Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SonEasterZombie

Universal standards, and how to encourage them.

Recommended Posts

In real life, universal standards exist to make it easier for designers to create a product that is compatible with other products. We have USB because if every single computer company had a different connector, the consumer would have to consider a LOT more when deciding which computer to buy into because they would be buying into an entire ecosystem, unless they wanted to screw around with dongles. We have standardized aspect ratios for computer screens, so that the media we create fits properly (or vice-versa, not sure which came first on that).

In order for multiple organizations to work together seamlessly, or for ships to be compatible with a nations regulations (example: requiring all ships to be outfitted with trackers that give a police force information about if they are being attacked or hostile) there need to be some Universal standards in place.

A few things that I think should be standardized once possible:

1) Ship sizes. A ship that displaces a certain volume corresponds with a size class. Having standardized size classes would make comparing ships between manufacturers an easier task.

 

2) "Module" sizes. Ships could be outfitted with module bays. These could be weapon slots, cargo holds, thruster packs, etc. Standardizing these would make it easier for designers to create "aftermarket" parts

3) docking ports/connectors: Just like a USB port or a gas cap, these things have standard sizes and shapes to make it easier for things to link up. Now while any connector will almost certainly be a mesh-construct made by the devs, there should probably be a clearance standard so that ships can safely dock together and perhaps even gas stations could come about.

Let me know what you guys think, and if Universal Standards will ever happen in DU or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see that happening. It HAS to happen. But only within orgs/alliances. 

 

I would never ever apply standardized modules or scripts from other groups to my ship and I think noone in their right mind should do that. That only opens up for scams, awoxing and theft. I'll certainly try to build my ships as complicated as possible yet as easy as necessary for myself just to ensure that noone will be able to decrypt my systems or get access to vital data with ease. Even smth "simple" as a standardized docking port might be used to get unauthorized access to your ship. So I'll definitely wait what DU brings to the table with deeper mechanics like PvP/hacking/scanning/lua before I adapt

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds useful, but it will likely be something that will develop and spread (and find acceptance or rejection) organically.

 

And it will likely not work without sufficient promotion and acceptance. Once you get over a certain point, others will pick up on it. Much like trying to grow an organization past a level where it attracts people "by itself", in a certain way.

 

I do not (yet) think we get to see many truly universal, widespread standards depending on the area we're talking about. What I can imagine is something akin to different power plugs: There is no universal power plug, different regions or countries utilize their own versions.

 

Something similar might likely be a thing in DU later on in many areas. Perhaps some select widespread standards, the rest more custom to certain alliances, nations, groups, organizations, and then random or endless smaller versions.

 

But time will tell. I think it's generally a vital topic and in the interest of many people. Picture it like this: A certain adaptability is likely in your interest, or you might not be able to fully or easily interact with others in some situations. Let's say you're a ship builder or vehicle (car) designer in DU. Here's the thing: Many cities where you likely intend to sell your product and see it used will likely resort to classic streets, especially if they ban most types of airtraffic. What's a potential problem or aspect to consider?

 

Size! No use selling your car effectively if it violates most standards in cities or areas as it's unfit to be utilized on classic roads, for example, due to being too big or so. That's just one example where the community in general has to always mind itself, aka players have to mind other players and find common grounds so that interaction and production, sales and a lot more can happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will boil down to the elements supplied by NQ, and the dynamic core sizes, and the LUA connections to/from elements, that will end up being the only 'standards', everything else will be in flux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be based on elements but also time. Think of when the US stared with trains and railways, there was a lot of different track sizes and now we have one. It prolly won’t go to one standard but I’m sure over time wit will be narrowed down. 

 

Also we need to see what needs to be standardized. That’ll come later so we don’t really know what it will be yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my two cents,

 

In my opinion, for any standard, the key will be to define the standard in such a way that it can be implemented in any number of ways by organizations that choose to adopt it. That way, individual organizations or players are responsible to ensure that they are adopting the standard effectively and neither are constrained to a hard set of rules that they may not be comfortable following. It will be best to define things in terms of limits that NQ have placed on various things, which we will know by release.

