[Voting] USD 1.4 standard.

[NeonSturm]

I don't want any personal credits for that design.
I think it is just the single perfect solution and there needs to be a vote-thread for it.

Spoiler: More details for bigger versions

The U$D 1.4 docking standard can dock to anything with at least a 2x2 or 3x2 passage.

You build 3 doors ((not required for 2x2 and 3x3 docks, only for bigger))

|||______|||___|||
|||______|||___|.|
1st + 2nd doors are normal air-lock doors.
3rd door (the red one at right) spares a 3x2y passage above [1] to either match the own or minimal size.

• But you can use multiple stages for different sizes.
• While nothing is docked, it will open completely - to not look ugly.

Before you build the air-lock door, you need to leave at least 1 block free space for air-lock buttons, etc.

• The docking collar itself also have to be free, for the compatibility door (red) and to not activate cuz of miss-aimed docking beams.
• The red barrier may either need to be a door, or something else which interrupts the docking beam to hide air-lock controls from it.

• For the 2m and 3m (inner diameter) versions, just leave some space before the airlock to not have the controls for it or light touching the outer part of your docking collar

For 1.4a = minimal, your ship has to have at least:

• the Docker [D] and the Rail [1]

For 1.4b = standard, your ship has to have all 5 blocks.

• The blocks are placed near the centre.
• The docker on bottom left, the Rails on bottom right and clockwise 90° rotations.

For 1.4c = full, your ship has to have 4 Dockers counter-clockwise to the rails.


This means that:

• You can dock in all 4 possible directions, except while docking standard to a minimal dock.
• The minimal dock itself can dock in all 4 possible directions to any standard or full dock, thus it's perfect for drones.

Following picture shows the Standard configuration.
This is the dock.

I think inward facing arrows (direction of dockers and rails) fits better because that also makes sense with the B and C types (4 rails, 1|4 docks)

Standard docking sizes (inner diameter) are:

• 2 blocks (supported by all which fulfil above mentioned requirements)
  
• 3 blocks (supported by all which fulfil above mentioned requirements)
• 4 blocks.
  
• 8 blocks.
• 16 blocks.
• 2^n blocks.
• And wide docks with half height or a quarter of height compared to width.

Ships which support the USD 1.4 full and standard docking also need

• at least one dock which expands (rail system) to the boundary box and beyond OR have a dock at the boundary box either:
  • A: Pointing away from the ship
  • B: Pointing forward or C
  • C: Pointing backward or B
• in order to dock themselves to other ships.

 

[NeonSturm]

Members who voted for 'No, because it's a NeonSturm-thread (WARNING: Votes are publicly visible!)'

• Alpha-360
• FullMetalFox
• Krougal

I can withstand your mobbing, but seeing this thread on forum page 2 makes me a bit sad.
How can you deny a perfect thought out system which is even supported by another player (Fireshock)

 

[Keptick]

Where's the "No, I can't read code" option?

 

[NeonSturm]

Where's the "No, I can't read code" option?

I don't see any :p
But maybe it got my second language and I don't notice it anymore ^^

 

[Keptick]

I don't see any :p
But maybe it got my second language and I don't notice it anymore ^^

It's just a bit hard to read for most people.

On topic; I think that I'll just go with my own docking systems. Most of my ships are unsuited for docking mostly because of my playstyle, which doesn't necessitate docking (I have honestly never docked to anything but my own stations).

 

[CyberTao]

On topic; I think that I'll just go with my own docking systems. Most of my ships are unsuited for docking mostly because of my playstyle, which doesn't necessitate docking (I have honestly never docked to anything but my own stations).

So long as you have your own standard you can just make a small adapter accessory for us fleshy chumps. Could be handy if you want to raid a transport for supplies or something (boarding tube to unleash deadly drones to capture).

 

[Krougal]

I can withstand your mobbing, but seeing this thread on forum page 2 makes me a bit sad.
How can you deny a perfect thought out system which is even supported by another player (Fireshock)

1. Because you put the voting option there.
2. Because WTF is with you and the crappy ASCII art? That's so 90s. Do you not have access to the game?
3. Because you're twisting things around a bit there for your own agenda, what Fireshock supported is much simpler than this, although still compatible.
4. Because the only reason you went and broke this off into your own thread was to support your own choice, not present all the choices, which were still being discussed.
5. Because it's a NeonSturm-thread.

