Azrael: Because seams aren't a real issue in to the design of the model or the magazine. Windows sure if they effected this model specifically I could get on board but it doesn't nor does it seem like you even watched the review of it. So at this point its just really really vauge problems to have with it repeated over and over again. It adds nothing to the thread.
I am not picking up a torch. I'm just saying that citing only the model alone, from a company that has a history of errors, is not a solid enough case. We have all made valid points, and even suggested pulling up the ACTUAL, IN SHOW model of the Dauntless as a potential back up for your case, but you have dismissed us all in favor of ONLY one model from said company that has a history of errors, and calling us out for not providing proof.
While it may be true that they got the proper measurements and stuff to make the models accurate, we have a history of errors. Just look at the standard Connie Refit vs the XL. One of the most obvious is the details on the edge of the saucer are missing on the XL model. And it has been stated that other models have some form of error as well. While small, they are common. Which puts the model at best as a suspect piece of evidence. Again, as stated before, using actual shots of the CG model from the episode of Voyager may give you some backup for your case.
Literally the only time there have been arguments in this thread is when people have brought up things that you don't agree with. People have provided evidence to say that the physical model may not be the best source, and you've brushed them off saying that is it absolutely perfect... which said evidence clearly indicates that may not be the case.
I suggested screenshots from the episode, and you fall back on the Eaglemoss model and call foul on counterarguments. We've all provided evidence and suggestions, only to be brushed aside as if we don't know what we're talking about and our evidence isn't even worthy of consideration. Which leads to frustration on our part because, frankly, you're showing absolutely no interest in any kind of constructive criticizm because your rose tinted glasses say the Eaglemoss model is absolutely, 100%, carved by a goddess, perfect.
I'm sorry if this offends in any way, but that is how you are comming across right now. We have ALL made valid points or made suggestions, and your responses have been either "watch this one thing and believe" or "you have no idea what you're talking about now begone".
con·trar·i·an
kənˈtre(ə)rēən
noun
1.
a person who opposes or rejects popular opinion, especially in stock exchange dealing.
adjective
1.
opposing or rejecting popular opinion; going against current practice.
"the comment came more from a contrarian disposition than moral conviction"
To be a contrarian you have to be in the act of rejecting a popular view. I'm surprised that in 4 pages now of this thread, the only person that believes that the Dauntless is generally inaccurate is you. Therefore, you are the contrarian here, mozzelli.
When you see "TRIBBLE" in my posts, it's because I manually typed "TRIBBLE" and censored myself.
Azrael: There are no window errors on this model, specifically the Irishtrekkie review. I already told you seams are a production problem that in no way effects the ships design. The model is sound and design comes straight from the guy who originally designed it. There is no obession you CHOSE to comment on this thread of course Im going to back up my point. If youre tired then stop posting you wana talk obsession.
You claim you did all this research but can't fathome how the best source for the design is the guy who originally designed it? really? what part of your research says you know better then the guy who designed it? Clearly you didn't do enough research. You keep focusing and raving about other Eaglemoss models and windows this and decals that....none of which apply to the dauntless....I've said that a few times now and you just keep ranting about other models that having nothing to do with the thread.
Lastly yes that was your only relevant post as It added something to the conversation and you weren't just raving about windows and decals on other models.
Mark: I don’t mean weird shadow the mesh is laid improperly so it doesn’t connect or blend with the rest of the mesh. It is darker but that isn’t isnt shadow it’s discolored because it’s not binded to the ship. I can show you further images of that part of the mesh on both sides of the ship and it’s underside if you like to further show how it’s laid improperly.
To your second point the image is from the paramount licensed official Star Trek fact files.
Reyan: The point of the thread was to see if it was even on the Devs mind that the ship needs a visual rework. You and other seem to be harping in the point YOU don’t want it to get a rework because to you there are other ships that need it and you want the ships you like to get a rework first. To use something you brought up earlier it’s like me going on a Rhode Island rework thread and saying “yeah I hear what your saying and I don’t have any disagreement with your critique but ya know I think the Dauntless should be reworked first because I like that ship. Can you see how unserving that is to the thread?
This thread wasn’t about the Rhode island but you just had to throw in how much it should get a rework first becuase ,by your own account, you are a stubborn hold out for the ship, that is probably getting a t6 variant anyway so your rework isn’t far off to begin with. I agree the Nova/ Rhode Island does need a rework but I don’t think getting concerned one ship might get a rework before the other really adds anything to the thread.
Reyan: The point of the thread was to see if it was even on the Devs mind that the ship needs a visual rework. You and other seem to be harping in the point YOU don’t want it to get a rework because to you there are other ships that need it and you want the ships you like to get a rework first. To use something you brought up earlier it’s like me going on a Rhode Island rework thread and saying “yeah I hear what your saying and I don’t have any disagreement with your critique but ya know I think the Dauntless should be reworked first because I like that ship. Can you see how unserving that is to the thread?
