STO's Terrible Ship Models

stardestroyer001

I just wanted to throw this out there. I already sent a complaint to PWE CS, but their response was to post something here, so here I am.

I realize that any recreation of a CGI model made for a television show or movie will be flawed. That's to be expected (unless you are a Star Trek: Bridge Commander modeler).

However, I've noticed a slew of errors, some that are careless and easily corrected, and some which are bad interpretations of a CGI or actual model. I've posted my annotations to each image with problems. Note that this is by no means a complete list, there are numerous ships in STO with similar problems, but these are the most apparent or the sloppiest errors.

EDIT: Due to the high number and interest in this thread, I am revising this page to include many errors from all different types of ships. Hopefully, this new arrangement helps speed up your loading of this page as well.

Sovereign-class:
Sovereign Deflector
Sovereign Saucer

Galaxy-X Dreadnought:
Dreadnought Lance, Fore
Dreadnought Lance, Fore 2
Dreadnought Saucer, Fore

Galaxy-class:
Galaxy, Fore
Galaxy, Fore 2

Intrepid-class
Intrepid, Fore

Let's get Cryptic to fix these sloppy errors. They're easily fixed, and don't require as much time to fix as, say, the STF leaver penalty code or other Season 7 mishaps.

EDIT: Several people have proposed, including myself, that Cryptic allow players to get a shot at modifying and improving the models, without being paid in any form. Cryptic, if you are not willing/have the time to fix the ship models, perhaps let the community do it for you (similar to the concept of the Foundry)?

dma1986

You say they're "easily fixed", how much experience do you have with 3D modelling, UV mapping, texturing etc?

It's not like you can just use Paint to cut and paste the parts where they should be :rolleyes:


I'd prefer the modelling team work on new models , rather than making incredibly minor alterations that only a fraction of the player-base notice, and even less actually care about.

jkstocbr

Meh, I really don't have any problem with these very minor model errors. I am sure they are aware of these issues and its just very low on the list of priorities, where they should be. Much bigger fish to fry. In normal game play you won't see the items you have highlighted.



Edit: I moved this thread to the art forum so the right team will see it, and so the images show up. -Brandon

dma1986

jkstocbr wrote: »

Edit: I moved this thread to the art forum so the right team will see it, and so the images show up. -Brandon

Brandon, on the off-chance you come back to this thread, can we have the "not needing to click to see an image" feature forum-wide?

twg042370

This is an "obsessive Star Trek nerd" parody thread, right?

futurepastnow

I believe JamJamz knows about the off-center Gal-X lance and is going to fix it when he has time.

As for the Sovereign and Galaxy... oh boy. Back when the game launched three years ago, those two models in particular looked awful. All of the early ships were rush jobs. CapnLogan fixed both of them up quite a bit, but never had time to completely redo them, which is what they need.

I doubt the current art team is going to get time to do it, either.

stardestroyer001

You say they're "easily fixed", how much experience do you have with 3D modelling, UV mapping, texturing etc?

It's not like you can just use Paint to cut and paste the parts where they should be


I'd prefer the modelling team work on new models , rather than making incredibly minor alterations that only a fraction of the player-base notice, and even less actually care about.

If the 3d modelling is such an issue, there are fan-made ship models out there that look ten times as good.
http://bridgecommander.filefront.com/file/CG_Sovereign;17665

And I would rather have the ships look decently canon than have a whole bunch of low-quality ships running around. I am glad, however, that Cryptic did fix the error with the Vesta warp engines not showing the proper shield texture. It seems at least one of my points in the CS thread was taken seriously.

This is an "obsessive Star Trek nerd" parody thread, right?

This is Star Trek. Part of the deal when you are involved with anything Trek is the technical consistency.

I believe JamJamz knows about the off-center Gal-X lance and is going to fix it when he has time.

As for the Sovereign and Galaxy... oh boy. Back when the game launched three years ago, those two models in particular looked awful. All of the early ships were rush jobs. CapnLogan fixed both of them up quite a bit, but never had time to completely redo them, which is what they need.

I doubt the current art team is going to get time to do it, either.

That's what I'm hoping this thread will do, bump this up in the to-do list so they will have the time to fix these sloppy errors.

dma1986

stardestroyer001 wrote: »

If the 3d modelling is such an issue, there are fan-made ship models out there that look ten times as good.
http://bridgecommander.filefront.com/file/CG_Sovereign;17665

Different engine, different format. Additionally, fan-made add-ons can also be as detailed as the creator wants to make them, they don't have to cater to the low-end PC owner whose PC slows down because someone parks an incredibly highly detailed model next to their own ship.

