From: greene@edisto.mro4.dec.com (Michael Greene)
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Re: Command Control Standard Status Update
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:11:33 GMT
Reply-To: greene@edisto.mro4.dec.com (Michael Greene)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Marlboro, MA


I too was one of the attendees at the presentations in Columbus. Here's
a few of my comments/observations:

1) I attended the:
	CTC 16000 clinic on Tues evening
	Marklin Digital all day clinic on Wednesday
	NMRA Command Control Standard Update on Thursday evening

2) Many thanks to Stan, Rutger, Tom Catherall (Marklin), Keith
	and the others who were involved in preparation of & delivery
	of the various clinics. It was no small undertaking to get
	all the demos, etc put together. And, in my view, it takes
	"educational" sessions like these (regardless of the bent to
	a particular manufacturer) to help attendees like myself
	develop a sense of the wide range of issues involved
	in defining such a standard. And it will take more clinics
	like these, plus magazine articles, videos, etc to build a
	comfort level.
	 
3) Poor scheduling (probably unavoidable) meant that if I wanted to hear
	the CTC 16000 clinic, I could not attend the NMRA Statndard update
	clinic before the Marklin Digital clinic. This was unfortunate,
	but thanks to Stan's posting of his paper before leaving for
	Columbus, I was able to read it before going to Columbus.

4) A standard in this space is clearly essential if we are to leverage
	the buying volume to drive prices down and have the interoperability
	we desire between various manufacturer's equipment.

5) We need to think about presenting command control in different
	scenarios - trying to cover the breadth of applications
	of command control from small personal layouts all the way 
	through large club layouts in a single session may make
	it diffcult for people to understand and see pros and cons.
	And it certainly makes discussions "entertaining" and confusing
	given that different people are looking from different 
	perspectives. Perhaps having different sessions and demonstrations 
	for each of these areas in the future would be helpful.

6) We need to investigate other media for widespread delivery of
	command control "educational" materials. For example
	perhaps a short video on the subject, some of the issues,
	and some demos. This might be a way to get more people up
	to speed. Or perhaps a small handbook called "Introduction
	to Command Control in Model Railroading" that would survey the
	field and help readers understand the subject.

7) On the technical side, I'm pleased to see the definition of a second
	packet format on the proposed list of goals for next year. While I 
	suspect the proposed packet format would meet requirements in the 
	short term, it left me with the feeling that it was destined to
	become the "compaibility mode" or "lowest common denominator"
	format. In my opinion it just doesn't allow enough room
	for expansion & creativity on the part of manufacturers and users.

As a N scale modeler, I was pleased by the significant amount of attention
given to the area of command control in Columbus. However I was disappointed
by the high prices of the products available in the US at this time for
use in N scale. And the incompatible products. But this can be fixed! 

Thanks Stan et. al. for your persistence in this area.
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad