands, you can pretty much run the whole system, modify sound files to your liking and customize the on-screen controls: http://www.silogic.com/trains/RTC_Running.html
Lionel is more than welcome to develop a commercial product to run DCS engines and pay licensing fees to do so but will they?
Can you say with certainty that MTH DCS would be happy to license DCS? I am asking because the one person who could have answered many questions about this @MTH RD has gone AWOL from the discussion. So to be clear, someone at MTH DCS told you that they would be willing to license DCS to Lionel?
@Landsteiner posted:"I will not even address the parts of your post that are conjecture and potentially libelous in the company of model train enthusiasts."
Good thing since you've been on the forum since 2018 according to your profile. The events I'm referring to go back 20 years
That said, the inability is not merely legal. It is also technical and financial. "
There is no technical obstacle, because no one is suggesting making their own TIU, but simply mapping Legacy/TMCC/etc. commands to TIU inputs, which has been demonstrated as feasible by various people, at least according to them. The obstacle is not wanting to spend millions on another lawsuit, so it is financial in that sense. Personally, it's not a big deal. If you look at the Lionel catalog and the Atlas catalog, one definitely has the impression that they own or are leasing more MTH tooling than MTH has left. If MTH R&D or whatever they are going to call the DCS company doesn't want to allow anyone (Lionel included) to allow a Legacy handheld or cab3 app to issue commands to the WTIU, I doubt anyone is going to go to the mattresses with them about it. It's clearly legal to do that, but who wants to spend time and money in potential court battles? Been there, done that, everyone has the T-shirt
Frankly, allowing third parties to develop remotes, apps, etc. to talk to the WTIU will increase MTH loco sales, not decrease them. So by not allowing this all along, they have hurt no one but themselves, in my view. It has stopped individuals like myself who were heavily invested in TMCC in 2002 when DCS hit the market from buying any significant number of PS2/3 locos for simple reasons of convenience.
I agree. It has shown time and time again in software that "Frankly, allowing third parties to develop remotes, apps, etc. to talk to the WTIU will increase MTH loco sales, not decrease them."
@Madockawando posted:Can you say with certainty that MTH DCS would be happy to license DCS? I am asking because the one person who could have answered many questions about this @MTH RD has gone AWOL from the discussion. So to be clear, someone at MTH DCS told you that they would be willing to license DCS to Lionel?
They already have licensed it to other parties, like Dave Hikel & Atlas.
Why wouldn't MTH be willing to sell Lionel a license?? as you said earlier "MTH would win because they would sell more locomotives to people like me and DCS would likely come into wider use."
I don't see how it benefits Lionel much, They have to develop updated software for their remotes and apps, probable release a new LCS hardware module to handshake with the TIU and pay MTH a licensing fee just so that their customers can buy someone else's product.
@H1000 posted:Lionel is more than welcome to develop a commercial product to run DCS engines and pay licensing fees to do so but will they?
I don't see why they would at this point. MTH coming in as the unknown needed to be able to sell it as a bit more than just another proprietary system in an attempt to create market share. Lionel doesn't need to care about controlling MTH engines.
Anyway, I don't now any more that anyone else and I don't like mixing hobbies and business. I'm glad we have the choices we have to have some fun.
All of this kind of reminds me of the candy wars on the history channel. Hershey was selling chocolate to Mars and after a few years turned onto Hershey's biggest competitor.
@H1000 posted:They already have licensed it to other parties, like Dave Hikel & Atlas.
Why wouldn't MTH be willing to sell Lionel a license?? as you said earlier "MTH would win because they would sell more locomotives to people like me and DCS would likely come into wider use."
So you really don’t know for sure but are making an educated guess. But I do agree that licensing DCS to Lionel would be a win for everyone, to include MTH DCS. But are they willing to license DCS to Lionel so that the CAB-3 could control DCS? We need to hear from MTH DCS company to know for sure.
@Madockawando posted:So you really don’t know for sure but are making an educated guess. But I do agree that licensing DCS to Lionel would be a win for everyone, to include MTH DCS. But are they willing to license DCS to Lionel so that the CAB-3 could control DCS? We need to hear from MTH DCS company to know for sure.
When these deals get made, the public is the last to know and much is hidden in NDA's that prevent prospective licensees and current licensees from discussing the details. Last year our firm wanted to get a license to use a popular auto steering system found in the automotive industry, unfortunately that's about all I can disclose because we had to sign NDA before negotiations even began and I can't even confirm or deny that we were granted a license from REDACTED.
MTH doesn't have to tell us anything. Why can't Lionel confirm or deny that they attempted to acquire a license from MTH and were denied?
@H1000 posted:When these deals get made, the public is the last to know and much is hidden in NDA's that prevent prospective licensees and current licensees from discussing the details. Last year our firm wanted to get a license to use a popular auto steering system found in the automotive industry, unfortunately that's about all I can disclose because we had to sign NDA before negations even began and I can't even confirm or deny that we were granted a license from REDACTED.
MTH doesn't have to tell us anything. Why can't Lionel confirm or deny that they attempted to acquire a license from MTH and were denied?
You right that "MTH doesn't have to tell us anything" But given the level of interest this question has generated why wouldn't they just tell us? As for Lionel, I am going to the Big E train show next week so I will ask Ryan if I get a chance. I will post what Lionel has to say about it. However, wouldn't MTH want to get their story out first?
@Madockawando posted:You right that "MTH doesn't have to tell us anything" But given the level of interest this question has generated why wouldn't they just tell us? As for Lionel, I am going to the Big E train show next week so I will ask Ryan if I get a chance. I will post what Lionel has to say about it. However, wouldn't MTH want to get their story out first?
Please stop trolling. Really just stop!
@Madockawando posted:You right that "MTH doesn't have to tell us anything" But given the level of interest this question has generated why wouldn't they just tell us? As for Lionel, I am going to the Big E train show next week so I will ask Ryan if I get a chance. I will post what Lionel has to say about it. However, wouldn't MTH want to get their story out first?
IDK, Maybe a NDA was signed that prevents either party from talking about it regardless of the outcome?
@MichRR714 posted:Please stop trolling. Really just stop!
Sigh... I'm not trolling. I asked a simple question and I was invited to this conversation.
@Madockawando posted:You right that "MTH doesn't have to tell us anything" But given the level of interest this question has generated why wouldn't they just tell us? As for Lionel, I am going to the Big E train show next week so I will ask Ryan if I get a chance. I will post what Lionel has to say about it. However, wouldn't MTH want to get their story out first?
Be sure to also ask Ryan is there anyway to develop the technology so that I will be able to operate Lionel engines with a DCS tiu without having to buy a lionel CAB1/2/3 base. If there is an obstacle to this is it technical? Or is it a proprietary issue in that neither Lionel nor MTH will not allow this capability? I would be far more open to purchasing an Lionel locomotive if I could run it with the DCS TIU without the CAB-1/2/3 base right out of the box.
For everyone else reading this. This is sincere question. I'm not trying to play stump the chump or start an emotional argument.
Definitely report back to us what he says. Thanks!
You forgot the eye wink face... 
"I would be far more open to purchasing an Lionel locomotive if I could run it with the DCS TIU without the CAB-1/2/3 base right out of the box."
Ain't happening is my educated guess. What possible motivation would Lionel have for doing this? Not to mention the cost to MTH of developing the hardware and software to enable the TIU or WTIU to talk directly to TMCC/Legacy locos. I suspect MTH could make it so that future generations of TIUs could talk to Bluetooth Lionel locos, since that is a non-Lionel protocol.
Lionel appears to be perfectly happy to allow the MTH TIU to talk to the command base for TMCC/Legacy locos. Contrarily, that's what MTH has not allowed for the 20 years of existence of DCS. I cannot buy a device that allows my command base for TMCC to talk to a TIU because MTH wanted it that way, presumably. Unless they change their mind .
@Madockawando posted:Sigh... I'm not trolling. I asked a simple question and I was invited to this conversation.
You were invited thats funny I went back through all the posts and never once saw @Madockawando please come join us so you can tell us how great lionel is and how it all mth's fault you cannot run there engines with the Cab3. Just saying!!!!
OP again... here's what I've learned asking about MTH R&D in Michigan:
@Tim B posted:OP again... here's what I've learned asking about MTH R&D in Michigan:
- They live!
- App updates on the way
- Interesting product pipeline
- We can't have nice things immediately: Re-organization, staffing, Covid and supply chain melt-down
- Any simple question leads to a thousand other (sometimes unrelated) answers and more questions
- DCS app will be able to control some Legacy features (I did not know that)
- Pretty sure everybody want a universal remote controller of everything, and all the good/bad that goes with that
- We're all going to miss Midge in MTH parts - she hasn't been mentioned on this thread yet, but nearly everything else has, so I'll give her a shout out
DCS already does control most Legacy features provided you have a Legacy Base and the TIU connect via the SER2 module. Works great!
@H1000 posted:They already have licensed it to other parties, like Dave Hikel & Atlas.
Why wouldn't MTH be willing to sell Lionel a license?? as you said earlier "MTH would win because they would sell more locomotives to people like me and DCS would likely come into wider use."
I don't see how it benefits Lionel much, They have to develop updated software for their remotes and apps, probable release a new LCS hardware module to handshake with the TIU and pay MTH a licensing fee just so that their customers can buy someone else's product.
And to add, if Lionel wanted to control most, and all future MTH and Atlas engines, they could just implement DCC in their LCS system somewhere, and update the app. You don't even need DCS to operate MTH DCS PS 3.0 locos! Every PS 3.0 locomotive made supports DCC out of the box. DCC is an open standard!
@H1000 posted:You forgot the eye wink face...
LOL! I didn't want anyone to ever get the impression that my copy and paste was nothing more than a deeply sincere question, so I dropped Mr. Winkie. Now its unquestionably sincere.
@Strap Hanger posted:LOL! I didn't want anyone to ever get the impression that my copy and paste was nothing more than a deeply sincere question, so I dropped Mr. Winkie. Now its unquestionably sincere.
I about spit the coffee I was drinking half way across the room when I read this! You can say just about anything you want as long as Mr. Winkie or Mr. Smiley emojis are somewhere in your post!
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
