| |
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=23517
I have designed a corridor that allows space for more minifigs to fit
through, and some corridor converters. The doubled width of the corridor
would work well in the high-traffic areas of the moonbase, and are still
easy to convert to the narrow pathway. Is this design acceptible for the
standards?
BTW, anyone want me to design a Moonbase logo? I am pretty good at drawing.
--
Markham Carroll
|
|
| |
my 2 cents,
keep this idea on ice for a while...
i think we should let the moonbase ideas
ride for about a year before we start messing
with them (we went through a lot of arguing
just to get TO them :-)
imho
-paul
In lugnet.space, Markham Carroll writes:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=23517
>
> I have designed a corridor that allows space for more minifigs to fit
> through, and some corridor converters. The doubled width of the corridor
> would work well in the high-traffic areas of the moonbase, and are still
> easy to convert to the narrow pathway. Is this design acceptible for the
> standards?
>
> BTW, anyone want me to design a Moonbase logo? I am pretty good at drawing.
>
> --
> Markham Carroll
|
|
| |
Actually, this seems like a pretty good idea to me; I'd been
struggling with the idea of an in-door mass-transit system &
this could solve one of the problems quite eligantly - the use
of 'shims' so that you can mate it with either standard or
'fat' corridors is excellent. Not sure it needs to become part
of the formal standard; I'd say use it for your own modules,
and bring along enough 'slim-shims' to make sure you don't
have any problems mating up with others - & bring along
some spare 'wide-shims', just in case anyone else (e.g. me)
has adopted the idea too ! Doesn't damage the current
standard, but adds another twist to the whole marvelous
madness we call 'moonbase' !
In lugnet.space, Markham Carroll writes:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=23517
>
> I have designed a corridor that allows space for more minifigs to fit
> through, and some corridor converters. The doubled width of the corridor
> would work well in the high-traffic areas of the moonbase, and are still
> easy to convert to the narrow pathway. Is this design acceptible for the
> standards?
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Markham Carroll writes:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=23517
>
> I have designed a corridor that allows space for more minifigs to fit
> through, and some corridor converters. The doubled width of the corridor
> would work well in the high-traffic areas of the moonbase, and are still
> easy to convert to the narrow pathway. Is this design acceptible for the
> standards?
>
> BTW, anyone want me to design a Moonbase logo? I am pretty good at drawing.
>
> --
> Markham Carroll
This can only work if all wide corridors are set 2 studs back to allow room
for the adapter to the standard width without affecting normal design. This
would also mean you need a four stud deep connector to attach two wider
corridors together.
Jude
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jude Beaudin writes:
> In lugnet.space, Markham Carroll writes:
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=23517
> >
> > I have designed a corridor that allows space for more minifigs to fit
> > through, and some corridor converters. The doubled width of the corridor
> > would work well in the high-traffic areas of the moonbase, and are still
> > easy to convert to the narrow pathway. Is this design acceptible for the
> > standards?
> >
> > BTW, anyone want me to design a Moonbase logo? I am pretty good at drawing.
> >
> > --
> > Markham Carroll
>
> This can only work if all wide corridors are set 2 studs back to allow room
> for the adapter to the standard width without affecting normal design. This
> would also mean you need a four stud deep connector to attach two wider
> corridors together.
Not necessarily. You can make a modular connector sleeve which disconnects
from the corridor itself with 1x1 technic bricks. So, switching out a
standard connector with an adapter would be easy. Similar to the modular
corridor idea on the Moonbase site, if people want to make their mating
interface modular to allow for adapters, that's cool too.
I like this idea a lot - it does not damage the standard because it is 100%
adaptable. And I like the idea of wide corridors :-)
-Tim
|
|
| |
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message
news:H12Hn5.40@lugnet.com...
>
> Not necessarily. You can make a modular connector sleeve which • disconnects
> from the corridor itself with 1x1 technic bricks. So, switching out a
> standard connector with an adapter would be easy. Similar to the modular
> corridor idea on the Moonbase site, if people want to make their mating
> interface modular to allow for adapters, that's cool too.
