Jump to content
Zekarsis

Standardizing construction

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, MaltoSigma said:

So are you for the butter idea

lol ?

3 hours ago, MaltoSigma said:

or what is the deal now?

The deal is I support having a Standard even to just the Consensus level. If people still do not agree, then there is another proposal - what I would like to call (and this is my own terminology) a "compatibility certification". A specific facility and Construct have to match. If they match, they are compatible; if they don't, they are not. Just have the paperwork to back this up! This is integration! Sometimes, something is integrated with some things but not with others; sometimes, they are not integrated with some things but is integrated with others. Make a tree out of this! 

 

I highly support having a Consensus Standard at the very least. How are you gonna design based on integration without the compatible specifications which is what we call a standard? You need it to design if you wanna design based on integration! 

 

You wanna use AMRAAMs, Sidewinders, JDAMs, Pythons and Derbys on an SU-30? These Armaments are not compatible with this Russian Jet. There are specific Avionics and Armaments that are compatible with this jet - Armaments and Avionics that are certified for this jet. When you are marketing this jet, you have to provide these information of what can be fitted to it - what is compatible with this jet.

 

Also, think about aircraft parts in real-life; the engines (powerplants) are manufactured and designed by companies like Rolls Royce, GE, and Pratt & Whitney. The Airframe is designed and manufactured by companies like Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, and Embraer. The Wheels, Brakes, and Tires are designed and manufactured by companies like Goodyear, Bridgestone, Dunlop, and Michelin. The Actuators are designed and manufactured by companies like Moog. etc. Aircraft Assemblers on the final assembly will assemble the whole aircraft together with all of it's parts (it is the Airframe company that do this final assembly like Boeing and Airbus).

 

Cars are the same thing. Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, etc. do not design and manufacture all the parts that form their car.   

 

This is what you call "integration". You will design a facility first because the facility is bigger than the Construct and contains the Construct (and have you seen that door Element? What if your Construct don't fit in it?). Afterwards, you will design a Construct that is compatible with this facility. You will then design more construct models that are compatible with this same facility. If you wanna get into facility design and construction business, you will design your facility based on already existing constructs. Same thing for Construct design and manufacturing business - you wanna design them based on already existing facilities. We call this "designing based on already existing platform". This is how car manufacturing industry and aircraft manufacturing industry are integrated parts by parts - they design based on already existing platforms. the platform is the market. You cannot sell Tires, Exhaust System, Windshield, Airbag System, Child-seat, etc. without an existing car which is the platform. You cannot sell car-wash services, oil-change services, maintenance and repair services, without an existing car. You think about the platform! If it doesn't exist yet, create a platform (which will create a market), and then create something that is compatible with that platform. Designers and manufacturers of facilities and Constructs that are integrated don't have to be the same Org nor do they need to be affiliated with each other at all!

 

There will be 2 different kinds of designer in this game: 

1.) the ones who create platforms.  

2.) the ones who create something that is compatible with existing platform/s. 

 

That's all the kinds of designer! If they don't care about integration, they will just be creating more platforms which is #1. Integration means compatibility. If there are people who do #2, they are creating compatibility based on #1. This is integration!

 

If you don't like a certain platform (you don't like how it is designed), don't create integration for it! If you like a certain platform, YOU HAVE THE CHOICE to create integration for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ppl rly like to overthink things in a game. 

 

If there are no single seater landing pads in a certain player market then ppl with single seater ships won't use it => less money for the owner => He analyzes other, successful markets and realizes that single seaters are used by the majority of ppl for their shopping => He builds pads for single seaters.

 

There's rly no need imho to agree on anything because It'll balance itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly why I made this post. But not everyone will be using door hangars. Some will want to build a hangar without doors or landing platforms around their base. In these situations you have to consider the same accommodations without having a door as a starting guide. This is why we need a standard set by the community for the community to better the future of DU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2019 at 8:46 PM, Zekarsis said:

This is why we need a standard set by the community for the community to better the future of DU

We need Standards that are developed by cooperating and participating Parties. Using (Recognizing) such Standard IS A CHOICE by any external Party. The whole DU community do not need to comply to an existing Consensus Standard. It is a choice of any external party to Recognize an existing Consensus Standard and use it as their set-Standard.

 

What I will probably do when this game Releases, is I will join a Corporation because I really have a Corporate mindset. I will propose a Founding of a Technical Committee within this Corporation in order to create Consensus Standards that will be factored to our designs in order to create integration for our products. What use is something that is not integrated? Standards are basis of facilitation for compatibility and interoperation - that's all it is! Multiple systems are not functional together if they are not designed to be functional together! Standards will help unify these systems together for interoperation. You people are thinking about operation (a single system), I am thinking about interoperation (multiple systems working together). To me, products that are integrated is an improvement to the quality of the design (they are functional together with other system/s).

 

In the example above, my Corporation created it's own Consensus Standard to be used by that Corporation for interoperation of their products, thus integrating their products. Other external parties (other organizations) who didn't participated in crafting that Standard, will buy our products. They will test our products, and if they find our design to be good, the specifications of that product will be adopted to their Standard by their own choice. Let's say that they really like a specific model of our airplane - they will buy that model, and the facilities that they will buy must meet the specifications of that airplane model. They now have their Recognized Standard, which really, came from us.