 

[GRHayes]

I voted no. The reason it is a partial fix that still doesn't deal with one of the biggest issues.
The biggest issue is if ship A docks to Ship B ship A has to be the one to undock.

The best solution would be for them to make it possible for a rail docker to dock to another rail docker and then this standard could be made extremely simple for ship to ship docking and would be even more accepting of different size docking conditions. You would only need one rail docker then below the door in the center or close to it.

 

[NeonSturm]

Ty for taking some time for feedback.

2. Because WTF is with you and the crappy ASCII art? That's so 90s. Do you not have access to the game?

My graphic is only 3 KB in size. If a thread contains many graphics, it adds up and I don't want to bloat the internet unnecessarily.
My SSD was bloated with 200 GB images and videos, until I saw a script for dynamic resolution of image parts and loss-less back-forth conversion (except the initial) to jpg and webm with detection of repeated content in videos.
That reduced the size to about 30% and it has potential for much more, but you have to manually queue the "decompression" between the file-system and programs.

3. Because you're twisting things around a bit there for your own agenda, what Fireshock supported is much simpler than this, although still compatible.

He did, but he didn't cover the fact that 2 big ships docking to each other have to have the docks either both at the boundary box or in a hole which is not deeper than the other ones docking stick.

So no, he didn't cover all things that are required to make a standard, just -like all the others- thought about the most obvious.
Not even/odd symmetry for back doors, not where the docks have to be placed to match each other.

4. Because the only reason you went and broke this off into your own thread was to support your own choice, not present all the choices, which were still being discussed.

Other choices being discussed have (other) flaws or no good summary posted.
I don't want to have to adjust docking block positions when I change the size of my dock and want it to define a standard for any size, so it's quite different.


Foreseeing this, I gave you the possibility to vote "Yes, but this needs improvement." which includes improved description, less different sizes, etc (be creative and specify in a post)

 

[jorgekorke]

Why don't we just stick with the original one ?

 

[Krougal]

Ty for taking some time for feedback.


My graphic is only 3 KB in size. If a thread contains many graphics, it adds up and I don't want to bloat the internet unnecessarily.
My SSD was bloated with 200 GB images and videos, until I saw a script for dynamic resolution of image parts and loss-less back-forth conversion (except the initial) to jpg and webm with detection of repeated content in videos.
That reduced the size to about 30% and it has potential for much more, but you have to manually queue the "decompression" between the file-system and programs.


He did, but he didn't cover the fact that 2 big ships docking to each other have to have the docks either both at the boundary box or in a hole which is not deeper than the other ones docking stick.

So no, he didn't cover all things that are required to make a standard, just -like all the others- thought about the most obvious.
Not even/odd symmetry for back doors, not where the docks have to be placed to match each other.


Other choices being discussed have (other) flaws or no good summary posted.
I don't want to have to adjust docking block positions when I change the size of my dock and want it to define a standard for any size, so it's quite different.


Foreseeing this, I gave you the possibility to vote "Yes, but this needs improvement." which includes improved description, less different sizes, etc (be creative and specify in a post)

You know the more we have these little chats, the more I like you because of your obvious warped sense of humor, you love to argue, and you have some good ideas and yet at the same time the more I dislike you because you love to argue, I hate crappy ASCII art, and you overcomplicate good ideas to the point where I don't think they're good anymore, even when it was my idea to begin with (like with the j-drive).

It's not that hard. See my crappy screenshot and crappy examples (but still not as crappy as ASCII art) in the USD-1 thread. A couple simple rules to follow 2 blocks spaced 1 block apart and properly oriented, and with the proper empty space relative to them. You're over-engineering this.

You also didn't address my 1st and 5th points, so my vote is unchanged. :P

 

[FullMetalFox]

I can withstand your mobbing, but seeing this thread on forum page 2 makes me a bit sad.
How can you deny a perfect thought out system which is even supported by another player (Fireshock)

Because how can i not select that option when you put it there? :P
And a bit of what Krougal said. In the end, whatever gets to standard, ill make my docking system compatible with it.

 

[Fireshock]

I can withstand your mobbing, but seeing this thread on forum page 2 makes me a bit sad.
How can you deny a perfect thought out system which is even supported by another player (Fireshock)

You invited the mobbing by puting the option there, best way to be friendly with everyone is to assume you are and act that way .

I support it because it realy is PERFECT solution. BUT it is too complicated for many players to understand. I judge solution based on it's quality, not who came up with it. Although this is truly proffesional way to define standards, I dont think starmade community knew what they were asking for when they wanted realy universal standard.