>
> I like this idea a lot - it does not damage the standard because it is • 100%
> adaptable. And I like the idea of wide corridors :-)
I think it is far far to early to be changing things like the general
corridor concept. The corridors are one of the main things that (literally)
hold all of this together. Like Paul and many others have said before I
think we should wait a long time before we change up the basic formula. If
you want to do this to your module we can't stop you but we're not going to
put any mention of this on the moonbase site.
Sorry guys.
-Jon
--
| The Shipyard - http://zemi.net/shipyard
| My Lego Creations - http://zemi.net/lego
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer writes:
> I think it is far far to early to be changing things like the general
> corridor concept. The corridors are one of the main things that (literally)
> hold all of this together. Like Paul and many others have said before I
> think we should wait a long time before we change up the basic formula.
I don't think the intent of the new corridor was changing the original
formula, but adding new dimmensions to it.
> If you want to do this to your module we can't stop you but we're not going to
> put any mention of this on the moonbase site.
>
> Sorry guys.
It seems to me that this kind of posture limits a lot of creativity. It
would be nice to see the moonbase project be the focal point for
distributing moonbase ideas instead of a judge and jury of what is
acceptable. Connector options would allow a lot of new ideas to bloom and
not hurt the original intent. As long as anything that is supposed to
connect to a standard module can, what's the harm. My module is 4x6
baseplates. I don't plan on having a connector on every side of
everybaseplate and some of the connectors will be custom inside my 4x6 area.
IF my connector idea is a good one, maybe someone else will use it and it
will flourish. If not, that's OK as well. Hopefully I have a place to
refine and improve my designs in Moonbase discussions and not be directed to
conform to only one standard or don't be a part of the project. Saying no
to sugestions at this early stage would seem to splinter what seems to be a
group of people with a lot of creative energy and force people to go it
alone. Hopefully I won't have to. The Moonbase project is to good of an
idea not to share it.
Build Well!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer writes:
> "Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote:
> > I like this idea a lot - it does not damage the standard because it is
> > 100% adaptable. And I like the idea of wide corridors :-)
>
> I think it is far far to early to be changing things like the general
> corridor concept. The corridors are one of the main things that (literally)
> hold all of this together. Like Paul and many others have said before I
> think we should wait a long time before we change up the basic formula. If
> you want to do this to your module we can't stop you but we're not going to
> put any mention of this on the moonbase site.
It seems to me that the basic formula worked out in the standard should be a
_minimum_ for compliance, rather than a _maximum_ for inclusion. If person X
designs a moonbase module that doesn't look and act just like yours, but it
does: a) leave 4 studs at the edge, b) connect to the standard connector, and
c) use primarily light grey at the connection point, then why not allow it?
When you say that you're not going to mention it on the web site, does that
mean that you won't link to modules that use double wide connectors? Or just
that you're not going to specify an alternate connection standard? If you're a
moonbase coordinator at a public fest, and someone brings a module that plugs
into your just fine, but is also able to plug into a wider corridor, will you
turn it away?
Modules should comply with the standard enough that _any_ modules can be
plugged together. But why be more uptight about it than that?
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jimmy Figiel writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer writes:
>
> > I think it is far far to early to be changing things like the general
> > corridor concept. The corridors are one of the main things that (literally)
> > hold all of this together. Like Paul and many others have said before I
> > think we should wait a long time before we change up the basic formula.
>
> I don't think the intent of the new corridor was changing the original
> formula, but adding new dimmensions to it.
>
> > If you want to do this to your module we can't stop you but we're
> > not going to
> > put any mention of this on the moonbase site.
> >
> > Sorry guys.
>
> It seems to me that this kind of posture limits a lot of creativity. It
> would be nice to see the moonbase project be the focal point for
> distributing moonbase ideas instead of a judge and jury of what is
> acceptable. Connector options would allow a lot of new ideas to bloom and
> not hurt the original intent. As long as anything that is supposed to
> connect to a standard module can, what's the harm. My module is 4x6
> baseplates. I don't plan on having a connector on every side of
> everybaseplate and some of the connectors will be custom inside my 4x6 area.
> IF my connector idea is a good one, maybe someone else will use it and it
> will flourish. If not, that's OK as well. Hopefully I have a place to
> refine and improve my designs in Moonbase discussions and not be directed to
> conform to only one standard or don't be a part of the project. Saying no
> to sugestions at this early stage would seem to splinter what seems to be a
> group of people with a lot of creative energy and force people to go it
> alone. Hopefully I won't have to. The Moonbase project is to good of an
> idea not to share it.