 

Another example is you bought a facility. Your org likes the design of this facility and want to make it's specification their own Standard. The ships that your org will buy must be compatible with this facility by your org's now-Recognized Standard.

One of the two Procurement-process in real-life has an "Invitation to Bid" stage - you are not qualified for this bidding if your product do not meet the requirements of the buyer! The Contract of Sale will be Awarded to the contractor that best meet this requirements. That is a process to check for compatibility. You cannot sell something to someone who do not even meet the requirements of that someone! If you bought a facility, you are not stupid to buy Constructs that are incompatible with it! As the one who is doing the procurement, you will set your own Standard/requirements based on the specifications of that facility!

(there is a Procurement Committee for this but I am not gonna go deeper into that)

 

That is how a Recognized Standard is formed in real-life! I am not talking about technology transfer here. This is as simple as when you buy something, you will adopt it's specifications, and whatever you will procure afterwards, it has to be compatible with what you already have. Thus, you have your own requirements for procurement that every contractor must meet based on what you already procured in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There already are 'standards' defined by core sizes and elements such as gates.  If you want a landing pad to fit a certain core, you build it to a size to accommodate that core, if you want a ship to fit through certain gates you build it that way.  Not sure there is any need for unofficial 'standards'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moosegun said:

There already are 'standards' defined by core sizes and elements such as gates.  If you want a landing pad to fit a certain core, you build it to a size to accommodate that core, if you want a ship to fit through certain gates you build it that way.  Not sure there is any need for unofficial 'standards'

I agree that it will be the first and most evident standards on ship dimensions. So it will work.

 

Yet it's a cubic volume, and I think most of the ships will be ether "long" or "flat". But I don't think a lot of them will use the 3D limit of the core size.

So it will not be optimized in terme of space.

 

That will not be a problem for little docking areas, but it will became an efficiency problem for big ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the dynamic or static core regulate the size at which one may build

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

probably but that does not determine how to standardize docking bays or landing paths ;) or airlocked interlink systems

 

Still a valid observation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standards... who is to say 'what' is standard....?  I might like circular landing pads with a bump in the middle so my ship is more elevated... someone else may prefer that their landing pad be at a 35 degree angle.    Someone else might want them to be octagonal or even triangular....  uniformity can be quite boring sometimes.  Maybe MY landing pad will have partial walls extending up on the sides to make it appear that the 'wings' of my ship are supported on the ground, where someone else's ship couldn't possibly land there because their wings are at the Bottom of their ship.... 

 

Each person, org, alliance, or group is going to build the way they see fit.  Heck, maybe I'll build ships that look like a banana split with a cherry on top, and it will need a 'bowl' to sit in when it lands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but i think the point in this would not be to force everyone into one standard but to see if we can figure a way to atleast build a standard interlock device so we can dock ships together, or to a space station, stuff like that.

Share this post


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

True, but i think the point in this would not be to force everyone into one standard but to see if we can figure a way to atleast build a standard interlock device so we can dock ships together, or to a space station, stuff like that.

Oh I don't necessarily disagree that this would be a good thing.  However, I would imaging that as someone previously stated, things like 'Doors' will be Element based, so some conformity in that regard will already happen naturally, and people who are in the same groups will see how 'some' do it and mimic that automatically.  Conventions and Concepts will eventually trickle to the surface on its own based on popular design and success in utilizing it.  What works for some might seem totally alien to others.  Still more will fully believe that their initial design is the best only to later change it as they discover new methodologies.  

 

Drawing up a 'standard' in advance is well and good, but to develop such a thing now would find itself being iterated multiple times with changes and revisions before a final concept actually proves itself to be 'the best' as it were. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think everyone compeletly sees my vision. in my mind standardized construction mostly effects large ships and structors especially when you wish to dock a large ship with a station or building. while you can have many differnt designs for both structors and large ships you will need some kind of design that can make docking for such ships easier. im not saying you cannot customize your ships or structors freely but that theres a set concept that people can use as a guide to make docking and transfers of materials easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2019 at 8:46 PM, Zekarsis said:

This is why we need a standard set by the community for the community to better the future of DU

Here is the problem: even in real-life, they don't exist! They are "Consensus Standards" that are crafted by participating party/s and any external group have the choice whether or not to adopt that certain standard. That's how it works in real-life as I already stated.

 

These external groups think — they will always choose to adopt an existing Consensus Standard that best meet their requirements over another. Ofcourse, a group's set-standards can change over time as better Consensus Standards get created to become available or because of the dynamics (change in situation over time) — they will make the choice to replace a current set-standard of theirs that they think is now obsolete (they need to do that in order to continue competing against other groups, as the standards that they are using can affect their performance).

 

These standards that you're talking about are not Universal, they are Consensus. The only thing Universal is what are set by the game (such as Hangar Door Elements' doorway dimensions, Liter as unit for Volume, etc.).

 

If you want the community to create standards, it has to work this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Core and hangar sizes are the standards for now. Other then that, if players will be needing more standards they'll automatically create them. That's what is called "meta".

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...

×
×
  • Create New...