D'deridex Model Feedback

morkargh117

The D'deridex model that was updated is great, almost 100% perfect except for a few things. I made these images to illustrate the couple things that if fixed would make the ship look better, and more accurate. The D'deridex is my favorite Romulan ship and I would love to see it as well done as possible.

#1

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q194/InsaneDwarf/Dderidex_Class_zps265c7d91.jpg

#2

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q194/InsaneDwarf/IRW_TMet_firing_disruptors_zps2f89ca19.jpg

#3

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q194/InsaneDwarf/818e6bac-7621-4b81-b6f6-b0df9e8e173b_zpsf2b1a390.jpg

I noticed in game that some beams would fire from a very awkward position at the lower end of the beak, which looks quite bad to be honest. The underside of the ships head/saucer looks very plain and awkward/flat because these extra decks are missing. Consider creating a new black Romulan logo for the ships forehead, instead of re using the RSE one, if this is going to be the Romulan Republic after all...but any symbol there as an option is better than nothing.

-thanks

psiameese

Regarding the logo suggestion for the bow of the ship, might that not be a good spot for a copy of the Fleet Logo?

commandersalvek

morkargh117 wrote: »

The D'deridex model that was updated is great, almost 100% perfect except for a few things. I made these images to illustrate the couple things that if fixed would make the ship look better, and more accurate. The D'deridex is my favorite Romulan ship and I would love to see it as well done as possible.

#1

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q194/InsaneDwarf/Dderidex_Class_zps265c7d91.jpg

#2

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q194/InsaneDwarf/IRW_TMet_firing_disruptors_zps2f89ca19.jpg

#3

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q194/InsaneDwarf/818e6bac-7621-4b81-b6f6-b0df9e8e173b_zpsf2b1a390.jpg

I noticed in game that some beams would fire from a very awkward position at the lower end of the beak, which looks quite bad to be honest. The underside of the ships head/saucer looks very plain and awkward/flat because these extra decks are missing. Consider creating a new black Romulan logo for the ships forehead, instead of re using the RSE one, if this is going to be the Romulan Republic after all...but any symbol there as an option is better than nothing.

-thanks

Great work-The D'deridex is m Favourite ship and if besides those few points you consider the model good-im looking forward to it:)

morkargh117

psiameese wrote: »

Regarding the logo suggestion for the bow of the ship, might that not be a good spot for a copy of the Fleet Logo?

Well a standard Romulan eagle logo should be there, and be swappable for the fleet logo, but I don't want a fleet logo forced onto my ship, options are good.

dontdrunkimshoot

ive seen the new model fire VM from that nose gun location, so thats definitely its deflector location. it should also be the DHC fireing hard point location as well, both stacked on top of each other so it looks like a single beam or cannon shot. instead they are on the uper wings near the warp engines.

azurianstar

Not sure if they do it, but if I was the Art Team, I would ask CBS for the actual CGI models and use them as the reference for the STO low-poly models. That way you can't go wrong with accuracy since you are basing it off those very models that were shown on TV.

And they used 3D Max, which is what Cryptic uses.



Anyhow the models look much improved, though I am not fond of that tacy black "warbird", its like a tatoo than something impressive like the TOS Warbird emblem.

foundrelic

azurianstar wrote: »

Not sure if they do it, but if I was the Art Team, I would ask CBS for the actual CGI models and use them as the reference for the STO low-poly models. That way you can't go wrong with accuracy since you are basing it off those very models that were shown on TV.

And they used 3D Max, which is what Cryptic uses.



Anyhow the models look much improved, though I am not fond of that tacy black "warbird", its like a tatoo than something impressive like the TOS Warbird emblem.

CGI models? From where? TNG was pure Physical model and the ships seen in DS9's war scenes were digital clones of a physical model.

commandersalvek

azurianstar wrote: »

Not sure if they do it, but if I was the Art Team, I would ask CBS for the actual CGI models and use them as the reference for the STO low-poly models. That way you can't go wrong with accuracy since you are basing it off those very models that were shown on TV.

And they used 3D Max, which is what Cryptic uses.



Anyhow the models look much improved, though I am not fond of that tacy black "warbird", its like a tatoo than something impressive like the TOS Warbird emblem.

The large painted bird on.the hull in balance of terror or the tricolof emblem from the enterprise incident? You think those suit the d'deridex warbird?

azurianstar

commandersalvek wrote: »

The large painted bird on.the hull in balance of terror or the tricolof emblem from the enterprise incident? You think those suit the d'deridex warbird?

I never said use the firebird paintjob on the D'Deridex, just saying that the warbird that they have on it is lame compared to it. They need to make it grander like the firebird or remove it. Because right now it's more like a cheap tramp stamp.

foundrelic wrote: »

CGI models? From where? TNG was pure Physical model and the ships seen in DS9's war scenes were digital clones of a physical model.

