Subject:
|
Re: Moonbase Project: Wider Corridors?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:51:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
719 times
|
| |
|
|
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...
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Moonbase Project: Wider Corridors?
|
| (...) I don't think the intent of the new corridor was changing the original formula, but adding new dimmensions to it. (...) 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 (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
