Talk to me about that third nacelle...

bluegeek

I just have a very simple question.

Is the third nacelle on the Galaxy-X Dreadnought removable in the ship tailor?

I know it's canon. I don't care. If it comes off, I want it off. If it doesn't come off, I don't really want it.

In 'All Good Things' they wanted to make the Enterprise look like it was gunned up and futuristic, so they slapped a third nacelle on it and called it a day because that was cheaper than designing, say, an Enterprise-E or -F and it wouldn't have been recognizable if they had.

But it looks ridiculous.

peetapipmac

I don't have the ship myself, but I'm fairly sure it's not removable.

elglass

bluegeek wrote: »

I just have a very simple question.

Is the third nacelle on the Galaxy-X Dreadnought removable in the ship tailor?

I know it's canon. I don't care. If it comes off, I want it off. If it doesn't come off, I don't really want it.

In 'All Good Things' they wanted to make the Enterprise look like it was gunned up and futuristic, so they slapped a third nacelle on it and called it a day because that was cheaper than designing, say, an Enterprise-E or -F and it wouldn't have been recognizable if they had.

But it looks ridiculous.

It was actually based upon and adapted from a design spec for a "Dreadnaught" in the original Starfleet Technical Manuel that was never used in the Original Series, along with other designs like the Miranda class that was adapted for Wrath of Khan.

Personally I feel it should have a special warp core capable of increased speeds like the Tal Shiar Adapted ships, but perhaps with only a duration of increased warp instead of consistent. That was the point of the third nacelle, increased engine and warp capability to increase response times and improve weapons and shield power in battle. It was supposed to be a pure combat ship as opposed to an exploration vessel.

qweeble

There are currently no plans to add an option that allows the removal of the third nacelle on this vessel.

dontdrunkimshoot

galaxy R- elegant and tasteful

galaxy X- tacky TRIBBLE strapped to it like a riced out civic


i always thought the galaxy X treatment should be applied to it when you place a lance console on the ship. you know, like how the borg engine and deflector add all that new geo when you equip them. without the console its just a tac leaning galaxy

qweeble

There is no console for the Phaser Lance, it is an integrated power that is not removable.

Even so, linking something like that to an item would cause a plethora of issues, not easily dealt with.

dontdrunkimshoot

captjamjamz wrote: »

There is no console for the Phaser Lance, it is an integrated power that is not removable.

Even so, linking something like that to an item would cause a plethora of issues, not easily dealt with.

yes i know its built in, just wish it was not. im sure the console snapping that much geo across that much of the ship would be a huge pain, the 3rd impulse engine trail moving and becoming 2 would probably be impossible for example.

apparently, its already hard enough to get the galaxy X treatment centered when its built in. i know that ship was way before your time, but seriously its terrible how off center the lance and everything else is. i cant believe its no one has tired fixing that for this long

johnsteward

will the placement of the warp/impulse trail for the third nacelle be fixed till the release next week? its a bit to far to the left

bluegeek

captjamjamz wrote: »

There are currently no plans to add an option that allows the removal of the third nacelle on this vessel.

Well, that answers my question. Thanks for the response!

tuskin67

dontdrunkimshoot wrote: »

apparently, its already hard enough to get the galaxy X treatment centered when its built in. i know that ship was way before your time, but seriously its terrible how off center the lance and everything else is. i cant believe its no one has tired fixing that for this long

Well the stuff on the Venture skin isn't off centre.

champion1701

Perhaps you could give us the option to switch our third nacelle for a Nebula class pod?

I would kill for that on my dread.

revandarklighter

bluegeek wrote: »

I just have a very simple question.

Is the third nacelle on the Galaxy-X Dreadnought removable in the ship tailor?

I know it's canon. I don't care. If it comes off, I want it off. If it doesn't come off, I don't really want it.

In 'All Good Things' they wanted to make the Enterprise look like it was gunned up and futuristic, so they slapped a third nacelle on it and called it a day because that was cheaper than designing, say, an Enterprise-E or -F and it wouldn't have been recognizable if they had.

But it looks ridiculous.

Actually as far as I know that was originally possible when that ship was released (as a recruitment perk). I didn't have that ship at this point, but I saw one of those on a former fleetmate.

As far as I know it was possible to make it "almost" a usual galaxy, just the cannons (not sure if the lance or the ones on the bridge) and that stuff on the nacelles were fixed.
That was changes when the "usual" t5 galaxy came around and before the GX went to the c-store, probably to set those 2 apart from each other.

markhawkman

I still find it amusing that the middle nacelle is linked to the secondary hull choice and not the nacelle choice. :P

maxvitor

tuskin67 wrote: »

Well the stuff on the Venture skin isn't off centre.