Strawman much?! Nobody said they don't want a rework of the Dauntless. People, like me, however, have been pointing out to you, that the likelihood of the Dauntless getting a priority fix is very low. And that's merely based on the simple observation that other ships are more broken/need an overhaul more badly -- like the T5 Nova, and that companies (if they have the time to fix stuff at all) tend to prioritize based on 'what needs to be fixed most desperately' first. Sentiment doesn't play into it. I have a Dauntless (and no Nova, btw).
Also, as a general rule of thumb, Cryptic doesn't fix ships: once it's released, that's what you'll have. Except for very rare, specific occasions (like they fixed the seating on the Wells/Mobius once, as the bridge of those ships appeared in a story arc mission). But unless they do a complete ship overhaul (like the recent T6 Miranda), you're generally out of luck. And the Dauntless, I can assure you, will be very low on their agenda to fix, as it's a fully functional T6 ship, with a few minute mash errors on it heretofore ppl didn't even notice.
Now, you can go back at being angry with me me, claiming I allegedly begrudge you your Dauntless fix; or, you could just conserve some of your energy, and realize that what you want isn't likely going to happen any time soon -- for reasons outlined above.
Meime: Far from it. Never said anyone said that there shouldn't be a rework. Im saying its useless to say "well I want ship
X reworked first because I like it" when you full well know its up for a T6 rework. Im not angry with you Meime, Im just taking you as you come to me. You just seem again intent on saying The Dauntless shouldnt be reworked over other ships which again as I said in my previous post is kinda pointless.
Mark: I don’t mean weird shadow the mesh is laid improperly so it doesn’t connect or blend with the rest of the mesh. It is darker but that isn’t isnt shadow it’s discolored because it’s not binded to the ship. I can show you further images of that part of the mesh on both sides of the ship and it’s underside if you like to further show how it’s laid improperly.
One thing I noticed is that only certain hull materials have a dark spot there, and the dark spot is the underside of the nacelle pylon.
Mark: I've always assumed it was a specific Dauntless issue as Ive never seen that type of break on mesh before on any other ships. Which ones have you seen it on?
Mark: I've always assumed it was a specific Dauntless issue as Ive never seen that type of break on mesh before on any other ships. Which ones have you seen it on?
You say "break" but it's a shadowing thing. A part of the model in shadow is directly touching one that's not.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Is there somewhere in this long thread i really cannot read through entirely, where someone posted an actual comparison picture?
Because honestly the Dauntless looks pretty darn close to the real thing from the show episode and I can;t really see where the issues lie. @reyan01 often posts a pic he has of the Nova/RI's inconsistencies but i have never seen one for the Dauntless.
And anyway, is the Dauntless we have not meant to be a reverse engineer of the original plan found by the engineer corps somewhere during DR? So it makes sense it's not identical to the show version, which was an alien vessel anyway.
And anyway, is the Dauntless we have not meant to be a reverse engineer of the original plan found by the engineer corps somewhere during DR? So it makes sense it's not identical to the show version, which was an alien vessel anyway.
Also when canon designs are changed the devs specifically address it. We are only told they find the specifications for the dauntless in the delta quadrant and its built. There is no real reason it would look different especially Considering even when the devs change something as small as adding phaser strips to a canon model ,as we saw with the recon destroyer,they address it the same would apply here. If they did intent to make a altered version why not add phaser strips so it looks more federation then....in fact the entire ship has not one phaser strip even where they have them canonically
If you choose not to see its the incorrect in game design thats your choice. No one can force you to live in reality.
Reyan: that would break the seemingly consistent effort sto makes to put canon accurate ships in game. If they wanted to change the design they usually address things like that as they did with the recon destroyer when all they did was add two phaser strips. This seems the case of it being a rushed job.
Loredsteven so you don't have to go looking for it here. As requested.
Also when canon designs are changed the devs specifically address it. We are only told they find the specifications for the dauntless in the delta quadrant and its built. There is no real reason it would look different especially Considering even when the devs change something as small as adding phaser strips to a canon model ,as we saw with the recon destroyer,they address it the same would apply here. If they did intent to make a altered version why not add phaser strips so it looks more federation then....in fact the entire ship has not one phaser strip even where they have them canonically
Hmm.....i'll admit the phaser strips are missing but i can;t see the other differences. Admittedly the pictures are tiny though and i think some of it could be the hull material that changes things quite a bit?
If you choose not to see its the incorrect in game design thats your choice. No one can force you to live in reality.
Reyan: that would break the seemingly consistent effort sto makes to put canon accurate ships in game. If they wanted to change the design they usually address things like that as they did with the recon destroyer when all they did was add two phaser strips. This seems the case of it being a rushed job.
