| |
> I propose we create a new acronym that encompasses all very large Lego
> spaceships (over 100 studs long/wide) regardless of their function.
If you make the criteria 100 studs, then Centurion would be appropriate.
Kerry
|
|
| |
"Kerry Raymond" <kerry@dstc.edu.au> wrote in message
news:H1swxz.9KG@lugnet.com...
> > I propose we create a new acronym that encompasses all very large Lego
> > spaceships (over 100 studs long/wide) regardless of their function.
>
> If you make the criteria 100 studs, then Centurion would be appropriate.
>
> Kerry
I like that name, and if we can't come up with a clever acronym just using a
normal word might be the way to go. I actually think you've hit on another
good idea though. Taking '100' or '200' into consideration when picking a
name might be cool.
-Jon
--
| The Shipyard - http://zemi.net/shipyard
| My Lego Creations - http://zemi.net/lego
|
|
| |
This sounds good IMHO. Incorporating the stud count into the name somehow
seems to be a good venue to explore. I suppose the other advantage is that
it might be a little more self-explanatory to new folks....I only found out
what BURPS were a couple months ago :>
Maybe by using the Roman numerals followed by a number to clarify?
100 stud = SEE1 or C1
200 stud = SEE2 or C2
300 stud = SEE3 or C3
400 stud = SEEDEE4 or CD4
500 stud = DEE5 or D5
Too boring?
Cheers,
-G
In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer writes:
> "Kerry Raymond" <kerry@dstc.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:H1swxz.9KG@lugnet.com...
> > > I propose we create a new acronym that encompasses all very large Lego
> > > spaceships (over 100 studs long/wide) regardless of their function.
> >
> > If you make the criteria 100 studs, then Centurion would be appropriate.
> >
> > Kerry
>
> I like that name, and if we can't come up with a clever acronym just using a
> normal word might be the way to go. I actually think you've hit on another
> good idea though. Taking '100' or '200' into consideration when picking a
> name might be cool.
>
> -Jon
> --
> | The Shipyard - http://zemi.net/shipyard
> | My Lego Creations - http://zemi.net/lego
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Gil Shaw writes:
>
> 100 stud = SEE1 or C1
> 200 stud = SEE2 or C2
> 300 stud = SEE3 or C3
> 400 stud = SEEDEE4 or CD4
> 500 stud = DEE5 or D5
My this is very appealing to my compartmentalized dorkness. It's a simple
classification, but unfortunately based upon size, which I dislike. I would
rather see something based upon function. With the classification based upon
size, a couple of extraneous antennae could be all that is necessary to bump
a ship to the next catagory.
>
> Too boring?
Not at all....
-Duane
|
|
| |
too boring what? this is great. I think that its so logical that it can't
help but appeal to my sense of organization and function. I really like
this idea. maybe we could just say that there is a C1 which is 100-299 and
a C3 which is 300 or longer. kinda like high speed datalines. T1 and T3...
-tk
"Duane Hess" <LEGOZILLA@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:H1v8rr.2C4@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.space, Gil Shaw writes:
> >
> > 100 stud = SEE1 or C1
> > 200 stud = SEE2 or C2
> > 300 stud = SEE3 or C3
> > 400 stud = SEEDEE4 or CD4
> > 500 stud = DEE5 or D5
>
> My this is very appealing to my compartmentalized dorkness. It's a simple
> classification, but unfortunately based upon size, which I dislike. I • would
> rather see something based upon function. With the classification based • upon
> size, a couple of extraneous antennae could be all that is necessary to • bump
> a ship to the next catagory.
>
> >
> > Too boring?
>
> Not at all....
>
> -Duane
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Travis Kunce writes:
> too boring what? this is great. I think that its so logical that it can't
> help but appeal to my sense of organization and function. I really like
> this idea. maybe we could just say that there is a C1 which is 100-299 and
> a C3 which is 300 or longer. kinda like high speed datalines. T1 and T3...
>
> -tk
>
>
>
> "Duane Hess" <LEGOZILLA@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote in message
> news:H1v8rr.2C4@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.space, Gil Shaw writes:
> > >
> > > 100 stud = SEE1 or C1
> > > 200 stud = SEE2 or C2
> > > 300 stud = SEE3 or C3
> > > 400 stud = SEEDEE4 or CD4
> > > 500 stud = DEE5 or D5
> >
> > My this is very appealing to my compartmentalized dorkness. It's a simple
> > classification, but unfortunately based upon size, which I dislike. I • would
> > rather see something based upon function. With the classification based • upon
> > size, a couple of extraneous antennae could be all that is necessary to • bump
> > a ship to the next catagory.
> >
> > >
> > > Too boring?
> >
> > Not at all....
> >
> > -Duane
The high speed datalines, when pertaining to role playing, are largely
obsolete due to MUDs and other similar systems but that is fodder for
another entirely unrelated topic. Anyway, I do believe that a
classification system is in order but I think that some of the ideas that
Mr. Hess has said should be addressed. I do agree that there has to be some
function but I think that we need some more classifications to the
definition of a capital ship.