I voted no. The reason it is a partial fix that still doesn't deal with one of the biggest issues.
The biggest issue is if ship A docks to Ship B ship A has to be the one to undock.

ALL of the proposed standards up to now allow ship B to use logic signal to undock.


Maybe if 1.4a version of this(exact same idea as mine which sven accepted too), got officialy broadcasted as the standard....
and the rest of this just be mentioned that it exists and written explanation be left of it on wiki for smarter people to figure out and use if they want to, so when they implement it they can say I got expanded/improved USD ver1X.
Basicaly present it in a way which makes reader only need to understand the part which he wants to use, not anything else.

 

[GRHayes]

You invited the mobbing by puting the option there, best way to be friendly with everyone is to assume you are and act that way .

I support it because it realy is PERFECT solution. BUT it is too complicated for many players to understand. I judge solution based on it's quality, not who came up with it. Although this is truly proffesional way to define standards, I dont think starmade community knew what they were asking for when they wanted realy universal standard.


ALL of the proposed standards up to now allow ship B to use logic signal to undock.


Maybe if 1.4a version of this(exact same idea as mine which sven accepted too), got officialy broadcasted as the standard....
and the rest of this just be mentioned that it exists and written explanation be left of it on wiki for smarter people to figure out and use if they want to, so when they implement it they can say I got expanded/improved USD ver1X.
Basicaly present it in a way which makes reader only need to understand the part which he wants to use, not anything else.

Apparently the ship I tested on was causing issues that prevented the undocking using logic. Structure of the ship enveloped part of the docking tube thus for lack of a better word friction prevented release.

Still it is more complex than it needs to be. That coming from a person who was a Nuclear RO.

 

[Jay_do]

Ill just use a 3x3 hole with a rail on one of the sides pointing inwards.

 

[NeonSturm]

Thanks Fireshock.
You gave me a little bit of hope that humanity isn't lost to believe what's repeated the most

Jay_do inward?
Inward, pointing to the dock or outward "pointing the direction of gravity"?

I think inward fits better because that also makes sense with the B and C types (4 rails, 1|4 docks)

And that's an important thing a standard must handle.

 

[Alpha-360]

I can withstand your mobbing, but seeing this thread on forum page 2 makes me a bit sad.
How can you deny a perfect thought out system which is even supported by another player (Fireshock)

sadly because i'm not the best in english and i didn't understand so much with those drawing...
and i didn't found how to erase my vote

 

[NeonSturm]

and i didn't found how to erase my vote

There is a button below the voting options, ["Change Your Vote"]

I can withstand your mobbing, but seeing this thread on forum page 2 makes me a bit sad.

First part came into my mind as a joke about the peoples outing themselves as being subjective enough to actually vote that option.

Perhaps there are too few indicators, but I thought writing ["(WARNING: Votes are publicly visible!)"] makes my intention clear to the intelligent peoples...
Maybe I shouldn't have made the second part of the sentence sounding negative without proper delimiter between the statements.

For me, getting negative feedback by peoples actually voting such an option is nothing compared to no feedback at all.
Maybe because when I was 3, I were so distracted by all and every noise, colour and everything that I've learned early to skip all thoughts which cause these feelings and instead think about all which is new or in a new context -- at least until I get bored. Stuff that may usually the sub-conscious handles? I can't say because nobody talks (or can talk?) about this.

 

[FullMetalFox]

First part came into my mind as a joke about the peoples outing themselves as being subjective enough to actually vote that option.

Perhaps there are too few indicators, but I thought writing ["(WARNING: Votes are publicly visible!)"] makes my intention clear to the intelligent peoples...
Maybe I shouldn't have made the second part of the sentence sounding negative without proper delimiter between the statements.

The warning is clear enough, but maybe you forgott that people may still find it funny enough to do it anyways, or simply dont care about the voters names being publicly viewable?

 

[Thalanor]

1.4b and 1.4c are out of the question for me, because I don't want multiple rails on the docker:

- just think of the upcoming magnetic system, that would be a mess.
- USD 1.0 enforces that the gravity (down) direction is the same on both docking ships.

1.4a on the other hand is just a different placement of both the rail and the docker compared to 1.0 - I wouldn't care which one as long as one of these is the actual standard. Same applies to different sizes - the less compicated, the better. I know making up more and more standards is fun (heck, I study CS :D), but I still like the fixed-3x3-corridor-size one-dock-one-rail USD 1.0 better for simplicity.