So the phaser strips are missing, fair point and that does strike me as a bit odd as surely the ship must have hardpoints for weapons fire under there?
I'm not sure what the top two pics show because one is a game render, the other is merely a basic geometric drawing in a very small scale. I guess some of the panel lines are not matching but different hull patterns in game make that wildly different anyway.
Those bits on the nacelles i'll admit look a bit off, but it's hard to tell really.
I guess really what it boil down to is that different players will expect different ships to be up to the show standards. Reyan likes his Nova/RI and will point out all the errors. I've seen similar with people pointing out errors on Galaxy and Sovereign class ships too.
And even my own Amarie class in my sig pic is actually the wrong dammed shape in the game, and with all manner of marking and greebles in the wrong places. But i'll have to be happy with what I've got and realise asking won;'t really get anything from the Devs.
I will say however, i fully respect your passion for your favourite ship, that's what makes Trek and STO quite special to me. People really do love the ships that much!
Lord Steve:First pic is the proper design of the ship out of the official star trek fact files. Its used merely to illustrate what the ship is suppose to look like shown from multiple angles. The in game version is oddly rounded and does not have the proper secondary hull (deflector housing) or hull design. The second pic shows the ship as we have it in game from those same angles. The hull mesh pattern is not what im getting at. The design itself is incorrect. Compare deflector housings one is pointed and boxed under the saucer section. the one we have in game has rounded both the deflector and secondary hull. Even the black hull patterns above the engines and bow are incorrect as the canon version has nothing over the bow of this ship and the in game version does No explanation for the change as we got when the recon destroyer was changed. This is in addition to the other problems I've flagged with this design....I suspect it was a rush job for DR.
My biggest problem so far has been people losing their mind because their ship wasn't what this rework thread is about and everyone and their mother throwing in how they think ship x or y should be reworked first because *insert reason*
My biggest problem so far has been people losing their mind because their ship wasn't what this rework thread is about and everyone and their mother throwing in how they think ship x or y should be reworked first because *insert reason*
My biggest problems are:
1.) we're on page 5 of this thread
2.) it's still sitting in General and not where it should be; in Feedback like many other design/graphics issues.
I will give you on material two its seems like a shadow...however that entire material is patches. Move up in to the other materials fleet materials included and you'll see it. Except for type 6 for some reason its not on that material.
Comments
While it may be true that they got the proper measurements and stuff to make the models accurate, we have a history of errors. Just look at the standard Connie Refit vs the XL. One of the most obvious is the details on the edge of the saucer are missing on the XL model. And it has been stated that other models have some form of error as well. While small, they are common. Which puts the model at best as a suspect piece of evidence. Again, as stated before, using actual shots of the CG model from the episode of Voyager may give you some backup for your case.
Literally the only time there have been arguments in this thread is when people have brought up things that you don't agree with. People have provided evidence to say that the physical model may not be the best source, and you've brushed them off saying that is it absolutely perfect... which said evidence clearly indicates that may not be the case.
I suggested screenshots from the episode, and you fall back on the Eaglemoss model and call foul on counterarguments. We've all provided evidence and suggestions, only to be brushed aside as if we don't know what we're talking about and our evidence isn't even worthy of consideration. Which leads to frustration on our part because, frankly, you're showing absolutely no interest in any kind of constructive criticizm because your rose tinted glasses say the Eaglemoss model is absolutely, 100%, carved by a goddess, perfect.
I'm sorry if this offends in any way, but that is how you are comming across right now. We have ALL made valid points or made suggestions, and your responses have been either "watch this one thing and believe" or "you have no idea what you're talking about now begone".
You see why we're a little frustrated?
To be a contrarian you have to be in the act of rejecting a popular view. I'm surprised that in 4 pages now of this thread, the only person that believes that the Dauntless is generally inaccurate is you. Therefore, you are the contrarian here, mozzelli.
You claim you did all this research but can't fathome how the best source for the design is the guy who originally designed it? really? what part of your research says you know better then the guy who designed it? Clearly you didn't do enough research. You keep focusing and raving about other Eaglemoss models and windows this and decals that....none of which apply to the dauntless....I've said that a few times now and you just keep ranting about other models that having nothing to do with the thread.
Lastly yes that was your only relevant post as It added something to the conversation and you weren't just raving about windows and decals on other models.
My character Tsin'xing
To your second point the image is from the paramount licensed official Star Trek fact files.
Reyan: The point of the thread was to see if it was even on the Devs mind that the ship needs a visual rework. You and other seem to be harping in the point YOU don’t want it to get a rework because to you there are other ships that need it and you want the ships you like to get a rework first. To use something you brought up earlier it’s like me going on a Rhode Island rework thread and saying “yeah I hear what your saying and I don’t have any disagreement with your critique but ya know I think the Dauntless should be reworked first because I like that ship. Can you see how unserving that is to the thread?
