This looks interesting, however, I do have a query ... would it be worth having separate "classes" types - for Cold War stuff, the NATO classes don't strictly speaking map through to the Warsaw Pact stuff, so trying to allocate Soviet designs within the NATO designations would seem to be asking for a lack of clarity. Similarly, the classes change depending on the date of the ship ... not sure if having a giant list of classes would solve the problem or trying to specify different lists selectable by country and time would work better.
I think "Class" will just end up being a text field.
Better is the enemy of good enough
Yes, if developed, I'll build the skeleton of the system first and then add features later.
-category (battleships etc.) - I wonder if that revamped organization would consist also of simple "list of all files" - like by default it looks currently?
This revamp would include search and list functions that could easily return every drawing on the site, or a filtered/sorted version of that list.
Categorization is tricky issue and frankly while in the "drawing information" (below the drawing) very detailed category (MSI, CVS CLGN) would be sensible, I wonder if in the heading (and therefore understood as a grouping of files) wouldn't just a simpler category be useful (like capital ships or mine-warfare ships)?
The idea behind "Type" is to make it very, very simple and straightforward. "Battleship", "Submarine", "Oil Tanker", "Sailing Frigate" etc. No need for detail at this 50,000 foot view.
-class vs. ship - at least in some folders (most notably Russian, but not only) many drawings are supposed to represent a class or sub-class, rather than particular ship. That makes me wonder if, say, Pr.1241.1 and Pr.1241.2 (and so on) would be - in this mockup - treated as separate classes or as separate ships?
Any system can be built smart enough to accommodate and allow for exceptions.
-personally I find the part USS, HMS, ORP, SMS, ARA etc.etc. redundant. But that's just my opinion.
It can easily be an optional field. I always try to make my drawing titles match perfectly with the associated Wikipedia article (generally wikipedia has already had these types of arguments about how best to portray names of things...) so that means the proper title is "USS Washington (BB-56)" - prefix included.
-available view(s) - given the established practice of making top and left-side views sort-of-mandatory only for carriers, and treated just as (rare) bonus for other types, is it really practical?
Yes.
-I hope that by engine You mean just things like CODAG, COGAS etc. not S2W reactor... etc.?
I'm envisioning a drop down list with not more than 20-30 engine types (if there are even that many? IDK much about engines...) Someone make me a list.
-If that suggestion of having the searchable parts (armament, sensors) were to be linked with sheets with pictures of these parts, then it implies the need for "official" sheets - and so far Gollevainen has resisted idea of any "official sheets" (though I believe in the past he also resisted idea of nation-specific parts sheets at all
).
Not sheets but rather the most current version of that part available. Just because it's on the site doesn't mean you HAVE to use it in drawings. I'm just annoyed by not being able to find parts when I need them.
-IMHO having two separate windows for Real-Designs and Never-Built Designs is redundant. I think it would be simpler just to click either category. After all, the pictures would be submitted one at a time anyway. And some of these data is again repeated in Drawing information.
A mockup of the upload page is coming soon if I can get some free time tonight.
Another thing - if the upload would be done only (and I guess it's only reasonable option) for "logged-on" members, then "author" window in drawing information creates to me a small issue - for the uploader the name could be filled automatically (by virtue of logon), but when there are more authors (usually meaning use of some older drawing as base) then typing it by hand could lead to unintentional mistyping etc.
I'm imagining a checkbox on the upload page that asks "Are you the sole author of this drawing?" and if checked then it uses the uploader's account name as the associated author name. If multiple authors need to be added, a selection can be made from the member list (via a field that auto-completes the available names as you type - allowing you to easily narrow the field and also eliminate any chance of typos).
Soviet classification would have to be kept simply for the relevant folder. But that would mean the need for proper enforcement of rules - but that applies to everything else as well.
I can only build it. Enforcing rules is up to you fine gentlemen who will be the submission approvers.
Whereas for the new drawings artists would have to enter all the "new" data when uploading, at least some of it would have to be done for all older drawings as well (and I imagine most work would have to be done with "parts").
Correct. This system entails a massive amount of manual entry work when first put into place. Luckily there are a lot of people on the board who would be given access to do this. The uncategorized drawings would remain in their current directory listing format, and anyway we've already established that no one uses the main site anyway.
Who do you expect to do that?
You. Just you, by yourself, with no help from anyone else on this forum.
P.S. And no, I'm not saying "I'd do it better" or "we need other Admins". I'm saying: "It's most likely too ambitious. Maybe better stick to keeping properly what's already in place, as there already issues even with that".
I don't think this way but OK.
I can eswube's line of reasoning, why invest so much time and effort if the majority of non-member and visiting interest folks are not being channelled to the archive but instead lurk here and find what they want or just go to wiki.
We have to ask ourselves how much is the archive in use, how many visitors find it and how best can we present the information required. The archive does a good job as a safe repository but as a database will it be a valuable enough tool without simply replicating what we have here?
I don't care if people prefer the forum. This system will be better.
Oh, and did I mention that we'd basically be providing free drawing hosting?
Anyway, I'll make more mockups so the naysayers can see what I'm trying to build for us.
Quick links
FAQ
Register
Login![[Post Reply]](./styles/legacy/theme/en/button_topic_reply.gif "Post a reply"){kind=small}
![[*]](./styles/legacy/theme/images/button_topic_tools.gif){kind=small}
![[Profile]](./styles/legacy/theme/en/icon_user_profile.gif "Profile: Hood"){kind=icon}
![[Quote]](./styles/legacy/theme/en/icon_post_quote.gif "Reply with quote"){kind=icon}
![[ img ]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/zaog8asavt9tdmv/Font2.png)