My view of what Jon said was that the standard is not going to be changed at
this time to encompass this idea. NOT that you can't do it, or that your
modules will be turned away as long as they interoperate.
I would draw a parallel to Ntrak (from Model Railroading)... there is a
standard, (for example, 3 tracks, so many cm from the edge of the table and
from each other) it ensures interoperability. If you deviate from the
standard (you have 4 tracks instead of 3) that's fine as long as you still
interoperate (your first 3 tracks match the standard, and you're OK with a
dead end 4th if you mate with someone who didn't deviate the same way you
did). The standard does not list off every possible deviation and codify it.
I may not agree with the exact wording Jon used but I agree with the intent
as I read it (interoperable deviation is fine but the standard is what it is
for now). I'm assuming that if you submitted your module(s) for inclusion in
the links to modules page it would still be included and reachable, I didn't
read what Jon said to mean that you'd be excluded that way. Just that the
standard is not being changed at this time.
I would ask people not to blow this out of proportion...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> My view of what Jon said was that the standard is not going to be changed at
> this time to encompass this idea. NOT that you can't do it, or that your
> modules will be turned away as long as they interoperate.
>
> I would draw a parallel to Ntrak (from Model Railroading)... there is a
> standard, (for example, 3 tracks, so many cm from the edge of the table and
> from each other) it ensures interoperability. If you deviate from the
> standard (you have 4 tracks instead of 3) that's fine as long as you still
> interoperate (your first 3 tracks match the standard, and you're OK with a
> dead end 4th if you mate with someone who didn't deviate the same way you
> did). The standard does not list off every possible deviation and codify it.
>
> I may not agree with the exact wording Jon used but I agree with the intent
> as I read it (interoperable deviation is fine but the standard is what it is
> for now). I'm assuming that if you submitted your module(s) for inclusion in
> the links to modules page it would still be included and reachable, I didn't
> read what Jon said to mean that you'd be excluded that way. Just that the
> standard is not being changed at this time.
>
> I would ask people not to blow this out of proportion...
Jon,
Can you please confirm Larry's interpretation.
Thanks,
Jude
|
|
| |
"Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:H13DMv.1JH@lugnet.com...
> > I would ask people not to blow this out of proportion...
>
> Jon,
>
> Can you please confirm Larry's interpretation.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jude
Yup. What he said. :-)
We wouldn't even begin to tell others what they can or cannot build.
But now I feel we've come to a bit of a crossroads in the project.
I honestly feel that to link to a 'rogue-module' in the links section is
going to be about as effective as 'endorsing' it on the site. Say a new
user comes and checks out the site and see's no mention of a wide corridor,
then they browse the links section and see one module with a wide corridor.
What would they make of that?
Granted, a wider corridor that could still connect to other modules is not
that big of a deal, but the point will come when someone wants to submit a
module that really sidesteps the standard. What then?
If 'Builder 2' with the module on a 32x32 baseplate sees 'Builder 1's' Wide
corridor in the Links section don't you think he will assume his module has
every right to be there as well?
At the meeting we spent a long time discussing color-scheme. Originally it
was going to be pretty restrictive but we dropped all mention of it before
we launched the page. When I wrote the page I tried to make it as clear as
possible that a module could be anything the builder wanted. We
incorporated the super-module idea into the project. When someone said
'Monorail' I freaked out because I thought it was such a cool idea. My
point is I really think we have been very open about the whole process.
I'm under the impression that most people are very happy with the standard.
Only a few people have said certain things should be changed.
I've already been blabbing for too long. I'll say this:
Can we at the very least wait 6 weeks until we can see the first real
moonbase at NWBrickcon before we change things up further?
Thanks
-Jon
--
| The Shipyard - http://zemi.net/shipyard
| My Lego Creations - http://zemi.net/lego
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer writes:
> "Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:H13DMv.1JH@lugnet.com...
> > > I would ask people not to blow this out of proportion...
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > Can you please confirm Larry's interpretation.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jude
>
> Yup. What he said. :-)
>
> We wouldn't even begin to tell others what they can or cannot build.
