Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CQBArms
...COTS...
|
If I understand the reference, you mean "Commercial Off The Shelf"; then I think I have to disagree a bit. That's the "battle" we're fighting now with Estes. They've commercialized their "parts" down to a bare minimum for basic designs, and they've concentrated on stuff that would be difficult at best to duplicate, even if there was something in their line-up we even wanted to duplicate. What they've been fielding with their "stock" parts has been ridiculous and uninspired, to be kind; and their "stock" parts have, also to be kind, sucked in quality. That's a direct result of COTS.
SEMROC has gone in the other direction, and filled their bins (virtual / real) with components we can actually use, and actually want to use. That means we have more to work with, and our creativity is vastly improved, if not outright superior, compared to what Estes has demonstrated in the last few decades as a result. I'll put some of our resident forum designers -- myself included -- up against any that Estes has had in the past or is considering for the future. Further, each time someone has made a suggestion for a new component, Carl has taken the time to look into actually producing the part. Estes would never consider doing something so "customized" as producing simple components just because one of us asked.
Carl also has one advantage that Estes long ago forgot: You can introduce new balsa components to the market in quantity faster than you can a new plastic component. For him, it's just a digital file on a hard disk and a pile of raw balsa in the feed hopper. I suppose one can call that aspect COTS, if the shelf is a computer. Laser-cut fins are the same.
Traditional COTS would take things back to a "least-common-denominator" style of parts inventory that kills serious design efforts. That's been the bane of model rocketry for too long. We need the diversity of Carl's approach to strengthen the hobby. The COTS approach needs to die a quick death.