Also, time constraints.

From the ship you linked: "After nearly two years in development, it's finally here."
I don't know how much time JamJamz gets to put into each specific ship before having to work on the next, but it's a hell of a lot more restricted than someone that can spend months/years perfecting their own personal models. Even if JJ did decide to fix these, there simply might not be enough space in the schedule with all the upcoming new vessels.

They also say "First off, this thing is meant to look pretty first, and be playable second." MMOs generally have to playable first, looks are... not so much secondary, but not a priority. That's why even the biggest online games sometimes look like cartoons compared to the major single player releases.

stardestroyer001

dma1986 wrote: »

Different engine, different format. Additionally, fan-made add-ons can also be as detailed as the creator wants to make them, they don't have to cater to the low-end PC owner whose PC slows down because someone parks an incredibly highly detailed model next to their own ship.

Also, time constraints.

From the ship you linked: "After nearly two years in development, it's finally here."
I don't know how much time JamJamz gets to put into each specific ship before having to work on the next, but it's a hell of a lot more restricted than someone that can spend months/years perfecting their own personal models. Even if JJ did decide to fix these, there simply might not be enough space in the schedule with all the upcoming new vessels.

They also say "First off, this thing is meant to look pretty first, and be playable second." MMOs generally have to playable first, looks are... not so much secondary, but not a priority. That's why even the biggest online games sometimes look like cartoons compared to the major single player releases.

There are numerous conversion programs out there for converting the .nif format into ones used by 3DS Max, Blender, etc. There's also low- and medium-resolution models included with the example download I posted. In the worst case scenario, the textures can be shrunk to lose resolution along with the lower polygon count in the lower .nif models. There's multiple workarounds to the sorts of problems you're listing, and none of them are a sort of impossible feat.

And yes, MMOs generally have to be playable. However, since this game is almost three years standing, it's fair to say that some of the ships in STO are due for an overhaul. Also, I'm not saying it has to be done "Now, Now, NOW!". I realize there are other ships they need to release or fix first (like the Ambassador class, which looks quite good from the one screenshot). I'm just saying that Cryptic should add these problems to the fix-it list and take it seriously; and get them updated so they're on par with the better quality ships released within the last year or so. I suppose having to experience Battlestar Galactica Online's terrible feedback forum makes me a little pushy, since they never took considerations seriously there, but I still stand with my opinion.

I think you meant to write, "Obsessive nerdery" there.

I know what I meant to write. Thanks for the suggestion, but I stand by what I said. Technical consistency is one of the expectations when any person or group is involved with anything Trek. Obsessive is a subjective term.

EDIT: Looks like "twg042370"'s post was removed.

centersolace

dma1986 wrote: »

Different engine, different format. Additionally, fan-made add-ons can also be as detailed as the creator wants to make them, they don't have to cater to the low-end PC owner whose PC slows down because someone parks an incredibly highly detailed model next to their own ship.

Formats can be converted.

smokeybacon90

The Galaxy X spinal lance is really the most glaringly obvious of the ship model errors, and is the only one I am desperate to see fixed.

dalnar83

Considering, the Galaxy is on Cryptic's hate list, I don't see how they could "find time" to fix it's issues.

dma1986

centersolace wrote: »

Formats can be converted.

Yes, they can.

But having worked with several different formats (.blend, .3ds, .bfxm, .skp, .wings, .alo... probably others I've forgotten too) over the last couple of years, and having to convert them both ways for various reason (not least being completely and utterly useless at texturing in Blender) you quickly discover stuff won't always come out the other end the same way it went into the conversion process. Random example, stuff built in Blender and converted into Wings format will be rotated 90 degrees across the Y axis.

Building in format A, converting to format B for texturing, converting to C for the actual game format, putting it in-game and seeing something's not right, and having to go back to format A to fix it, then into B again to retexture the adjustments, then into C, seeing issues, back to A.... gets very annoying very quickly :P

cidstorm

I love stuff like this, but I'd like to point out that the spider is an asset saving part that makes the defector look proper from far away, and that the galaxy deflector section difference in shape is due to perspective.

amosov78

When posting stuff about the Galaxy-class, in particular, you need to keep in mind the differences between the four and six foot models used in the show. CapnLogan used the sleeker looking six foot model as reference when doing the alterations to the current Galaxy-class in-game.

