Subject:
|
Re: back on track ...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space, lugnet.build
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:09:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
634 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Paul Hartzog writes:
> well,
> i don't know how this thread got so off-topic so fast
> but after more discussion in chat,
>
> the bottom line here is NOT TO IMPOSE
> a standard on anyone,
I'm am going to assume that you are referring to the Hexadyne Consortium
discussion. As I understand it (Joel may be able to explain better than I,
since it's his baby) the Consortium is a voluntary guild which developes
standards in order to fairly conduct racing events on an even platform. Only
those people who wish to enter the racing events are required to abide by
the Standards.
Guild members are not REQUIRED to build to the Standard 100% of the time.
All that it means is that if they design a non-compliant ship, it cannot be
entered into the races. Those who DO choose to build to the Standard earn
the right to designate there ship as "Hexadyne Compliant". What does that
mean? Nothing really. It just means that the ship conforms to a particular
set of rules. Conformity is optional. It's like getting the gold star for
coloring within the lines.
Think of it more as a Space Standards Repository. If someone wishes to build
an airlock but cannot figure out how, they can check the Standards - it will
tell them what is required (it may even have a DAT). If they want to build a
bathroom into their ship, they can check out the Standards for ideas. If a
design is posted which doesn't conform, is that bad? No, it just means that
the ship is disqualified from competition in the Hexadyne Races, nothing else.
From what I have seen, there are a few unwritten standards developing from
AFOLs sharing ideas. Ships and systems are getting more elaborate, yet more
alike (in a good way) everyday. The Hexadyne Consortium is just elaborating
on and extrapolating those unwritten standards into a written one which
allows people to compare designs based on common design criteria.
I look forward to more discussion on this topic as it has risen and died
several times. Hopefully the Consortium will provide the guidelines for a
standard, while allowing for creation outside of the normal. After all, new
ideas only become standard if they are used often enough outside of the normal.
-Duane
> turns out there are a few salient points:
>
> 1. std for minifig airlocks is diff than
> 2. std for cargo doors
>
> also
>
> 3. std connector for connecting the
> docking components together
>
> -p
>
>
> In lugnet.space, Paul Hartzog writes:
> > well,
> > in bricklug chat room we got to talkin
> > about brainstorming a standard airlock size
> > for MOCs, and then came up w/ the idea that
> > rather than impose a std, we could just make
> > little modules that would join 'your' MOCs
> > airlock to a standard, i.e.
> >
> >
> > Your ship <=> airlock module <=> other MOC
> >
> > so then it occurred to us that something like
> > the Workbee could be used to move these
> > airlock modules around...
> >
> > the upshot of all this is that when we have
> > gatherings, we could all build components,
> > and then show up and they could all hook
> > together.
> >
> > additionally,
> > we could standardize some sort of technic
> > connection for the airlockmodules, and/or
> > we could build a large spacebase and then
> > dock all the ships to it via the modules
> >
> > btw, these airlock modules are basically
> > = to docking rings ;-)
> >
> > -paul
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: back on track ...
|
| (...) actually, your explaination is extremely well-worded! I'm not sure if he is referring to the Consortium or not, the original post was about everybody here in .space using the same shape and size of airlock to connect ships, and I think he was (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.build)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | back on track ...
|
| well, i don't know how this thread got so off-topic so fast but after more discussion in chat, the bottom line here is NOT TO IMPOSE a standard on anyone, turns out there are a few salient points: 1. std for minifig airlocks is diff than 2. std for (...) (23 years ago, 12-Feb-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.build)
|
39 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
|
|
|
|