Actually it is as well, just not nearly as bad.

champion1701 wrote: »

Perhaps you could give us the option to switch our third nacelle for a Nebula class pod?

I would kill for that on my dread.

if you could it wouldn't be a dreadnaught anymore, but I would also welcome that kind of customization, but the engine would have to designated as a separate part from the neck of ship.
I suspect we are past the point where such suggestions are likely to be entertained, It took how long to reach this point? It's sad to say, but I think this might the last time the Galaxy gets a look for a long time to come.

leviathan99

captjamjamz wrote: »

There are currently no plans to add an option that allows the removal of the third nacelle on this vessel.

I think it would be nice to have a strut/neck that at least adjusts the placement.

Maybe have the New Orleans as an Exploration Destroyer?

It's about half the length of the Galaxy so having a native turnrate closer to a saucer seperated primary hull makes sense. The pods have unknown function that could work well for a C-Store gimmick.

I think it would have strong appeal for people who want a different kind of Galaxy inspired battleship. Maybe the pods are some kind of pulse cannon phaser lance. (Tri-cannons as a step between dual heavy and quad?)

And then maybe it could unlock some shorter, swept back nacelle options for the Galaxy and Dreadnought.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/neworleans.htm

Unknown

This content has been removed.

organicmanfred

reyan01 wrote: »

Are there any plans to make the Lance more accurate?

For many, the lance is one of, if not THE, reason they brought the ship in the first place. However, the lance on the 'current' version is a waste of time - it is catastrophically inaccurate, which results in reluctance to use it at all - which, let's be honest, completely defeats the object of having it in the first place. To summarise, the lance:

- misses MUCH too often
- drains a HUGE amount of power whilst doing no damage.

To be honest, realistically, I don't expect anyone to listen, but on the off-chance that someone does give this post a curious glance, please, PLEASE - I BEG YOU, give the lance an ACC modifier! Make it so that it actually stands a chance of hitting something!
Because seriously - if the lance is a copy-paste of the worhtless example from the 'current' Galaxy-X, I for one won't be buying.

Tell them that fascinating Borg Story I had to listen too. I'll come back in 10 minutes :P:P:P

artan42

How about making the Dreadnaughts nacelles available for the standard Gal?
The Challenger refit (Dominion War) has the extra phaser strips on the nacelles.

misterde3

artan42 wrote: »

How about making the Dreadnaughts nacelles available for the standard Gal?
The Challenger refit (Dominion War) has the extra phaser strips on the nacelles.

You mean the Challenger that was called Venture?;)

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Venture

revandarklighter

They COULD make the "standard" Galaxy available for the GX entirely and visa verse when bought/unlocked the other ship in c-store.

Would be a nice incentive to buy all....

captfabulous

reyan01 wrote: »

Are there any plans to make the Lance more accurate?

For many, the lance is one of, if not THE, reason they brought the ship in the first place. However, the lance on the 'current' version is a waste of time - it is catastrophically inaccurate, which results in reluctance to use it at all - which, let's be honest, completely defeats the object of having it in the first place. To summarise, the lance:

- misses MUCH too often
- drains a HUGE amount of power whilst doing no damage.

To be honest, realistically, I don't expect anyone to listen, but on the off-chance that someone does give this post a curious glance, please, PLEASE - I BEG YOU, give the lance an ACC modifier! Make it so that it actually stands a chance of hitting something!
Because seriously - if the lance is a copy-paste of the worhtless example from the 'current' Galaxy-X, I for one won't be buying.

OMG THIS!!! Why does the lance miss so much? Combine the immense power draw with the long recharge and it missing at least 50% of the time and it's absolutely useless. And yes, it was one of the big draws for buying this ship.

Is this WAI?

wilbor2

reyan01 wrote: »

Are there any plans to make the Lance more accurate?

For many, the lance is one of, if not THE, reason they brought the ship in the first place. However, the lance on the 'current' version is a waste of time - it is catastrophically inaccurate, which results in reluctance to use it at all - which, let's be honest, completely defeats the object of having it in the first place. To summarise, the lance:

- misses MUCH too often
- drains a HUGE amount of power whilst doing no damage.