Not sure where you got that information from, but they did make CGI D'Deridexes for DS9 and was used again in Voyager.

morkargh117

azurianstar wrote: »

I never said use the firebird paintjob on the D'Deridex, just saying that the warbird that they have on it is lame compared to it. They need to make it grander like the firebird or remove it. Because right now it's more like a cheap tramp stamp.




Not sure where you got that information from, but they did make CGI D'Deridexes for DS9 and was used again in Voyager.

http://fs-rpg.com/wiki/images/thumb/9/9c/Romulan_logo2.png/200px-Romulan_logo2.png

This is the logo they had on its forehead, just in black. I don't think it looks all that bad, but the new Romulan Republic symbol could be put in the same spot and maybe look good...but preferably black/dark gray as it looks better on the ship.

morkargh117

I also found a couple issues with the Mogai, which would be worth fixing.

It is missing a sunken area on the nose, where window sections go, and the visor on the face of the nose should be black...it kind of glows in game which is not correct.

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q194/InsaneDwarf/b06615ae-f86b-4890-b9aa-7db4b4961b5e_zpsaec1cba6.jpg

and in the below image you can see the black visor on the nose of the ship is supposed to be black or dark gray, not green like it is in game.

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q194/InsaneDwarf/vala_zps6c7361f6.jpg

morkargh117

Please look into these issues, the ships are great but these small issues would make a difference.

----

I would also like to see a Romulan D7 added as the Romulan Temporal Ambassador mission reward, with the TOS styled wings/feathers on the top and underside.

http://i609.photobucket.com/albums/tt175/gecko_010/DSC_8198-1.jpg

http://images54.fotki.com/v77/photos/8/1655348/10164471/IMG_3230-vi.jpg

lord7tareq

You'd think that after the issues with the Federation ships after launch, where after outcry on the forums they had to update the models of pretty much all the iconic ships to make them more true to the show, they'd do everything to prevent making that same mistake again. Trekkies want their ships 100% accurate!

So yeah, please fix the models to become accurate to the shows and movies!

daan2006

hope to see this stuff fixed because this is going to be my new flagship

abaddon653

I noticed the firepoint problem as well and I really do hope they remove the fire point from the lower point of the beak. I also agree that the DHC and BB fire point needs to be stacked and placed in the traditional location, it would just look so much better.

mikearoo

The main thing I noticed on the D'deridex retrofit was that its turn rate was listed as 2! I hope that doesn't stay or that its just a typo

abaddon653

mikearoo wrote: »

The main thing I noticed on the D'deridex retrofit was that its turn rate was listed as 2! I hope that doesn't stay or that its just a typo

Just a typo, I think its actually fixed at this point.

ufpterrell

So cannons fire from near the warp nacelles? I don't mind that too much, I know it's not canon but in Bridge Commander the D'Deredix fired it's cannons from the same location. That disruptor needs fixing though if it's in the wrong place, plenty of references to get that one right!

tatyanasergei

I really hope they do fix these small hiccups on the model. ...Not that it will stop me from loving the heck out of mine if they don't. I have always adored the D'Deridex ever since the first time it appeared on-screen in TNG.

tenkari

hey, people cant get everything right on the first try. while yes, i would like to see inconsistencies fixed, but only if jamz and the rest of the ship team have time for it. after all, they had to make 2-3 versions of each ship, plus whatever other ships they might be working on.

abaddon653

I will name it George and I will hug him and pet him and squeeze him and pat him and pet him and rub him and caress him.

dwl

Chamfering the leading edge of the D'deridex's prow to diffuse the sharp shadow boundry would be a very quick and easy improvement.

wrathofachilles

I would like for them to use the D'Deridex's intended weapon ports when it was designed rather than the way the weapons fired on screen. The effects team turned the D'Deridex deflector into the main beam weapon and torpedo launcher when the round little "cheeks" on the side of the "head" were supposed to be disruptor emitters that could fire in any direction similar to a federation 'array.' There were also round little disruptor details on either side of the tail and a few other locations. And I think the torp launcher was supposed to be in the "hump" on top of the ship.

For that matter, I'd like a model based more on the original design rather than what ended up on the model which was modified for time constraints and whatnot. Or at least put both in game and let us choose. The model as appeared on screen could be considered the original, and the model based on the original drawings could be considered a 'refit' or "retrofit". Would have been nice if they did that with the ambassador as well. Having the probert design (which is what showed up on the enterprise-D ship wall, but not on screen) would have been really cool.

morkargh117

http://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/printtest_v03-0005.jpg

if you look at the front facing nose of the Mogai in this image the visor above the point could look much better, and from a top view...the neck is not thick enough as well.

edit: what I really meant to say was that from the front, the green/black visor should be in more of a V shape and not the straight across we have right now, its a big difference and affects how aggressive the nose of the ship looks.

