Neo Standard for SE V?

[Fyron]

The SE4 neostandard was created precisely to cater to the needs of existing mods. Any SE4 ship set author that made his set comply with the neostandard was precisely making his set cater to the needs of modders.

=0=

Let's get this back on track... a few people have posted lists of most needed distinct hulls. What about everyone else? What do you think is most needed?

[President_Elect_Shang]

Ok, Ok, fine I hear you. Still don't see it that way but that is another way to explain the same thing. Moving right along...

Shuttles to represent warp capable small craft.
More Base and Freighter sizes oh so badly!
As for a list what kind of list? I say Juggernaut and you say that is a class not a size. How many warships? I say we need at least:

Explorer
Frigate
Destroyer
Cruiser
Battleship
Dreadnought
Monitor
Juggernaut

Baseship has always seemed like a class not a size to me and Stock Light Cruiser can be used for one of the above. Unique models are nice but what do we need? That really depends on the mod you are talking about. SJ gave his list but I don't need those. I need Shuttle and Pinnace and the rest are more selections of warships, freighters, and bases. More fighters to pick from would be nice but I only use one troop.

[Suicide Junkie]

Of course, ALL of those are roles/classes, and not sizes.
(Though many do have typical sizes, even the ordering isn't fixed over time)

[President_Elect_Shang]

Thank you SJ, that is just the point I was making with my comment here:

President_Elect_Shang said:
As for a list what kind of list? I say Juggernaut and you say that is a class not a size.

To me those are sizes of ships not roles/classes. I honestly do not understand the definition you guys are using. To me a role is "Scout Ship" and a class is "Agamemnon Class" but "Destroyer" is a size. I would read the above example as:
Scout Ship - Agamemnon Class Destroyer
I don't think you guys are using the U.S. Navy standard (I'm not saying am either) so what makes a size a size?

[Suicide Junkie]

Are you sure?

Destroyer is what it does...
Battleship is what it does...
Cruiser is what it does...

I only use those names because I haven't come up with a better system yet... GritEcon uses "200kt General Hull", and such, but those are a bit bland.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Suicide Junkie said:
Are you sure?

Destroyer is what it does...
Battleship is what it does...
Cruiser is what it does...

I only use those names because I haven't come up with a better system yet... GritEcon uses "200kt General Hull", and such, but those are a bit bland.

Yes I am 100% sure; however, using a bland system is not a bad idea SJ. Does it matter what we call them here? In a mod they will be renamed by the mod's maker. Here aren't we just trying to get sizes laid out for inclusion? So why can't the model have a generic (or bland as you call it) name?

Edited: Ok SJ I get your comment above (or below depending on display mode). So I edited the "but" to a "however" to clarify what I was saying.

[Suicide Junkie]

Well, the main issue is that whatever we do has to be backwards compatible with stock.

Otherwise I'd suggest a simple Warship1 through warship9, plus transport1 through 3 and similar stuff.

PS:
I meant, are you sure I'm agreeing with you

[President_Elect_Shang]

This is the classifications the U.S. Navy uses. Now if you look at that and compare it with what you guys have been saying everything listed on this page would be considered a role, a size, and a class. So what are you guys saying [precisely] is a size?

Edit type-o's