> But now I feel we've come to a bit of a crossroads in the project.
>
> I honestly feel that to link to a 'rogue-module' in the links section is
> going to be about as effective as 'endorsing' it on the site. Say a new
> user comes and checks out the site and see's no mention of a wide corridor,
> then they browse the links section and see one module with a wide corridor.
> What would they make of that?
>
> Granted, a wider corridor that could still connect to other modules is not
> that big of a deal, but the point will come when someone wants to submit a
> module that really sidesteps the standard. What then?
>
> If 'Builder 2' with the module on a 32x32 baseplate sees 'Builder 1's' Wide
> corridor in the Links section don't you think he will assume his module has
> every right to be there as well?
>
> At the meeting we spent a long time discussing color-scheme. Originally it
> was going to be pretty restrictive but we dropped all mention of it before
> we launched the page. When I wrote the page I tried to make it as clear as
> possible that a module could be anything the builder wanted. We
> incorporated the super-module idea into the project. When someone said
> 'Monorail' I freaked out because I thought it was such a cool idea. My
> point is I really think we have been very open about the whole process.
>
> I'm under the impression that most people are very happy with the standard.
> Only a few people have said certain things should be changed.
>
> I've already been blabbing for too long. I'll say this:
> Can we at the very least wait 6 weeks until we can see the first real
> moonbase at NWBrickcon before we change things up further?
>
> Thanks
>
> -Jon
> --
> | The Shipyard - http://zemi.net/shipyard
> | My Lego Creations - http://zemi.net/lego
Thanks for clearing up your position. I guess it is like the World Wide Web
Consortium standards (http://www.w3.org/). Although, thank goodness nobody
has taken the role of Microsoft, yet. :-)
Perhaps you could create a links page for non-standard ideas, on it you can
put a disclaimer stating the modules do not conform to the defined standards
and are not 'endorsed'. After all, I know we don't want to hinder the
creative process.
Just thinking out loud,
Jude
|
|
| |
"Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:H13KBH.1L9@lugnet.com...
<snip>
> Perhaps you could create a links page for non-standard ideas, on it you • can
> put a disclaimer stating the modules do not conform to the defined • standards
> and are not 'endorsed'. After all, I know we don't want to hinder the
> creative process.
>
> Just thinking out loud,
>
> Jude
Or heres a thought:
What would everyone think of letting the new polling system settle some of
these issues? That might be fun actually. Perhaps we could vote on what
height (10, 20 etc..)the monorail track should be as a test.
What do you guys think?
-Jon
--
| The Shipyard - http://zemi.net/shipyard
| My Lego Creations - http://zemi.net/lego
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer writes:
>
> Or heres a thought:
>
> What would everyone think of letting the new polling system settle some of
> these issues? That might be fun actually. Perhaps we could vote on what
> height (10, 20 etc..)the monorail track should be as a test.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> -Jon
> --
> | The Shipyard - http://zemi.net/shipyard
> | My Lego Creations - http://zemi.net/lego
Sounds good. If the tools are available, we might as well use them.
-Duane
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer writes:
>
> Or heres a thought:
>
> What would everyone think of letting the new polling system settle some of
> these issues? That might be fun actually. Perhaps we could vote on what
> height (10, 20 etc..)the monorail track should be as a test.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> -Jon
> --
> | The Shipyard - http://zemi.net/shipyard
> | My Lego Creations - http://zemi.net/lego
That is a good idea.
If you want to vote more than once, you can bribe castle people for their
votes. <g> A Jar Jar for every vote for a monorail height of 1000 bricks. :-)
Jude
|
|
| |
Sounds good to me. We've got the features, we might as well use them. And
I can see a lot of use in the polls for Moonbase stuff.
-Chris
> Or heres a thought:
>
> What would everyone think of letting the new polling system settle some of
> these issues? That might be fun actually. Perhaps we could vote on what
> height (10, 20 etc..)the monorail track should be as a test.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> -Jon
> --
> | The Shipyard - http://zemi.net/shipyard
> | My Lego Creations - http://zemi.net/lego
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer writes:
> Yup. What he said. :-)
>
> We wouldn't even begin to tell others what they can or cannot build.