Imagine if you owned an automobile dealership. Let us say that you had some
vehicles in that automobile lot. For the sake of an example, we will use
General Motors as an example to convey my idea across to LUGNET users who
read this message. Let us pretend that you had a Chevrolet 1500. Well,
there are 1500 trucks, 1500 Silverado trucks, 1500 Heavy Duty, or HD trucks,
2500 trucks, 2500 HD trucks, 2500 diesel engine trucks, 2500 diesel trucks
with double wide rear tires, 3500 trucks, 3500 diesel trucks, 3500 diesel
trucks with double wide tires, S-10s, Blazers, TrailBlazers, Tahoes, and let
us not forget that Suburban is published under both GMC and Chevrolet, as
the Neon was sold under both Dodge and Plymouth when it was first
introduced. Then there are the Yukon trucks, the Yukon Denali, the Jimmy
trucks, the S-15s and a whole system of trucks identical to the Cehvrolet
line after that and we did not even delve into other GMC made vehicles, such
as school buses and large trucks such as the Kodiak.
The point is, to be quite truthful, even looking at typical normal every day
vehicles on planet Earth is a headache to keep up and then there are phased
out models and the debate to keep models alive for one more year and to
slightly alter them every year. I am sorry if these past few sentences
confused your brains but I was trying to show that it would be a very large
system to keep up with were it applied to LUGNET .Space.
Of course, all of this fails to recognize function but there are trucks out
there, as well as other vehicles of our imaginary automobile lot, which have
different functions. If we think like an automobile manufacturer instead of
any real classification, or combine naval classification with automobile
classification, I think that is really the way to go to get more concise and
accurate information about capital ship classification.
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> Imagine if you owned an automobile dealership. Let us say that you had some
> vehicles in that automobile lot. For the sake of an example, we will use
> General Motors as an example to convey my idea across to LUGNET users who
> read this message.
...and who are familiar with the model designations of North American Trucks...
> Let us pretend that you had a Chevrolet 1500. Well,
> there are 1500 trucks, 1500 Silverado trucks, 1500 Heavy Duty, or HD trucks,
> 2500 trucks, 2500 HD trucks, 2500 diesel engine trucks, 2500 diesel trucks
> with double wide rear tires, 3500 trucks, 3500 diesel trucks, 3500 diesel
> trucks with double wide tires, S-10s, Blazers, TrailBlazers, Tahoes, and let
> us not forget that Suburban is published under both GMC and Chevrolet, as
> the Neon was sold under both Dodge and Plymouth when it was first
> introduced. Then there are the Yukon trucks, the Yukon Denali, the Jimmy
> trucks, the S-15s and a whole system of trucks identical to the Cehvrolet
> line after that and we did not even delve into other GMC made vehicles, such
> as school buses and large trucks such as the Kodiak.
... of all those, the only ones we've had here in Australia are the Suburban
(rebadged as a Holden Suburban) and the Neon (if it's the same thing - a
compact car - which is sold as a Chrysler Neon).
> The point is, to be quite truthful, even looking at typical normal every day
> vehicles on planet Earth is a headache to keep up and then there are phased
> out models and the debate to keep models alive for one more year and to
> slightly alter them every year.
Maybe, if you're keeping track of models! But it's not the case if you're
merely tracking sizes/types - subcompact, compact, mid-sized, full-sized,
luxury, and trucks designated by tonnage.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
| |
> > The point is, to be quite truthful, even looking at typical normal every • day
> > vehicles on planet Earth is a headache to keep up and then there are • phased
> > out models and the debate to keep models alive for one more year and to
> > slightly alter them every year.
>
> Maybe, if you're keeping track of models! But it's not the case if you're
> merely tracking sizes/types - subcompact, compact, mid-sized, full-sized,
> luxury, and trucks designated by tonnage.
>
> Cheers
>
> Richie Dulin
This is sort of what I was trying to get at. I think that there could be
hyperlogical systemic ways to derive names for the vehicle classes, but i
also do like the idea of coining a new word altogether or using an ancronym,
possibly one that is not rooted in a word from a common tounge. I think
that ship names and variant classifications, should be left to the
individual manufacturers to determine for whatever thier personal reason.
-tk
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Kerry Raymond writes:
> > I propose we create a new acronym that encompasses all very large Lego
> > spaceships (over 100 studs long/wide) regardless of their function.
>
> If you make the criteria 100 studs, then Centurion would be appropriate.
>
> Kerry
How about Roman numerals to ID aproximate length:
up to 9 studs could be an 'I' or 'V' class (whatever sounds cooler to the
lugnet consensus),
10 to 49 studs an 'X' class (possibly for 'eXecutive'),
50-99 studs an 'L' class (possibly for 'Large'),
100-499 studs a 'C' class (possibly for 'Cruiser'),
500-999 studs a 'D' class (possibly for 'Devestator'),
1000+ an 'M' class (possibly for 'Mega').
