Jump to content

ColonelKane

Members
  • Posts

    1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

ColonelKane's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • First Post
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. Although I think I would prefer the first, ARC-1 Archer, the manufacturer way is a 'novel' way to do it. I could see some corps doing it either way. I think the first is the way to go, here is why. Say a corp is making the Archer, ARC project. 1 would, at least in my mind, designate the first of the Archers, which may not work, ie, have a major flaw that would require going to ARC-2. I feel if you went with the manufacturer way, then the Archer project would be say NAP-1. Ok, how would they designate a development revision of that project? Could be NAP -1-2... Then a variant would end up being NAP-1-2A... Starting to get a bit on the long side there, IMO. Now I also have the issue of the leading zero... Example ARC -1 being ARC-01. Now sure if a corp has a 100 or more projects, then again we are getting long on the numbering. My POV, is that with the leading zero, it might help a corp sort the projects in order. Cause most software will sort ARC-1 then ARC-10.... Now I know I am rambling... I think you get the point.
×
×
  • Create New...