In fact, here was one of the reference pages he used I believe: Enterprise-D Auction.

stardestroyer001

dma1986 wrote: »

Yes, they can.

But having worked with several different formats (.blend, .3ds, .bfxm, .skp, .wings, .alo... probably others I've forgotten too) over the last couple of years, and having to convert them both ways for various reason (not least being completely and utterly useless at texturing in Blender) you quickly discover stuff won't always come out the other end the same way it went into the conversion process. Random example, stuff built in Blender and converted into Wings format will be rotated 90 degrees across the Y axis.

Building in format A, converting to format B for texturing, converting to C for the actual game format, putting it in-game and seeing something's not right, and having to go back to format A to fix it, then into B again to retexture the adjustments, then into C, seeing issues, back to A.... gets very annoying very quickly :P

It's Cryptic's choice whether they wish to create a nice-looking Galaxy or Sovereign class from scratch (which would take a LONG time), or just spend time converting and applying the logos and such. I'd pick the latter. It's easier to modify as opposed to create from scratch.

cidstorm wrote:

I love stuff like this, but I'd like to point out that the spider is an asset saving part that makes the defector look proper from far away, and that the galaxy deflector section difference in shape is due to perspective.

That doesn't excuse the fact that it was sloppily done. Even putting in a bumpmapped texture would be preferable to a terrible deflector using up the polygons.
And I can send extra pictures to show that it's not a perspective issue, there really is a problem with the shape of the Galaxy-class deflector and "mouth".

amosov78 wrote:

When posting stuff about the Galaxy-class, in particular, you need to keep in mind the differences between the four and six foot models used in the show. CapnLogan used the sleeker looking six foot model as reference when doing the alterations to the current Galaxy-class in-game.

In fact, here was one of the reference pages he used I believe: Enterprise-D Auction.

Indeed, there are significant differences. Even if they decided to use the Six-foot model as their reference (which they shouldn't, since the Four-foot model was created to replace the six-foot), there are still problems with the shape of the neck and deflector "mouth".

By the way, nice website find.

illcadia

A lot of these fixes *are* really minor- as most of them are positional (so you go into the model and move the offending mesh into correct position), or only occur on one side of the model (so you go into the model and delete that side, then re-mirror the functional side).


That does not take a lot of effort to *do*, although given that STO stores most of its data locally, it would require a patch to actually fix.

dontdrunkimshoot

the galaxy model in game is quite nice, though i wish it was a bit more 4 foot then 6 foot. the galaxy's biggest problem is its stats, its extreamly limiting station setup, its size giving it nothing but disadvantages, and there being no game mechanic or stat that benefits from a ship being large. that goes for nearly all fed cruisers, but for the galaxy the most.

centersolace

dma1986 wrote: »

Yes, they can.

But having worked with several different formats (.blend, .3ds, .bfxm, .skp, .wings, .alo... probably others I've forgotten too) over the last couple of years, and having to convert them both ways for various reason (not least being completely and utterly useless at texturing in Blender) you quickly discover stuff won't always come out the other end the same way it went into the conversion process. Random example, stuff built in Blender and converted into Wings format will be rotated 90 degrees across the Y axis.

Building in format A, converting to format B for texturing, converting to C for the actual game format, putting it in-game and seeing something's not right, and having to go back to format A to fix it, then into B again to retexture the adjustments, then into C, seeing issues, back to A.... gets very annoying very quickly :P

Yes it does, but it's still faster than creating stuff from scratch.

hippiejon

Sorry.

But with all the many other "errors" and broken stuff in the game that they should be fixing, the tiny artistic problems on these ships are totally minor, and honestly have no impact on a normal player's game play experience.

This is honestly the last thing that Cryptic should be dedicating anyone to fix. I'd rather see their current ship artists working on new and exciting things, than revisiting designs on ships that work.

I honestly never even noticed the things mentioned in the OP.

twg042370 wrote: »

This is an "obsessive Star Trek nerd" parody thread, right?

I thought the same thing.
No one can be this obsessive about the placement of where the spinal lance is on a ship, or the shape of a deflector.
But then I realized.
This is a Star Trek fan.
We're all crazy about some aspect of the franchise.

