Касательно вашего стандарта могу сказать, что он замечателен во всём, кроме расположения верхних и нижних креплений контейнеров, так как это вынуждает тратить место в поверхности грузовой области под повёрнутые набок крепления. Развернуть их вверх, соответствующим образом подняв на один блок ответные крепления на контейнерах - ничего не стоит, и перестало бы выглядеть как неуместная (и даже вредная) попытка выделиться на фоне (дальше плеоназм) стандартного грузового стандарта игры.

Не уверен насчёт того, как было раньше, но на данный момент все встреченные мной контейнеры и грузовые системы, заявленные как соответствующие стандарту ISO, имели ширину рабочего объёма в 11 блоков, так что возможно пора обновить информацию.

I will add the data of this standard to my flexible connector system.

Does this standard still see much use by the community? I don't see many recent workshop items mentioning it, and most that do are cargo vehicles and trailers which are compatible with both AISO and the game's current default

Other than that i really like this standard

May I ask you a question, why did you make the bottom connectors extended and not the top ones (like standard iso containers have it) this makes it very difficult to build things that support both and generally limits cross-compatibility, which is essential for a standard

disconnect up and disconnect down are connected the wrong way

Unfortunate to see so much hate here. I really wish that the devs made actual 20ft & 40ft containers like these.

Это нереально классно!
Отличная заруба)))

are these the standard sizes for the containers like the big pump for missions too?

Sorry guys. In the description there is no word that say this is "a new standard" that must be used. The reasons for its creation are stated at the beginning of the description. Just read it and relax.

@Jarnstorm, What i'm saying is why is it that its called the "new standard".

@FireCat17 dude, maybe one day you will create and publish in the workshop something that shows you right. Until then, enjoy other people's creations.

haha so funny. "advanced" presets have no vehicles that can do any cargo missions

@FireCat17 buddy, from that point of view, you don't have to go to the workshop. just play with advanced presets.

FireCat17, If you want to know the answer to your question, just please read the description. There is a section "Why did we make this standard".

So why is it you think we need another ISO System? i was trying to do an ingame mission, only to find out the creation i was using wouldnt work, because it was made for some other fake iso called AISO. What i see is you trying to fix a problem that dosnt need to be fixed. and really, the game devs used the standered ISO type for there missions and making a new type means less creations that are useful for in-game missions.

Its free to use

can i use i on my creation im not uploading it on the workship

XTS, use switches on corners.

every container connects to eac otjer

I have been helped from your standards. Thank you.

Recently, I stacked up containers, and thought that it would be safer and more convenient to control the connectors from a vehicle not only instrument.
I activated container connectors and stacked it, the connection was suddenly done and it was dangerous.

Stinger, Haha, this is funny, thanks!
TheAlaskan, you true, thx.

Looks good, but within seconds i managed to get myself stuck inside one of them... Anyone got a tin opener?

Oh, I wasn't saying you should just outright delete them or something, just providing some background knowledge because most people aren't aware 40 foot containers have the same weight limits as 20's.

Unless you work around containers (like yours truly) you'll literally never encounter a scenario where that knowledge is necessary, so it's not like I can fault you guys for not knowing.

Truth be told I only worked out it would be an issue in Stormworks because I tried to lift it with my own handler while testing compatibility with AISO and it wouldn't budge, and a quick crosscheck with google showed that the real deal wouldn't be able to cope with 53k litres of water either.

I love the idea, but between this and Nacon's ISO, and smaller 9-wide containers, I can't help but think this: https://xkcd.com/927/

TheAlaskan has an incredibly valid point. Best to not use the 40 ft containers for fluids in general and instead have them as a niche alternative when transporting oversized goods.

TheAlaskan, Your remark is fair. Thanks! I made only 10 and 20-foot tanks. JarnSorm will correct its 40-foot foot if desired, or leave it at its discretion. Thanks again!

large tanks presented in the amount of 40ft can serve as a stationary storage with the possibility of transportation (empty, if you insist so)

the fact that there is no forklift lifting my container does not mean that there should be no container. this means that there is work for loader designers

almost always does not mean always.

For example, A Hyster H52-16, the most powerful laden container handler Hyster has on offer, only has a maximum load capacity of 50 tonnes, and wouldn't be able to pick up your fully fuelled 40 foot tanks.

Apologies gents, with your 40' containers you can't really have tanks in Stormworks.

IRL, the max gross weight for a container is about 30-350000kg, regardless if it's a 20 or 40 foot container, as 40 foot containers have twice the volume, but not twice the load capacity.

So while 40 foot tank containers do exist, they tend to be for stuff like pressurised gasses, liquid tank containers are almost always 20 foot because otherwise they get too heavy for all but the biggest cranes.

We obviously don't have anything like propane or whatever in Stormworks, so your diesel/jet/water 40 foot containers are obscenely heavy because normally that would be packaged into two 20 foot tanks.

okay, thx lexi
have alredy done it but i shall upload with credit soon.

That's a mockup, not actually what I'd use.

Is a Freightliner Argosy. Past it name and you find it at the workshop.

(Third not second)

Whats the truck in the.... (Second?) Image?

Neottious, We can 't change the angle connectors, because this is the main requirement for standardization. Your second offer looks good. But if you use these connectors to move the container along the horizontal plane, why are they on the bottom part, and not on the ends?

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/536336130262695974/686630069099167764/unknown.png on left: corners replaced, on right: another way

Neottious, can you give a link to some creation or picture to show this?

To clarify, I meant alongside the electrical ones, like replacing 2 corners with small connectors.

Have you considered using small connectors? With those, winch cranes become so much easier to use.

Whey should be stretched.

So, I tried getting that forklift to work stock and with my own modifications, but the 1x4 wedges that start two blocks in on the containers are making it problematic, I may just be dumb however.

Thank you! This standard is great so far.

I support this Standard!

Mav, This standard is compatible with any forklift with a pitchfork with a width of 3 or 5 blocks between them and magnets for securing the load. Under these parameters is suitable Forklift "LF-100"

Are there any forklifts that are compatible yet?

Great, now I'm going to make a new set of containers...