> But now I feel we've come to a bit of a crossroads in the project.
>
> I honestly feel that to link to a 'rogue-module' in the links section is
> going to be about as effective as 'endorsing' it on the site. Say a new
> user comes and checks out the site and see's no mention of a wide corridor,
> then they browse the links section and see one module with a wide corridor.
> What would they make of that?
Good point.
> Granted, a wider corridor that could still connect to other modules is not
> that big of a deal, but the point will come when someone wants to submit a
> module that really sidesteps the standard. What then?
I think submissions should be allowed for any module which interfaces with
the official standard. That should be interpreted to mean: It maintains
4-stud clearance around the edges, its square (a multiple of the 48x48
baseplate), interfaces with a standard corridor seamlessly, and maintains
the color standard for the mating surface.
This can be interpreted to allow for wide corridors, provided they have an
adapter sleeve on them to reduce down to the standard size. If a submission
pushes the limits beyond the minimum standards, it is rejected. Note, the
wide corridors do not change the standard, provided they are used with adapters.
> If 'Builder 2' with the module on a 32x32 baseplate sees 'Builder 1's' Wide
> corridor in the Links section don't you think he will assume his module has
> every right to be there as well?
He may assume this, but the assumption will be incorrect. Builder 1's wide
corridor still fits the standard, when used with an adapter.
> At the meeting we spent a long time discussing color-scheme. Originally it
> was going to be pretty restrictive but we dropped all mention of it before
> we launched the page. When I wrote the page I tried to make it as clear as
> possible that a module could be anything the builder wanted. We
> incorporated the super-module idea into the project. When someone said
> 'Monorail' I freaked out because I thought it was such a cool idea. My
> point is I really think we have been very open about the whole process.
I understand the reactions so far to other deviations in the standard - the
raised plates around landing pads etc. This one, though, still interfaces
perfectly with the documented Moonbase standard.
> I'm under the impression that most people are very happy with the standard.
> Only a few people have said certain things should be changed.
Yes.
> I've already been blabbing for too long. I'll say this:
> Can we at the very least wait 6 weeks until we can see the first real
> moonbase at NWBrickcon before we change things up further?
This sounds like a very reasonable request. It will be good to see an
actual implementation of Moonbase before taking this another step.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer writes:
> What would everyone think of letting the new polling system settle some of
> these issues? That might be fun actually. Perhaps we could vote on what
> height (10, 20 etc..)the monorail track should be as a test.
>
> What do you guys think?
I think the idea has some potential, but you should procede with caution.
There is a very real posibility that unless you word things very carefully,
people will assume that you will feel bound by the result of the vote. What
would you do with a vote that went a way that you _really_ didn't like? Do
you, or someone else, or a small group of you "own" the module standard, or do
you specifically want it to be a community process? (I can see merit
with either approach.) Further when a divided issue comes up, I think it's
important to wait a while, while conversation percolates -- there's no rush to
vote. That way, everyone has the chance to put their good ideas on the table
for community consideration so an informed vote is made when it comes to that.
some thoughts,
Chris
|
|
| |
"Jon Palmer" <jon@zemi.net> wrote in message news:H13Kzr.3Ft@lugnet.com...
> "Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:H13KBH.1L9@lugnet.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Perhaps you could create a links page for non-standard ideas, on it you • can
> > put a disclaimer stating the modules do not conform to the defined • standards
> > and are not 'endorsed'. After all, I know we don't want to hinder the
> > creative process.
> >
> > Just thinking out loud,
> >
> > Jude
>
> Or heres a thought:
>
> What would everyone think of letting the new polling system settle some of
> these issues? That might be fun actually. Perhaps we could vote on what
> height (10, 20 etc..)the monorail track should be as a test.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> -Jon
> --
> | The Shipyard - http://zemi.net/shipyard
> | My Lego Creations - http://zemi.net/lego
Works only if you are a registered member.
--
Thanx~
Nicole; "Now with Masters in Psychology Analytical Action!"
http://www.geocities.com/duelarcane1/
Brickshelf Account: drumm-family
Geekshelf Account: Drumm-Family
Bricklink Store: drumm_family or Drumm's Small Lots
|
|
|