To be honest, realistically, I don't expect anyone to listen, but on the off-chance that someone does give this post a curious glance, please, PLEASE - I BEG YOU, give the lance an ACC modifier! Make it so that it actually stands a chance of hitting something!
Because seriously - if the lance is a copy-paste of the worhtless example from the 'current' Galaxy-X, I for one won't be buying.

This is the reason i wont be putting cash in to the game to buy the ship its lance sould be more like my vestas.

artan42

artan42 wrote: »

How about making the Dreadnaughts nacelles available for the standard Gal?
The Challenger refit (Dominion War) has the extra phaser strips on the nacelles.

misterde3 wrote: »

You mean the Challenger that was called Venture?;)

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Venture

Oops .
Challenger was Geordi's ship wasn't it.

misterde3

artan42 wrote: »

Oops .
Challenger was Geordi's ship wasn't it.

Yep, sadly we never saw any Venture-style ships after that episode.:(
The CGI model they started using for the mass-battles was a typical TNG era model.

The only visible difference the Challenger had was that she had her name and registy legible on the bottom of the saucer...and I'm so not kidding.

artan42

misterde3 wrote: »

The only visible difference the Challenger had was that she had her name and registy legible on the bottom of the saucer...and I'm so not kidding.

I want that option as well .

artemisa0k

Have to agree a option to ditch the 3rd nacell would have been really nice.

And am I alone in thinking that it would look wicked if you could throw a set of nacells styled like the Typhoon class's on these things.

solantolval

revandarklighter wrote: »

Actually as far as I know that was originally possible when that ship was released (as a recruitment perk). I didn't have that ship at this point, but I saw one of those on a former fleetmate.

As far as I know it was possible to make it "almost" a usual galaxy, just the cannons (not sure if the lance or the ones on the bridge) and that stuff on the nacelles were fixed.
That was changes when the "usual" t5 galaxy came around and before the GX went to the c-store, probably to set those 2 apart from each other.

I got the Galaxy X (or Devron Class as it was originally called) when it first came to the C Store on that special almost 4 years ago, and I can confirm that the normal Galaxy costume was fully interchangeable with that of the dreadnought, and I have no Idea when that changed.

I just remember that having not played with it for a bit I took her out and the option to change the look had gone

marc8219

They didn't just decide to slap a 3rd nacelle on arbitrarily because it was easy. There was already precedent for Dreadnoughts to have 3rd nacelles, there was a 3 nacelle Constitution variant called the Federation class seen in the TOS book "Dreadnought" in the technical manual and it was briefly seen on a computer screen I think in ST3.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Federation_class

I think the idea was the dreadnought needed more power for its weapons then connies so thats what the third nacelle was for, then the just stuck with the same idea when making the
Galaxy into a dreadnought.

projectfrontier

captjamjamz wrote: »

There is no console for the Phaser Lance, it is an integrated power that is not removable.

Even so, linking something like that to an item would cause a plethora of issues, not easily dealt with.

You make it sound like someone encrypted the property information for the ship and lost the key after they stripped the cloak off and put it into a console.

shadowfirefly00

I seem to recall that at one point Starfleet actually experimented with a tri-nacelle design... and promptly put it back on the shelf because of a plethora of issues. This being the case, I am curious as to how the concept has been successfully resurrected.

misterde3

shadowfirefly00 wrote: »

I seem to recall that at one point Starfleet actually experimented with a tri-nacelle design... and promptly put it back on the shelf because of a plethora of issues. This being the case, I am curious as to how the concept has been successfully resurrected.

Oh dear lord, why do people dig this cr*p up once a month?

FASA materials also claim there are
orange Orions
Klingons like Kang, Kor and Koloth were genetically constructed to fight humans
the Klingons do this kind of stuff for all their enemies and there are also Klingon-Romulan "fusions":
http://www.klingon-empire.org/photopost/data/506/medium/Klingons.png
Klingon life-expectancy was around 50 years
Kahless became Emperor after fighting successfully in several interstellar wars
Klingons and Romulans designed the Bird of Prey design from Star Trek 3 together
the Gorn had never met the Romulans by the time of TOS
the Enterprise-C was an Alaska class ship
FASA's entire calender is off by 59 years
thus Stardate 0 is in the year 2000 when the first moon colony declares independence
the first ships with dilithium-powered engines appeared in the 2180's
before that no Federation ship used dilithium crystals
the Costitution class was introduced in 2188
Star Trek 1 happens in 2217
the list goes on forever...

This stuff was already ignored by canon Trek back in the 1980 when it was was new.