This thread wasn’t about the Rhode island but you just had to throw in how much it should get a rework first becuase ,by your own account, you are a stubborn hold out for the ship, that is probably getting a t6 variant anyway so your rework isn’t far off to begin with. I agree the Nova/ Rhode Island does need a rework but I don’t think getting concerned one ship might get a rework before the other really adds anything to the thread.
Strawman much?! Nobody said they don't want a rework of the Dauntless. People, like me, however, have been pointing out to you, that the likelihood of the Dauntless getting a priority fix is very low. And that's merely based on the simple observation that other ships are more broken/need an overhaul more badly -- like the T5 Nova, and that companies (if they have the time to fix stuff at all) tend to prioritize based on 'what needs to be fixed most desperately' first. Sentiment doesn't play into it. I have a Dauntless (and no Nova, btw).
Also, as a general rule of thumb, Cryptic doesn't fix ships: once it's released, that's what you'll have. Except for very rare, specific occasions (like they fixed the seating on the Wells/Mobius once, as the bridge of those ships appeared in a story arc mission). But unless they do a complete ship overhaul (like the recent T6 Miranda), you're generally out of luck. And the Dauntless, I can assure you, will be very low on their agenda to fix, as it's a fully functional T6 ship, with a few minute mash errors on it heretofore ppl didn't even notice.
Now, you can go back at being angry with me me, claiming I allegedly begrudge you your Dauntless fix; or, you could just conserve some of your energy, and realize that what you want isn't likely going to happen any time soon -- for reasons outlined above.
X reworked first because I like it" when you full well know its up for a T6 rework. Im not angry with you Meime, Im just taking you as you come to me. You just seem again intent on saying The Dauntless shouldnt be reworked over other ships which again as I said in my previous post is kinda pointless.
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
I think its why that area of mesh is darker.
Ltminns: To create the Federations first beam cannon boat duh xD
Because honestly the Dauntless looks pretty darn close to the real thing from the show episode and I can;t really see where the issues lie.
@reyan01 often posts a pic he has of the Nova/RI's inconsistencies but i have never seen one for the Dauntless.
And anyway, is the Dauntless we have not meant to be a reverse engineer of the original plan found by the engineer corps somewhere during DR? So it makes sense it's not identical to the show version, which was an alien vessel anyway.
Mentioned... and dismissed.
Also when canon designs are changed the devs specifically address it. We are only told they find the specifications for the dauntless in the delta quadrant and its built. There is no real reason it would look different especially Considering even when the devs change something as small as adding phaser strips to a canon model ,as we saw with the recon destroyer,they address it the same would apply here. If they did intent to make a altered version why not add phaser strips so it looks more federation then....in fact the entire ship has not one phaser strip even where they have them canonically
Loredsteven so you don't have to go looking for it here. As requested.
Hmm.....i'll admit the phaser strips are missing but i can;t see the other differences. Admittedly the pictures are tiny though and i think some of it could be the hull material that changes things quite a bit?
So the phaser strips are missing, fair point and that does strike me as a bit odd as surely the ship must have hardpoints for weapons fire under there?
I'm not sure what the top two pics show because one is a game render, the other is merely a basic geometric drawing in a very small scale. I guess some of the panel lines are not matching but different hull patterns in game make that wildly different anyway.
Those bits on the nacelles i'll admit look a bit off, but it's hard to tell really.
I guess really what it boil down to is that different players will expect different ships to be up to the show standards. Reyan likes his Nova/RI and will point out all the errors. I've seen similar with people pointing out errors on Galaxy and Sovereign class ships too.
And even my own Amarie class in my sig pic is actually the wrong dammed shape in the game, and with all manner of marking and greebles in the wrong places. But i'll have to be happy with what I've got and realise asking won;'t really get anything from the Devs.
I will say however, i fully respect your passion for your favourite ship, that's what makes Trek and STO quite special to me. People really do love the ships that much!
My biggest problem so far has been people losing their mind because their ship wasn't what this rework thread is about and everyone and their mother throwing in how they think ship x or y should be reworked first because *insert reason*
See? the top of the nacelle pylon is not shadowed. The bottom is. The bottom of the nacelle is shadowed. No other part of the nacelle is shadowed.
Yes, that one of my Dauntlesses, and yes, this is the default appearance.
My character Tsin'xing
My biggest problems are:
1.) we're on page 5 of this thread
2.) it's still sitting in General and not where it should be; in Feedback like many other design/graphics issues.
Mark: The lines break and it doesn't connect with the rest of the mesh https://postimg.cc/FdMxTgnK
I will give you on material two its seems like a shadow...however that entire material is patches. Move up in to the other materials fleet materials included and you'll see it. Except for type 6 for some reason its not on that material.