But seriously, this kind of TRIBBLE is the last thing a DEV should be worried about when so many other things about their game are not exactly "working as intended".

The things listed in the OP are terribly insignificant to a majority of players.
Not to say that it isn't important to someone (obviously) , just that I'd much rather see DEVs are work on issues that actually affect game play.

centersolace

hippiejon wrote: »

The things listed in the OP are terribly insignificant to a majority of players.
Not to say that it isn't important to someone (obviously) , just that I'd much rather see DEVs are work on issues that actually affect game play.

It affects MY gameplay! I'm trapeezing around the Galaxy in a gimped ship! I want my Galaxy to be as pretty as it was on the show damnabits! :mad:

kirahitomi

hippiejon wrote: »

The things listed in the OP are terribly insignificant to a majority of players.
Not to say that it isn't important to someone (obviously) , just that I'd much rather see DEVs are work on issues that actually affect game play.

IMMERSION, is by and far the defining characteristic for most players of STO not the numbers or the various ways to blow things up. Being able to look, see and be part of this creative and significantly visual world makes the look of and/or need to correct a ship a high priority issue that affects game play in a rather major way.

hippiejon

My point is not that "immersion" isn't important. the point is that there are MANY other things in this game that need fixing, that actually have an impact on how the game plays, not just how it looks.

That's what I mean by game play.
The UI bug that prevents people in both PVE and PVP content to not have powers fire when they are clicked. That affects game play.
The shuttle / ship UI bug. That affects anyone trying to do elite content in the game.

Immersion is indeed important, and IF the Devs have the time to fix MINOR visual glitches that a majority of the player base doesn't even notice, then YES, they should.

BUT , no , I cannot agree that they should dedicate Dev time to fixing these things BEFORE they fix actual game play issues.

I get that to you the immersion is everything. That's cool. But what you are all discussing here is appearance. The fact that your right primary buffer panel is offset 2 degrees on the model does not have any effect in the way the game plays. Only how it looks.

Plain and simple.
I agree. There is some really sloppy visual work in this game.
It would be nice if they had time to fix it.

BUT, I would rather that they actually fix things in the engine that are not working than the way that something looks.

I am sorry, but these very minor gripes about visual detail SHOULD , in my opinion, NEVER take precedent over actually fixing the way that the game plays.

kirahitomi

hippiejon wrote: »

My point is not that "immersion" isn't important. the point is that there are MANY other things in this game that need fixing, that actually have an impact on how the game plays, not just how it looks.

That's what I mean by game play.
The UI bug that prevents people in both PVE and PVP content to not have powers fire when they are clicked. That affects game play.
The shuttle / ship UI bug. That affects anyone trying to do elite content in the game.

Ok fair enough, though might I suggest your argument/opinion would probably have better reception if it was made in one the 8+ forum sections dedicated to gameplay and its various "bugs/features"? This is after all the Art section of the forums and 99.999% of the proceedings here are going to be about exactly that.

stardestroyer001

hippiejon wrote: »

Sorry.

But with all the many other "errors" and broken stuff in the game that they should be fixing, the tiny artistic problems on these ships are totally minor, and honestly have no impact on a normal player's game play experience.

This is honestly the last thing that Cryptic should be dedicating anyone to fix. I'd rather see their current ship artists working on new and exciting things, than revisiting designs on ships that work.

I honestly never even noticed the things mentioned in the OP.

"This is an "obsessive Star Trek nerd" parody thread, right?"

I thought the same thing.
No one can be this obsessive about the placement of where the spinal lance is on a ship, or the shape of a deflector.
But then I realized.
This is a Star Trek fan.
We're all crazy about some aspect of the franchise.

But seriously, this kind of TRIBBLE is the last thing a DEV should be worried about when so many other things about their game are not exactly "working as intended".

The things listed in the OP are terribly insignificant to a majority of players.
Not to say that it isn't important to someone (obviously) , just that I'd much rather see DEVs are work on issues that actually affect game play.

I don't know if it's just me, but I found that line quite offensive. No one is any more "Normal" than anyone else.

And I'd rather have a few good quality ships running around this game then an armada of poor quality, inaccurate and flawed ships. Take Star Trek Bridge Commander as an example - in the original game when it was released, they had only a few types of Federation ships, but each one looked great! I'd rather have quality over quantity.

It's the fact that Cryptic screwed up blatantly that is the issue here - and it's not just one mistake, it's a lot of them, spread out over different ships. And as I stated before, Trek is about technical consistency and quality, and that's what anyone should expect when they are involved with anything Star Trek.