***'I' could be 'Itty bitty' or 'V' for 'Very tiny' :))***
Admittedly, the last 2 categories might not get used (wouldn't it be SO cool
tho'!), but these categories could be modified too. Say you've made an 89 stud
ship, an 'L' class, it could be called a '-C' (minus 'C') class:
The pluses & minuses could stand for the second third of the series = '+', or
the last third of the series = '-'. Therefore a 50-66 stud ship would be an
'L' class, 67-84 studs = 'L+' class, & 85-99 = 'L++' or '-C' class.
This designation could be used for ships, probes, stations, surface rovers,
even spiffcraft :))
Jeff
|
|
| |
this is the a great logical idea... maybe instead of ++ or - we could use
mk-1 or 2 or whatever. you get the idea.
for example just in case
a ship name could be: L mk-3 Smokestarter: Dection Countermeasures ship
-tk
"Jeff Szklennik" <jeffszklennik@usaexpress.net> wrote in message
news:H1y3sJ.6zH@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.space, Kerry Raymond writes:
> > > I propose we create a new acronym that encompasses all very large Lego
> > > spaceships (over 100 studs long/wide) regardless of their function.
> >
> > If you make the criteria 100 studs, then Centurion would be appropriate.
> >
> > Kerry
>
> How about Roman numerals to ID aproximate length:
> up to 9 studs could be an 'I' or 'V' class (whatever sounds cooler to the
> lugnet consensus),
> 10 to 49 studs an 'X' class (possibly for 'eXecutive'),
> 50-99 studs an 'L' class (possibly for 'Large'),
> 100-499 studs a 'C' class (possibly for 'Cruiser'),
> 500-999 studs a 'D' class (possibly for 'Devestator'),
> 1000+ an 'M' class (possibly for 'Mega').
>
> ***'I' could be 'Itty bitty' or 'V' for 'Very tiny' :))***
>
> Admittedly, the last 2 categories might not get used (wouldn't it be SO • cool
> tho'!), but these categories could be modified too. Say you've made an 89 • stud
> ship, an 'L' class, it could be called a '-C' (minus 'C') class:
>
> The pluses & minuses could stand for the second third of the series = '+', • or
> the last third of the series = '-'. Therefore a 50-66 stud ship would be • an
> 'L' class, 67-84 studs = 'L+' class, & 85-99 = 'L++' or '-C' class.
>
> This designation could be used for ships, probes, stations, surface • rovers,
> even spiffcraft :))
>
> Jeff
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Richie Dulin writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > Imagine if you owned an automobile dealership. Let us say that you had some
> > vehicles in that automobile lot. For the sake of an example, we will use
> > General Motors as an example to convey my idea across to LUGNET users who
> > read this message.
>
> ...and who are familiar with the model designations of North American Trucks...
>
> > Let us pretend that you had a Chevrolet 1500. Well,
> > there are 1500 trucks, 1500 Silverado trucks, 1500 Heavy Duty, or HD trucks,
> > 2500 trucks, 2500 HD trucks, 2500 diesel engine trucks, 2500 diesel trucks
> > with double wide rear tires, 3500 trucks, 3500 diesel trucks, 3500 diesel
> > trucks with double wide tires, S-10s, Blazers, TrailBlazers, Tahoes, and let
> > us not forget that Suburban is published under both GMC and Chevrolet, as
> > the Neon was sold under both Dodge and Plymouth when it was first
> > introduced. Then there are the Yukon trucks, the Yukon Denali, the Jimmy
> > trucks, the S-15s and a whole system of trucks identical to the Cehvrolet
> > line after that and we did not even delve into other GMC made vehicles, such
> > as school buses and large trucks such as the Kodiak.
>
> ... of all those, the only ones we've had here in Australia are the Suburban
> (rebadged as a Holden Suburban) and the Neon (if it's the same thing - a
> compact car - which is sold as a Chrysler Neon).
>
> > The point is, to be quite truthful, even looking at typical normal every day
> > vehicles on planet Earth is a headache to keep up and then there are phased
> > out models and the debate to keep models alive for one more year and to
> > slightly alter them every year.
>
> Maybe, if you're keeping track of models! But it's not the case if you're
> merely tracking sizes/types - subcompact, compact, mid-sized, full-sized,
> luxury, and trucks designated by tonnage.
>
> Cheers
>
> Richie Dulin
So, Chrysler also made Neons as well? This is news to me but then again,
automobile manufacturers have to make some changes to their vehicles. Is
Holden a part of General Motors? If not, how long have they been making
their Suburban?
Richie and whomever came up with the different types of vehicle standard
thingy, that makes things even more complicated than it is now. To the
person who came up with the idea of making x LEGO studs in length to X LEGO
studs in length for a particular vessel, thank you for coming up with such a
brilliant idea. However, like a naval fleet, some of the same kinds of
craft might be the same size. Even though that my brother is in the Navy
(in the USA to those people from other countries who wish to know what
particular navy), I do not know the classifications well but I am sure that
we could find out from someone who does know on LUGNET.
I hope that we can hammer out something on LUGNET in the future pertaining
to vessel size and classification.
Jesse Long
|
|
|