 

For example, let's say that someone wants to make a standard for communications while docking. Let's say that the organization wants everyone that wants to land to use a specific encryption solution that they have written. Who is going to land at their spaceport? No one, because who knows what type of weirdness might be in that code (tracking code, killswitches, etc), especially if it can access the internet. The better way would be to say "all pilots need to use X encryption algorithm". Let's use RSA for our purposes. All organizations that want to adopt the standard can either get an implementation from the internet that they trust, or write one. Then, when a player wants to land (assuming they can also encrypt using RSA - they are responsible for ensuring that they can), they can ask the spaceport for its public key and then, having received it, begin the docking process. This is just an example.

 

Ultimately, it will be up to individual organizations to decide whether they want to follow any standard at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only think these standards could happen with large alliances with hundreds of groups in it.  But really I don't think this will ever happen.  Each group will have it's own style of designing.

 

The only thing that will be standardized are things that already exist in game such as core units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless there is a possibility to merge several grids into single one - there is no point in complex standards system. 

In other words if you want to 'dock' on someones else station - the only standard you should follow is the size of docking area/hangar/doors. 

But for example if it would be possible to delegate building of big parts to different 'companies', then transport them somehow and further assemble into single construct - it would be nice to have inbuilt mechanics to check whether those parts fulfill standards requirements. But I doubt that it would be possible to merge constructs in nearest future :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? i would guess all it would need is some form of a "merging block" A two part block each side has to have to be able to merge 2 sections together. it would by far be the most easy way to get around some problems that development of large constructs would give. just add a simple "merge" block

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Aaron Cain said:

Why not? i would guess all it would need is some form of a "merging block" A two part block each side has to have to be able to merge 2 sections together. it would by far be the most easy way to get around some problems that development of large constructs would give. just add a simple "merge" block

I believe the main issue is about not adding special block, but implementing mechanism of transferring part of "construct 1" grid to control of  "construct 2" grid. So it includes: attaching the static construction part to transporter (two grids merge); aligning it correctly to 'master' construction part; detach transporter and keep both construction parts static; welding it with any kind of 'merging' blocks. 

Anyway the easiest way to check if it may be implemented in early release versions - is to place suggestion on trello board and wait for devs response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheMasterArchitect said:

I only think these standards could happen with large alliances with hundreds of groups in it.  But really I don't think this will ever happen.  Each group will have it's own style of designing.

 

The only thing that will be standardized are things that already exist in game such as core units.

 

Core units already have standard sizes, as is shown by some of the earlier videos. There is no need to "standardize" them.

As for standards in general, I am positive that there will be use of them when the game is released. Standardized landing dock sizes, standard road sizes and standard rules for flight in cities are some of the possibilities. Standards can be helpful for travel between cities/jurisdictions as well as trade between players.

 

3 hours ago, Miamato said:

Unless there is a possibility to merge several grids into single one - there is no point in complex standards system. 

In other words if you want to 'dock' on someones else station - the only standard you should follow is the size of docking area/hangar/doors. 

But for example if it would be possible to delegate building of big parts to different 'companies', then transport them somehow and further assemble into single construct - it would be nice to have inbuilt mechanics to check whether those parts fulfill standards requirements. But I doubt that it would be possible to merge constructs in nearest future :)

 

I do not believe that the game's architecture would allow for merging of constructs (grids) together in the way you are describing.

I am pretty sure that we will be able to delegate work to other organizations, but not for modules.

In practice, an organization will be able to use RDMS in order to allow other organizations to work on their buildings/ships, bringing their expertise and compensating them for their work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

indeed, and there are alot of organizations already profiling themselves to be helpfull in this kind of work, Tranquility as example has a consultancy office for city help as for the Bladesin Mercenary Corp. it is already working with some organizations to do the actual building of ships and docks as i read in the posts on the community pages.

 

In the end we need to do this all together and thats where universal standards come from, not by saying you need to do it like this, but to determine it together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...