I'm glad you agree that the ship models are TRIBBLE, but they should be somewhere high on the Dev fix-it list. Granted, yes, the shuttle issue, UI problems, etc etc etc should be fixed first, I understand that. I just want these sloppy errors fixed sometime in the foreseeable future, not when I'm fifty.

And they are not "terribly insignificant". Look at the above posts before you comment - people do care.

I should also add the point that we, as players, are not all here to do mainly PVP or combat. Some of us do different things - Dil runs, Roleplaying, you name it. And the ships' appearances are important when you're alone and not fighting, since the one thing you see on the screen when you're flying around is - you guessed it - your ship.

hippiejon wrote:

But, no, I cannot agree that they should dedicate Dev time to fixing these things BEFORE they fix actual game play issues.

I get that to you the immersion is everything. That's cool. But what you are all discussing here is appearance. The fact that your right primary buffer panel is offset 2 degrees on the model does not have any effect in the way the game plays. Only how it looks.

You're exaggerating, and the assumption that people like myself are here to technically pull the poor ships apart is wrong. If I really wanted to, I could list EVERY single flaw in every ship model. But I couldn't care less about where this gidgitty-gadgetty thing goes where. However, when there are blatant flaws (not artistic discretion), they should be addressed. Looks are equally as important as the story, the gameplay, essentially, the experience of Star Trek Online.

marylenedrake

stardestroyer001 wrote: »

I just wanted to throw this out there. I already sent a complaint to PWE CS, but their response was to post something here, so here I am.

I realize that any recreation of a CGI model made for a television show or movie will be flawed. That's to be expected (unless you are a Star Trek: Bridge Commander modeler).

However, I've noticed a slew of errors, some that are careless and easily corrected, and some which are bad interpretations of a CGI or actual model. I've posted my annotations to each image with problems. Note that this is by no means a complete list, there are numerous ships in STO with similar problems, but these are the most apparent or the sloppiest errors.

Let's get Cryptic to fix these sloppy errors. They're easily fixed, and don't require as much time to fix as, say, the STF leaver penalty code or other Season 7 mishaps.

... this game has bigger problems to deal with then some grafix-issue u need a magniyfying glass to even notice.

stardestroyer001 wrote: »

I know what I meant to write. Thanks for the suggestion, but I stand by what I said. Technical consistency is one of the expectations when any person or group is involved with anything Trek. Obsessive is a subjective term..

You cannot know about my expectations or that of all the other players - how would you? Do not try to sound as if you would speak for the majority, you hardly get anyone agreeing to your viewpoint in your thread here... doesn't seem like many people share your ideas

I see that you are bothered with it a great deal - notice that you are just one of a very small minority with that issue.

Also calling the models 'terrible' is just LOL and makes it quite hard to even take you serious.

Regards

stardestroyer001

marylenedrake wrote: »

... this game has bigger problems to deal with then some grafix-issue u need a magniyfying glass to even notice.

No magnifying glass required. It's quite obvious.

marylenedrake wrote: »

You cannot know about my expectations or that of all the other players - how would you? Do not try to sound as if you would speak for the majority, you hardly get anyone agreeing to your viewpoint in your thread here... doesn't seem like many people share your ideas

I see that you are bothered with it a great deal - notice that you are just one of a very small minority with that issue.

Also calling the models 'terrible' is just LOL and makes it quite hard to even take you serious.

Regards

I'm not speaking for a majority here, and I never expected to - but to clarify, I am not speaking for a majority; I am bringing to Cryptic the attention that these disfigured ships deserve.

And, like kirahotomi stated...

kirahitomi wrote:

...might I suggest your argument/opinion would probably have better reception if it was made in one the 8+ forum sections dedicated to gameplay and its various "bugs/features"? This is after all the Art section of the forums and 99.999% of the proceedings here are going to be about exactly that.

I agree with kirahitomi, this forum section is dedicated to alerting Cryptic about their artistic creations in this game, whether they be criticisms or compliments.

In this forum, I am hardly a minority. And as history has proven, minorities do get the attention of majorities.

And whatever problems you have with my wording is entirely not my responsibility or my doing. I don't have the power to make you consider these issues seriously, only you can do that.