And another thing I realised was that the devs got it right that the visor is supposed to glow green, I suppose it only does this in the actual Nemesis movie, when the ships are activated/powered up...you can see here:

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100721021259/memoryalpha/en/images/7/70/Valdore_and_sister_ship,_Nemesis.jpg

You can also see in this image that the vents on the top of the wings, the forward facing vents...should be black and not glow green, having them glow so green detract from the look of the ship in game...these vents should be filled with a dark grey or preferably black texture instead.

tachyonharmonic

They also feel to me like they need to be bigger vertically. They seems kinda stretched from bow to stern more than they should be.

umaeko

I'm in complete opposition to most of the adjustments presented in the opening of this thread regarding the D'deridex, mainly because whatever was shown in canon was hugely inconsistent.

The 'beak'-spot for the 'fore beam' should really have been the main deflector.

Memory Alpha wrote:

Although several features of the warbird were never addressed on screen, Andrew Probert has noted the locations of several unmentioned components, including the locations of the aforementioned weapon systems.
The navigational deflector is supposed to be a "V"-shaped faceplate located on the "face" of the ship. However, the center of this faceplate was instead featured as the primary disruptor array/torpedo launcher by the visual effects editors.

Disruptor beams should have come from the 'pimples' that show on the ship. Torpedo launchers were apparently meant to be mounted dorsal.

Memory Alpha wrote:

Although not mentioned on screen, the original Andrew Probert design of the warbird was to have a single torpedo launcher positioned at the upper "nape" of the ship, at the top foremost position of the upper "shell". In addition, the warbird was to have a total of ten disruptor emitters, positioned in various locations on the model. These positions included: one pair on the "head" (one on either "cheek"), one pair on the vertical structure at the aft end of the ship (one on either side), two pairs on the aft edges of the port and starboard dorsal and ventral wings (one emitter at each location, for a total of four), and one pair at the dorsal apex of the ship. However, two other emitters are seen on at least one warbird, namely in the "nose" (pictured) and top part of the upper "back" (shown in TNG: "Contagion").

...and the impulse drive was supposed to be a vertical slit on the rear-most tail-portion.

Memory Alpha wrote:

Regarding the impulse engine, Andrew Probert writes, "[It was] omitted by a tight schedule [...] but it would have been recessed into a vertical slot starting just below that landing bay and ending symmetrically below. The reason there are few (if any) side windows at the back area of the ship is because that's where that engine & power plant would have been."

Probert pretty much made it this way, and it was the effects team that couldn't keep up with the design. It really is. It's a bit infuriating to see the inaccuracies in the show perpetuated. Just like the Akira was first designed as a carrier with tons of torpedo launchers, it'd be nice if the Cryptic ship devs could take the opportunity to address the inaccuracies and have the ship live up to its originally intended design (which was, one must admit, very well thought out).

morkargh117

umaeko wrote: »

I'm in complete opposition to most of the adjustments presented in the opening of this thread regarding the D'deridex, mainly because whatever was shown in canon was hugely inconsistent.

The 'beak'-spot for the 'fore beam' should really have been the main deflector.



Disruptor beams should have come from the 'pimples' that show on the ship. Torpedo launchers were apparently meant to be mounted dorsal.



...and the impulse drive was supposed to be a vertical slit on the rear-most tail-portion.



Probert pretty much made it this way, and it was the effects team that couldn't keep up with the design. It really is. It's a bit infuriating to see the inaccuracies in the show perpetuated. Just like the Akira was first designed as a carrier with tons of torpedo launchers, it'd be nice if the Cryptic ship devs could take the opportunity to address the inaccuracies and have the ship live up to its originally intended design (which was, one must admit, very well thought out).

I like alot of what was shown here, they could just make a 2nd skin for the ship with these subtle changes, however what was intended and what is are 2 different things.

lordmanzelot

Agree the main weapon-launcher "picture 2" should be added for beams, dual beams and torps.

morkargh117

I just found a very helpful image highlighting all of the disruptor placements on the D'deridex studio model.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9778/evidencev.png

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3447/3807255568_90938e094f_o.gif

If we could get beams to potentially fire from all these hardpoints, I would be grateful.

wrathofachilles

morkargh117 wrote: »

I just found a very helpful image highlighting all of the disruptor placements on the D'deridex studio model.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9778/evidencev.png

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3447/3807255568_90938e094f_o.gif

If we could get beams to potentially fire from all these hardpoints, I would be grateful.

Except in that first picture, they circled the deflector array which was used by the effects team as if it was the ship's primary disruptor and torpedo launcher. I hope they will take the initiative and correct the errors of the effects team from the show and represent the ship as intended by the designer.

lord7tareq

wrathofachilles wrote: »

Except in that first picture, they circled the deflector array which was used by the effects team as if it was the ship's primary disruptor and torpedo launcher. I hope they will take the initiative and correct the errors of the effects team from the show and represent the ship as intended by the designer.

I'm indifferent about that, torpedo's launching from the deflector do look cool

However the model errors as pointed out by the OP should be corrected.