Subject:
|
Re: Moonbase Project: Wider Corridors?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:55:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
593 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Moonbase Project: Wider Corridors?
|
| "Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@rogers.com> wrote in message news:H13DMv.1JH@lugnet.com... (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 19-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