Apparently though, it's serious enough for you to bother leaving a post. However, I'm not a troll, and I'm not interested in starting flame wars. Feel free to contribute your own ship flaws to this thread, I'm sure there are more ships out there needing attention. Eventually you'll see my point, and a lot of the ships in this game have quite obvious flaws that detract from the quality of this Star Trek game.

captainoblivous

I'm not too sure about what the flaws themselves really are, but as soon as I started playing back in feb 2012 one thing that jumped out at me was that the ship meshes just seemed a bit TRIBBLE. Not terrible, but hardly as good as they could be.
That said, I'm a wee bit spoiled in the mesh department having come from bridge commander myself (Captain_Obvious on BC-Central).
I must say though, quite a few of those guys on the above forum are players of STO. I haven't spoken to any of them, but I'm sure at least some of them would be willing to discuss the possibility of seeing their work in this game.
Not all the meshes produced by those guys are uber high poly and even the lower poly ones look rather better than many in STO. Heck, there are meshes we were using in BC back in 2004 that look better than some of the ones in STO

I've been thinking and saying this for a while, this game could use some better meshes. Note that I say "better" and not "higher poly". Many of the meshes in this game just look off for want of a better term. I hate to say it, but the new ambassador doesn't look right to me.

Also, an FYI for you guys who play BC. BCFILES isn't really used as much these days due to it's flakiness as of late. BC-CENTRAL is where it's happening now.


EDIT

One thing that just occurred to me. The meshes for BC are all made using a *very* old version of max which afaik is the only version that can output meshes in the correct manner for BC. This may cause issues with conversion if it were ever to happen.

stardestroyer001

captainoblivous wrote: »

I'm not too sure about what the flaws themselves really are, but as soon as I started playing back in feb 2012 one thing that jumped out at me was that the ship meshes just seemed a bit TRIBBLE. Not terrible, but hardly as good as they could be.
That said, I'm a wee bit spoiled in the mesh department having come from bridge commander myself (Captain_Obvious on BC-Central).
I must say though, quite a few of those guys on the above forum are players of STO. I haven't spoken to any of them, but I'm sure at least some of them would be willing to discuss the possibility of seeing their work in this game.
Not all the meshes produced by those guys are uber high poly and even the lower poly ones look rather better than many in STO. Heck, there are meshes we were using in BC back in 2004 that look better than some of the ones in STO

I've been thinking and saying this for a while, this game could use some better meshes. Note that I say "better" and not "higher poly". Many of the meshes in this game just look off for want of a better term. I hate to say it, but the new ambassador doesn't look right to me.

Also, an FYI for you guys who play BC. BCFILES isn't really used as much these days due to it's flakiness as of late. BC-CENTRAL is where it's happening now.


EDIT

One thing that just occurred to me. The meshes for BC are all made using a *very* old version of max which afaik is the only version that can output meshes in the correct manner for BC. This may cause issues with conversion if it were ever to happen.

Nice to see another STBC modder out here.

(I wonder if Sovvie plays this game...)

And I agree wholeheartedly. The ships in this game look okay, but something looks kinda wrong on each model I've come across. (I've only highlighted the major issues in the ships I own. I'm sure there's many more worth mentioning, such as the Intrepid Class).

Hopefully, someone is paying close attention and bumps up the ship models in the fix-it list.

And "BC-Central"? Is that BCS-TNG? It's been a while since I reinstalled my copy of STBC and got Kobayashi Maru for it, so I haven't been prowling the BC sites lately.

lincolninspace

I am not one of those trekie types that pores over ship schematics or anything but I agree with the op that the Galaxy has noticable flaws and I noticed something was wrong with it almost immediately after I purchased one. It is a ship that is on tv every day only the constitution gets as much screen time so people know what it is supposed to look like. It is also one of the most beloved ships and deserves more love.

captainoblivous

stardestroyer001 wrote: »

And "BC-Central"? Is that BCS-TNG? It's been a while since I reinstalled my copy of STBC and got Kobayashi Maru for it, so I haven't been prowling the BC sites lately.

No, BCS-TNG is totally separate from BC-Central. BCS was only started to give the scripters some-place else to work undisturbed by the community until they felt ready to release.

Be sure you get the correct version of KM. I think the latest KM version is 2010 which had a metric sh*t ton of improvements over the older versions.

In fact, there is a ship building contest taking place on BCC as we speak. Some very interesting ships coming out. All of which are set in the "lost era" (post TMP, pre TNG)